Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Practical recycling applications of crushed waste glass in construction

materials: A review
Abbas Mohajerani a,⇑, John Vajna a, Tsz Ho Homan Cheung a, Halenur Kurmus a, Arul Arulrajah b,
Suksun Horpibulsuk c
a
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
b
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
c
Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand

h i g h l i g h t s

Detailed review of Crushed Waste Glass (CWG) as a Construction Material (CM).

Physical, mechanical and chemical characteristics of CWG are discussed.

Use of foamed waste glass in concrete as a lightweight aggregate is reviewed.

Introducing expanded waste glass in ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced concrete.

Assessing the environmental impacts of CWG and foamed recycled glass in CM.

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

Article history: The disposal of waste glass in landfills is an important environmental challenge that many countries face
Received 22 February 2017 around the world. The repurposing of waste glass into a construction material reduces the consumption
Received in revised form 26 August 2017 of natural resources, minimizes greenhouse emissions and alleviates landfill scarcity. Over the last sixty-
Accepted 1 September 2017
five years, numerous investigators have studied reusing crushed waste glass (CWG) as a construction
material. However, CWG has not been widely used in concrete or asphalt construction applications across
the globe. Additionally, barriers still exist that prevent CWG from being used as a fine aggregate in con-
Keywords:
crete, such as the severity of Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) expansions within concrete consisting of CWG,
Waste glass
Foamed recycled glass
and the lack of understanding of these reactions. This paper presents an overview of previous studies car-
Normal concrete ried out by researchers to reuse CWG as an aggregate in concrete and asphalt mixtures, an aggregate in
Asphalt concrete unbound base and subbase applications, lightweight engineering material and a cementitious material.
Fine aggregates From the literature review conducted, it can be concluded that CWG has potential use as an aggregate
Construction materials in construction materials. More research is required to clarify contradictions regarding the properties
Recycling of concrete containing CWG as fine aggregate, as well as further investigation of the properties of foamed
waste glass concrete and ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced concrete containing expanded waste glass,
and the use of glass powder as a filler in asphalt.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
2. Properties of glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
2.1. Chemical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
2.2. Physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
2.3. Mechanical properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
3. Crushed glass as a fine aggregate in concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
3.1. Workability of concrete with fine aggregates replaced with crushed waste glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: abbas.mohajerani@rmit.edu.au (A. Mohajerani).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.005
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
444 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

3.2.Mechanical strength of concrete containing glass as a replacement for fine aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
3.2.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
3.2.2. Flexural strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
3.2.3. Splitting tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
3.2.4. Modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
3.3. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
3.4. Alkali-silica reaction expansions in concrete consisting of crushed waste glass fine aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
3.4.1. Effect of glass colour on ASR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
3.4.2. Effect of glass particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
3.4.3. Effect of glass content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
3.4.4. Effectiveness of additives and other methods at mitigating ASR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3.5. Chloride penetration resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
3.6. Water absorption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
4. Recycling crushed waste glass in asphalt concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
4.1. Crushed waste glass as an aggregate in asphalt concrete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
4.2. Glass powder as a filler in asphalt concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.3. Performance of asphalt concrete containing crushed waste glass at high and low temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
4.4. Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
5. Use of crushed waste glass in the base and subbase of roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
6. Environmental impact of crushed waste glass in road applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
7. Crushed waste glass as a cementitious material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
7.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
7.2. Mechanical strength of concrete containing glass as a cementitious material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
7.2.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
7.2.2. Strength activity index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
7.3. Alkali-silica reaction expansions in concrete consisting of crushed waste glass as a replacement for Portland cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
8. Foamed waste glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
8.1. Foamed waste glass as an aggregate in concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
8.1.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
8.1.2. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
8.1.3. Flexural strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
8.1.4. ASR expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
8.2. Foamed waste glass as a lightweight engineering material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
8.2.1. Engineering properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
8.2.2. Environmental properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
9. Expanded waste glass in ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced concrete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
9.1. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
9.2. Mechanical properties of ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced concrete containing expanded waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
9.2.1. Compressive behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
9.2.2. Flexural behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
9.3. Thermal conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
10. Summary and conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
10.1. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

1. Introduction
The disposal of waste glass has become a major environmental
concern due to the increasing demand for landfill space and natu-
ral resources, and a greater emphasis on reducing the carbon foot-
print of the construction industry. The production of glass dates
back to 3500 BCE in Mesopotamia, northern Syria and Ancient
Egypt. By the late 1400s, early 1500s glass had already become
an important commodity in European countries [52]. Ever since
then, the rate of generation of waste glass (WG) has increased sig-
nificantly. Even though glass is an inert material, all glass products
have a limited lifespan [144,145], which leads many researchers to
look for ways to redirect the amount of WG (Fig. 1) disposed of in
landfills.
Initially, the uses of glass were limited to jars, beads and
bowls [53], but, due to advances in technology, the number of
applications of glass has skyrocketed to include windows,
shelves, lighting, appliances, fibre optic cables and solar panels,
etc. The surge in the number of applications of glass is largely
due to the discovery of different types of glass with varying
properties.
The first steps in the glass manufacturing process are the min-
ing, transporting and processing of materials that become glass
inputs [130,131]. After the inputs are transported to a glass manu-
facturing facility, the main processes in glass manufacturing are
batch preparation, melting and refining, forming and post forming
[128]. For every tonne of glass recycled, approximately 560 kg of
sand, 190 kg of soda ash, 176 kg of limestone and 64 kg of feldspar
are conserved Glass Packaging [47]. The most common types of
glass include soda-lime glass (Fig. 2), lead crystal and crystal glass,
borosilicate glass, and electric glass, which is also called E-glass.
The varying chemical composition of glass is the main reason
why most WG cannot be remanufactured into glass products.
Due to the inert nature of glass it is a non-biodegradable material.
WG that is not reused stays in landfills for an extremely long time
with glass bottles taking around 1 million years to decompose (U.S.
National Parks Service), which takes up valuable space that can be
used for biodegradable materials.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [130], in
2013, Americans generated 10.37 million tonnes of glass in the
municipal solid waste stream, the majority of which were food
and drink containers. Out of the glass disposed of, 2.78 million
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467 445

Fig. 1. Crushed recycled glass and discarded glass bottles.

Fig. 2. Fine window and Soda-Lime glass aggregate, and LCD glass aggregate.

tonnes of glass (27%) were recovered for recycling, which resulted Furthermore, in 2007 it was estimated that 130 million tonnes of
in 7.59 million tonnes of WG being discarded in landfills. glass were produced globally [59], and with the ever-increasing
In addition, in 2013, the European Union produced 1.5 million demand for glass products the amount of WG produced will conse-
tonnes of glass waste from demolition and renovation [50], and quently increase [98,123,144].
approximately 15.9 million tonnes of glass packaging waste [44]. Although the total amount of WG recovered may be high, only
a fraction of this amount may be remanufactured due to the strict
limitations of glass remanufacturing. Traditionally, glass needs to
Table 1
Glass recycling rate of various countries. be collected and sorted into different colours. Glass that cannot
be sorted is broken or mixed during the collection phase along
Country Glass Recycling Rate 2010 (%)
with glass that contains composite materials or contaminants
Belgium 96Container Recycling [28] that are not economical or technically impossible to remanufac-
Switzerland 94Container Recycling [28]
ture [30,62]. Mixed glass cannot be reused due to chemical
Luxembourg 93Container Recycling [28]
Netherlands 91Container Recycling [28] incompatibility and problems that arise from the differences in
Sweden 91Container Recycling [28] the melting temperatures of each type of glass, as only 5 g of
Norway 89Container Recycling [28] non-recyclable glass is enough to contaminate a tonne of recy-
Germany 82Container Recycling [28] clable glass [4]. The remanufacturing of WG is environmentally
Italy 74Container Recycling [28]
France 67Container Recycling [28]
friendly as it reduces the amount of raw materials required and
United Kingdom 61Container Recycling [28] decreases the total amount of energy consumed during the man-
Spain 57Container Recycling [28] ufacturing process, since the melting points for recycled glass are
Australia 34 [58] typically lower than the melting points of the raw materials that
USA 33Container Recycling [28]
constitute glass [26].
446 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

Table 2
Chemical composition of common commercial glass types [77].

Glasses and uses SiO2 Al2O3 B2O3 Na2O K2O MgO CaO BaO PbO Others
Soda-Lime Glasses
Containers 66–75 0.7–7 12–16 0.1–3 0.1–5 6–12
Float 73–74 13.5–15 0.2 3.6–3.8 8.7–8.9
Sheet 71–73 0.5–1.5 12–15 1.5–3.5 8–10
Light Bulbs 73 1 17 4 5
Tempered Ovenware 75 1.5 14 9.5
Borosilicate
Chemical apparatus 81 2 13 4
Pharmaceutical 72 6 11 7 1
Tungsten sealing 74 1 15 4
Lead glasses
Colour TV funnel 54 2 4 9 23
Neon Tubing 63 1 8 6 22
Electronic parts 56 2 4 9 29
Optical dense flint 32 1 2 65
Barium glasses
Colour TV panel 65 2 7 9 2 2 2 2 10% SrO
Optical dense barium crown 36 4 10 41 9% ZnO
Aluminosilicate glasses
Combustion tubes 62 17 5 1 7 8
Fiberglass 64.5 24.5 0.5 10.5
Resistor substrates 57 16 4 7 10 6

Table 3
Chemical composition of different coloured glass [32,93,96,101].

Chemical Composition Amber Glass (%) [101] Green Glass (%) [96] Brown Glass %) [93] White Glass %) [32]
SiO2 70.66 72.25 72.1 69.82
CaO 9.12 12.35 – 8.76
Na2O 8.32 10.54 – 8.42
Al2O3 6.53 2.54 1.74 1.02
Fe2O3 2.52 – 0.31 0.55
MgO 1.45 1.18 – 3.43
K2O 1.03 1.15 – 0.13
TiO2 0.27 – – –
P2O5 0.07 – – –
MnO2 0.04 – – –
Cr2O3 – – 0.01 –
SO3 – – 0.13 0.20
Na2O + K2O – – 14.11 –
CaO + MgO – – 11.52 –

Table 4
Physical properties of crushed waste glass.
estimated that yearly 181.4 million tonnes of solid waste was dis-
Bulk Density 1360 kg/m3 [31,104] posed, of which 12.7 million tonnes was glass [123]. With the con-
Specific gravity 2.4–2.8 [93] struction industry producing approximately 92.53 million tonnes
2.5 (Green), 2.52 (Brown)
of asphalt concrete in 2013 [127], 4.6 billion tonnes of cement in
Shape Index (%) 30.5 [31,104]
Fineness modulus 4.25 [64,68] 2015 [119,120] and 3.82 billion cubic metres of concrete annually
0.43–3.29 [23], the endeavors to find alternative materials to minimize the
Flakiness Index 84.4–94.7 [33] consumption of virgin materials have gained greater precedence.
In order to redirect WG from being sent to landfills and to mini-
mize the construction industry’s impact on the environment, over
Table 5 the last 70 years, researchers have studied the use of crushed
Mechanical Properties of CG. waste glass (CWG) in construction applications. Research has cov-
Los Angeles Value (%) 38.4 [31,33] ered various applications, such as using CWG as an aggregate in
24.8–27.7 [104] asphalt, aggregate in subbase and unbound base, lightweight engi-
27.7 [7] neering material, cementitious material and aggregate in concrete.
CBR (%) Approx. 50–75. [90]
The aim of this literature review is to focus on the various con-
Friction Angle crit = 38 (Loose RG) [90]
Friction Angle = 50–61 (Dense RG) [90] struction applications of CWG within the construction industry.
Over the last 20 years, numerous studies have been conducted to
determine the effects of incorporating different types of waste
materials in construction materials such as bricks, normal con-
In 2015, the European Union recycled up to 73% of glass crete, asphalt concrete and other pavement materials (e.g., Moha-
packaging with Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany being jerani et al. [84]; Mohajerani et al. [85]; Mohajerani et al. [86];
the best performers [28,121], Table 1. In 2004, the United Nations Ukwatta et al. [126]).
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
Fig. 3. Slump of concrete containing various amounts of CWG as a replacement for fine aggregate, which was acquired from numerous studies.
2. Properties of glass
2.1. Chemical properties
Glass comes in a diverse range of types and colours, with differ-
ent chemical compositions. The differing chemical properties of
mixed coloured glasses are one of the primary reasons why glass
is not remanufactured. Table 2 [77] shows the chemical composi-
tions of common commercial glass types. Table 3 shows the chem-
ical compositions of various colours of glass.
2.2. Physical properties
The physical properties of crushed waste glass are listed in
Table 4. Bulk density is the loose bulk density, which is calculated
by the division of weight by volume. Shape index is the mass of
Fig. 4. Compressive strength of concrete with different glass content.
447
particles with a ratio of length/thickness of more than 3, and is
expressed as a percentage of the total dry mass of the particles
tested. The fineness modulus is the sum of the total percentages
of a sample of aggregates retained on each of a specified series of
sieves, and the sum divided by 100 [88]. The flakiness index is
the percentage, by mass, of the particles whose least dimension
is less than three-fifths of the mean dimension [121].
2.3. Mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of crushed waste glass are listed in
Table 5.
3. Crushed glass as a fine aggregate in concrete
In 2010, it was estimated that around 12 billion tonnes of con-
crete were produced worldwide [79], an amount that is steadily
increasing. Concrete is comprised of cement, aggregates (Fine
and Coarse) and water along with additives to enhance specific
properties. Over the last 20 years, numerous studies have been
conducted to determine the effects of crushed waste glass as a fine
aggregate substitute on the properties of concrete.
3.1. Workability of concrete with fine aggregates replaced with
crushed waste glass
In general, the inclusion of fine waste glass aggregates in con-
crete mixtures results in a reduction in concrete workability. How-
ever, the results from the reviewed literature were quite
contradictory. Abdallah and Fan [1], Park et al. [94], Taha and
Nounu [115], Chen et al. [25], Ismail and Al-Hashmi [60], and
Bateyneh et al. [15] reported that concrete mixes consisting of
crushed waste glass (CWG) were less workable than the control
for all replacement levels, while all the concrete mixes containing
CWG tested by Malik et al. [73,74] exhibited slump values greater
448 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

Fig. 5. Compressive strength of concrete containing various amounts of CWG as a replacement for fine aggregate, which was acquired from numerous studies.

than the control. Despite the decline in workability, Ismail and Al-
Hashmi [60] found that concrete mixes containing CWG were still
workable.
Adaway and Wang [3] reported that concrete containing 15%
and 25% CWG exhibited an increase in slump, while concrete con-
taining 20%, 30% and 40% CWG underwent a decrease in slump. Ali
and Al- Tersawy [5] tested the workability of self-compacting con-
crete using the slump flow test. They observed that concrete con-
taining CWG obtained slump flow values similar to the control
despite having lower dosages of superplasticizer. Additionally,
concrete consisting of 50% CWG as a replacement for fine aggregate
acquired the highest slump flow value of 740 mm, which was 12%
higher than the control. Additionally, Borhan [18] tested concrete
containing fine aggregates replaced with CWG, and 0.3% or 0.5%
basalt fibres, by total mix volume. The results showed that an
increase in the CWG replacement level resulted in an increase in
workability, with concrete consisting of 60% CWG achieving the
highest workability value for concrete consisting of CWG.
The smooth surfaces, sharp edges and harsh textures of fine
CWG aggregate harmed the fluidity of concrete, and, in turn,
reduced the workability of concrete mixtures
[1,3,15,60,70,94,97,115]. Additionally, Taha and Nounu [116]
observed that the smooth surface and minute water absorption
of CWG particles resulted in a weaker cohesive force in the con-
crete mixtures, which led to segregation and bleeding of the
concrete.
On the other hand, the weaker cohesion between the waste
glass sand (WGS) and cement due to their smooth surfaces

Fig. 6. Flexural strength of concrete containing various amounts of CWG acquired from numerous researchers.
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
[5,118], and the impermeable nature of glass [118] resulted in an
increase in workability. In addition, the inclusion of fine liquid
crystal display (LCD) glass aggregates enhanced the workability
of concrete due to LCD glass’s hydrophobic nature, which causes
excessive amounts of water to be present in concrete mixtures
[136]. From the studies reviewed, the optimum waste glass sand
(WGS) content for achieving the best workability was found to
be 20%. Fig. 3 depicts the slump results acquired from numerous
studies.
3.2. Mechanical strength of concrete containing glass as a replacement
for fine aggregates
3.2.1. Compressive strength
Generally, the inclusion of fine waste glass aggregates in con-
crete mixtures leads to an increase in compressive strength; how-
ever, many studies reported a decrease in compressive strength. All
the concrete mixes Turgut and Yahlizade [124], Chen et al. [25],
Pereira de Oliveira et al. [95], and Batayneh et al. [15] tested
achieved compressive strengths higher than the control. On the
other hand, all the concrete specimens Ali and Al-Tersawy [5],
and Park et al. [94] tested obtained compressive strengths lower
than the control.
Malik et al. [74], and Adaway and Wang [3] observed that con-
crete containing up to 30% crushed waste glass CWG) exhibited
compressive strength values higher than the control at 7 and
28 days, while concrete with replacement levels higher than 30%
underwent a reduction in compressive strength. Additionally, at
28 days, concrete with replacement ratios up to 30% exhibited
compressive strengths higher than the control. Moreover, Lim-
bachiya [70] reported that the compressive strength of specimens
containing CWG decreased with increasing CWG replacement
levels when they were higher than 20%.
Moreover, Taha and Nounu [115] found that the control
obtained higher compressive strengths compared to the specimens
containing 50% and 100% CWG between approximately 0–200 days
of curing. However, at 366 days concrete containing 50% CWG
obtained a compressive strength slightly lower than the control,
while concrete consisting of 100% CWG obtained a compressive
strength marginally higher than the control. Fig. 4 depicts the com-
pressive strength of concrete with varying levels of glass content.
Chen et al. [25] tested the compressive strength of concrete
with natural sand replaced with E-glass aggregate and found that
the inclusion of E-glass significantly improved the compressive
strength of concrete. Additionally, Lee et al. [68] tested the
Fig. 7. Splitting tensile strength of concrete containing various amounts of CWG acquired from numerous studies.
449
compressive strength of concrete blocks with CWG aggregate of
various sizes (unsieved, <2.36 mm, <1.18 mm and <0.60 mm). They
reported that at 28 days of curing only concrete blocks containing
<0.60 mm CWG achieved compressive strength values superior to
the control.
The strength and surface texture of glass aggregate compared to
natural sand can result in an increase in the compressive strength
of concrete [15]. Additionally, the larger surface area of glass par-
ticles enables greater bonding with the cement paste, thus creating
a stronger concrete matrix and subsequently improving the com-
pressive strength of concrete [3]. In addition, the compressive
strength of concrete can be improved by the pozzolanic reactions
caused by the chemical composition of glass [1,46,124].
Conversely, the reduction in the compressive strength of con-
crete has been attributed to the weakening of the bond between
glass aggregates and the cement paste [5,31,60,68,117,123,137]
and the higher water content ratio of the glass aggregate mixes
[31,97]. Moreover, they reported that the addition of basalt fibres
increased the compressive strength of the concrete since the fibres
suppress the growth of cracks within the concrete structure. Fig. 5
depicts the compressive strength results acquired from numerous
studies.
3.2.2. Flexural strength
As with the case for compressive strength, the majority of stud-
ies reported that the inclusion of fine crushed waste glass aggre-
gates resulted in an increase in flexural strength; however,
numerous studies observed a decrease in compressive strength
with the inclusion of CWG. The concrete specimens Abdallah and
Fan [1], Turgut and Yahlizade [124], Ismail and Al-Hashmi [60]
and Batayneh et al. [15] tested achieved flexural strengths higher
than the control. On the other hand, the concrete specimens Park
et al. [94], Taha and Nounu [115], and Ali and Al-Tersawy [5] tested
obtained flexural strengths lower than the control. Taha and
Nounu [115], Ali and Al-Tersawy [5], Ismail and Al-Hashmi [60],
and Park et al. [94] observed that increasing percentages of glass
aggregate led to a decrease in flexural strength. In contrast, Batay-
neh et al. [15], and Abdallah and Fan [1] reported that increasing
proportions of waste glass resulted in an increase in flexural
strength.
Limbachiya [70] reported that concrete containing fine glass
aggregate with proportions up to 20% observed no change in flex-
ural strength. However, concrete containing fine glass aggregate
replacement levels higher than 20% exhibited reductions in flexu-
ral strength. In addition, Park et al. [94] observed that the flexural
450 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
Fig. 8. Modulus of elasticity of concrete containing various amounts of CWG acquired from numerous studies.
Fig. 9. Effects of Alkali-Silica Reaction [37].
Fig. 10. SEM image of a mortar bar that has cracked due to ASR expansion [97].
strength of concrete was not notably affected by the colour of glass
sand.
Fig. 6 depicts the flexural strength results acquired from numer-
ous studies.
3.2.3. Splitting tensile strength
The results from literature regarding the effect of replacing fine
aggregate with crushed waste glass (CWG) on the splitting tensile
strength of concrete are inconclusive. All the concrete specimens
Ali and Al-Tersawy [5], Malik et al. [73] and Park et al. [94] tested
attained splitting tensile strengths lower than the control. How-
ever, all the concrete specimens Turgut and Yahlizade [124] tested
attained splitting tensile strengths higher than the control. In addi-
tion, Ali and Al-Tersawy [5], Batayneh et al. [15], Malik et al. [73],
Park et al. [94], Taha and Nounu [115], and Wang (Design strengths
of 28 and 35 MPa) [135] found that increasing proportions of CWG
in concrete resulted in a decrease in the splitting tensile strength.
Wang [135] reported that concrete with design strengths of
35 MPa and 21 Mpa, and 20% and 40% CWG obtained splitting ten-
sile strengths higher than the control, while concrete with design
strength of 28 MPa and 20–80% CWG also exhibited splitting ten-
sile strengths higher than the control. Furthermore, Borhan [18]
noted that at 28 days concrete consisting of 20% CWG achieved
splitting tensile strengths higher than the control, while concrete
containing 40% and 60% CWG obtained splitting tensile strengths
lower than the control. Batayneh et al. [15] observed that all the
concrete specimens they tested obtained splitting tensile strengths
similar to the control, except for concrete containing 20% CWG,
which exhibited strengths marginally lower than the control. Taha
and Nounu [115] observed that concrete consisting of 50% CWG
obtained splitting tensile strengths similar to the control, while
concrete containing 100% CWG exhibited splitting tensile strengths
lower than the control. Moreover, Park et al. [94] tested the split-
ting tensile strength of concrete containing emerald, flint and
amber CWG and found that the colour of glass did not have a sig-
nificant impact on the tensile strength of concrete.
Fig. 7 depicts the splitting tensile strength results acquired from
numerous studies.
3.2.4. Modulus of elasticity
The modulus of elasticity of concrete is a function of the mod-
ulus of elasticity of the lightweight and normal-density aggregates,
cementitious matrix and their relative proportions in the mixture
[43]. The inclusion of fine waste glass aggregates in concrete
resulted in higher values for the modulus of elasticity [1,135].
However, Ali and Al-Tersawy reported that the replacement of fine
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467 451

Fig. 11. ASR expansions of 30, 45, and 60 MPa mortar consisting of green and brown glass [37].

aggregates with crushed waste glass (CWG) led to lower modulus
of elasticity values. Additionally, increases in CWG replacement
levels resulted in a decrease in the modulus of elasticity of concrete
[5,135]. However, Abdallah and Fan [1] found that at 14 days of
curing, concrete consisting of 5% CWG obtained the highest modu-
lus of elasticity followed by concrete containing 15% and 20% CWG,
while at 28 days, concrete containing 20% CWG achieved the high-
est modulus of elasticity followed by concrete containing 15% and
5% CWG. Furthermore, Limbachiya [70] reported that CWG content
up to 20% had no influence on the modulus of elasticity of concrete.
However, replacement levels higher than 20% resulted in a reduc-
tion in the modulus of elasticity. Fig. 8 depicts the modulus of elas-
ticity results acquired from numerous studies.
3.3. Density
The inclusion of fine waste glass aggregates in concrete mixes
reduced the unit weight, fresh density and wet density of concrete
[1,15,18,31,60,68,73,116]. However, Adaway and Wang [3]
reported that concrete consisting of 15% crushed waste glass
(CWG) obtained a fresh density higher than the control, while all
other CWG specimens with replacement levels higher than 15%
obtained fresh densities lower than the control, with an increase
in glass content resulting in a reduction in fresh density.
The reduction in density can be attributed to the lower specific
gravity of natural aggregates compared to glass aggregates
[18,31,116] and lower specific gravity of sand [68].
452 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
3.4. Alkali-silica reaction expansions in concrete consisting of crushed
waste glass fine aggregate
Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is a chemical reaction between the
silica in aggregate and the hydroxyl ions in the concrete pore water
[139]. The products from this reaction cause swelling and the pres-
sures produced create micro-cracks in the glass particles that dam-
age the concrete [81,82]. This reaction can also expedite other
reactions that, in turn, cause damage, such as freeze–thaw or cor-
rosion related damage to concrete pavements and structures [118].
ASR occurs in the presence of alkali, silica and water [116,133]. A
few measures that can be taken to avoid or mitigate ASR include
using special ASR resistant cements, making glass particles ASR
resistant, modifying the chemistry of glass, grinding the glass par-
ticles to less than 0.3 mm, sealing the concrete to isolate it from
moisture and adding mineral admixtures to concrete mixtures
[80]. Fig. 9 shows the effect of ASR in mortar and concrete with
the secondary calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H).
The expansion caused by Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) has been
known for over 70 years but there has been little research in the
area due to the length of time required for the reaction to take
place.
The traditional alkali-silica reactions of concrete differ signifi-
cantly from the alkali-silica reactions of concrete consisting of
crushed waste glass [112]. An accelerated test of two weeks, ASTM
C 1260 introduced in 1994 attracted more research to this partic-
ular area [16]. However, the ASR reactions in concrete and mortar
containing CWG are yet to be fully understood. In 1998, when Pol-
ley et al. [97] investigated the reactivity of crushed waste glass
with moderate-alkali cement and with no measures taken to mit-
igate ASR, the specimens had expanded more than 10 times greater
than the acceptable criterion after 730 days. Fig. 10 depicts the
cracks in concrete due to ASR expansion.
3.4.1. Effect of glass colour on ASR
The research conducted over the years regarding the effects of
glass colour on ASR expansions has been quite inconclusive. The
studies that used flint, clear and white glass as a replacement for
fine aggregates observed that they were the most susceptible to
ASR expansions out of the colours tested; however, the results
regarding green and brown glass were contradictory. The
Fig. 12. ASR expansion of mortar containing brown glass fine aggregates and various additives [37].
chromium oxide in green glass can ensure better performance
against alkali attack [36,81]. In contrast, the mortar bars Tan and
Du [117], and Du and Tan [36] tested consisting of brown glass
expanded less than mortar bars containing green glass. Degirmenci
et al. [32] observed that mortar containing white crushed waste
glass expanded significantly more than mortar consisting of green
or brown crushed waste glass. All the mortar specimens containing
coloured glass aggregates exhibited expansions less than the 14-
day proposed limit of 0.10% used by many standardization agen-
cies. Mortar consisting of 10% and 100% green glass expanded more
than brown glass of the same replacement levels; however, mortar
containing 30% green glass expanded less than mortar containing
30% brown glass. In addition, Yuksel et al. [143] attributed the
presence of Cr2O3 in mortar bars consisting of green glass as the
cause for their significantly lower ASR expansions compared to
mortar bars containing flint or amber glass.
Fig. 11 depicts the ASR expansion of 30, 45, and 60 MPa grade
mortar containing green and brown glass [37].
3.4.2. Effect of glass particle size
An increase in the particle size of CWG aggregate in concrete or
mortar results in an increase in ASR expansion. The optimal
crushed waste glass (CWG) particle size, which shows the lowest
ASR expansion in concrete or mortar varies amongst the literature.
Rajabipour et al. [101] reported that CWG with a particle size less
than 0.6 mm was innocuous during the period of testing, while Idir
et al. [55] found that CWG with particle sizes less than 0.9–1 mm
did not expand deleteriously. In addition, Corinaldesi et al. [29]
reported that no deleterious ASR expansion occurred between
CWG and the cement paste when glass aggregates had particle
sizes up to 100 mm.
3.4.3. Effect of glass content
The percentage of natural sand replaced with fine glass aggre-
gate has a substantial effect on the ASR reactions in concrete or
mortar. Generally, an increase in glass content resulted in an
increase in ASR expansion [32,60,63,70,71,94,103,110,122,143].
Conversely, Abdallah and Fan [1], reported that an increase in glass
proportions resulted in a decrease in ASR expansion. Saccani and
Bignozzi [103] tested the ASR expansions of soda-lime, borosili-
cate, amber borosilicate and lead-silicate glass. They reported that
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
Table 6
Top producers of asphalt concrete as listed by [127].
Country Total production asphalt
concrete in 2013
(million tonnes)
United States of America 17.57
China 16.27
Russian Federation 5.61
India 4.34
Canada 3.93
Iran 3.53
Japan 3.32
Republic of Korea 3.28
Germany 3.09
Italy and San Marino 2.82
Turkey 2.65
Brazil 2.41
Saudi Arabia 2.22
Singapore 2.02
Spain 1.90
France (including Monaco) 1.75
an increase in lead-silicate glass content led to an increase in ASR
expansion, while amber borosilicate glass and soda-lime glass
exhibited a decrease in ASR expansion with an increase in glass
content. ASTM C 1260-01 states that mortar bars with ASR expan-
sion less than 0.1% at 14 days show innocuous behaviour [25]. All
the mortar bars Abdallah and Fan [1], Limbachiya [70], Kou and
Poon [63], Ismail and Al-Hashmi [60], Pereira de Oliveira et al.
[95], and Chen et al. [25] tested obtained expansion values of less
than 0.1%. Saccani and Bignozzi [103] observed that mortar bars
containing 10%, 25% and 35% soda-lime glass, and 35% amber
borosilicate glass expanded less than 0.1%.
3.4.4. Effectiveness of additives and other methods at mitigating ASR
The inclusion of additives, such as metakaolin, fly ash, steel
fibre, polypropylene fibre, granulated blast furnace slag, lithium
compounds and silica fume, can mitigate the ASR expansion in
concrete and mortar. Topcu et al. [122] observed that 20% fly ash
and 2% lithium carbonate were able to provide sufficient ASR resis-
tance for mortar bars consisting of 25% crushed waste glass CWG)
of all colours. Lee et al. [67] reported that Metakaolin was more
effective than fly ash at lower concentrations. Furthermore, Du
and Tan [36] reported that out of fly ash, granulated blast-
furnace slag, silica fume, lithium chloride, lithium carbonate and
steel fibre, fly ash was the most effective additive at mitigating
ASR expansion followed by granulated blast-furnace slag. More-
over, out of the additives Taha and Nounu [116] tested, metakaolin
was the most effective at suppressing ASR followed by granulated
blast-furnace slag then Lithium Nitrate. The effectiveness of fly ash
at mitigating ASR was attributed to pozzolanic reactions consum-
ing the OH ions and Ca ions [97], and electrostatic trapping of
alkali ions, which is caused by the pozzolanic reaction lowering
the Ca:Si ratio of the pore solution and the CSH gel [39].
In addition, the application of the dry-mixed method on mortar
considerably reduced ASR expansions, and was even able to miti-
gate the ASR expansions created by larger sized and highly reactive
aggregate [67]. Additionally, the optimum contents for fly ash,
granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume, lithium chloride or
lithium carbonate and steel fibre were 10–50%, 45–60%, 12.5%,
0.5–2.0% and 1.5–2.0%, respectively [37]. The effectiveness of fly
ash and GGBS was due to their ability to reduce the alkalinity in
the pore solution, and to decrease the permeability and porosity
of the cement paste [36]. Maraghechi et al. [75] reported that
annealing mortar at temperatures of 650 °C and 680 °C for
40 min reduced ASR expansions below the ASTM threshold at
453
14 days. Fig. 12 depicts the ASR expansion of mortar containing
brown glass fine aggregates and various additives.
3.5. Chloride penetration resistance
The chloride-induced corrosion of steel reinforcement is one of
the most common problems affecting the long-term performance
of concrete structures [22]. The inclusion of fine waste glass aggre-
gate in concrete mixtures resulted in a decrease in chloride-ion
penetration [25,137]. However, de Castro and de Brito [31]
observed a slight increase in chloride-ion penetration with the
replacement of fine aggregate in concrete with crushed waste glass
(CWG). They concluded that the inclusion of CWG does not signif-
icantly alter the chloride-ion penetration of concrete since the
chloride-ion penetration is governed by the quality of the cement
paste. In contrast, Wang et al. [137] and Chen et al. [25] observed
that increasing amounts of glass content resulted in a decrease in
chloride-ion penetration. Wang et al. [137] reported that concrete
consisting of 20–60% glass aggregate underwent moderate
penetration while concrete consisting of 80% CWG exhibited low
penetration. In addition, the investigation conducted by Chen
et al. [25] found that the concrete specimens containing CWG
had very low chloride ion penetrability.
3.6. Water absorption
The inclusion of waste glass in concrete mixtures resulted in a
reduction in the water absorption of concrete specimens
[1,73,74,116]. Additionally, an increase in the replacement levels
of fine aggregate with crushed waste glass (CWG) led to a decrease
in water absorption [1,73,74,115,116]. Taha and Nounu [115]
reported that concrete mixtures consisting of 50% CWG exhibited
water absorption values marginally higher than the control, while
mixtures containing 100% CWG obtained water absorption values
significantly lower than the control. Conversely, Lee et al. [68]
noted that all the concrete blocks tested exhibited water absorp-
tion values higher than the control. When particle sizes of CWG
were reduced to less than 600 mm the water absorption values of
the concrete specimens increased significantly.
4. Recycling crushed waste glass in asphalt concrete
In 2013, it was estimated that more than 92.53 million tonnes
of asphalt concrete were produced around the globe [127]. The lar-
gest two producers of bituminous concrete are the U.S.A. and
China, with 17.57 and 16.27 million tonnes produced, respectively.
Table 6 [127] tabulates the asphalt concrete production of the top
producers globally.
The incorporation of glass in asphalt concrete, otherwise com-
monly known as glasphalt was first introduced into several inter-
national markets in the late 1960s [51,106]. In recent years, more
studies have been conducted to successfully incorporate glass into
asphalt concrete mixtures without detrimental effects on its per-
formance. Generally, before all tests are conducted, the Marshall
test is used to identify the optimum content of bituminous mate-
rial, glass and other materials used as additives [9,11,54,114,141].
4.1. Crushed waste glass as an aggregate in asphalt concrete
Different types of waste materials have been studied for the
incorporation in asphalt concrete (e.g., Mohajerani et al. [84]; Para-
navithana and Mohajerani [91,92]). Hughes [54] used Marshall
Properties to determine the feasibility of using waste glass (WG)
in asphalt concrete. He compared the control specimen with
asphalt concrete containing up to 15% WG and concluded that it
454 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

Fig. 13. Density of asphalt concrete with various percentages of glass [9].

Fig. 14. Stability of asphalt concrete with various percentages of glass [9].

Fig. 15. Voids in mineral aggregates with various percentages of glass [9].
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
Fig. 16. Flow of asphalt concrete with various percentages of glass [9].
Table 7
Tabulated Results [61]
Type of Filler % of filler by weight of total mix
Ordinary Portland Cement 4%
7%
10%
Limestone Powder 4%
7%
10%
Glass Powder 4%
7%
10%
was indeed possible to incorporate waste glass in asphalt concrete
mixtures. This was followed by West et al. [140] who tested the
effects of substituting 15% of aggregates with either fine or coarse
crushed glass. The mixtures prepared with crushed glass (CG) had
lower Marshall Stability values and dry tensile strengths compared
to the control mixture. In spite of this, mixtures with coarse glass
performed favorably with respect to retained tensile strengths.
They also observed improved bonding between asphalt binder
and glass particles with the addition of 0.5% anti- stripping addi-
tive. However, it was determined to be ineffective in reducing
moisture damage (the asphalt-aggregate bond behaviour exhibited
under wet conditions). West et al. [140] concluded that the substi-
tution of glass for natural aggregates would not be economically
feasible unless the asphalt plant and source of CG were within a
reasonable distance and recommended that caution should be
exercised with further applications.
Su and Chen [114] tested the Marshall Stability value for asphalt
concrete with 0%, 5%, 10% and 15% of glass substituting aggregates.
They used the Marshall apparatus to test the optimum asphalt con-
tent and found it to decrease with increasing glass content. This
observation was explained by the low water/asphalt absorption
rate of glass. The stability tests revealed slightly lower stability val-
ues compared to the control mix but they were still within the
limit of the relevant standards. Nicholls and Lay [89] conducted
laboratory tests on aggregates with and without 30% CG and com-
pared its properties with the Highways Agency Procedure for Eval-
uating New Materials. Road trials were also carried out at three
locations, each having sections of both materials. The trials proved
the feasibility of replacing 30% of aggregate with CG whilst only
resulting in a marginal reduction in the indirect tensile stiffness.
Arabani [10] evaluated the behaviour of hot mix asphalt (HMA)
at different temperatures with various admixture contents and
455
Stability (kN) Flow (mm) Bulk Density (gm/cm3)
6.2 2.0 2.48
8.5 3.0 2.5
9.1 3.0 2.54
5.6 2.4 2.43
8.9 3.3 2.39
8.6 3.6 2.4
7.6 3.0 2.4
9.6 2.0 2.28
9.1 2.0 2.2
aggregate sizes. The study investigated the stiffness modulus of
asphalt concrete containing glass at replacement levels of 5%, 10%,
15% and 20% by weight of mix, at various temperatures 5 °C, 25 °C
and 40 °C) with different aggregate gradations (Topeka and Binder).
The results indicated that mixes containing 15% glass consistently
achieved higher stiffness modulus values compared to other mixes
and obtained a stiffness modulus value almost 200% higher than the
control mix. A similar investigation was conducted by Arabani et al.
[11] in 2012 where they modeled the long term fatigue behaviours
of asphalt concrete mixtures with glass replacement levels of 5%,
10%, 15%, and 20% under various temperatures 5 °C, 25 °C and
40 °C) with the addition of lime. Cycles of stresses of 250 kPa and
400 kPa were continuously applied to the specimen to determine
the relationship between the number of cycles and tensile strain
related to failure. Controlled strain tests were also conducted and
the results were compared with the control specimen. Like his pre-
vious experiments [10], specimens containing glass endured more
cycles compared to the control with the 10% glass specimen exhibit-
ing a fatigue life 100% longer than the control specimen. The con-
trolled strain tests showed similar results with the control
specimen performing the poorest [11]. In 2014, Androjić and Dimter
[9] studied the properties of HMA with substituted WG in the cre-
ation of the surface layers of asphalt concrete. The researchers
experimented on the addition of glass in asphalt concrete and found
that an increase in the glass fraction led to a decrease in the density,
stability, and void content of the mixture. Using these results, they
derived the equations shown in Figs. 13–16.
Fig. 13 shows the density of asphalt against the WG content,
Fig. 14 shows the stability of asphalt against the % of WG, Fig. 15
depicts the voids in mineral aggregate against the % of WG and
Fig. 16 shows the flow of asphalt concrete against the % of WG.
From the figures above, density showed a tendency to decrease
456 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

Table 8
Repeated load triaxial test results for recycled glass – crushed rock blends [6]

Blend %MDD %Wopt Permanent strain (103 mƐ) Resilient modulus (MPa)
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
RG10/CR90 98.1 86.5 22.0 F F 144 NR NR
97.7 81.6 7.5 17.2 F 179 191 NR
97.5 67.0 4.9 6.2 9.9 196 277 263
RG15/CR85 99.2 72.5 18.1 F F 216 NR NR
98.3 70.5 8.6 18.0 F 199 210 NR
97.9 60.9 4.5 8.3 17.6 226 243 243
RG20/CR80 98.9 72.4 14.1 F F 185 NR NR
98.4 67.0 10.6 16.5 F 198 242 NR
98.2 57.3 7.2 12.6 F 209 241 NR
RG30/CR70 98.6 76.3 9.5 F F 224 243 NR
98.5 67.0 8.8 17.4 F 217 250 NR
98 58.6 7.4 12.6 F 227 272 NR
Natural Granular Subbase 98.0 70.0 3–10 4–15 5–20 175–350 200–400 225–400
98.0 80.0 5–10 7–15 10-F 150–300 175–300 200–300
98.0 90.0 7–15 10-F F (>2) 125–300 150–300 175–300

MDD – Maximum Dry Density.

Wopt – Optimum Water Content.
F – The sample failed during the test before reaching next stage.
NR – Not recorded as the sample failed before this stage.

Table 10
Table 9
Shear strength and physical properties of fine recycled glass, medium recycled glass
Gradation of Recycled Glass [33]
and typical quarry materials [13].
Sample Fine content Gravel content Sand content
Engineering Properties Fine Medium Typical
(<0.075 mm) (%) (>2.36 mm) (%) (0.075 < 2.36 mm) (%)
recycled recycled quarry
FRG 5.4 9.2 85.4 glass glass materials
MRG 5.2 53 41.8
Gravel Content (%) 9.2 53 30–60
CRG 0.9 96.4 2.7
Sand Content (%) 85.4 41.8 30–60
Fines Content (%) 5.4 5.2 <10
with increasing percentages of WG. This was attributed to the Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 6.9 7.2 >30
lower density of WG compared to natural aggregates. Stability Coefficient of curvature, Cc 1.2 1.3 >1
USCS classification SW SW GW or SW
increased with increasing percentages of glass, with stability peak-
Specific gravity of coarse 2.44 2.50 >2
ing at 29% before it decreased, which was derived from the equa- fraction
tion: y ¼ 0:0012x2 þ 0:0686x þ 11:604 and R2 ¼ 0:9151. The Specific gravity of fine fraction 2.43 2.46 >2
percentage of voids in mineral aggregate decreased with increasing Water absorption coarse 1.0 0.5 <10
fraction (%)
percentages of glass. This was caused by an increase in the air Water absorption fine fraction 1.8 1.8 <10
voids, which ultimately increased the number of voids filled by (%)
bitumen. The number of air voids depends on the origin of the Los Angeles abrasion (max) 25 25 <35–40
raw material and how it was crushed. The flow of asphalt concrete Modified compaction: max dry 1.78 1.99 >1.78
density (Mg/m3)
showed a tendency to decrease until the percentage of glass
Modified compaction: 10 8.8 8–15
reached 63%, before it started to increase again, which was derived optimum moisture content
from the equation: y ¼ 0:0003x2  0:0379x þ 3:9149 and (%)
California bearing ratio (%) 42–46 73–76 >80
R2 ¼ 0:9653:
Unconfined compression test: 0 0 >0
UCS (kPa)
4.2. Glass powder as a filler in asphalt concrete Direct Shear Test
Peak apparent cohesion (kPa) 0 0 0
In 2011, Jony et al. [61] explored the use of glass powder (93% Peak friction angle (degrees) 41 50 >35
passed through a 0.075 mm sieve) as filler in asphalt concrete as Critical state apparent 0 0 0
cohesion (kPa)
opposed to using the traditional limestone powder and ordinary
Critical state friction angle 41 50 0
Portland cement (OPC) in hot mix asphalt concrete. The investiga- (degrees)
tion involved nine mixtures, three types of filler (lime stone pow-
Triaxial test (CD)
der, OPC and glass powder) and three filler contents (4%, 7%, and Peak apparent cohesion (kPa) 0 0 0
10%, by weight of total aggregate). The test results are shown in Peak friction angle (degrees) 39 42 > 35
Table 7. From Table 7, it is shown that glass powder achieved the Critical state apparent 0 0 0
cohesion (kPa)
highest stability of the three fillers with an optimum of 7% for all
Critical friction angle (degrees) 39 42 > 35
types of filler.

4.3. Performance of asphalt concrete containing crushed waste glass at
high and low temperatures
A major problem with HMA is its performance at high temper-
atures and low temperatures. High temperatures result in rutting
deformation while low temperatures result in cracking of the pave-
ment surface. Both these attributes lead to serious deformation of
travelling performance [48]. Diatomite, which is lightweight, has a
high porosity and is an effective insulator, has been used to modify
glasphalt mixtures to prevent rutting and cracking. However, it has
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
been determined that the penetration and ductility of asphalt con-
crete decreases [48], and the viscosity of asphalt concrete increases
[27] with an increase in diatomite content. Other issues that
emerge with the inclusion of diatomite in asphalt concrete are a
decrease in the bending stiffness modulus, bending strength and
bending tensile strain at low temperatures. Therefore, although
diatomite improves the characteristics of asphalt concrete at high
temperatures, the characteristics at low temperatures declines
[48]. Guo et al. [48] investigated the use of glass fibres to counter-
act these properties and found promising results. The tendency to
rut at both high and low temperatures decreased, while the fatigue
property of the asphalt mixture improved. This ultimately resulted
in a longer service life, increased stiffness modulus at temperatures
above 10 °C and caused little influence on the tensile strength.
4.4. Stripping
Stripping is the weakening or destruction of the bond between
the aggregate and the asphalt [30]. Stripping occurs when water
displaces the asphalt on the aggregate particle surface in asphalt
concrete [102]. Day et al. [30] used ASTM-D-1075 to evaluate the
effectiveness of anti-stripping agents and Ca(OH)2. They found that
commercial anti-stripping agents could not completely eliminate
stripping. However, the addition of Ca(OH)2 was found to be the
most effective method to mitigate the stripping of asphalt con-
crete. West et al. [140] tested asphalt concrete containing coarse
glass aggregates and fine glass aggregates using the boil test. The
fine glass aggregates were stripped significantly less than the
asphalt concrete containing the coarse aggregates. Furthermore,
the addition of an anti-stripping agent in the asphalt mixes signif-
icantly minimized the stripping of samples. Wu et al. [141] found
that by adding hydrated lime and an anti-stripping agent the
asphalt concrete’s resistance to water damage would increase.
The anti-stripping agent was found to be more effective than
hydrated lime in mitigating the stripping of asphalt concrete. Fur-
thermore, they found that increasing the glass replacement level
resulted in an increase in stripping weight loss.
Fig. 17. Water flow balance chart for a layer of RG in road pavement [34].
457
5. Use of crushed waste glass in the base and subbase of roads
Many studies have been undertaken by researchers to deter-
mine the feasibility of incorporating crushed waste glass in the
unbound base and subbase of roads. The main tests associated with
determining whether a certain material or mixture is considered to
be suitable for base and subbase applications in roads are the Los
Angeles (LA) abrasion test, California bearing ratio (CBR) and mod-
ified proctor compaction test. Research results in terms of the LA
abrasion value, Modified Proctor test and CBR have generally pro-
ven to be promising for the use of crushed glass (CG) in subbase
applications with up to 30% of crushed rock by mass being replaced
by glass [6].
Ali et al. [6] investigated blending <4.75 mm recycled glass (RG)
with 20 mm crushed rock (CR) produced from recycled excavation
stone. RG was mixed with CR to enhance the shear strength prop-
erties of the blend. They conducted basic classification, Los Angeles
abrasion, California bearing ratio and modified compaction tests on
blends consisting of 50%RG/50%CR, 40%RG/60%CR, 30%RG/70%CR,
20%RG/80%CR, 15%RG/85%CR and 10%RG/90%CR. All the mixes
obtained LA abrasion values within the range of 23 to 25 and
acquired CBR values between 121% and 199%, which satisfied the
local road authority requirements. Additionally, they reported that
a maximum of 30% RG can replace CR in RG/CR blends to achieve a
satisfactory after compaction gradation curve. Further testing was
conducted using the Austroads Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) test
method to compare permanent strain and the resilient moduli of
the mixes with natural aggregates. Table 8 lists the results of the
various blends of RG/CR from the RLT tests, and their permanent
strain and resilient values.
Ali et al. [6] concluded that up to 30% RG could be substituted in
CR for subbase applications, which has minimal effects on the
physical and mechanical properties while satisfactorily meeting
local road authority requirements. Furthermore, 15% of RG with a
maximum particle size of 4.75 mm can safely substitute Class 3
classified crushed rock.
Disfani et al. [33] investigated the use of three different sizes of
recycled glass in roadwork applications, Fine Recycled Glass (FRG),
458 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

The field trials included two control sections consisting of RCA and
WR, and 7 sections consisting of FRG blends with recycled glass
content varying between 10 and 30%. Arulrajah et al. [12] con-
cluded that FRG blends are not fully compliant with local road
authority requirements but are suitable for pavement subbase
applications. Additionally, an optimum limit for recycled glass
additives replacing RCA or WR was found to be 20% based on the
results from field trials.

6. Environmental impact of crushed waste glass in road

applications

The main environmental concern with the application of glass

in road works is the leaching of contaminants, such as heavy met-
als, into the ground water table. The possible flow path of precip-
itation on a paved surface has been illustrated below by Disfani
et al. [34] in Fig. 17. Disfani et al. studied the environmental risk
of using waste glass in road applications during its service life.
They tested fine recycled glass (FRG) and medium recycled glass
(MRG) for leachable and total concentration for a variety of con-
taminant constituents. The total contaminant values for FRG and
MRG fulfilled the EPA Victoria requirements for fill material and
were significantly below the acceptable thresholds except for chro-
Fig. 18. LCD glass powder [137]. mium. In spite of this, the chromium found in MRG and FRG is not
all chromium VI. This makes FRG and MRG a suitable fill material
according to EPA Victoria requirements and allows it to be used
for filling and leveling applications [42]. The ASLP acidic and alka-
Medium Recycled Glass (MRG) and Coarse Recycled Glass (CRG).
line values of FRG and MRG fall within the threshold for all con-
Table 9 shows the gradations of the different sizes of RG that Dis-
taminant constituents. In addition, the leaching contaminant
fani used.
concentrations for both FRG and MRG samples were well within
The LA abrasion test, CBR and, modified Proctor tests, along
the acceptable limits for solid inert waste. Moreover, the ASLP val-
with various other tests concluded that CRG was not suitable for
ues of FRG and MRG are well below the threshold of hazardous
road applications. MRG and FRG were only deemed suitable if
waste according to the U.S. EPA guidelines. Disfani et al. concluded
blended with other materials which would require further
that the environmental risks of using recycled glass in road appli-
investigation.
cations in terms of contaminants leaching into water streams, sur-
In 2014, Arulrajah et al. [13] tested the physical properties and
face or ground water is negligible.
shear strength responses of recycled construction and demolition
The application of appropriate design and methodology can
materials in unbound pavement base and subbase applications.
mitigate the leaching of contaminants. Recycled glass (RG) should
They conducted the California bearing ratio, direct shear, drained
be used in places with a sealed surface, for example, an asphalt
triaxial, gradation, Los Angeles abrasion and unconfined compres-
paved surface, or in elevated ground. Also, appropriate processing
sion tests on FRG (<4.75 mm) and MRG (<9.5 mm). FRG and MRG
of RG before application can be used to remove contaminants
met the requirements for the LA abrasion, gradation, water absorp-
before they can harm the water table [13,57].
tion, compaction, direct shear test and consolidated drained tri-
Imteaz et al. [57] did a series of tests to determine the environ-
axle tests. However, MRG and FRG failed the CBR requirements
mental impacts of using glass as a pavement material by soaking
with CBR values of 42–46% and 73–76% for MRG and FRG, respec-
three samples of glass in three different solutions, water, 1 mol L1
tively. Additionally, FRG and MRG were unable to satisfy the
HNO3 and 1 mol L1 solution, each with a w/w ratio of 10: 1 solu-
unconfined compression strength requirements due to their inabil-
tion to glass. Using these samples, Imteaz et al. tested the values of
ity to hold together after being removed from their moulds.
Table 10 depicts the shear strength and physical properties of
FRG, MRG and typical quarry materials.
Arulrajah concluded that FRG and MRG have the potential for
being used in unbound base and subbase applications. However,
FRG and MRG would be required to be blended with other higher
quality aggregates to enhance their physical properties, in particu-
lar, LA abrasion and CBR.
This was followed up by Arulrajah et al. [12] in the same year
who conducted field trials and laboratory tests on blends with
waste rock (WR) (<20 mm) and recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) (<20 mm) replaced with FRG (<4.75 mm). The blends used
in the laboratory testing had WR and RCA replaced with FRG at
percentages of 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%. The blends
obtained LA abrasion with values of 23–25 and 25–32 for WR
and RCA blends, respectively, which fulfilled the local road author-
ity requirements. In addition, the blends consisting of FRG met the
local road authority requirements regarding CBR with WR and RCA Fig. 19. Compressive strength of concrete containing 30% ground glass compared to
blends obtaining CBR values of 121–199 and 98–203, respectively. the control [109].
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467 459

Fig. 20. Compressive strength of concrete and mortar containing various amounts of glass powder as a cement replacement, which was acquired from numerous studies after
28 days of curing.

pH, conductivity, inorganic material content including chloride and

sulphate, organics and surfactant. The values obtained were put
against EPA Victoria Guidelines or National Australian Standards
and it was found that all values except for iron content extracted
from the acid sample were below the accepted limits.

7. Crushed waste glass as a cementitious material

The possibility of using finely ground-powdered glass (Fig. 18),

as a pozzolanic material to replace cement was first examined by
Pattengill and Shutt in 1973 [2]. A pozzolanic material should have
a high silica content and a large enough surface area [78]. Carpen-
ter and Cramer [20] reported that powdered glass was effective in
reducing alkali-silica reaction expansions in accelerated mortar bar
tests, and was comparable to the effects of fly ash, silica fume, and
slag on ASR.
Multiple researchers noted that waste glass fulfills the basic
chemical requirements for a pozzolan, but did not comply with
the additional requirement for alkali content since waste glass
has a high percentage of Na₂ O [96,111]. In spite of this, finely
ground glass powder had a very high pozzolanic activity due to
its Blaine specific surface of 250 m2/kg [96]. Moreover, according
to the ASTM C 618 glass has the potential to acceptably function
as a supplementary cementitious material SCM) [45].
Producing one tonne of cement consumes approximately 110–
220 kWh of electricity [8] and releases 0.64 tonnes of CO2 [24].
With the global demand for Portland cement expected to increase
for at least the next 35 years [41], the research focusing on alterna-
tive cementitious materials, such as glass powder, can minimize
the consumption of natural resources by the construction industry
and reduce carbon emissions.
7.1. Workability
The inclusion of glass powder as a cement replacement in con-
crete or mortar resulted in no change in workability [96,115],
while Wang et al. [137] observed that mortar obtained similar
slump values compared to the control with cement replacement
ratios up to 40%. However, some studies concluded that the
replacement of cement with glass powder led to a reduction in
workability [78,109]. Metwally [78] and Wang et al. [137] reported
Fig. 21. Strength Activity Index for concrete containing 30% mineral additives as a
replacement for ordinary Portland cement [109].
that an increase in the replacement level of glass powder in con-
crete or mortar mixtures resulted in a decrease in workability.
The high specific surface areas [78] and the angular shapes of the
glass particles [109] harmed the workability of concrete and mor-
tar mixtures.
7.2. Mechanical strength of concrete containing glass as a cementitious
material
7.2.1. Compressive strength
Generally, the inclusion of glass powder as a replacement for
cement in concrete and mortar resulted in an increase in compres-
sive strength. However, some studies observed that the inclusion
of glass powder as a cement replacement resulted in a decrease
in compressive strength [21,117,137]. Additionally, a reduction in
the particle size of glass powder coincided with improvements in
compressive strength [21,56,96,107,109], Fig. 20.
Bignozzi et al. [17] tested crystal, funnel, fluorescent lamp and
soda-lime glass powder as a replacement for cement in mortar.
All mortar specimens obtained compressive strengths lower than
the control at 90 days except for mortar containing 25% funnel
glass, which achieved a higher compressive strength than the con-
460 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
trol. Dyer and Dhir [40] partially replaced the cement in concrete
with white, green and amber glass. They reported that mortars
containing 10% white, and 10%, 20% and 30% green glass obtained
compressive strengths higher than the control, while mortar con-
sisting of 10% and 20% amber glass exhibited compressive strength
values similar to the control. Fig. 19 depicts the development of
compressive strength of concrete specimens containing crushed
glass compared to the control.
Shao et al. [109], and Shao and Leboux [107] tested concrete
with fly ash, silica fume and glass powder as partial replacements
for cement in concrete. They reported that at 90 days concrete con-
taining 30% 38 mm glass powder obtained compressive strength
values higher than the control and concrete consisting of 30% fly
ash, but significantly lower than concrete consisting of 30% silica
fume. Carsana et al. [21] tested the compressive strength of mortar
with cement replaced with natural pozzolana, ground quartz sand,
silica fume and coal fly ash. They reported that mortar consisting of
glass powder exhibited a compressive strength greater than mortar
containing natural pozzolana, quartz sand and coal fly ash at
90 days. However, mortar containing glass powder obtained lower
compressive strength values than ordinary Portland cement and
silica at 90 days. Furthermore, Du and Tan [38] found that the addi-
tion of 15% glass powder in concrete mixtures increased the com-
pressive strength values by 32%, 25% and 24% compared to the
control at 7, 28 and 91 days, respectively.
The pozzolanic reaction in concrete consisting of glass powder
as a cement replacement improved the pore structure in the bulk
cement paste, and interfacial transition zone between aggregate
particles and paste, which increased the compressive strength of
concrete [35,38]. In addition, Du and Tan [38] found that there
was an upper limit where at higher concentrations of cement
replacement no further pozzolanic reaction would occur and glass
powder would become inactivated inert filler. They reported that
pozzolanic reactions occurred in cement with replacement levels
up to 30%.
In contrast, the reduction in compressive strength was attribu-
ted to an increase in porosity due to an increase in effective water
content and reduction in cement content [87,137].
7.2.2. Strength activity index
In general, the inclusion of glass powder as a cement replace-
ment in concrete or mortar can fulfill the requirements set by
ASTM C618 or equivalent standards. Shao and Leboux [107], and
Shao et al. [109] reported that concrete containing 75 mm and
38 mm ground glass fulfilled the minimum requirements set by
ASTM C618, which requires a pozzolan to have a minimum
strength activity of 75% for it to benefit concrete. Additionally,
Metwally [78] found that all the specimens consisting of finely
milled waste glass fulfilled the ASTM C 618-2001 requirements.
Fig. 22. Expansion curves for concrete prisms containing a very reactive coarse
aggregate in combination with the materials indicated (SF10 denotes concrete
containing 10% silica fume as a replacement for Portland cement, GLP40 denotes to
concrete consisting of 40% Portland cement replaced with fine glass powder and
with low-alkali cement, HA denotes 1.4% cement alkali) [110].
In addition, Pereira-de-Oliveira et al. [96] observed that mortar
containing amber and green powdered glass with particles sizes
of 0–45 mm and 45–75 mm fulfilled the requirements set by NP
EN 450 and can be classified as a potential pozzolanic material.
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [60] found that concrete consisting of 20%
glass powder as a cement replacement obtained strength activity
values higher than the minimum requirements set by ASTM
C618-03. The results showed that glass powder is effective at
improving the strength of concrete and can be considered as a poz-
zolanic material.
The effect of curing temperature on the strength activity index
of mortar and concrete consisting of glass powder was quite signif-
icant. Shi et al. [111] tested mortars containing GP-4000 and fly ash
were tested at elevated temperatures of 35 and 65 °C. Mortar con-
sisting of GP-4000 obtained significantly higher strength activity
indexes then mortar at a curing temperature of 23 °C but was
lower than fly ash at an elevated temperature. Mirzahosseini and
Riding [83] observed that a curing temperature of 50 °C resulted
in higher strength activity indexes after 7 days of curing compared
to a curing temperature of 23 °C.
Moreover, a reduction in the particle size of glass powder
resulted in a superior strength activity indexes [21,108,110]. Shao
et al. [109] observed that smaller glass particle sizes led to higher
strengths, especially at later ages. Additionally, they attributed the
early strength development of concrete containing fine glass pow-
der to the alkalis in concrete acting as a catalyst in the formation of
calcium silicate hydrate [109]. Fig. 21 depicts the strength activity
index results for concrete containing 30% mineral additives as a
replacement for ordinary Portland cement.
7.3. Alkali-silica reaction expansions in concrete consisting of crushed
waste glass as a replacement for Portland cement
It can be concluded from the literature reviewed that glass pow-
der can be used as cementitious material without causing deleteri-
ous expansions in mortar or concrete. The inclusion of glass
powder as a cement replacement in mortars and concrete resulted
in ASR expansions lower than the control [96,107,109,116]. An
increase in glass content resulted in a reduction in ASR expansion
in concrete and mortar specimens [78,105,116]. Multiple research-
ers found that the expansion of mortars containing glass powder
as a cement replacement was lower than the 0.1% acceptable limit
stated by ASTM C1260 [78,96,107,109].
Pereira-de-Oliveira et al. [96] tested mortar consisting of green,
flint and amber glass powder. They observed that mortar contain-
ing amber glass expanded the least, while mortar consisting of
green glass expanded the most. Shao et al. [109], and Shao and
Fig. 23. Relationship between 28-day compressive strength and w/c) of concrete
containing granulated foam glass. w/c refers to the water to cement ratio of the
concrete [69].
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467 461

The partial replacement of ordinary Portland cement with GLP

was effective at mitigating ASR expansion, but studies found that
the inclusion of additives, such as fly ash, metakaolin and lithium
nitrate, was more effective at mitigating ASR. However, studies
reported contradictory results regarding the effectiveness of silica
fume compared to GLP at mitigating ASR reactions.

8. Foamed waste glass

Foamed waste glass is a relatively new material that has been

Fig. 24. Foamed recycled glass as an engineering material.
Leboux [107] reported that mortar consisting of 38 mm glass pow-
der expanded less than mortar containing 75 mm and 150 mm glass
powder. Furthermore, they found that silica fume as a cement
replacement mitigated ASR expansions more effectively than fly
ash or glass powder. Taha and Nounu [116] tested concrete mixes
containing cement partially replaced with 60% ground granulated
blast furnace slag (GGBS), 10% metakaolin (MK), 20% pozzolanic
glass powder (PGP) (particle size <45 mm) and 1% lithium nitrate
(LiNO3). They found that concrete containing additives expanded
less than concrete consisting of glass powder. In addition, MK
achieved the lowest expansions followed by GGBS and then
Lithium Nitrate. Shaynan and Xu [110] reported that mortar con-
taining 10% silica fume and >20% fine glass powder (GLP) was
effective in suppressing ASR expansion. Likewise, mortar contain-
ing 20% GLP was more effective at mitigating ASR expansion than
mortar containing 10% silica fume. In addition, mortar containing
30% GLP suppressed the ASR expansions of mortar consisting of
very susceptible aggregate. Fig. 22 depicts the ASR expansion
curves for concrete prisms containing a very reactive aggregate.
However, Shi et al. [111] found that a minimum of 30% Class F
fly ash is required to mitigate deleterious expansion in mortars
consisting of reactive aggregates, while a minimum of 50%
GP4000 is required to achieve the same effect.
scantily researched over the last two decades. The lightweight,
low embodied energy and acute friction angle of foamed waste
glass make it a promising material to use in construction applica-
tions [69]. In 2004, Lu and Onitsuka [72] reported that, in Japan,
foamed waste glass was used in construction applications, such
as an improvement material for surplus soft clay, lightweight fill
material, water holding material for greening, subgrade or subbase
improvement material and lightweight concrete aggregate.
8.1. Foamed waste glass as an aggregate in concrete
Limbachiya et al. [69] investigated the feasibility of using gran-
ulated foam glass (GFG) in concrete production as a substitute for
natural aggregate, by volume. The GFG aggregates used were pro-
duced from mixed colour glass bottle waste. Natural gravel was
replaced by coarse foamed glass (CFG) at replacement levels of
30%, 40%, 50%, 60% and 100% by volume, while natural sand was
replaced by fine foamed glass (FFG) at replacement levels of 10%
and 15%, by volume.
8.1.1. Workability
The workability of fresh concrete was tested in concordance
with BS EN 12350: 2000 Parts 1, 2 and 4, and BS EN 12390: 2000
Parts 1 and 2 requirements. The incorporation of granulated foam
glass (GFG) had no imperceptible effects on the initial slump of
concrete mixes. However, an increase in GFG content resulted in
a decrease in the compacting factor over time, which was due to
the high water absorption of concrete containing GFG [69].

Table 11
Engineering properties of foamed waste glass as a lightweight aggregate [49,83,99,100].

Engineering parameters Foamed recycled glass Typical lightweight material [49,83] Typical heavyweight material [99,101]
D10 (mm) 0.13 – 0.09
D30 (mm) 1.2 – 1.30
D50 (mm) 18.7 – 4.40
D60 (mm) 20.6 – 6.70
Cu 158 – 78.83
Cc 0.53 – 2.97
Gravel sized particles: 66 <70 47.9
4.75–40 mm (%)
Sand sized particles: 32 <40 42.2
0.075–4.75 mm (%)
Clay and Silt sized particles: 2 <3 9.90
<0.075 mm (%)
Particle density – coarse fraction (kg/m3) 462.8 408–1529 2600–2700
Particle density – fine fraction (kg/m3) 1508 408–1529 2400–2600
Minimum dry density (kg/m3) 170 112–204
Maximum dry density (kg/m3) 290 204–306 2080
Water absorption – coarse fraction (%) 60 50–60 6.50 – 6.70
Water absorption – fine fraction 0.3 < 1.0 6.50 – 7.50
pH 10.48 9–12 10.20 – 11.40
Organic content (%) 0 0 1.7 – 2.1
CBR (%) 9–12 2–10 172
LA abrasion loss (%) 94 80 – 100 29.9 – 31.7
DST: Peak apparent cohesion, c; (kPa) 23.4 20 – 100 95
DST: Peak friction angle, /’ (degrees) 55.7 35 – 60 65
DST: Critical state apparent cohesion, c’ (kPa) 22.1 20 – 100 95
DST: Critical state friction angle, /’ (degrees) 54.7 35 – 60 39
462 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467

Table 12
Leachate analysis data of foamed recycled glass EPA Victoria [42,129,138].

Contaminant ASLP: acet. ASLP: Borate Threshold for solid inert waste (mg/ Drinking water standards [129] Hazardous waste designation (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) L) [42] (mg/L) [138]
Arsenic 0.22 0.1 0.35 0.05 5.0
Barium 0.09 <0.1 35.0 2.0 100.0
Cadmium 0.05 <0.02 0.1 0.005 1.0
Chromium 0.09 <0.1 2.5 0.1 5.0
Lead 0.42 <0.1 0.5 0.015 5.0
Mercury <0.001 <0.01 0.05 0.002 0.2
Selenium <0.01 <0.1 0.5 0.05 1.0
Silver <0.01 <0.1 5.0 0.05 5.0

8.1.2. Compressive strength Table 13

Limbachiya et al. [69] tested the compressive strength of con- Fibre content of concrete mixes [142].

crete cubes containing granulated foam glass GFG) according to Concrete Stiff and long polypropylene Short polypropylene fibres
BS EN 12390-3 at 3, 7, 14, 28, 60, 180 and 365 days. Concrete mixes Mixture fibres (LPF) (%) (SPF) (%)
containing 5% and 15% of natural sand substituted for fine foamed No. 1 0.1 0
glass (FFG) and designed with a w/c of 0.40 developed early No. 2 0.2 0
strength more rapidly compared to the control and obtained higher No. 3 0.3 0
No. 4 0.15 0.05
compressive strengths than the control in the long term. Concrete
No. 5 0.1 0.1
consisting of larger proportions of FFG obtained higher compres- No. 6 0.05 0.15
sive strengths, with concrete consisting of 15% FFG achieving an No. 7 0.6 0
approximately 4.72% increase in compressive strength at 365 days. No. 8 0.9 0
No. 9 1.2 0
Limbachiya et al. [69] hypothesized that the pozzolanic reaction of
FFG particles, improved particle packing and porous texture attrib-
uted to the moderate strength improvement of concrete consisting
of FFG. The compressive strength of concrete containing coarse 8.2. Foamed waste glass as a lightweight engineering material
foamed glass (CFG) was strongly related to the CFG replacement
levels and w/c. The compressive strengths of concrete mixes con- Arulrajah et al. [14] investigated the engineering and environ-
taining 30%, 40% and 50% CFG content and designed with a w/c mental properties of foamed recycled glass (FRG) to ascertain its
of 0.62 were all lower than the control. However, concrete mixes suitability as a lightweight fill material in civil engineering applica-
containing 30% CFG content and designed with a w/c of 0.76 tions. The FRG used in the laboratory experiments consisted of 98%
obtained compressive strengths higher than the control at all ground glass and 2% mineral additives.
stages, while concrete consisting of 40% CFG content and designed
with a w/c of 0.76 exhibited higher compressive values than the 8.2.1. Engineering properties
control in the long term. Fig. 23 depicts the relationship between The California bearing ratio of foamed recycled glass (FRG) was
compressive strength and w/c of concrete containing GFG. See within the range of 2–5%, which is typical for structural fill mate-
Fig. 24. rial in road embankments according to the local road authority
(VicRoads) specification requirements [132–134]. The LA abrasion
tests determined that FRG has a low particle strength and conse-
8.1.3. Flexural strength
quently high LA abrasion value of 94%. The LA abrasion results
The flexural strength of concrete containing granulated foam
exceeded the maximum LA abrasion value for pavement base
glass (GFG) was tested in accordance with BS EN: 12390-5:2000.
and subbase applications by 54%, this indicates that FRG is suscep-
Overall, all of the concrete consisting of GFG generally achieved
tible to crushing under repeated loading and inadequate for appli-
higher flexural strengths than the control with 28 day strengths
cations that involve dynamic loads [14].
ranging from 4.6 MPa to 6.2 MPa [69].
FRG’s high friction angle and cohesion values are consistent
with dense gravel materials and meet the shear strength property
8.1.4. ASR expansion requirements for lightweight fill materials [19,113]. The CBR and
Limbachiya et al. [69] tested the ASR expansions of mortar bars LA abrasion tests prove that FRG is unsuitable for heavier loading
containing 30%, 50% and 100% granulated foam glass (GFG) as a applications, such as subbase or pavement base. However, FRG
replacement for natural aggregates in mortar bars according to can be blended with higher quality aggregates to facilitate its usage
ASTM C1260. They reported that increasing the GFG content led in pavement subbase as a supplementary additive. Table 11 sum-
to an increase in ASR expansions. All mortar bars consisting of marizes the engineering properties of foamed recycled glass.
GFG exhibited ASR expansions greater than the control, but less
than the 0.10% expansion limit required by ASTM C1260, except 8.2.2. Environmental properties
for mortar containing 100% GFG at 14 days, which obtained ASR Arulrajah et al. [14] tested the total concentration of trace ele-
expansions marginally higher than the 0.10% limit. The results ments in foamed recycled glass (FRG) and performed leachate
acquired from the ASR accelerated mortar bar tests indicate that analysis for different types of heavy metal according to the Aus-
GFG replacement levels up to 50% in concrete mixes do not cause tralian Standards protocol. The results from the total concentration
potentially deleterious expansion or innocuous behaviour. tests indicated that the contaminant constitutions for FRG were
The results from testing demonstrate that that granulated foam significantly below the threshold limits specified for soil, waste
glass (GFG) has the potential to be a substitute for natural aggre- materials and backfill [65,66,125]. In addition, the arsenic and lead
gate in concrete. GFG can replace up to 40% of coarse aggregate leaching concentrations of FRG came close to the EPA [42] defined
and 15% of fine aggregate in concrete without considerable detri- threshold concentrations. Before the application of FRG samples
mental effects. should be tested for the potential leeching of arsenic and lead.
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
Fig. 25. Compressive strength of ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced concrete mixtures at 28 days [142].
Table 12 contains the data from the leachate data of foamed recy-
cled glass.
9. Expanded waste glass in ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced
concrete
Yu et al. [142] investigated the engineering properties of
expanded glass in ultra- lightweight fibre reinforced concrete
(ULFRC). They replaced the natural aggregates in the ULFRC with
expanded waste glass, and added polypropylene fibre to enhance
the density and mechanical properties of the ULFRC. Stiff and long
polypropylene fibres (LPF) (length 45 mm, diameter 0.5 mm), and
soft and short polypropylene fibres (SPF) (length 18 mm, diameter
22 mm) were added to ULFRC. LPF were added to concrete mixtures
at 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.15%, 0.1%, 0.05%, 0.6%, 0.9% and 1.2%, by vol-
ume, while SPF was also added to concrete mixes at 0%, 0.05%, 0.1%
and 0.15%, by volume. Additionally, the Andreasen & Andersen par-
ticle packing model was utilized to design the densely compacted
concrete matrix. In addition, the size fractions of the lightweight
aggregates used in this study were 0.1–0.3 mm, 0.25–0.5 mm,
0.5–1.0 mm, 1.0–2.0 mm, 2.0–4.0 mm and 4.0–8.0 mm.
9.1. Density
Yu et al. [142] reported that the dry densities of the ultra-
lightweight fibre reinforced concrete (ULFRC) were less than
800 kg/m3, which is the lower limit of the definition of lightweight
concrete set by EN 206-1 (2001). Mix No. 9, which had the highest
percentage of LPF and attained the lowest densities out of all the
ULFRC tested, with a dry and wet density of 720 kg/m3 and
790 kg/m3, respectively. They attributed the low densities of ULFRC
mixes to the large amounts of fibres within the internal structure.
The relatively stiff LPF alters the granular skeleton of the concrete
by pushing the surrounding particles (mainly low density LWA).
This forms air voids that are entrapped in the ULFRC, which make
the concrete porous and reduce its density. The very low density of
ULFRC containing expanded glass enables it to float on water.
9.2. Mechanical properties of ultra-lightweight fibre reinforced
concrete containing expanded waste
9.2.1. Compressive behaviour
The results showed that the addition of polypropylene fibres
improve the compressive strength of ULFRC. The increase in com-
pressive strength can be associated with the polypropylene fibres
restricting the crack formation and development of the ULFRC. Fur-
thermore, the rough surfaces of the LPF can strengthen the adhe-
463
sion between the concrete matrix and fibres, and can improve
the compressive strength of the ULFRC [142]. Yu et al. [142] also
reported that the compressive strength of concrete containing
hybrid fibres was highly influenced by the proportions of LPF and
SPF. The ULFRC consisting of 75% LPF and 25% SPF, by volume,
obtained the highest compressive strength out of the mixes con-
taining hybrid fibres, which was approximately 10.16% higher than
ULFRC containing 25% LPF and 75% SPF, by volume. These results
can be explained by Markovic [76] who found that the LPF is more
effective at mitigating the development of macro cracks, while SPF
is efficient at bridging micro-cracks. In addition, the ULFRC speci-
mens containing 0.9% and 1.2% LPF, by volume, obtained compres-
sive strengths approximately 9.43% and 11.56% lower than ULFRC
consisting of 0.6% LPF, by volume. This reduction in compressive
strength was associated with the LPF pushing apart big particles
and creating air voids within the ULFRC. The compressive strengths
obtained from ULFRC specimens tested were higher than light-
weight concrete with the same density from the literature [142].
Table 13 shows the fibre content in the concrete mixes tested.
Fig. 25 depicts the compressive strength of ultra- lightweight fibre
reinforced concrete mixtures at 28 days.
9.2.2. Flexural behaviour
Yu et al. [142] reported that in order for ULFRC mixtures to
obtain good post crack responses in the 4-point bending test, LPF
should be added at percentages higher than 0.6%, by volume.
9.3. Thermal conductivity
The reports found that the thermal conductivity of ULFRC
remains stable with hybridization and variations in fibre amounts.
All the ULFRC mixes tested obtained thermal conductivities that
fluctuated around 0.165 W/(m K).
Yu et al. [142] concluded that the low thermal conductivity, low
density and acceptable mechanical properties make ULFRC an
interesting new material for the production of insulating elements,
even load bearing elements and floating structures. When com-
pared to other lightweight concretes with the same thermal con-
ductivity or density the ULFRC developed higher compressive
strengths of around 16 MPa.
10. Summary and conclusion
Reusing waste glass as a construction material is a promising
way to lessen the amount of glass disposed of in landfills across
the globe, reduce the consumption of natural minerals, and mini-
mize the carbon footprint and impact of the construction industry
464 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
on the environment. Crushed waste glass (CWG) has the potential
to be a suitable replacement for aggregate in asphalt mixtures. The
presence of glass in asphalt mixtures can have negative effects on
the Marshall properties, dry tensile strength, indirect tensile stiff-
ness and stability of asphalt. In spite of this, a maximum of 15%
of aggregate can be replaced with crushed waste glass in asphalt
mixes in order to obtain suitable performance and durability of
the pavement. In addition, glass powder, when used as filler in
asphalt, achieved superior stability values compared to ordinary
Portland cement and limestone powder. The stripping of asphalt
mixtures containing CWG can be mitigated with the addition of
anti-stripping agent or hydrated lime. However, the literature
reviewed observed contradictory results regarding which additive
was the most effective at mitigating stripping.
Furthermore, the stability of the asphalt containing CWG can be
significantly improved by the addition of lime. In addition, investi-
gations found that CWG can also be mixed with aggregates in sub-
base and unbound base applications. Some researchers found that
up to 30% of rock in subbase applications can be replaced with
crushed waste glass (<4.75 mm) aggregates. However, others
noted that fine recycled glass (<4.75 mm) and medium recycled
glass (<9.5 mm) aggregates have to be blended with high quality
aggregates in order to enhance their LA abrasion and CBR values
to sufficient levels before being used in unbound base and subbase
applications. Moreover, the leaching of contaminants from CWG in
road applications is negligible. The environmental impacts of all
contaminants in asphalt containing CWG were negligible accord-
ing to the EPA Victoria and USA guidelines. However, one study
observed that iron leeching was above the limits set by the EPA
Victoria.
Crushed waste glass has the potential to be a suitable replace-
ment for fine aggregate in concrete. The optimum level of fine
aggregate replacement was reported to be around 20%. The results
from the literature were quite inconclusive regarding concrete
properties, such as workability, compressive strength, flexural
strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, water
absorption and chloride-ion penetration. Generally, the results
demonstrated that the compressive strength, flexural strength
and modulus of elasticity of concrete improved with the inclusion
of CWG. However, the results regarding the splitting tensile
strength of concrete were contradictory.
In general, the workability of concrete mixes containing CWG as
a partial replacement for fine aggregates was lower than for spec-
imens containing natural aggregates; however, some researchers
found that despite the lower workability the mixes were still rea-
sonably workable. Generally, the inclusion of CWG increased the
chloride penetration resistance of concrete, which gives additional
protection for steel reinforcement in concrete structures that are
exposed to seawater and de-icing salts. Moreover, the majority of
literature reported that the water absorption of concrete mixtures
was reduced with the inclusion of CWG. Additionally, the replace-
ment of natural aggregates with CWG in concrete mixtures
resulted in a reduction in concrete density.
The literature reviewed reported that concrete containing CWG
was more prone to ASR expansion compared to regular concrete.
The particle size, glass colour, glass content and the presence of
micro- cracks had considerable effects on the ASR expansions in
concrete. The inclusion of additives, such as fly ash, silica fume,
metakaolin or ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), finely
ground powdered glass, steel fibre, polypropylene fibre or lithium
compounds, can mitigate ASR expansions in concrete containing
CWG. Out of the additives tested, ground granulated blast furnace
slag and fly ash were found to be the most effective at mitigating
ASR. In addition, by annealing concrete, and by applying the dry-
mix method ASR expansion in concrete and mortar containing
CWG can also be effectively mitigated.
Despite the inconclusive nature of the results, the inclusion of
CWG in concrete has a huge amount of potential for non-
structural and structural applications. The addition of CWG in con-
crete mixes can enhance the mechanical and durability properties
of concrete, reduce the dead load of concrete structures and offer
an environmentally friendly alternative to natural aggregates.
Numerous studies reported that fine glass powder (GLP) is clas-
sified as a pozzolanic material. The optimum amount of cement
replacement was generally found to be 10%. Generally, the replace-
ment of ordinary Portland cement with GLP resulted in an increase
in compressive strength. In general, the strength activity index of
mortar specimens fulfilled the requirements set by ASTM C618,
and, in some cases, was higher than the control or specimens con-
taining fly ash and silica fume as a cement replacement. Further-
more, the workability of cement containing GLP was found to be
lower than concrete specimens solely consisting of Portland
cement.
Additionally, GLP was reported to be effective at mitigating ASR
expansions when used as a replacement for ordinary Portland
cement. However, additives, such as fly ash, metakaolin and
lithium nitrate, were found to be more effective. Moreover, in some
cases GLP was found to be more effective than silica fume as an
ASR suppressor. The inclusion of GLP as a supplementary cementi-
tious material in concrete and mortar can reduce construction
costs since it can replace more expensive materials, such as silica
fume, fly ash and Portland cement. Furthermore, the use of GLP
in construction applications can help facilitate the increasing
demand for Portland cement.
In general, the literature focused on testing concrete consisting
of soda-lime glass so the results might vary for concrete containing
other types of glass. Additionally, not many studies covered the use
of other glass types as an aggregate or cement replacement for
concrete.
Multiple studies reported that foamed waste glass has great
potential for use in construction applications. Foamed waste glass
can be used as an aggregate in concrete, and can replace up to 15%
of fine aggregates and 40% of coarse aggregates. In addition,
foamed waste glass can be used as a lightweight engineering mate-
rial in construction applications, such as a fill in embankments,
retaining wall backfills, pipe bedding and as a supplementary addi-
tive in pavement base/subbase applications. Additionally, the
inclusion of expanded waste glass in ultra-lightweight fibre rein-
forced concrete (ULFRC) created a material with a low thermal con-
ductivity, acceptable mechanical properties, low density and the
ability to float on water. Moreover, ULFRC can be used in construc-
tion applications, such as insulating elements, load bearing ele-
ments and floating structures.
10.1. Recommendations
Further research is recommended on the mechanical strength
and durability of glass powders when used as filler in asphalt
before its application in the industry. The effect of various glass
types and colours on asphalt mixtures should be investigated thor-
oughly in the future.
The testing of the ASR expansions in concrete containing
crushed waste glass (CWG) should be undertaken before its appli-
cation in the field to ensure that deleterious expansions does not
occur. Additionally, the workability of concrete consisting of
CWG should be tested prior to its use to ensure sufficient workabil-
ity. Moreover, additional research should be undertaken to clarify
the contradictions regarding the properties of concrete containing
crushed waste glass as a replacement for fine aggregate, especially
the effects of fine glass aggregates on the water absorption and
chloride penetration resistance of concrete. Despite numerous
studies regarding the use of fine waste glass aggregates in concrete
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
being undertaken, the majority of them have been confined to lab-
oratory conditions.
Additionally, further testing regarding the durability properties
of concrete containing foamed glass aggregates, and ultra-
lightweight fibre reinforced concrete containing expanded glass
should be undertaken in order to gauge their long-term perfor-
mance. Furthermore, less common glass types could be tested as
an aggregate or cement replacement in concrete since the majority
of the literature only covered soda-lime glass or do not explicitly
state what type of glass is tested. Other areas of study not included
in this literature review were the use of glass in bricks, as soil rein-
forcing fibres, as a coarse aggregate in concrete, as a raw material
in cement production and as an aggregate in concrete for low load
bearing structures, including noise barriers.
References
[1] S. Abdallah, M. Fan, Characteristics of concrete with waste glass as fine
aggregate replacement, Int. J. Eng. Tech. Res. 2 (2014) 11–17.
[2] R. Abendeh, M. Baker, Z.A. Salem, H. Ahmad, The feasibility of using milled
glass wastes in concrete to resist freezing-thawing action, Int. J. Civil Environ.
Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 9 (2015) 974–977.
[3] M. Adaway, Y. Wang, Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine
aggregate in structural concrete – Effects on compressive strength, Electron. J.
Struct. Eng. 14 (2015) 116–122.
[4] K. Afshinnia, P.R. Rangaraju, Influence of fineness of ground recycled glass on
mitigation of alkali–silica reaction in mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 81 (2015)
257–267.
[5] E.E. Ali, S.H. Al-Tersawy, Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine
aggregate in self compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 785–
791.
[6] M. Ali, A. Arulrajah, M. Disfani, J. Piratheepan, Suitability of using recycled
glass – crushed rock blends for pavement subbase applications. geo-frontiers
2011, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. (2011) 1325–1334.
[7] M.M.Y. Ali, A. Arulrajah, Potential use of recycled crushed concrete-recycled
crushed glass blends in pavement subbase applications. geocongress 2012,
Am. Soc. Civil Eng. (2012) 3662–3671.
[8] P.A. Alsop, H. Chen, H. Tseng ,The Cement Operations Handbook, 5th ed.,
2007.
[9] I. Androjić, S. Dimter, Properties of hot mix asphalt with substituted waste
glass, Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 2014.
[10] M. Arabani, Effect of glass cullet on the improvement of the dynamic
behaviour of asphalt concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 1181–1185.
[11] M. Arabani, S. Mirabdolazimi, B. Ferdowsi, Modeling the fatigue behaviors of
glasphalt mixtures, Sci. Iran. 19 (2012) 341–345.
[12] A. Arulrajah, M.M.Y. Ali, M.M. Disfani, S. Horpibulsuk, Recycled-glass blends
in pavement base/subbase applications: laboratory and field evaluation, J.
Mater. Civil Eng. 27 (2014).
[13] A. Arulrajah, M.M. Disfani, S. Horpibulsuk, C. Suksiripattanapong, N.
Prongmanee, Physical properties and shear strength responses of recycled
construction and demolition materials in unbound pavement base/subbase
applications, Constr. Build. Mater. 58 (2014) 245–257.
[14] A. Arulrajah, M.M. Disfani, F. Maghoolpilehrood, S. Horpibulsuk, A. Udonchai,
M. Imteaz, Y.-J. Du, Engineering and environmental properties of foamed
recycled glass as a lightweight engineering material, J. Cleaner Prod. 94
(2015) 369–375.
[15] M. Batayneh, I. Marie, I. Asi, Use of selected waste materials in concrete
mixes, Waste Manage. 27 (2007) 1870–1876.
[16] Z.P. Bažant, G. Zi, C. Meyer, Fracture mechanics of ASR in concretes with
waste glass particles of different sizes, J. Eng. Mech. 126 (2000) 226–232.
[17] M.C. Bignozzi, A. Saccani, L. Barbieri, I. Lancellotti, Glass waste as
supplementary cementing materials: the effects of glass chemical
composition, Cement Concr. Compos. 55 (2015) 45–52.
[18] T.M. Borhan, Properties of glass concrete reinforced with short basalt fibre,
Mater. Des. 42 (2012) 265–271.
[19] E.J. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, fourth ed., McGraw-Hill,
Singapore, 1988.
[20] A.J. Carpenter, S.M.Cramer, Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reaction in Pavement
Patch Concrete That Incorporates Highly Reactive Fine Aggregate, 1999.
[21] M. Carsana, F. Frassoni, L. Bertolini, Comparison of ground waste glass with
other supplementary, Cement Concr. Compos. 45 (2014) 39–45.
[22] Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia, Chloride Resistance of Concrete.
Available from: <http://www.ccaa.com.au/imis_prod/documents/Library%
20Documents/CCAA%20Reports/Report%202009%20ChlorideResistance.pdf>,
2009.
[23] Cement Industry Canada History of cement, Available from: <http://www.
cement.ca/en/Manufacturing/History-of-Cement.html>, 2016.
[24] Cement Industry Federation, Australia’s Cement Industry. Available from:
<http://www.cement.org.au/AustraliasCementIndustry.aspxy>.
465
[25] C.H. Chen, J.K. Wu, C.C. Yang, Waste E-glass particles used in cementitious
mixtures, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (2006) 449–456.
[26] Clean Up Australia Glass Recycling Fact Sheet, Available from: <https://
www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/cua-glass-fact-sheet.pdf>, 2015.
[27] P. Cong, S. Chen, H. Chen, Effects of diatomite on the properties of asphalt
binder, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 495–499.
[28] Container Recycling Institute, Glass Containers. Available from: <http://
www.container-recycling.org/index.php/glass-containers>, 2012.
[29] V. Corinaldesi, G. Gnappi, G. Moriconi, A. Montenero, Reuse of ground waste
glass as aggregate for mortars, Waste Manage. 25 (2005) 197–201.
[30] D.E. Day, W.R. Malisch, B.G. Wixson, Improved bonding of waste glass
aggregate with bituminous binders, Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 49 (1970) 1038–
1041.
[31] S. de Castro, J. de Brito, Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with
crushed glass aggregates, J. Cleaner Prod. 41 (2013) 7–14.
[32] N. Degirmenci, A. Yilmaz, O.A. Cakir, Utilization of waste glass as sand
replacement in cement mortar, Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 18 (2011) 303–308.
[33] M.M. Disfani, A. Arulrajah, M.W. Bo, R. Hankour, Recycled crushed glass in
road work applications, Waste Manage. 31 (2011) 2341–2351.
[34] M.M. Disfani, A. Arulrajah, M.W. Bo, N. Sivakugan, Environmental risks of
using recycled crushed glass in road applications, J. Cleaner Prod. 20 (2012)
170–179.
[35] H. Du, H.J. Gao, W. Li, Pozzolanic reaction of glass powder and its influences
on concrete properties, in: 23rd Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials. Southern Cross University, Byron Bay, NSW, 2014,
pp. 267–272.
[36] H. Du, K.H. Tan, Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: part II – Alkali–silica
reaction and mitigation methods, Cement Concr. Compos. 35 (2013) 118–
126.
[37] H. Du, K.H. Tan, Effect of particle size on alkali–silica reaction in recycled glass
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 275–285.
[38] H. Du, K.H. Tan, Waste glass powder as cement replacement in concrete, J.
Adv. Concr. Technol. 12 (2014) 468–477.
[39] J. Duchesne, M.A. Berube, The effectiveness of supplementary cementing
materials in suppressing expansion due to ASR: another look at the reaction
mechanism. II: Pore solution chemistry, Cem. Concr. Res. 24 (1994) 221–230.
[40] T.D. Dyer, R.K. Dhir, Chemical reactions of glass cullet used as cement
component, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 13 (2001) 412–417.
[41] P. Edwards, The Rise and Potential Peak of Cement Demand in the Urbanized
World. Cornerstone. Available from: <http://cornerstonemag.net/the-rise-
and-potential-peak-of-cement-demand-in-the-urbanized-world/>, 2015
[42] Environmental Protection Agency of Victoria, Solid Industrial Waste Hazard
Categorization and Management, Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines,
Victoria, Australia, 2009.
[43] ESCSI, Engineering Properties of Structural Lightweight Concrete. Available
from: <http://www.escsi.org/uploadedFiles/Technical_Docs/General_
Information/7%20Chapter%207%20En gineering%20Properties%20.pdf>, 2007
[44] Eurostat, Packaging waste statistics. Available from: <http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics>, 2016.
[45] L.M. Federico, S.E. Chidiac, Waste glass as a supplementary cementitious
material in concrete – Critical review of treatment methods, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 31 (2009) 606–610.
[46] S.P. Gautam, V. Srivastava, V.C. Agarwal, Use of glass wastes as fine aggregate
in concrete, J. Acad. Ind. Res. 1 (2012) 320–322.
[47] Glass Packaging Institute, Why Recycle Glass? viewed 21 August
2017. Available from: <http://www.gpi.org/recycling/why-recycle-glass>,
2017.
[48] Q. Guo, L. Li, Y. Cheng, Y. Jiao, C. Xu, Laboratory evaluation on performance of
diatomite and glass fiber compound modified asphalt mixture, Mater. Des. 66
(2015) 51–59.
[49] K. Harmon, Engineering Properties of Structural Lightweight Concrete, 2014.
[50] M. Hestin, S. de Veron, S. Burgos, Economic study on recycling of building
glass in Europe, 2016.
[51] Highway Engineering Australia, Recycling glass aggregate for use in asphalt
and road base, Highway Engineering in Australia (2009) 10–11.
[52] History of Glass, History of Glass, viewed 21 August 2017, Available from:
<http://www.historyofglass.com/glass-history/, 2017.
[53] History of Glass, History of Glass, viewed 21 August 2017. Available from:
<http://www.historyofglass.com>, 2017.
[54] C.S. Hughes, Feasibility of Using Recycled Glass in Asphalt. VTRC90-R3.
Virginia Transportation Research Council, 1990, pp. 687–718.
[55] R. Idir, M. Cyr, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Use of fine glass as ASR inhibitor in glass
aggregate mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 1309–1312.
[56] R. Idir, M. Cyr, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Pozzolanic properties of fine and coarse
color-mixed glass cullet, Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (2011) 19–29.
[57] M.A. Imteaz, M.Y. Ali, A. Arulrajah, Possible environmental impacts of
recycled glass used as a pavement base material, Waste Manage. Res. 30
(2012) 917–921.
[58] IndustryEdge Pty Ltd Equilibrium OMG Pty Ltd, National Recycling and
Recovery Surveys Executive Summary, Available from: <http://
www.packagingcovenant.org.au/data/NRRS_Executive_Summary_2014-15_
by_Grade_vf.pdf 2014>.
[59] International Energy Agency Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2
Emissions, Available from: <https://www.iea.org/publications/
freepublications/publication/tracking_emissions.pdf>, 2007.
466 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
[60] Z.Z. Ismail, E.A. Al-Hashmi, Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement
for fine aggregate in concrete, Waste Manage. 29 (2009) 655–659.
[61] H.H. Jony, M.F. Al-Rubaie, I.Y. Jahad, The effect of using glass powder filler on
hot asphalt concrete mixtures properties, Eng. Tech. Journal 29 (2011) 44–57.
[62] K. Kadirgamar, The applications of recycled crushed glass in civil construction
in the Northern Territory, Charles Darwin University, 2014.
[63] S.C. Kou, C.S. Poon, Properties of self-compacting concrete prepared with
recycled glass aggregate, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (2009) 107–113.
[64] C.S. Lam, C.S. Poon, D. Chan, Enhancing the performance of pre-cast concrete
blocks by incorporating waste glass – ASR consideration, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 29 (2007) 616–625.
[65] N. Latifi, A. Eisazadeh, A. Marto, C.L. Meehan, Tropical residual soil
stabilization: a powder form material for increasing soil strength, Constr.
Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 827–836.
[66] N. Latifi, C.L. Meehan, M.Z.A. Majid, S. Horpibulsuk, Strengthening
montmorillonitic and kaolinitic clays using a calcium-based non-traditional
additive: a micro-level study, Appl. Clay Sci. 132 (2016) 182–193.
[67] G. Lee, T.-C. Ling, Y.-L. Wong, C.-S. Poon, Effects of crushed glass cullet sizes,
casting methods and pozzolanic materials on ASR of concrete blocks, Constr.
Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2611–2618.
[68] G. Lee, C.S. Poon, Y.L. Wong, T.C. Ling, Effects of recycled fine glass aggregates
on the properties of dry–mixed concrete blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 38
(2013) 638–643.
[69] M. Limbachiya, M.S. Meddeh, S. Fotiadou, Performance of granulated foam
glass concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (2012) 759–768.
[70] M.C. Limbachiya, Bulk engineering and durability properties of washed glass
sand concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1078–1083.
[71] S. Liu, S. Wang, W. Tang, N. Hu, J. Wei, Inhibitory effect of waste glass powder
on ASR expansion induced by waste glass aggregate, MDPI Mater. J. 8 (2015)
6849–6862.
[72] J. Lu, K. Onitsuka, Construction utilization of foamed waste glass, J. Environ.
Sci. 16 (2004) 302–307.
[73] M.I. Malik, M. Bashir, S. Ahmad, T. Tariq, U. Chowdhary, Study of concrete
involving use of waste glass as partial replacement of fine aggregates, J. Eng.
Mech. 6 (2013) 08–13.
[74] M.I. Malik, A. Manzoor, B. Ahmad, S. Asima, R. Ali, M. Bashir, Positive potential
of partial replacement of fine aggregates by waste glass (<600 Micron) in
concrete, Int. J. Civil Eng. Technol. 5 (2014) 146–153.
[75] H. Maraghechi, S.-M.-H. Shafaatian, G. Fischer, F. Rajabipour, The role of
residual cracks on alkali silica reactivity of recycled glass aggregates, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 41–47.
[76] I. Markovic, High-performance Hybrid-fibre Concrete – Development and
Utilisation. Technische Universit€at Delft, 2006.
[77] G.W. McLellan, E.B. Shand, Glass Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
1984.
[78] I.M. Metwally, Investigations on the performance of concrete made with
blended finely milled waste glass, Adv. Struct. Eng. 10 (2007) 47–53.
[79] C. Meyer, Solid States Concrete in Transition, Princeton Architectural Press,
New York, 2010.
[80] C. Meyer, N. Egosi, C. Andela, Concrete with waste glass as aggregate. paper
presented to Proceedings of the international symposium concrete
technology unit of ASCE and University of Dundee, 2001.
[81] C. Meyer, Y. Xi, Use of recycled glass and fly ash for precast concrete, J. Mater.
Civil Eng. 11 (1999) 89–90.
[82] M. Mirzahosseini, K.A. Riding, Influence of different particle sizes on
reactivity of finely ground glass as supplementary cementitious material
(SCM), Cem. Concr. Compos. 56 (2015) 95–105.
[83] Misapor, Technical Data International, 2014.
[84] A. Mohajerani, Y. Tanriverdi, B. Nguyen, K. Wong, H. Dissanayake, L. Johnson,
D. Whitfield, G. Thomson, E. Alqattan, A. Rezaei, Physico-mechanical
properties of asphalt concrete incorporated with encapsulated cigarette
butts, Constr. Build. Mater. Elsevier, Netherlands 153 (2017) 69–80.
[85] A. Mohajerani, S. Lound, G. Liassos, H. Kurmus, A. Ukwatta, M. Nazari,
Physical, mechanical and chemical properties of biosolids and raw brown
coal fly ash, and their combination for road structural fill applications, J.
Cleaner Prod. Elsevier, Netherlands 166 (2017) 1–11.
[86] A. Mohajerani, A. Kadir, L. Larobina, A practical proposal for solving the
world’s cigarette butt problem: recycling in fired clay bricks, Waste Manage.
Elsevier, United Kingdom 52 (2016) 228–244.
[87] S. Nathan, D. Matthew, N. Narayanan, Electrical conductivity based
characterization of plain and coarse glass powder modified cement pastes,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 656–666.
[88] National Institute of Building Science Method of calculation of the Fineness
modulus of aggregate, Whole Building Design Guide, Available from: <http://
www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COESTDS/crd_c104.pdf>,1980.
[89] J. Nicholls, J. Lay, Crushed glass in macadam for binder course and roadbase
layers, 2002.
[90] P.S.K. Ooi, M.M.W. Li, M.L.Q. Sagario, Y. Song, Shear strength characteristics of
recycled glass, Transp. Res. Rec. (2008) 52–62.
[91] S. Paranavithana, A. Mohajerani, Effects of recycled concrete aggregates on
properties of asphalt concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recy. Elsevier, Amsterdam 48
(1) (2006) 1–12.
[92] S. Paranavithana, A. Mohajerani, The effects of mixing and compaction on
volumetric properties of an asphalt concrete containing recycled concrete
aggregates, Aust. Geomech. 32 (2) (2003) 59–64.
[93] S.-B. Park, B.-C. Lee, Studies on expansion properties in mortar containing
waste glass and fibers, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 1145–1152.
[94] S.B. Park, B.C. Lee, J.H. Kim, Studies on mechanical properties of concrete
containing waste glass aggregate, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 2181–2189.
[95] L.A. Pereira-de-Oliveira, J.P. Castro-Gomes, P. Santos, Mechanical and
Durability Properties of Concrete with Ground Waste Glass Sand, in:
International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and
Components, Istanbul, Turkey, 2008.
[96] L.A. Pereira-de-Oliveira, J.P. Castro-Gomes, P.M.S. Santos, The potential
pozzolanic activity of glass and red-clay ceramic waste as cement mortars
components, Constr. Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 197–203.
[97] C. Polley, S.M. Cramer, R. de la Cruz, Potential for using waste glass in
portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 10 (1998) 210–219.
[98] N.L. Rahim, R. Che Amat, N.M. Ibrahim, S. Salehuddin, S.A. Mohammed, M.
Abdul Rahim, Utilization of recycled glass waste as partial replacement of fine
aggregate in concrete production, Mater. Sci. Forum 803 (2014) 16–20.
[99] M.A. Rahman, A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.W. Bo, M.A. Imteaz, Resilient
modulus and permanent deformation responses of geogrid-reinforced
construction and demolition materials, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 26 (2014) 512–
519.
[100] M.A. Rahman, M.A. Imteaz, A. Arulrajah, M.M. Disfani, Suitability of recycled
construction and demolition aggregates as alternative pipe backfilling
materials, J. Cleaner Prod. 66 (2014) 75–84.
[101] F. Rajabipour, H. Maraghechi, G. Fischer, Investigating the alkali-silica
reaction of recycled glass aggregates in concrete materials, J. Mater. Civil
Eng. 22 (2010) 1201–1208.
[102] F.L. Roberts, P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.-Y. Lee, T.W. Kennedy, Hot Mix
Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction. National Asphalt
Pavement Association Research and Education Foundation, 1996.
[103] A. Saccani, M.C. Bignozzi, ASR expansion behavior of recycled glass fine
aggregates in concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2010) 531–536.
[104] D. Serpa, J. de Brito, J. Pontes, Concrete made with recycled glass aggregates:
Mechanical performance, ACI Mater. J. 112 (2015) 29–38.
[105] D. Serpa, A. Santos Silva, J. de Brito, J. Pontes, D. Soares, ASR of mortars
containing glass, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 489–495.
[106] G.H. Shafabakhsh, Y. Sajed, Investigation of dynamic behavior of hot mix
asphalt containing waste materials; case study: glass cullet, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 1 (2014) 96–103.
[107] Y. Shao, P. Leboux, Feasibility of Using Ground Waste Glass as a Cementitious
Material, REcycling and Reuse of Glass Cullet, Thomas Telford, Dundee,
Scotland, United Kingdom, 2001, pp. 210–219.
[108] Y. Shao, T. Lefort, S. Moras, D. Rodriguez, Studies on concrete containing
ground waste glass, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (1999) 91–100.
[109] Y. Shao, T. Lefort, S. Moras, D. Rodriguez, Studies on concrete containing
ground waste glass, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 91–100.
[110] A. Shayan, A. Xu, Value-added utilisation of waste glass in concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 81–89.
[111] C. Shi, W. Yanzhong, C. Riefler, H. Wang, Characteristics and pozzolanic
reactivity of glass powders, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 987–993.
[112] C. Shi, K. Zheng, A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of
cement and concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (2007) 234–247.
[113] N. Sivakugan, B.M. Das, Geotechnical Engineering – A Practical Problem
Solving Approach, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL, U.S.A., 2010.
[114] N. Su, J.S. Chen, Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with
recycled glass, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 35 (2002) 259–274.
[115] B. Taha, G. Nounu, Properties of concrete contains mixed colour waste
recycled glass as sand and cement replacement, Constr. Build. Mater. 22
(2008) 713–720.
[116] B. Taha, G. Nounu, Utilizing waste recycled glass as sand/cement replacement
in concrete, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 21 (2009) 709–721.
[117] K.H. Tan, H. Du, Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: part I – fresh,
mechanical and durability properties, Cem. Concr. Compos. 35 (2013) 109–
117.
[118] M.J. Terro, Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at
elevated temperatures, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 633–639.
[119] The European Cement Association Key facts & figures, Available from:
<http://www.cembureau.be/about-cement/key-facts-figures>, 2015.
[120] The European Container Glass Federation Glass recycling hits 73% in the EU,
Available from: <http://feve.org/glass-recycling-hits-73-eu/>, 2015.
[121] Main Roads Western Australia Flakiness Index, Available from: <https://
www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documents/FINAL%20DRAFT%20WA%20216.1%
20-%202012.PDF>, 2012.
[122] I.B. Topcu, A.R. Boga, T. Bilir, Alkali–silica reactions of mortars produced by
using waste glass as fine aggregate and admixtures such as fly ash and
Li2CO3, Waste Manage. 28 (2008) 878–884.
_
[123] I.B. Topçu, M. Canbaz, Properties of concrete containing waste glass, Cem.
Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 267–274.
[124] P. Turgut, E.S. Yahlizade, Research into concrete blocks with waste glass, Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Eng. 3 (2009) 186–192.
[125] A. Ukwatta Pitiye, A. Mohajerani, Characterisation of fired-clay bricks
incorporating biosolids and the effect of heating rate on properties of
bricks, Constr. Build. Mater., Netherlands 142 (2017) 11–22.
[126] A. Ukwatta Pitiye, A. Mohajerani, N. Eshtiaghi, S. Setunge, Variation in
physical and mechanical properties of fired-clay bricks incorporating ETP
biosolids, J. Cleaner Prod., Netherlands 119 (2016) 76–85.
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Construction and Building Materials 156 (2017) 443–467
[127] UNdata, Bitumen (Asphalt), Available from: <http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=
ICS&f=cmID:33500-3>, 2016.
[128] U.S. Department of Energy, 2002. Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.
S. Glass Industry, in: U.S. Department of Energy, O.o.I.T. (Ed.).
[129] U.S. EPA, 1999. National Primary Drinking Water Standards, Washington,
USA.
[130] U.S. EPA, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2013 Fact Sheet.
Available from: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf>, 2015.
[131] U.S. National Parks Service, Time it takes for garbage to decompose in the
environment, Available from: <http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/
water/wmb/coastal/trash/documents/marine_debris.pdf>.
[132] VicRoads, Crushed Rock for Pavement Base and Subbase.
[133] VicRoads, Alkali Silica Reaction in Concrete. TN 30. Vicroads, 2008.
[134] VicRoads,, Crushed Rock for Light Duty Base and Subbase Pavement,
VicRoads, Melbourne, 2011.
[135] H.-Y. Wang, A study of the effects of LCD glass sand on the properties of
concrete, Waste Manage. 29 (2009) 335–341.
[136] H.-Y. Wang, W.-L. Huang, A study on the properties of fresh self-
consolidating glass concrete (SCGC), Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 619–624.
467
[137] H.-Y. Wang, H.-H. Zeng, J.-Y. Wu, A study on the macro and micro properties
of concrete with LCD glass, Constr. Build. Mater. 50 (2014) 664–670.
[138] J. Wartman, D.G. Grubb, A.S.M. Nasim, Select engineering characteristics of
crushed glass, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (2004) 526–539.
[139] G. West, Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete Road and Bridges, Thomas
Telford, 1996.
[140] R.C. West, G.C. Page, K.H. Murphy, Evaluation of crushed glass in asphalt
paving mixtures, ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. (1993).
[141] S. Wu, W. Yang, Y. Xue, Preparation and Properties of Glass-asphalt Concrete,
2004.
[142] R. Yu, D.V. van Onna, P. Spiesz, Q.L. Yu, H.J.H. Brouwers, Development of
Ultra- Lightweight Fibre Reinforced Concrete applying expanded waste glass,
J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 690–701.
[143] C. Yuksel, R.S. Ahari, B.A. Ahari, K. Ramyar, Evaluation of three test methods
for determining the alkali–silica reactivity of glass aggregate, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 38 (2013) 57–64.
[144] K. Zheng, Recycled Glass Concrete, Woodhead Publishing, Eco-Efficient
Concrete, 2013.
[145] K. Zheng, Pozzolanic reaction of glass powder and its role in controlling
alkali-silica reaction, Cem. Concr. (2016).