1.

Introduction
2. Today the construction and industry sectors generate about 50% of the waste produced in
Europe and in particular the construction and demolition waste (CDW) accounts for 33%
of the waste generated in the EU (Eurostat, 2017).
3. For this reason, the EU con- siders CDW stream as a priority for action. However, despite
the initiatives implemented in Europe to minimize CDW and improve its management, the
average recycling of CDW is far from reaching the goals set for 2020 in the Waste
Framework Directive, which requires a global goal of 70% CDW recycling by weight,
expressly excluding soil and excavations (Mercader-Moyano et al., 2017). Therefore,
designing buildings considering products containing high content of recycled materials will
reduce the amount of waste generated -as well as possible pollutant emissions derived
from them-, and a reduction of the energy used in its manufacture (González and Navarro,
2006; Marrero et al., 2012; Wilson, 2000).
4. The management of polystyrene waste is a serious problem because is not easy to recycle.
It is known that despite the efforts being made by the industry to incorporate a small
percentage in the manufacturing process, their management entails considerable costs of
storage, transportation and disposal (Kan and Demirboğa 2009). Due to the lack of
effective strategies of polystyrene waste recycling, most of it is discarded in recycling
plants, landfills incinerated. However, the polystyrene does not decompose facilities
getting dissolved by leaching of the decomposition of incineration of polystyrene are
harmful (San Antonio González in such another organic matter. Similarly, the gases
resulting from the Polystyrene materials are used massively in buildings, mainly for
insulating walls, floors and roofs. In general, expanded poly- styrene (EPS) is used to
insulate walls and floors, while extruded polystyrene (XPS) is used to insulate roofs.
Because of this, poly- styrene has been deeply studied by researchers as an alternative et
al., 2015a,b).

Polystyrene materials are used massively in buildings, mainly for insulating walls, floors and roofs,
In general, expanded polystyrene (EPS) is used to insulate walls and floors, while extruded
polystyrene (XPS) is used to insulate roofs. Because of this, polystyrene has been deeply studied by
researchers as an alternative

material for constructionproducts manufacture (Lakatos and Kalmár, 2013; Šadauskiene et al,
2009), The use of polystyrene in construction activities generates large amounts of waste, and the
amount is increasing after the entry into force of several standards requiring greater thermal
insulation of buildings, and no simple means for on site recycling are provided (Villoria Saez et al.,
2018). Furthermore, these wastes are not often segregated on site, being stored and managed in
the same waste skips and appearing, if used mixed together. These wastes can be easily
segregated on site so they can be reused or recycled in the same construction site. Therefore, this
work explores the possibility of mixing the two types of polystyrene most commonly used in
building construction Moreover, the role of gypsum composites -in addition to cement mortar
composites-is also of crucial importance as terial and is being increasingly used in building
construction since it is abundant in nature and has positive technical and ecological properties
(Gencel et al., 2016). In particular, the production tem- perature of gypsum, in comparison with
cement, is much lower and thus the energy consumption and CO2 emissions released during the
manufacturing process is highly reduced compared to the production of cement-based materials
(de Villanueva Dominguez and García Santos, 2001)

Therefore, during the last decade, many researchers have con- ducted studies analyzing different
ways to reduce the raw material of gypsum in building products, by adding different aggregates
and illers. The majority of these fillers are lightweight aggregates usually perlite and vermiculite
and therefore many works have been found studying their behavior. For example the work by del
Rio Merino et al (1998) which added perlite and vermiculite up to 10% and 20% respectively in a
gypsum matrix or the studies conducted by González Madariaga (2008). Also, Gmouh et al. (2001)
analyzed the mechanical behavior of a gypsum containing perlite, while Xi et al. (2011)
investigated the properties of a gyp- sum board lightened with vermiculite. Other studies
incorporating lightweight aggregates, used EPS due to their good thermal and moister behavior
(Gnip et al., 2006; González Madariaga and overas Macia, 2005).

Also, several commercial gypsum products have been found. incorporating perlite or vermiculite
aggregates for interior coatings or prefabricated plaster elements. However, these aggregates are
economically costly and also generate a impact because their manufacture consumes a significant
amount of energy (Herández-Olivares et al., 1999).

On the other hand, in recent years, several research works have been conducted considering
circular economy criteria. These research works intend to reuse or recycle the waste generated
throughout the entire lifecycle of buildings as substitutes of currently used aggregates (Morales
Conde et al., 2016). This wil definitely reduce the environmental impact of gypsums and wil help to
achieve, not only the assumptions imposed by the Europeam Union by 2020, but also the
challenge of zero CDW. Also, incorporating CDW in gypsum composites generates less energy in
their manufacture.

There are numerous studies of gypsum compounds with waste, among the following can be
highlighted: del Rio Merino (2005) added cork waste and other fillers such as cellular glass;
González Madariaga (2008) designed plasterboards with EPS; San Antonio et al. (2015a,b) who
incorporated XPS waste or Gutierrez et al. (2012) and Alameda et al. (2016) who incorporated
polyurethane waste. In general, results from these studies revealed that light- weight fillers
significantly reduced the density of the compound and thus turning gypsum into lightweight
gypsum (LWG). How- ever, the mechanical resistance of these compounds is also reduced due to
the greater porosity of the compounds. LWGS are defined as compounds formed by a mixture of
calcium sulphate (in its various stages of dehydration and purity) and lightweight inorganic or
stages of dehydration and organic aggregates. Therefore, we believe that polystyrene waste, from
insulation panels, can be used as alternative aggregates in gypsum. These compounds can be as
effective as other aggregates already studied namely perlite and vermiculite. Adding polystyrene
in a gypsum matrix will result in lightweight gypsums for construction, reducing CDW waste and
also the consumption of natural raw material. This article presents the results of the gypsum tests
carried out with polystyrene to confirm their feasibility as a substitute for the lightweight gypsums
that are currently used in the market.

For this reason, this work is developed aiming to study the feasibility of replacing traditional
lightweight aggregates used in gypsum composites (i.e. perlite and vermiculite) by lightweight-
fillers from mixed waste of EPS and XPS insulation panels. In this sense, the density of the gypsum
is intended to be considerably reduced by increasing its porosity, making it lightweight gypsum
while achieving gypsums with lower environmental impact.

2. Methodology

The experimental plan unfolds in three phases

2.1 first phase

Series of specimens with coarse gypsum (type B1) and gypsum E-35 (type A) were prepared with a
w/g ratio of 0.8 and polystyrene waste (expanded and extruded) was incorporated up to the
maximum amount of EPS and XPS waste accepted by the mixture in order to minimize the raw
material and recycle the maximum amount of waste. Thus, percentages of 1 %wt to 3%wt of EPS
and 1% wt to 4%wt of XPS were incorporated. In all the cases the percentages are based over the
weight of the obtained were compared with the minimum the EN 13279-1 (2009) and the
requirements set by the gypsum manufacturers for lightweight gypsums (LWGS) (B4), which are:
gypsum. The results values established in

-density 800 g/cm3;

- flexural strength 2 1 MPa;

- compression strength 22 MPa, and

- superficial hardness 45 Shore C units

The values that do not nmeet the standards for LWGS were identified and excluded for the second
phase

2.2. Second phase

Once the best compounds performing in the first phase were selected, mixtures of XPS and EPS
were added to the gypsum matrix in different percentages up to the maximum amount accepted
by the mixture (keeping the workability according to the regulations). The influence of adding a
mixture of EPS and XPS on the behavior of the material is explored. Moreover, the results obtained
were compared with the results of other researchers who incorporated perlite or vermiculite as
lightweight aggregates in gypsum composites (Table 1) In all cases, phases 1 and 2, the
polystyrene waste was first mixed with gypsum B1/gypsum type A for manual kneading and
subsequently the mixture was added to the water. The spent 7 days at room temperature in the
laboratory and were subsequently tested after drying in an oven at a constant ature of 40 2 °C for
24h, according to standard EN 13279-2 samples temper- (2006).

A total of 33 series of three samples (4x4x16 cm) were developed (Tables 2-5). Each compound
was defined by an abbreviated formula of all components in which first the type of binder is
defined: coarse gypsum type B1 (YG) or gypsum E-35 type A (E), followed by the water-binder ratio
of the compound. The next element refers to the percentage of waste with respect to the weight
of the gypsum B1/A, followed by the type of polystyrene used in the mixture (EPS or XPS). In those
compounds where more than one type of waste was included, the second waste was inserted
dter, following the previous nomenclature.
The following tests were performed:

-dry density:

superficial hardness Shore C following EN 13279-2, 2006; and

- mechanical tests of flexural and compression strength following EN 13279-2, 2006

23. Third phase

Compounds performing better in the second phase were selected and further tested to analyze
their thermal performance For this, the cquipment Thermal Properties Analyzer from C-Therm was
used to obtain the thermal conductivity coefficient and effusivity values of each sample (Cha et al,
2012). The measurements were taken in at least six different areas of the sample. covering al che
sides except the upper face since it has a rough surface. Finally. the mean values were calculated

The materials used were:

-Coarse gyYpsum (YG): provided by Iberplaco and classifñed as cype Bi according to EN 13279-1,
2009. It has the following technical characteristics

- opurity index >75%.,

-grain size 0-2 mm; and

-flexural strength: 2 N/mm

Gypsum E-35 (E): provided by Iberplaco and classified as type A according to EN 13279-1, 2009. It
has the following technical characteristics:

-purity index >92%;

-grain size 0-2 mm; and

-flexural strength: 3.5 N/mm2

EPS/XPS waste: were obtained from discarded construction insulation materials collected from
local building site. Polystyrene plates were crushed in a crushing machine using a wire brush. The
material obtained is a very fine polystyrene (Ø<3 mm). The EPS has a density around 20 kg/m3 and
a thermal conductivity ranging fro 0.02 W/mK to 0.05 W/mK. It also has a good water behavior,
with a low water absorption behavior (<0.5-3% volume). The XPS has a density around 35 kg/m3, a
thermal conductivity between 0.02 and 0.04 W/mK and a good behavior regarding the water
absorption (<0.7% volume) (Gnip et al., 2006; San-Antonio-González et al 2015a,b).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. First phase

The results obtained in the first phase are shown in Table 2. Values not meeting the standards for
lightweight gypsums (LWGs) have been marked in bold. From the results obtained, it is observed
that the addition of EPS or XPS Waste in an A/B1 gypsum matrix reduces the density of the
compounds. However, only seven compounds achieved a density below the requirements for LWG
(density 0.8 g/cm), while nine compounds surpassed this value. Furthermore, when comparing the
density of compounds containing the same percentage of EPS or XPS, higher reductions are
achieved with compounds containing EPS (up to 43.43%) rather than XPS (up to 25.25%)

In addition, the mechanical resistances decrease in all the cases and are below the reference
sample, confirming the previous re- sults obtained by other research works (del Rio Merino, 2005
Gutiérrez González et al, 2015a,b).

Regarding the compounds made with gypsum B1 (YG), no compounds containing EPS met the
standard requirements, mainly because gypsum B1 has lower mechanical strength and purity than
Sypsum type A. The only compound with gypsum B1 complying with all the requirements for LWG
is the one containing 3% of XPS

Regarding the compounds made with gypsum type A (E-35), EPS compounds with additions of 2%
and 3 % meet the mechanical resistance requirements for LWG, probably due to the greater pu-
rity of gypsum type A than gypsum B1 and thus better mechanical performance. However,
additions above 2% of EPS significantly reduce the workability of the mixture as well as the
mechanical strength of the compound. Regarding XPS additions, LWG com- pounds are achieved
with 4% of XPS, In any case, the density re- ductions achieved with XPS are not as significant as the
ones 2012; San Antonio González et al. achieved with EPS, but the reductions of the mechanical
resistance are similar to the compounds with EPS

Therefore, gypsum type A compounds with addition of EPS were selected to be further studied.

3.2. Second phase

In the second phase, XPS was incorporated to the selected compounds up to the maximum
aniount accepted by the mixture, keeping the workability according to the regulations, XPS was
added in the following percentages: 0.5%, 1.0 %, 1.5%, 2.0 % , 2.5% , 3.0% and 3.5%

Table 3 shows the results obtained for E0.8+ 1%EPS compounds with XPS additions. It can be
concluded that adding 1.5%-3.0 % of XPS in gypsums already lightened with 1.0% of EPS, helps to
reduce the density of the material (up to 7.14%) and improve compression strength and superficial
hardness compared to the reference compound (up to 9.26% and 7.81 % respectively), but re-
duces the flexural strength up to 16.25%

The best compound is E0.8 +1%EPS+1.5%XPS. However, the compound EO.8 + 1%EPS+3.5%XPS
also meets the LWG re- quirements but incorporates the largest amount of waste and thus is
therefore more environmental-friendly

Table 4 shows the results obtained for E0.8 +2%EPS compounds with XPS additions. Results show
that XPS additions improve the mechanical properties, i.e. up to 12.15% flexion strength and
14.46% compression strength. Also, the superficial hardness is improved up to 14.4% compared to
the reference sample, while the densities are kept very similar to the reference. The best
compound of the analyzed ones in comparison to the reference is EO.8 +2%EPS+3% XPS, because
larger additions of XPS waste worsen the workability se: of the mixture.

Table 5 shows the results obtained for EO.8+3%EPS compounds with XPS additions. In this case,
only up to 1.5% of XPS could be added to the mixture keeping an adequate workability. Therefore,
the densities obtained were always higher than the reference, but the superficial hardness and
flexural strength were improved, while the compression values were 1.5% lower than the
reference without XPS.

The best compound is E0.S +3% EPS+ 1% XPS However, the compound E0.83% EPS + 1.5% XPS also
meets the LWG re- quirements and incorporates the largest amount of waste and thus is therefore
more environmentalfriendly.

3.3analysis of the density

Fig. 1 shows the densities obtained by the compounds analyzed Results are very similar in weight,
since the reference compounds have similar densities. In all cases, the density reduces compared
to the reference gypsum type A without additions (0.99 g/cm). However, four of the compounds
surpassed the minimum density requirement for LWG according to the regulation( density value
0.80 g/cm)moreover, greater density reductions are obtained as the percentage of waste
increases. Results of previous research works using perlite (0.77 g/cm) and vermiculite (0.82 g
am2) - shown in Table 1- were also compared with the obtained in this study. In this sense, all of
the compounds analyzed obtained lower densities than with vermiculite, while only additions of
2% of EPS and 1% of EPS with 3.5% XPS achieved lower densities than perlite

3.4 Analysis of the superficial hardness

The superficíal hardness is reduced in all the samples analyzed compared to the reference gypsum
type A without additions (Fig. 2) However the results are always above the minimum value set by
the LWG regulation (45 Shore C units). Greater reductions in superficial hardness are obtained
when more percentage of waste is added. Decreasing around 36 % with compound EO.8+3%
EPS+1.5%XPS.

EPS4 1.520XPS SE O3 Punoduoo iSM 9E punoue higher superficial hardness than those with
vermiculite Moreover compounds with 1% EPS and XPS shhow a similar hardness to the gypsums
with perlite, in particular the compound E0.8+ 1% EPS+ 1%XPS.

With respect to the compounds of vermiculite, results show that all gypsums type A (except for
compounds containing 3 %EPS) have higher superficial hardness than those with vermiculite.
Moreover, compounds with 1 % EPS and XPS show a similar hardness to the gypsums with perlite,
in particular the compound EO.8 +1%EPS+1%XPS.

3.5. Analysis of flexural strength

As shown in Fig. 3, flexural strength decreases compared to the reference gypsum type A without
additions in all the samples analyzed, but these values remain above the minimum requirement
set by the regulation (21 MPa).

The greatest reduction in flexural strength is obtained with compounds containing higher
percentage of waste, reaching a decrease around 55.8% with E0.8 +3%EPS+1.5%XPS. And in the
best case the reduction compared to the gypsum without additions is 30% (reached with
EO.8+1%EPS+0.5%XPS).
Compounds with additions of 1% EPS achieved similar values than the ones reported by the
previous works dealing with perlite and vermiculite (Table 1). Compounds incorporating 0.5%-1.5%
of XPS improve the flexural strength compared with perlite and vermiculite composites. By
contrast, higher quantities of EPS addition worsen the results.

3.6. Analysis of compression strength

Compression strength decreases in all cases compared to the reference sample gypsum type A
without additions (Fig. 4), but all the values surpass the minimum requirement set by the
regulation (2 MPa). This decrease in compression strength is usual in light- weight gypsum
materials, as this behavior coincides with the conclusions reached by previous research works (del
Rio Merino, 2005; San Antonio González et al., 2015a,b). The greatest reduction in compression
strength is obtained with compounds containing higher percentage of waste, reaching a decrease
around 58% with the compound E0.8 +3%EPS+1.5%XPS. And in the best case the reduction
compared to the gypsum type A without additions is 25% (reached with E0.8 1%EPS+ 1%XPS).
Regarding the previous research works with perlite and vermiculite, the results obtained with
additions of 1% of EPS are the ones performing better and near the compounds containing
vermiculite or perlite. However, the results obtained are always below the results obtained with
perlite or vermiculite.

3.7. Analysis of thermal behavior

EO.8 2%EPS+3%XPS_and E0.8 +3%EPS+1%XPS compounds were selected due to their lower
density and higher mechanical resistances. The results of the thermal behavior of the selected
compounds and the reference sample are shown in table 6.in all the cases, the behavior of the
compounds improves with respect to the reference sample, as the thermal conductivity reduces
around 40.4% and the effusivity reduces around 20.3% compared to the reference without
additions.

In addition, the thermal conductivity values obtained with these compounds are close to the
values provided by LWG manufac- turers, which set the thermal conductivity of the
commercialized

4 .Conclusions

The most important conclusions reached in this work are:

* It is feasible to use mixtures of the most common types of polystyrenes used in building
construction (EPS and XPS), as fillers in a gypsum matrix, following the principles of circular
economy

* The addition of EPS or XPS waste in gypsum E-35 (type A), reduced the density up to 35.35%
compared with the samples without additions and achieved mechanical resistances above the
requirements set by the regulations for lightweight gyp- sums. By contrast, regarding compounds
with coarse gypsum YG (type B1), these requirements were oily achieved when 3% of XPS was
incorporated.
* Composites with a mix of EPS and XPS wastes obtained better results than those using only one
type of polystyrene. This can be explained due to the synergy of XPS-EPS combination, as XPS
provides higher mechanical strength and superficial hardness whereas EPS helps to reduce the
density.

*In general, adding XPS to compounds containing 1% and 2% of EPS improves the superficial
hardness (up to 7.8% ) and compression strength (up to 11.57%) of the compound without XPS.
Also in the specific case of compounds containing 2% of EPS, improvements in flexural strength
(up to 12.15%) are obtained when 0.5% of XPS is added.

*All the compounds studied obtained better superficial hardness and compression resistance, with
lower densities, than gypsums lightened with vermiculite. Also, gypsum type A containing 1% EPS
and XPS waste achieved better values of flexural strength than gypsums with vermiculite.

*Compounds containing 1% of EPS and mixtures of XPS achieved better flexural resistance with
lower density values than com- pounds containing perlite.

*Regarding the thermal behavior, compounds containing m of EPS and XPS reduce the thermal
conductivity around 40.4% compared to the reference sample without additions and ach- ieved
similar values than currently conmmercialized LWG.

*Finally, results show that it is viable to incorporate EPS and XPS waste -from building insulation
panels-in a gypsum matrix. This will help to substitute currently-used aggregates (perlite and
vermiculite), improving some of the properties even with lower densities, and therefore the
environmental impact of traditional

Clear IWG is reduced. In particular, considerable proposals uphold the use of tlre gypsum
compounds with EPS and XPS for manufacturing prefabricated panels for interior partitions and
ceilings, taking advantage of the good thermal performance, and thus can help to improve the
energy efficiency of buildings

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Spanish
Government (Project reference number BIA2013-43061-R). Moreover, the authors gratefully
acknowledge the support of the Materials Laboratory at the School of Building Construction of
Madrid (UPM). References