Environmental Benefits of Green Concrete

A. Abbas
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

G. Fathifazl
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

O.B. Isgor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

A.G. Razaqpur
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

B. Fournier
CANMET - MTL, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

S. Foo
Public Works and Government Services Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
ABSTRACT
Of the approximately 11 million tonnes of annual solid concrete and demolition waste (C&D) in Canada, concrete accounts for
about 52% by weight. However, most of this concrete is used as highway base or sent to landfills for disposal; only a very
small portion of the concrete waste is reused in building construction. Considering the fact that usable natural aggregate (NA)
supplies are diminishing, there will be a high demand for recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) to be used in the so called
"green concrete (GC)." Using recycled concrete as aggregate will help reduce the total cost of concrete production because
aggregates need not be hauled from remote locations, but obtained locally. The combination of RCA with significant quantities
of fly ash or slag as replacement for Portland cement is particularly attractive from both economic and environmental
perspectives. GC will reduce the demand for natural resources, the associated energy consumption, and green house gas
(GHG) emissions required to produce aggregates and cement. These reductions can be considered as one of the construction
industry's major contributions to Canada's GHG emission reduction objective. Although there are some
guidelines/specifications established by different countries such as the UK and Japan, currently, there are no established
guidelines for producing GC in Canada. This paper presents the environmental and economic benefits of increasing the use of
GC in the construction industry and highlights the objectives of an ongoing research by the authors on GC.
Key words: Recycled concrete aggregates (RCA), green concrete, green house gas (GHG), aggregate recycling

INTRODUCTION as construction and demolishing (C&D) waste, and

Concrete is the most common material used in the
construction of civil engineering structures. Due to its
environmental impact, it is also one of the most costly ones.
Ordinary concrete typically contains about 12% cement and
80% aggregate by mass (Neville, 1996). Global
construction industry uses approximately 1.6 billion tonnes
of cement and 10 billion tonnes of sand, gravel, and
crushed rock every year (Mehta, 2001). The world's yearly
cement production of 1.6 billion tonnes accounts for about
7% of the global loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the
atmosphere (Mehta, 2001). Mining large quantities of raw
materials for the production of cement such as limestone
and clay, and fuel such as coal, often results in extensive
deforestation or denudation and top-soil loss (Mehta, 2001).
Concrete structures have service lives of several decades
to more than a century. Those structures that are no longer
able to fulfill their original purpose after their service life will
be demolished. The demolished materials are considered
concrete constitutes a large part of this waste. The annual
worldwide output of concrete and masonry rubble has been
estimated roughly as one billion tonnes (Mehta, 2001). In
Canada, the C&D waste is estimated as 11 million tonnes
per year, and approximately 42% (by weight) of this amount
is reused or recycled. Concrete constitutes 52% of C&D
waste, and approximately 73% of it is reused in low-value
applications as filler material or as road sub-grade (George
and Michael, 2001).
In Canada, the total aggregate supply is around 350.5
million tonnes per year in 2003 figures (Panagapko, 2003).
Continuous use of natural aggregates (NA) and cement to
produce conventional concrete has negative effects on the
environment. These effects can be summarized as follows:
1. The effect on the habitat: As stated by Winfield and
Taylor (2005), the extraction of aggregates from pits and
quarries results in the destruction of the natural habitats of

1-4244-0218-2/06/$20.00 C)2006 IEEE.

many organisms and in the disturbance of the pre-existing
stream flow and water resources.
2. Quality of water resources: Impact of the NA production
on the quality of the surface and groundwater resources is
a significant concern. The excavation of aggregate
resources alters the slope of the land, and hence changes
water drainage patterns. In addition, by excavating the
aggregate deposits that serve as underground water
reservoirs, the water storage capacity of the ground is
diminished.
3. Increased transportation costs: The transport distance of
hauling the aggregates from quarries to crushing plants
and/or to ready-mix concrete plants has been rising due to
the depletion of nearby quarries. As the hauling distances
increase, direct costs associated with the transportation of
NA also increase.
4. Increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: There are
two major sources of GHG emissions associated with
concrete production:
(a) The mining, processing, and transport operations
involving large quantities of aggregate consume
considerable amounts of energy, produce large quantities
of GHGs, and adversely affect the ecology of the areas
they are extracted from. As the hauling distances between
the quarries to the processing plants and processing plants
to construction sites increase, GHG emissions associated
with the transportation of NA also increase.
(b) The manufacturing of cement involves emission of
considerable amount of GHG in the atmosphere. It is
estimated that producing one tonne of Portland cement
requires about four giga-joules of energy, which in turn
emits 1.25 tonnes of carbon dioxide into atmosphere
(Wilson, 1993).
Increased emissions of GHGs is considered to be the main
reason for the climate change that we have been
experiencing over the past century. Although Canada's
GHG emissions account for 2.5 percent of global total, it is
the world's third largest per capita emitter of these gases,
following the US and Australia (IPCC-GC, 2005a and EC-
GC, 2006). According to the Kyoto Protocol, 38
industrialized countries are committed to cut their emissions
of GHG between 2008 to 2012 to 5.2 percent below 1990
levels. However, Canada's target is to reduce the net GHG
emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels (Figure 1).
Global demands for regulating concrete production and
recycling of the C&D waste arise from the growth of these
environmental and economic issues. With Canada's
commitment to Kyoto protocol, every sector, including the
construction industry, has the obligation to reduce its GHG
emissions. As a result of this necessity, the concept of
"green concrete (GC)" as an environmentally friendly
alternative to conventional concrete has been emerging.
GC in this paper is considered to be the concrete produced
with a combination of RCA and NA, and large quantities of
fly ash or slag, used as partial replacement for regular
Portland cement. It is intended that the replacement of NA
with RCA and regular Portland cement with fly ash or slag
will diminish the environmental impact of the conventional
concrete production.
Currently in Canada, there are no major studies underway
to evaluate the applicability and long-term performance of
GC in structural applications. As a consequence of this lack
of research, there are no established guidelines regarding
the production of GC using RCA and fly ash/slag. There
are, however, extensive guidelines for producing concrete
with supplementary materials, including fly ash.
This paper will present the objectives and environmental
benefits of an ongoing research for development of the
guidelines for the production of GC as a structural material
with comparable mechanical and physical properties as
conventional concrete.
Figure 1: Canada Greenhouse Gas Emission (source: EC-
GC, 2006b; EC-GC, 2006c)
-,
zw
.2
._4
TE
C,
I
C,
1 MO -SwU"A IM " MMea 200$ 206 2¶U 20O 20: 2014
Year
AGGREGATE RECYCLING
A large portion of Canada's building stock and infrastructure
are made of concrete. Many of these buildings were built in
the 50's or 60's, and are near the end of their design life. It
is expected that during the next two decades, a large
amount of concrete, resulting from the demolition of these
buildings and structures, will be available for either disposal
or for being recycled for reuse as RCA. However, only a
very small portion of the concrete waste is reused in
building construction. During the next two decades, a large
amount of concrete, resulting from the demolition of these
structures, will need to be disposed. This would require
extensive new landfills and possibly distant transportation
away from cities and farming communities. In addition, in
order to replace the demolished structures, vast quantities
of fresh aggregates will need to be manufactured, which will
result in extensive use of new resources and the
degradation of the natural environment. One method of
conserving these resources is to increase the use of RCA
as coarse aggregate in structural grade GC.
Currently, most NA are obtained from crushed stone since
natural sand and gravel sources that do not require any
processing are limited. As stated in the Environmental
Council of Concrete Organization information sheet (ECCO,
1999), the cost and transport distances of NA will continue
to increase as the natural sources grow scarce. From this
point of view, RCA, whereby it will be used locally, is the
most environmentally friendly alternative. In the United
States, according to Wilburn and Goonan (1998), the
processing cost for RCA is around $10 per tonne
depending on the size of the operation. The large
operations produce cheaper products due to lower
distribution cost over more units of output. The unit cost of
producing natural sand and crushed stone in processing
plants range from $ 6.5 to $8 per tonne (MOTH, 1999). It
can be seen that the use of RCA will not create significantly
high additional costs in the production stage as long as the
quality-related issues regarding RCA and its use in GO can
be addressed.
As the quantity of construction debris rise, the number of
accessible landfills is falling; hence the dumping fees will
most likely increase (ECCO, 1999). Therefore, seeking
alternative means of disposal of concrete from C&D
operations to protect the environment and to gain economic
benefits is obvious. As participation from the aggregate
producers increase, more disposal sites will be opening up
for recycling purposes and contractors will be incorporating
recycling into their operations to decrease disposal costs.
Nowadays, the recycled concrete is widely used to produce
aggregates for non-structural construction such as general
bulk fills, base or fill for drainage structures, pavement base
and sub-base, lean-concrete bases, concrete blocks, and
wall sound barriers in highways. Although the use of RCA
in structural concrete is limited, various quantities of RCA
were used successfully in the construction of concrete
pavements and low-rise buildings in the UK (Collins, 1998)
and in a small number of projects in Japan (Takenaka,
1999). The main reasons behind the limited use of RCA in
structural concrete can be listed as: (1) technical problems,
(2) commercial barriers, (3) quality control problems, (4)
lack of suitable regulations and experience, and (5) poor
image of recycled materials.
Currently, there are no specifications or guidelines available
in North America, which can be followed to consistently
produce structural-grade concrete made with RCA. The
commercial barriers arise from the unsteady supply of
structural-grade RCA, which cannot compete with efficient
and stable supply of traditional concrete materials. The
steady supply of normal concrete materials makes it very
difficult for a new material such as RCA to enter the market.
The quality of RCA depends on the equipment used to
produce the RCA, and it varies from one plant to another.
This variation may cause concerns about the quality of
structures made using RCA. The poor image of RCA arises
from the fact that the recycled materials in general have the
problem of low quality. However, this poor image is based
on the preconceived notion that RCA can not yield good
quality concrete. There is ample evidence (Dhir et al., 1999)
to challenge this presumption. Figure 2 is taken from the
ongoing study carried out by the authors of this paper about
the effect of RCA on the mechanical properties of GC. It is
obvious from this figure that with proper material selection
and mix design procedure, GC using RCA can reach the
compressive strength req u ired for structural-grade
applications (i.e. ~-30 MPa and higher). Similar observations
have also been made for other mechanical properties of
GC produced with large quantities of RCA, fly-ash/slag. In
general, all difficulties described above can be overcome by
developing sound technical specifications and quality
control and quality assurance methodologies for producing
structural-grade concrete.
Figure 2: Compressive Strength vs. Water-Cement Ratio of
GC produced with 1 0000 RCA
50.
Non-air-entained concrete
0) 40-
a)
4-
,-
30-
Air-entrained cdncret
a)
> 20
0.F
o0 0o
.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Water-cement ratio
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF GC
The extensive use of GC in the construction industry has a
number of environmental benefits. These benefits can be
classified as: (1) energy conservation, (2) GHG reduction,
(3) conservation of natural resources and land, and (4)
reducing landfill costs. These benefits will be discussed in
the following sections.
Energy Conservation and GHG Reduction
Extensive use of GC in the construction industry will result
in savings in energy consumption and consequently
reductions in GHG emissions in the long term. In order to
understand these benefits, it is imperative to understand
the energy demand of concrete production process. Energy
required for concrete production technology, can be
categorized as follows:
1. Energy required to produce cement: Producing a tonne
of Portland cement requires about four giga-joules of
energy. Using fly-ash or slag as replacement for
cement will decrease the demand for cement
production and its associated energy consumption. The
research on fly-ash and/or slag addition to concrete is
quite extensive, and the use of these supplementary
materials in concrete is already common practice.
2. Energy required for producing aggregates: As natural
sand and gravel sources generally require significantly
less processing, the production from such sources
requires less energy compared to the energy required
to produce crushed aggregates. The Portland Cement
Association (1993) indeed estimates energy
requirements for the processing of sand and gravel to
be 5.8 M-joules per tonne, while crushed aggregates,
on the other hand, require approximately 54 M-joules
per tonne. It is reasonable to expect that manufacturing
RCA would require almost the same amount of energy
as for producing crushed natural aggregates since they
use similar equipment and processes (e.g. crushers,
screens, transfer equipment, and devices for removal
of foreign matter).
3. Energy required for transporting aggregate materials to
processing plants: As the supply for natural sand and
gravel will be increasingly limited, the proportion of the
 required aggregates for new construction obtained from
crushed stone processing plants is expected to
increase significantly. It is also expected that the
hauling distances will increase over the years, resulting
in higher transportation costs. The RCA production
plants being closer to the construction sites, hauling
distances will be shorter. It is estimated that the total
required energy for hauling the aggregates for
processing stage can be reduced as much as 80%.
This translates into significant energy savings.
4. Energy required for transporting processed aggregates
to ready-mixed concrete plants: It is estimated that 2.7
M-Joules per tonne-km for sand and gravel, and 3.8 M-
Joules per tonne-km for crushed aggregates, are
required to transport these materials to ready-mixed
concrete plants (PCA, 1993). The energy required to
transport RCA to ready-mixed concrete plants can be
expected to be the same as for crushed aggregates,
except that the hauling distance may be significantly
less in the case of RCA.
5. Energy required for producing concrete: Producing new
concrete using RCA requires the same amount of
energy as producing concrete with NA, and this energy
can be approximately estimated as 1.3 to 2.4 GJ/m3
(George and Michael, 2001).
Based on the abovementioned energy demands for
producing concrete, the reduction in the energy
consumption and GHG emissions by using GC will come
from two sources: (1) reduced cement consumption due to
replacement of cement with fly-ash and slag, (2) reduced
transportation distance of unprocessed rock/stone from
quarries to the processing plants.
The amount of GHG emission as a result of transportation
of coarse aggregate to processing plants can be calculated
if the following assumptions are made:
(a) transportation by a 35-tonne truck consumes 0.56
liters/km of fuel (or 63 MJ/km), which results in the release
of 1.5 kilograms of GHG per kilometer (Clayton Research
and MHBC, 2004; TPPF, 2004),
(b) taking 2002 figures as reference (Panagapko 2003,
OARC 2002), annual Canadian coarse aggregate demand
is approximately 350 Million tonnes.
Based on these assumptions, the amount of GHG emitted
in Canada by transportation of coarse aggregates (RCA or
NA), unprocessed rock/stone or disposed concrete, can be
calculated as:
j(1.5)
35O
GHG Emission = = 15,000tonnes I km
1000
The practical interpretation of this is that using RCA instead
of NA will reduce 15,000 tonnes of GHG emissions for
every 1 km increase in average traveling distance of the
trucks used in the transportation operations. Although this
modest amount is only a small portion of Canada's annual
GHG emissions, reducing the GHG emissions due to
aggregate transportation as much as 80% by using RCA
instead of natural resources will help Canada achieve her
Kyoto targets. It should also be noticed that transportation
distances associated with delivering the natural stones to
the processing plants and hauling the processed
aggregates back to the construction sites will continue to
increase as the natural resources for producing
construction-grade aggregates diminish. Table 1
summarizes the energy consumption and GHG emissions
for production of conventional concrete and GC.
Table 1: The Energy Consumption and GHG Emission for
Production of conventional concrete and GC
GHG Emission and From From
Energy Consumption Cement Aggregate
(per hauling1
tonne) (per km)
Conventional Concrete
GHG Emission (tonne) 1.25 15,000
Energy Consumption 4,000 63
(MJ)
Green Concrete
GHG Emission (tonne) 0.8752 7,5006
Energy Consumption 2,800 31.5
(MJ)
(1) Based on 30% replacement by supplementary materials
(2) Assuming 35 - tonne trucks are used
(3) Assuming 50% reduction in transportation costs by use of RCA
Conservation of Water Resources and Natural
Habitat
The impact of the NA production on the quality of the
surface and groundwater resources and natural habitat of
many species is a serious concern. As stated by Winfield
and Taylor (2005), the excavation of mineral sources and
aggregates changes the slope of the land and vegetation;
hence changes water drainage patterns. Also aggregate
deposits behave as underground water reservoirs. By
excavating the aggregate, the water storage capacity of the
ground is lost. Increased use of GC in the construction
industry will alleviate the demand for these resources;
hence conserve water resources and protect natural
habitat.
Reducing Landfill Costs and Saving Space
Landfill costs for construction and demolition waste
continue to rise and landfills become more heavily
regulated. Hence, the dumping fees will most likely
increase (ECCO, 1999). For instance, the dumping fee in
Holland has increased almost six-fold per tonne within only
a few years during the past decade (De Vries, 1993). Table
2 shows the average tipping fees in different countries. The
construction waste tipping fee in European countries varies
from $43 (CDN) to $79 (CDN) /tonne. In Canada, tipping
fees vary greatly; nominal mass-based dumping fees are
$25-$90 per tonne, depending on the type of waste material
(Wikipedia, 2005). Therefore, it makes economic and
environmental sense to seek alternative means of disposal
of concrete from C&D operations. Aggregate processors
are beginning to accept this reality and consider receiving
reclaimed concrete for a "tipping fee" significantly lower
than the cost of landfilling the material and to supply RCA
of sufficient quality for many applications. Depending on the
size of the recycling facility, entry into the aggregates
recycling business requires a capital investment between
$6 and $10 per tonne of annual capacity (Wilburn and
Goonan, 1998).
Table 2: Average Tipping Fees in different countries
Country Tipping fee (CD$/ tonne)
Holland 66
Denmark 79
Sweden 43
Canada 58
Ottawa 73*
Canada GGuelph 70*
Hartland 75*
Range 25 - 90
* Tipping fee for concrete
ONGOING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Considering the vast benefits of using RCA, many countries
have taken the lead in preparing guidelines or
specifications to utilize recycled aggregates in one way or
the other. In the UK, the use of C&D waste as RCA has
been permitted since the publication of BS EN 12620:2002
"Aggregates for concrete". Specification for their use in
concrete is given in BS EN 8500-2:2002 Concrete-
Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 (Dhir et
al., 2004). In Japan, the draft standard for use of RCA was
published in 1977. However, the Recycling Law was
established in 1991 to suppress the increase of waste and
promote recycling of useful resources (Noguchi and
Tamura, 2001). In Germany, the national standard "DIN
4226-1000 Aggregates for Concrete and Mortar, 2002" set
the guideline for RCA content in concrete aggregates. In
Netherlands, the Dutch standard NEN 6720:1995
"Construction Requirements and Calculation Methods",
allows the use of concrete aggregate by certain percentage
of NA (Corinaldesi, et al, 2002). In Denmark, use of RCA
for certain structural applications in mild environments was
allowed in 1990 (Hansen, 1992). In the US, since 1982,
ASTM C33 "Standard specifications for concrete
aggregates", defines coarse aggregate as including
crushed hydraulic cement concrete. ASTM C125 "Standard
definitions of terms relating to concrete and concrete
aggregates" defines manufactured sand as including
hydraulic cement concrete. Similarly the US Army Corps of
Engineers has changed its specifications and guides to
encourage the use of RCA as aggregate. Some State
Highway Departments have developed their own
specifications for RCA in pavements (ASTM C33, 2001;
ASTM C125, 2000).
In Canada, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario's (MTO)
specifications for road construction, "Special Provisions for
Provincial Highways," allows the use of reclaimed
aggregates, concrete and asphalt pavement in highway
construction, subject to qualifying criteria (Winfield and
Taylor, 2005). The use of RCA included in Ontario
Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) to be used as
road or parking lot base and sub-base aggregate as well as
sewer bedding and backfills. Furthermore, a guideline on
the use of RCA as a filling material exists in Quebec (BNQ,
2002). This guideline does not address the processes and
methods to produce structural-grade concrete from RCA.
However, CSA Standard A23.1 -04, "Concrete Materials
and Methods of Concrete Construction", included the use of
RCA in notes under Section 4.2.3.1. RCA as aggregate
should be evaluated in a manner similar to the evaluation of
normal-density aggregate with particular attention to
durability characteristics; deleterious materials; potential
alkali-aggregate reactivity; chloride contamination; and the
workability characteristics of concrete manufactured with
the material (CSA A23.1 -04, 2004).
Despite these efforts, current use of GC in new structural
applications is limited by several technical and practical
uncertainities. There is still a strong global reluctance in
using RCA and GC as structural material. In addition, the
unique circumstances imposed by Canada's environmental
conditions, and the extensive use of de-icing salts that may
cause pre-contamination of RCA, require comprehensive
investigation of the durability properties of concrete
produced with these aggregates. The objectives of an on-
going joint research being untaken by the authors include
the comprehesive investigation of material and structural
performance of concrete procuded with RCA and the
development of technical tools for the design and
contruction of such concrete, with special emphasis on
Canada's unique environmental conditions. This research is
believed to be the first comprehensive study in Canada into
the material, mechanical and physical properties of
concrete using RCA, with an objective to establish
preliminary requirements for the design and construction of
structural concrete.
Key activities of the research include:
(a) Material characterizatation of RCA,
(b) Investigation of mechanical and durability properties of
GC produced with RCA, fly ash and/or slag,
(c) Testing of structural members produced with GC,
(d) Development of mixture design procedures for GC,
(e) Development of QA and QC procedures,
(e) Development of a guide on the use of GC in structural
applications.
Preliminary results on determining material characterization
of RCA and mechanical properties of GC are very
promising. A test for the determination of residual mortar
content of RCA has already been developed (Abbas et al.,
2006), and it is expected that the proposed methodology
will be submitted to ASTM for consideration as an
international procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the investigation of the environmental benefits of
using GC in the construction industry, the following
conclusions are reached:
1. RCA is currently used in Canada, the US, Japan and
many European countries mostly as base and sub-
base materials in road construction. The use of RCA as
substitute for natural coarse aggregates in concrete is
presently rather limited worldwide.
2. The recycling of old concrete as coarse aggregates
and replacing cement with fly-ash or slag in new
concrete will save fresh minerals and aggregate
resources, reduce landfill disposal and the extent of
 aggregate quarrying. Less quarrying will prevent land
denudation and ecological degradation.
3. The use of fly ash/slag and RCA could potentially
reduce overall energy consumption in concrete
production, and this will contribute to the efforts for
reducing GHG emissions.
4. There are a number of reasons for the limited use of
RCA in concrete. Among these are the lack of
adequate technical knowledge and experience with
RCA, the lack of general design guidelines and
specifications, and a preconceived notion that concrete
made with RCA is inherently inferior.
5. Limited research so far has indicated that in a properly
designed concrete mixture with RCA, mechanical
strength can be equal to or even superior to the
strength of the original mix from which the RCA was
extracted.
6. Concrete made with RCA can be economically
competitive if sufficiently large quantities of concrete
can be retrieved to keep an aggregate crushing plant
fully operational.
7. The use of RCA may also be economical if portable
aggregate crushers and cleaners are used to process
demolished concrete at the demolition site. This may
substantially reduce transportation and handling
charges. Such crushers are already used in some
countries.
8. To render GC, a commonly acceptable construction
material, research is needed to fully characterize all its
physical, mechanical and chemical properties. Based
on these results, mixture and structural design
specifications and methods can be developed.
9. Research is also needed to develop quality control and
quality assurance procedures/programs for (a) the
operations involved in producing high quality RCA
concrete mixes, and (b) for constructing high quality
structures using RCA concrete.
10. In order to maximize beneficial environmental impact,
recycled aggregate concrete technology could be
combined with other environmentally favourable
concrete technologies, such as the use of fly ash, slag
and silica fume, in order to reduce cement consumption
and to produce a truly "green concrete."
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical and
financial support of the Public Works and Government
Services Canada (PWGSC) and the Natural Resources
Canada (NRCan) and the financial support of the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC).
REFERENCES
A. Abbas, O.B. Isgor, A.G. Razaqpur, B. Fouriner, G.
Fathifazi and S.Foo. 2006. Proposed Method for
Determining the Residual Mortar Content of Recycled
Concrete Aggregates.1 st International Structural Specialty
Conference. Calgary, Alberta. May 23-26.
ASTM C33. 2001. Standard Specifications for Concrete
Aggregate, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02,
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C125. 2000. Standard Terminology Relating to
Concrete and Concrete Aggregates, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 04.02, American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Bureau de normalization du Quebec (BNQ). 2002.
Classification and characteristic of recycled material from
concrete construction debris coated with bitumen and
bricks. Recycle material specifications. Quebec.NQ2560-
600/2002
Clayton Research and MHBC. Regional & Urban Planning
& Resource Development. 2004. The Implications of
Restricting Aggregate Supply in the GTA, pg. 13.
Collins, R., 1998. Recycled aggregate in readymix - Dr.
Rod Collins describes two practical applications of RCA in
concrete and evaluates their success. Concrete
Engineering International, 2 (2): 49 -54.
Corinaldesi, V., Giuggiolini, M., and Moriconi, G. 2002. Use
of rubble from building demolition in mortars. Waste
Management, 22 (8): 893-900.
CSA A23.1-04. 2004. Concrete Materials and Methods of
Concrete Construction, standard, CSA International,
Toronto, ON.
Dhir, R.K., Limbachiya, M.C., and Leelawat, T. 1999.
Suitability of recycled concrete aggregate for use in BS
5328 designated mixes. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 134 (3): 257 -
274.
Dhir, R., Paine, K., and Dyer, T. 2004. Sustainable
concrete construction - Recycling construction and
demolition wastes in concrete. Concrete - Crowthorne,
38(3): 25-28.
De Vries, P. 1993. Concrete Recycled. Concrete (London),
27 (3): 9-13.
Environment Canada, Government Canada (EC-GC),
2006a. [Online]. Available:
www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory report/2003 report/c2 e.c
fm, January issue [Retrieved January 2006]
Environment Canada, Government Canada, 2006b.
[Online]. Available: www.ec.gc.ca/climate/kyoto-e.html,
December issue [Retrieved January 2006]
Environment Canada, Government Canada, 2006c.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2001/010711 b e.htm July
issue [Retrieved January 2006]
Environmental Council of Concrete Organization, ECCO.
1999. Recycling Concrete and Masonry. [online]. Available:
http://ecco.org/. [August, 2004]
George J.V, Michael N. .2001. Waste streams from building
construction and demolition, with a specific focus on
concrete reuse and recycling report submitted to public
works Government Services Canada, Gatineau, Quebec,
Canada.
Hansen, T.C. 1992. Recycling of Demolished Concrete and
Masonry, RILEM Report 6 - Report of Technical Committee
37-DRC Demolition and Reuse of Concrete, E&FN Spon,
Chapman & Hall, London, U.K.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Government of Canada, 2005a. [Online]. Available:
www.climatechange.gc.ca/english/climate change/factshee
t_en.pdf [Retrieved January 2006]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Government
of Canada, 2005b. [Online]. Available:
www.climatechange.gc.ca/english/climate change/greenho
use.asp, March issue [Retrieved January 2006]
Mehta, P.K. 2001. Reducing the environmental impact of
concrete. Concrete International, ACI, October issue, pp:
61-66.
MOTH. 1999. Construction Aggregates Sector Trends.
British Columbia Ministry of Transport and Highways
Neville, A. M. 1996. Properties of Concrete. Longman
Group Limited, Essex
Noguchi, T., and Tamura, M., 2001. Concrete design
towards complete recycling. Structural Concrete, 2 (3): 155-
167
Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation (OARC). 2002.
Mineral Aggregates of Ontario Statistical Update, 2002
[Online]. Available:
http://www.toarc.com/publications statistics.asp [Retrieved
December 2005]
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 1993. Cement and
Concrete- Environmental considerations: Environmental
Building News, v. 2, no. 20, Skokie, IL.
Panagapko, D. 2003. Canadian Minerals Yearbook, Natural
Resources Canada.
Takenaka Corporation, 1999. [online]. Available:
www.takenaka.co.op/takenaka e/news e/pr9912/m9912 01
.htm [Retrieved May 2004]
Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). 2004.
Transportation and the environment. Legislators' Guide to
the issues 2003-2004. [Online] Available:
http://www.texapolicv.com/pdf/lgtti-03-trasnportation.rdf
[Retrieved January 2006]
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2005. [Online] Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping fee [Retrieved January
2006]
Wilburn, D.R., Goonan, T.G., 1998. Aggregates from
natural and recycled sources, Economic assessments for
construction applications, a materials flow analysis, U.S.
Geological survey circular 1176.
Wilson, A. 1993. Cement and Concrete: Environmental
Considerations, Environmental Building News, Vol. 2, No.2.
Winfield, M.S., Taylor, A. (2005). Replacing the load:
The need for an aggregates conservation strategy for
Ontario, Report published by Pembina Institute for
Appropriate Development, ISBN 0-921719-71-x
BIOGRAPH IES
A. Abbas, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mr. Abbas received his B.Sc. degree from University of
Khartoum in Sudan in 1994 and M.Sc. degree from Vrije
University Brussels in Belgium in 1999. He is a member of
Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) since 2001.
Currently, he is carrying out his Ph.D. studies in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
G. Fathifazl, M.Sc.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Mr. Fathifazl received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from
University of Guilan and Iran University of science and
Technology (IUST) in Iran in 1995 and 2002, respectively.
Currently, he is carrying out his Ph.D. studies in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
O.B. Isgor, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
0. Burkan Isgor is an assistant professor of civil
engineering at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. His research interests include analysis, design
and durability of reinforced concrete structures, corrosion of
steel in concrete, use of recycled materials in civil
engineering applications, and multi-scale and multi-physics
modelling.
A.G. Razaqpur, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
A.G. Razaqpur is a professor of civil engineering at
McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. His research
interests include analysis and design of reinforced concrete
structures, advanced mechanics of concrete, bridge
engineering and durability of reinforced concrete structures.
B. Fournier, Ph.D., P.Eng.
CANMET - MTL, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Dr. Benoit Fournier is research scientist with the Concrete
Technology Program of CANMET-MTL, Ottawa, Canada.
His research interests are in the various aspects of the
durability of concrete, especially concrete incorporating
supplementary cementing materials (SCM) and the various
aspects of alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete.

S. Foo, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Public Works and Government Services Canada, Gatineau,
Quebec, Canada
S. Foo is an Engineering Specialist (Risk Management)
with research interest in risk management and sustainability
of assets. He is a member of ISO/TC59/SC17
"Sustainability in Building Construction" and CSA Technical
Committee on "Sustainable Buildings".