Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete

S. Marinković a,*, V. Radonjanin b, M. Malešev b, I. Ignjatović a
a
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
b
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Civil Engineering, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

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

Article history: Constant and rapid increase in construction and demolition (C&D) waste generation and consumption of
Received 18 September 2009 natural aggregate for concrete production became one of the biggest environmental problems in the con-
Accepted 8 April 2010 struction industry. Recycling of C&D waste represents one way to convert a waste product into a resource
Available online 30 April 2010
but the environment benefits through energy consumption, emissions and fallouts reductions are not cer-
tain. The main purpose of this study is to determine the potentials of recycled aggregate concrete (con-
crete made with recycled concrete aggregate) for structural applications and to compare the
environmental impact of the production of two types of ready-mixed concrete: natural aggregate con-
crete (NAC) made entirely with river aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) made with natural
fine and recycled coarse aggregate. Based on the analysis of up-to-date experimental evidence, including
own tests results, it is concluded that utilization of RAC for low-to-middle strength structural concrete
and non-aggressive exposure conditions is technically feasible. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is per-
formed for raw material extraction and material production part of the concrete life cycle including trans-
port. Assessment is based on local LCI data and on typical conditions in Serbia. Results of this specific case
study show that impacts of aggregate and cement production phases are slightly larger for RAC than for
NAC but the total environmental impacts depend on the natural and recycled aggregates transport dis-
tances and on transport types. Limit natural aggregate transport distances above which the environmen-
tal impacts of RAC can be equal or even lower than the impacts of NAC are calculated for the specific case
study.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction material is through its disposal of in landfills creating in that

Concrete is the most widely used building material in the con-
struction industry. It is estimated that today’s world concrete pro-
duction is about 6 billions tons per year, i.e. 1 ton per person per
year (ISO, 2005). The concrete industry is regarded as a large con-
sumer of natural resources. Consumption of natural aggregate as a
largest concrete component is constantly and rapidly increasing
with increasing of the production and utilization of concrete. For
example, three billions tons of aggregate are produced each year
in the countries of European Union (European Environment
Agency, 2008). This situation puts a question about the availability
of natural aggregate’s sources. Many European countries have
placed taxes on the use of virgin aggregates.
On the other hand, waste arising from the construction sector –
construction and demolition waste (C&D) – is also a relevant con-
cern in the protection of the environment. For example, about 850
millions tones of C&D waste are generated in the EU per year,
which represent 31% of the total waste generation (Fisher and
Werge, 2009). The most common method of managing this
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 11 3370 102; fax: +381 11 3370 223.
E-mail address: sneska@imk.grf.bg.ac.rs (S. Marinković).
way huge deposits of C&D waste. For that reason in developed
countries, restricted laws in a form of prohibitions or special taxes
for creating of waste areas were brought into practice.
Recycling has the potential to reduce the amount of C&D waste
disposed of in landfills and to preserve natural resources. This po-
tential can be utilized if aggregates obtained by recycling are used
not only in lower quality product applications but also for struc-
tural concrete applications too. Despite all the research performed
in this area, this material is presently often not considered for
higher quality product applications such as aggregate for structural
concrete. According to various national practices (OFRIR Project,
2003; TEKES, 2000; NCHRP 4-21, 2000), aggregates obtained by
recycling of demolished concrete (recycled concrete aggregates)
are mainly used as aggregates in granular base or sub-base appli-
cations, for embankment construction and earth construction
works.
The reason for such a situation is that the quality of recycled con-
crete aggregates (RCA) is usually lower than the quality of natural
aggregate (NA) which is an important fact for structural concrete
application. RCA are generally produced by two-stage crushing,
screening and removing the contaminants such as reinforcement,
paper, wood, plastics and gypsum (by magnetic separation, water

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012
2256 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264
cleaning, and air-sifting). When demolished concrete is crushed, a
certain amount of mortar and cement paste from original concrete
remains attached to stone particles in recycled aggregate. This at-
tached mortar is the main reason for lower quality of RCA compared
to NA. Density of RCA is decreased up to 10% compared to density of
NA (Hansen, 1992; Poon and Lam, 2008; Sanchez de Juan and
Gutierrez, 2004). Water absorption of coarse RCA ranges from
3.5% (Rahal, 2007; López-Gayarre et al., 2009) to 9.2% (Xiao et al.,
2005) and for fine RCA it ranges from 5.5% (Yang et al., 2008) to
13% (Evangelista and Brito, 2007). These values are significantly
higher than those of the NA whose water absorption ranges from
0.5% to 1.0%. The abrasion resistance (Los Angeles test) is decreased
up to 70% compared to NA (Poon and Lam, 2008; Poon et al., 2004,
2003; López-Gayarre et al., 2009).
On the other hand, energy savings with recycling technology
are questionable. The recycling process is similar to crushed stone
aggregate production and it is reasonable to assume that the en-
ergy demand will be similar for both processes. But when com-
pared to the extraction of natural river aggregate, the recycling
process will probably demand more energy. So the question is:
can we make a quality structural concrete with recycled concrete
aggregate and, if this is possible, can recycling really provide en-
ergy savings while decreasing environmental burdens of concrete?
The main purpose of this work is to determine the potential of
recycled aggregate concrete (concrete made with RCA) to be used
as structural concrete and to compare the environmental impact
of the production of two types of ready-mixed concrete: natural
aggregate concrete (NAC) made entirely with river aggregate (grav-
el and sand) and recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) made with nat-
ural fine and recycled coarse aggregate.
The environmental impact assessment follows the standard
protocol of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) according to ISO 14040–
14043 (ISO, 2006). LCA has already been successfully applied to
assessment of environmental impact of building materials, struc-
tural elements and whole buildings (Ortiz et al., 2009a; Wu et al.,
2005; López-Mesa et al., 2009; Li, 2006). Some of the research
has also been done on the environmental assessment of different
end-of-life scenarios comparing landfilling, recycling and incinera-
tion of C&D waste (Ortiz et al., 2010; Wittmaier et al., 2009). Ortiz
et al. recommended recycling and incineration over landfilling, but
for ‘‘stony” types of waste this recommendation is valid only for
small distances from the building sites to the plants. Regarding
the utilization of RCA for base and sub-base of road construction,
Mroueh et al. concluded that the use of crushed concrete decreased
the environmental burdens of the road construction. Their conclu-
sion is valid only for construction and transport distances assumed
in the specific case study (Mroueh et al., 2001).
Fig. 1. Life cycle of concrete structure.
In order to address the overall environmental impact, all the
life-cycle phases of a concrete structure need to be taken into ac-
count, including the production of raw materials and concrete,
construction and service phase, demolition and dismantling, and
disposal or recycling of waste materials. In this work only the part
of the entire life cycle of a concrete structure is analyzed. This part
includes the production of raw materials (extraction of natural
aggregates and recycling of demolished concrete), cement produc-
tion, production of ready-mixed NAC and RAC and transport.
2. Methodology
Life Cycle Assessment is a methodology for evaluating the envi-
ronmental load of processes and products during their life cycle.
According to ISO standards, LCA consists of four steps: goal and
scope definition, creating the Life Cycle Inventory, assessing the
environmental impact and interpreting the results.
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of this study is to compare the environmental impact
of the production of two types of ready-mixed concrete: natural
aggregate concrete (NAC) made with river aggregate and recycled
aggregate concrete (RAC) made with natural fine and recycled
coarse aggregate. Fine recycled aggregates were not considered
for RAC production because its application in structural concrete
is generally not recommended (Hansen, 1992; Rilem TC 121-
DRG, 1994; DIN, 2002; BSI, 2006). The reason for that is high water
absorption and high cohesion of fine RCA which make the concrete
quality control very difficult. The replacement percentage of natu-
ral coarse with recycled coarse aggregate is assumed to be 100%.
This goal determines the system boundaries: the analyzed part
of the life cycle includes production and transport of aggregate and
cement, production of concrete and transport of concrete from
concrete plant to the construction site, Fig. 1.
The construction, service phase and demolition phase are ex-
cluded. To compare the environmental impact of different con-
crete types, it is necessary that both concrete types fulfil similar
functional requirements. This means that they have approximately
the same strength and durability performance: mechanical proper-
ties, workability and durability related properties. Because of that,
the mix proportion of NAC and RAC is determined so that both
types of concrete have the same compressive strength and work-
ability. Nevertheless, rheological and durability related properties
may not still be the same and its likely that RAC will have a lower
durability performance than NAC. To enable a comparative
 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264 2257

environmental impact assessment, the analysis is limited to a type cycle is calculated and expressed as energy use, as well as the
of concrete structure for which non-aggressive environment con- amount of waste produced and depletion of natural mineral
ditions apply (such as indoor environment of residential and office resources.
buildings, for example). Otherwise, the exclusion of service phase
wouldn’t be correct, because of the possible different durability
performance of two concrete types. Under all these assumptions, 3. Mechanical, rheological and durability related properties of
the impact of construction, service and demolition phase is ex- RAC
pected to be approximately the same for both concrete types,
and these phases need not to be taken into consideration in com- Available experimental evidence of concrete made with recy-
parative analysis. cled concrete aggregate vary in wide limits, sometimes are even
End-of-life scenario is not considered: only the amount of pro- opposite, but general conclusions about the properties of the con-
duced waste – demolished concrete is calculated assuming: crete with recycled coarse aggregate, compared to concrete with
natural aggregate with the same water-to-cement (w/c) ratio are
– disposal of demolished concrete in landfill for NAC, which shown in Table 1.
means that 1 m3 of demolished concrete is 1 m3 of waste, and The values given in Table 1 are the upper bounds of all the ana-
– recycling of demolished concrete for RAC. The recovery percent- lyzed research data. Unfortunately, there is a large experimental
age of coarse recycled aggregate is assumed to be 60% (Nagataki data scatter because the quality of RAC depends mostly on the
et al., 2004) and the rest (fine particles produced by recycling) is quality of recycled aggregate, i.e. the quality of demolished con-
assumed to be disposed of in landfill and not used for other pur- crete which is used for recycling. There is a general opinion that
poses. This means that from 1 m3 of demolished concrete 0.4 m3 RAC will have the same or even better properties than original
is waste. demolished concrete when RAC is made with the same or lower
w/c ratio than the original concrete (Hansen, 1992). But demol-
The functional unit of 1 m3 of ready-mixed NAC and RAC is used ished concrete is usually of low quality or its a mix of different
in this work. quality concretes originating from different demolishing sites.
However, according to most of the published research (Ajdukiewicz
2.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data and Kliszczewicz, 2002; Malesev et al., 2007; Dosho et al., 1998;
Hansen and Narud, 1983), low-to-middle strength RAC with
This step of the LCA involves collecting data for each unit pro- coarse recycled aggregate (with compressive strength up to 30–
cess regarding all relevant inputs and outputs of energy and mass 35 MPa) can be obtained regardless of the quality of recycled
flow, as well as data on emissions to air, water and land. The pro- aggregate. From the point of view of practical applications and pro-
duction of ready-mixed NAC and RAC studied in this paper is lo- duction conditions at recycling plants, this is a very important
cated in Serbia, so all the LCI data for aggregate, cement and point.
concrete production are collected from local suppliers and manu- Properties of RAC with fine and coarse recycled aggregate are
facturers (Marinkovic et al., 2008). Emission data for diesel produc- even lower than the properties of RAC with natural fine and coarse
tion and transportation, natural gas distribution and transport that recycled aggregate. Therefore, the utilization of fine recycled
couldn’t be collected for local conditions are taken from GEMIS aggregate in RAC for structural use is generally not recommended
data base (Öko-Institut, 2007). Data are taken from no earlier than as explained in Section 2.
2000, so the processes analyzed in this work are based on recent
technologies and normal production conditions. Table 1
Properties of RAC compared to NAC.
2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Property RAC References
compared to
LCIA phase evaluates potential environmental impacts and esti- NAC
mates resources used in the modelled system. This step consists of Compressive Decreased up Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz (2002),
three mandatory elements: selection of impact categories, classifi- strength to 25% Batayneh et al. (2007), Hansen (1992),
Poon et al. (2004), Rahal (2007),
cation which means assignment of LCI results (emissions, wastes
Sanchez de Juan and Gutierrez (2004),
and resources) to the chosen impact categories, and characteriza- Yang et al. (2008)
tion in which the converted LCI results are aggregated into an indi- Splitting and Decreased up Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz (2002),
cator result. Indicator result is the final result of the mandatory flexural tensile to 10% Batayneh et al. (2007), Hansen (1992),
part of a LCIA. Normalization, grouping, weighting and additional strength Malesev et al. (2007), Yang et al. (2008)
Modulus of Decreased up Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz (2002),
LCIA data quality analysis are optional steps and they are not per- elasticity to 45% Rahal (2007), Sanchez de Juan and
formed in this study. Gutierrez (2004), Xiao et al. (2005),
The problem-oriented (mid-points) methodology (Procter and Yang et al. (2008)
Gamble, 2005) is chosen for the impact assessment. This approach Drying shrinkage Increased up Domingo-Cabo et al. (2009), Gómez-
to 50% Soberón (2002a), Hansen (1992), Li
involves the environmental impacts associated with climate
(2008)
change, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidant crea- Creep Increased up Domingo-Cabo et al. (2009), Gómez-
tion, human toxicity, abiotic depletion, etc. The impacts can be to 50% Soberón (2002b), Hansen (1992)
evaluated using the CML method (Guinée et al., 2001a,b), EDIP Water absorption Increased up Li (2008), Malesev et al. (2007)
method (Wenzel et al., 1997), etc. The CML methodology is chosen to 50%
Freezing and Decreased Salem et al. (2003), Zaharieva et al.
in this study. thawing (2004)
The environmental impact categories included in this work are: resistance
global warming (climate change), eutrophication, acidification and Carbonation Similar Levy and Helene (2004), Otsuki et al.
photochemical oxidant creation (POC). They are calculated by mul- depth (2003)
Chloride Similar or Ann et al. (2008), Olorunsogo and
tiplying the emissions results by their corresponding characteriza-
penetration slightly Padayachee (2002), Otsuki et al. (2003)
tion factors, CML methodology (Guinée et al., 2001b). Besides, increased
cumulated energy requirement during the studied part of the life
2258 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264

It can be concluded that RAC should not be used for high Table 3
strength concrete or aggressive environmental conditions. But its Petrography of river aggregate.

utilization for low-to-middle strength structural concrete and Rock or minerala (%) Grain size (mm)
non-aggressive exposure conditions is technically feasible. For 0.125– 0.25– 0.5– 1– 2– 4– 8– 16–
example, non-aggressive exposure classes according to Eurocode 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 31.5
2 (European Committee for Standardization CEN, 2004) are: class Volcanic rock – – 1 2 2 3 3 6
X0 (no risk of corrosion or attack, very dry environment), class (andesite)
XC1 and class XC2 (corrosion induced by carbonation, dry or per- Sedimentary rocks 3 5 10 17 17 30 34 42
manently wet environment). (sandstone and
limestone)
Metamorphic rocks 5 15 34 54 54 67 63 52
(quartzite)
4. Tests on RAC and NAC properties Minerals (quartz) 92 80 55 27 27 – – –
a
Tested according to SIS (1986c).
Coarse recycled aggregate was obtained from demolished rein-
forced concrete structure which has been exposed to weather con-
ditions for more than 30 years. The crushing of the demolished
concrete and screening into three fractions: 4/8 mm, 8/16 mm concrete properties are shown in Table 4. For the same w/c ratio,
and 16/31.5 mm was performed in mobile recycling plant. The RAC has slightly lower compressive strength than NAC. It is inter-
properties of recycled concrete aggregate were tested and results esting to notice that this strength decrease is larger for lower com-
are shown in Table 2. pressive strengths of concrete. Based on these results, relationship
As there are no standards for testing and quality requirements between mean concrete compressive strength and amount of ce-
of recycled aggregates in Serbia, testing was performed according ment was established for NAC and RAC and shown in Fig. 2. Using
to Serbian standards for natural aggregates, Table 2. Also, technical this relationship, cement content was determined on the basis of
requirements given in Table 2 are according to Serbian standard for required compressive strength (for characteristic compressive
natural aggregates (SIS, 1986b). RCA properties satisfy technical cube strength equal to 30 MPa, mean value must be at least equal
requirements for natural aggregates except for the content of weak to 38 MPa). Because of the high water absorption of recycled aggre-
grains and ‘‘Los Angeles” crushing resistance value, which was ex- gates, it is necessary to add a certain amount of water to saturate
pected. Low pH value (tested on the mortar part of recycled aggre- recycled aggregate before or during mixing to obtain the desired
gate) shows that original concrete was carbonized. It can be workability of RAC. In this case, dried recycled aggregate was used
assumed that new cement paste will increase pH value in the for RAC production and additional water quantity was calculated
new concrete. High water absorption is usual for RCA and special on the basis of recycled aggregate water absorption after 30 min.
measures must be undertaken to provide the required workability Water-to-cement ratio shown in Table 4 refers to free water con-
of concrete. tent, excluding the amount of additional water. No water-reducing
The component materials used for both concrete types were: admixtures were used.
Final results, i.e. obtained mix proportions and properties of
– Portland cement EN 197-1 – CEM I 42.5 R; NAC and RAC with strength class C25/30, are shown in Table 5
– fine aggregate, fraction 0/4 mm (river aggregate, Morava river); in which it can be seen that slightly larger amount of cement
– two types of coarse aggregate, fractions 4/8 mm, 8/16 mm and (about 5%), i.e. slightly smaller free water-to-cement ratio is
16/31.5 mm: river aggregate (Morava river) for NAC and recy- required for RAC than for corresponding NAC. Similar results
cled aggregate for RAC; were obtained by other investigators (González-Fonteboa and
– water. Martínez-Abella, 2008). Also, density of RAC is slightly lower
The petrography of river aggregate is shown in Table 3. (about 6%) than density of NAC because of the lower density of
The target concrete strength class for both types was C25/30, recycled concrete aggregate.
nomenclature according to Eurocode 2 (characteristic compressive
cylinder/cube strength equal to 25/30 MPa) and the target slump 5. Environmental assessment results
20 min after mixing for both types was 6 ± 2 cm. Laboratory tests
with various mix proportions of NAC and RAC were performed to The comparative environmental impact assessment is per-
obtain these target values. Three NAC mixes and three RAC mixes formed for raw material extraction and material production part
with different amounts of cement were designed for target slump. of the concrete life cycle (including the transport) shown in
For each concrete mix three samples were tested, average values of Fig. 1.

Table 2
Recycled aggregate properties.

Property Unit Fraction Standarda Technical requirement

4/8 8/16 16/31.5
Crushing resistance (in cylinder) Mass loss (%) 16.7 23.8 29.2 SIS (1993) <30
Soundness of aggregate Mass loss (%) 1.8 1.4 1.2 SIS (1982a) <12
Chemical testing(mortar part of recycled aggregate) Chloride content 0 0 0 SIS (1984) <0.1
Sulfate content In traces In traces In traces SIS (1984) <1
pH 9.92 9.92 9.92 SIS (1984) –
Content of weak grains (%) 0.6 3.4 6.2 SIS (1986a) <3
Crushing resistance(‘‘Los Angeles” test) Mass loss (%) 28.3 30.4 33.1 SIS (1978) <30
Water absorption after 30 min (%) 6.0 4.0 2.0 SIS (1982b) –
Fines content (%) 0.38 0.29 0.36 SIS (1982c) <1
a
Serbian standards for natural aggregates, provided in references.
 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264 2259

Table 4
NAC and RAC trial mix proportions.

Cement (kg/m3) Aggregate (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) Additional water (kg/m3) w/ca Density (kg/m3) Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa)
Natural Recycled
NAC-1 300 1902 – 179 – 0.60 2381 36.6
NAC-2 353 1854 – 182 – 0.52 2389 41.8
NAC-3 402 1798 – 188 – 0.47 2387 48.6
RAC-1 300 611 1134 179 40 0.60 2264 33.6
RAC-2 351 596 1107 183 39 0.52 2276 41.1
RAC-3 402 579 1074 189 29 0.47 2273 48.1
a
Water-to-cement ratio.

scenario 1, transport distances and types are estimated as typical

for the construction site located in the capital of Serbia, Belgrade.
Transport scenario 2 is the same as transport scenario 1 except
for the transport distance of recycled aggregate. In this scenario it
is assumed that transport distances for both aggregate types (recy-
cled and natural) are equal to 100 km, Table 6.

5.2. Results

Table 7 shows the LCI data for aggregate, cement, concrete pro-
duction and for transport (Marinkovic et al., 2008). Calculated
cumulative energy requirement and emissions to air for the pro-
duction and transport of 1 m3 of ready-mixed NAC and RAC for
both transport scenarios are presented in Table 8. The amounts
of component materials (cement, natural and recycled aggregate)
Fig. 2. Relationship between NAC and RAC compressive strength and cement are according to tests performed for determining the mix propor-
content.
tions of NAC and RAC with same compressive strength and
workability.
Table 5 Calculated impact indicators per functional unit of NAC and RAC
Mix proportions and tested properties of NAC and RAC for concrete strength class and transport scenarios 1 and 2 are presented in Tables 9 and 10,
C25/30. respectively.
Components and properties NAC RAC
Cement (kg/m3) 315 330 5.3. Discussion and interpretation
Aggregate (kg/m3)
0/4 mm 658 601 Fig. 3 shows the contribution to the total impact categories of
4/8 mm 338 240c
various phases in raw material extraction and material production
8/16 mm 282 343c
16/31.5 mm 601 532c part of NAC and RAC life cycle for both transport scenarios. Fig. 4
Water (kg/m3) 180 181 + 40d shows the amount of waste and mineral resources depletion for
w/ca 0.571 0.548 NAC and RAC. These two categories were calculated according to
a/cb 5.965 5.200 assumptions explained in Section 2.
Density (kg/m3) 2396 2259
The results show that the cement production is for both NAC
Slump after 20 min (cm) 5.5 7.0
Compressive strength at 28 days (MPa) 39.2 38.6 and RAC the largest contributor to all impact categories, Fig. 3.
a
The main reason for such a situation is a large CO2 emission during
Water-to-cement ratio.
b the calcination process in the clinker production and the fossil fuel
Aggregate-to-cement ratio.
c
Recycled aggregate. usage. The contributions of the aggregate and concrete production
d
Additional water quantity. phases are very small, while the contribution of transport phase
lies somewhere in between and depends on transport scenario.
Regardless of the transport scenario, the impacts of cement and
Table 6 aggregate production life-cycle phases for RAC are slightly larger
Transport scenarios. than for NAC, Tables 9 and 10. For transport scenario 1 total envi-
Transport distance (km) Transportation type
ronmental impact of RAC and NAC production in terms of calcu-
lated impact categories is approximately the same (see total
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenarios 1 and 2
values in Table 9) and the benefit from recycling in terms of waste
River aggregate 100 100 Medium-sized ship and natural mineral resources depletion minimizing is clearly
Recycled aggregate 15 100 Medium-heavy truck
gained, Fig. 4.
Cement 150 150 Heavy trucks
Concrete 10 10 Concrete mixera Besides cement production, transport is also a big contributor to
a
the environmental load and that directly depends on the transport
Assumed to be equivalent to medium-heavy truck.
distances and on the type of transport vehicle, Fig. 3. For transport
scenario 2 in which the transport distances for natural and recy-
5.1. Transport scenarios cled aggregate are equal, total impacts of RAC are significantly lar-
ger than total impacts of NAC (see total values in Table 10).
Regarding the recycled concrete aggregate transport distances, The environmental impacts increase of RAC over NAC for these
two different transport scenarios are analyzed, Table 6. In transport two transport scenarios is also shown in Tables 9 and 10. In
2260 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264

Table 7
LCI data for various phases of the life cycle.

Production of Production of natural Production of recycled Production of Transport (tkm)

cement (kg) aggregate (kg) aggregate (kg) concrete (1 m3)
Heavy Medium-heavy Medium-
truck truck sized ship
Energy (MJ)
Coal 3.370140
Natural 0.083178
gas
Diesel 0.024369 0.014780 0.018180 1.540900 3.266700 0.599850
Electricity 0.507672 20.06894
Emissions to air (g)
CO 4.203224 0.003475 0.004274 0.722680 0.318850 0.902670 0.155420
NOx 2.279068 0.015579 0.019163 13.22440 0.984380 1.940700 0.426770
SOx 3.646948 0.005447 0.006700 98.75360 0.430940 0.919940 0.171510
CH4 1.002748 0.001296 0.001594 0.433290 0.123860 0.253000 0.046390
CO2 861.2028 1.377926 1.694905 5698.210 110.7700 234.8500 43.38800
N2O 0.000756 0.000055 0.000067 0.029100 0.002950 0.007019 0.001290
HCl 0.067800 2.680210
HC 0.000580 0.023080
NMVOC 0.034732 0.000392 0.000482 0.071040 0.124710 0.495750 0.075790
Particles 0.711981 0.001455 0.001790 11.99120 0.193270 0.186980 0.152050

Table 8
Inventory table per 1 m3 of NAC and RAC, transport scenarios 1 and 2.

Cement (kg) Aggregate (kg) Concrete (1 m3) Transport (for 1 m3 of concrete) Total (for 1 m3 of concrete)
NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC
315.00 330.00 NAa: NA: RAb: Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
1879.00 601.00 1115.00 1 1 2
Energy (MJ)
Coal 1061.59 1112.15 1061.59 1112.15 1112.15
Diesel 7.68 8.04 27.77 8.88 20.27 267.19 248.63 558.23 302.63 285.82 595.43
Natural 26.20 27.45 26.20 27.45 27.45
gas
Electricity 159.92 167.53 20.07 20.07 179.99 187.60 187.60
Emissions to air (g)
CO 1324.02 1387.06 6.53 2.09 4.77 0.72 0.72 66.84 62.79 148.34 1398.10 1457.43 1542.98
NOx 717.91 752.09 29.27 9.36 21.37 13.22 13.22 175.22 155.35 339.28 935.62 951.40 1135.33
SOx 1148.79 1203.49 10.23 3.27 7.47 98.75 98.75 75.59 70.02 157.21 1333.36 1383.01 1470.20
CH4 315.87 330.91 2.44 0.78 1.78 0.43 0.43 20.89 19.48 43.45 339.63 353.37 377.35
CO2 271278.88 284196.92 2589.12 828.13 1889.82 5698.21 5698.21 19257.74 17889.85 40147.76 298823.95 310149.51 332760.85
N2O 0.24 0.25 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.56 0.52 1.18 0.93 0.90 1.57
HCl 21.36 22.37 2.68 2.68 24.04 25.05 25.05
HC 0.18 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.21
NMVOC 10.94 11.46 0.74 0.24 0.54 0.07 0.07 32.53 31.41 78.40 44.28 43.72 90.70
Particles 224.27 234.95 2.73 0.87 2.00 11.99 11.99 42.38 26.51 44.23 281.38 276.32 294.04
a
Natural aggregate.
b
Recycled aggregate.

Table 9
Environmental impacts per 1 m3 of NAC and RAC, transport scenario 1.

Impact category Energy use (MJ) Global warming (g CO2-eq.) Eutrophication (g PO34 -eq.) Acidification (g SO2-eq.) POC (g C2H4-eq.)

NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC
Cement 1255.39 1315.17 279251.73 292549.43 93.33 97.77 1670.12 1749.65 49.05 51.39
Aggregate 27.77 29.15 2683.07 2816.37 3.81 3.99 30.73 32.25 0.53 0.55
Concrete 20.07 20.07 5718.35 5718.35 1.72 1.72 110.37 110.37 0.06 0.06
Transport 267.19 248.63 19958.41 18541.99 22.78 20.20 198.24 178.77 15.59 14.99
Total 1570.42 1613.02 307611.56 319626.14 121.63 123.68 2009.45 2071.04 65.23 66.99
RAC over NAC impact 2.71 3.91 1.69 3.07 2.71
increase (%)

scenario 1, the total impact of RAC for each category is negligibly depending on the impact category and it can be considered signif-
larger than the impact of NAC, increase ranging from 1.7% to icant. This is a consequence not only of larger transport distance of
3.9%. In scenario 2, this increase ranges from 11.4% to 36.6% recycled aggregate, but also of different types of transport vehicle:
 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264 2261

Table 10
Environmental impacts per 1 m3 of NAC and RAC, transport scenario 2.

Impact category Energy use (MJ) Global warming (g CO2-eq.) Eutrophication (g PO34 -eq.) Acidification (g SO2-eq.) POC (g C2H4-eq.)

NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC NAC RAC
Cement 1255.39 1315.17 279251.73 292549.43 93.33 97.77 1670.12 1749.65 49.05 51.39
Aggregate 27.77 29.15 2683.07 2816.37 3.81 3.99 30.73 32.25 0.53 0.55
Concrete 20.07 20.07 5718.35 5718.35 1.72 1.72 110.37 110.37 0.06 0.06
Transport 267.19 558.23 19958.41 41612.23 22.78 44.11 198.24 394.71 15.59 37.12
Total 1570.42 1922.62 307611.56 342696.38 121.63 147.59 2009.45 2286.98 65.23 89.11
RAC over NAC impact increase (%) 22.43 11.41 21.35 13.81 36.63

Fig. 3. Contribution to environmental impacts of different life-cycle phases of NAC and RAC.

analysis in this case study is focused on natural and recycled aggre-

gate transport distances.

5.4. ‘‘Limit” transport distance of natural aggregate

Keeping all other parameters constant and varying only the

aggregate transport distance, it is possible to determine the ‘‘limit”

Fig. 4. The waste produced and mineral resource depletion per 1 m3 of NAC and
RAC.

in both scenarios, recycled aggregate is assumed to be transported

by trucks, while natural (river) aggregate is assumed to be trans-
ported by ships which are less pollutant vehicles.
As it was already mentioned, in this case study the impact of the
aggregate and cement production phase is slightly larger for RAC
than for NAC. That leaves transport phase as a possible source of
lowering the environmental impact of RAC comparing to NAC. This
is a genuine chance for RAC because the natural aggregate sources
are becoming scarcer and more away from urban areas where most
of the construction sites are located. On the other hand, recycling
plants are usually located near the big urban areas (mostly for eco- Fig. 5. Relationship between energy use and transport distance of recycled and
nomical reasons). To quantify this possibility, the comparative natural aggregate.
2262 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264
Fig. 6. Relationship between global warming and transport distance of recycled and
natural aggregate.
Fig. 7. Relationship between eutrophication and transport distance of recycled and
natural aggregate.
transport distance of natural aggregate. This is defined as natural
aggregate transport distance below which environmental impact
of RAC is larger than environmental impact of NAC, regardless of
recycled aggregate transport distance. Fig. 5 shows the relationship
between the transport distance of aggregate (natural and recycled)
and energy use. In this figure, the number in the designation of RAC
denotes the transport distance of natural fine aggregate used for
RAC production. For example, RAC-100 denotes RAC with natural
aggregate transport distance equal to 100 km. It can be seen from
Fig. 5 that the limit distance for natural aggregate is about 75 km:
for transport distances below this value, energy requirement for
RAC production and transport is larger than energy requirement
for NAC production and transport. For transport distances larger
than 75 km, energy requirement for RAC can be equal or lower
than for NAC and then it depends on the ratio of transport dis-
tances of natural and recycled aggregate. For example, if the trans-
port distance of natural aggregate is 100 km and 150 km, the
required recycled aggregate transport distance is about 5 km and
15 km, respectively, to get the same energy use.
Fig. 8. Relationship between acidification and transport distance of recycled and
natural aggregate.
The same analysis is conducted for other environmental impact
indicators and shown in Figs. 6–9. The largest ‘‘limit” transport dis-
tance of natural aggregate, about 170 km, is obtained for global
warming. The global warming is mostly governed by CO2 emis-
sions which are larger for RAC because of the larger cement con-
tent in RAC than in corresponding NAC.
However, it should be kept in mind that this specific case study
is based on Serbian LCI data and on typical aggregate transport
modes in Serbia. While the data on aggregate, cement and concrete
production are not so dependable on geographical location (similar
production technologies), energy and transport data can signifi-
cantly differ from country to country. For example, in Serbia about
70% of electricity is produced at lignite power plants and about 30%
at hydropower plants (Marinkovic et al., 2008). Consequently, the
average environmental load of electricity production is calculated
as a sum of emissions and energy demand from lignite power
plants (70%) and emissions and energy demand from hydropower
plants (30%). The cumulative energy demand and emissions of
electricity production at lignite power plants include contributions
from the operation of the power plants, contributions from the
infrastructure of the power plants, emissions control at the power
plants and lignite mining. No transport is included because lignite
power plants are mine-mouth. Besides the direct operational emis-
sions the other contributions are nearly negligible. For electricity
production at hydropower plants, the cumulative energy demand
and emissions include contributions from the operation of the
power plants and contributions from the infrastructure of the
power plants. In this case, the contributions from the infrastructure
are significantly larger than contributions from the operation of the
hydropower plants.
The transport emission data in this study are assumed for trans-
port vehicles with moderate emissions control technologies in ur-
ban areas which is typical for Serbia but already improved in
developed European countries.
Although typical for Serbia, the assumed aggregate types and
aggregate transport modes in this case study represent at the same
time the worst case scenario for RAC (maximum replacement per-
centage of coarse aggregate, the most pollutant transport vehicle)
and the best case scenario for NAC (river instead of crushed aggre-
gate, the least pollutant transport vehicle). For any other scenario,
results will be more beneficial for RAC. Calculated ‘‘limit” distances
are the upper bounds of limit natural aggregate transport distance
in general.
 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264
Fig. 9. Relationship between POC and transport distance of recycled and natural
aggregate.
6. Conclusion
According to up-to-date state of research in the topic, mechan-
ical and durability related properties of RAC with coarse recycled
aggregates are lower than the properties of NAC with the same
w/c ratio. Based on own experimental research, a slightly larger
amount of cement (about 5%) is required in RAC mix proportion
in order to obtain the same compressive strength and same work-
ability of the corresponding NAC.
Mechanical and durability related properties of RAC impose the
limitations on utilization of RCA in structural concrete. Firstly, the
use of fine recycled aggregate in concrete for structural use is gen-
erally not recommended. Secondly, the quality of RAC made of fine
natural and coarse recycled aggregate is limited to low-to-middle
strength structural concrete, for practical applications. Finally,
the application of such a RAC in aggressive environment conditions
(risk of corrosion induced by carbonation and chlorides or risk of
freeze/thaw and chemical attack) is not recommended because of
its uncertain durability performance.
The comparative environmental impact analysis is performed
for raw material extraction and material production part of the
NAC and RAC life cycles using the local, Serbian LCI data. Regarding
the recycled aggregate transport distances, two different transport
scenarios are analyzed.
The LCA results show that in this case study the impacts of ce-
ment and aggregate production phases are slightly larger for RAC
than for NAC. Total environmental impacts in terms of energy
use, global warming, eutrophication, acidification and photochem-
ical oxidant creation depend on transport distances and types. For
transport scenario 1 (transport distances of recycled aggregate are
smaller than those of natural river aggregate) the environmental
impact of RAC and NAC production in terms of studied impact cat-
egories is approximately the same and the benefit from recycling
in terms of waste and natural mineral resources depletion mini-
mizing is clearly gained. For transport scenario 2 (transport dis-
tances of natural and recycled aggregates are equal), the total
impacts of RAC are larger, increase ranging from 11.3% to 36.6%
depending on the impact category.
To determine the influence of transport phase, relationships be-
tween the environmental impacts and aggregate transport dis-
tance are established. In this case study, calculated limit natural
aggregate transport distance below which the environmental
2263
impacts of RAC are larger than environmental impacts of NAC,
regardless of recycled aggregate transport distance, ranges be-
tween 50 km and 170 km, depending on the impact category. For
larger values than those, environmental impacts of NAC and RAC
can be equal. For that to be fulfilled, transport distances of recycled
aggregate must be lesser than 20 km for studied natural aggregate
transport distances up to 150 km; the exact values of required
recycled aggregate transport distance depend on natural aggregate
transport distance and on impact category.
Under the assumptions adopted in this specific case study, en-
ergy savings in recycling case are possible only for certain ratios
of natural to recycled aggregate transport distances. Same conclu-
sion goes for other impact categories, and required RCA transport
distances are rather small. This is only possible if the recycling
plants are located close to building sites. On the other hand, the
worst case scenario for RAC and the best case scenario for NAC
are assumed in this case study. For Serbian conditions in general,
calculated ‘‘limit” distances are the upper bounds of limit natural
aggregate transport distance for other possible scenarios.
Transport limits calculated in this case study already became
reality in some countries and in such cases the utilization of recy-
cled concrete aggregates decreases the environmental burdens of
the structural concrete. It can be expected that this situation will
spread over majority of the countries because the natural river
and crushed aggregate production has a strong impact on the envi-
ronment and it is probably going to be limited in many countries in
the near future.
Acknowledgements
The work reported in this paper is a part of the investigation
within the Research Project TR16004: Utilization of recycled aggre-
gate concrete in reinforced concrete structures, supported by the
Ministry for Science and Technology, Republic of Serbia. This sup-
port is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ajdukiewicz, A., Kliszczewicz, A., 2002. Influence of recycled aggregates on
mechanical properties of HS/HPC. Cement and Concrete Composites 24 (2),
269–279.
Ann, K.Y., Moon, H.Y., Kim, Y.B., Ryou, J., 2008. Durability of recycled aggregate
concrete using pozzolanic materials. Waste Management 28 (6), 993–999.
Batayneh, M., Marie, I., Asi, I., 2007. Use of selected waste materials in concrete
mixes. Waste Management 27 (12), 1870–1876.
BSI, 2006. Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1; Part 2:
Specification for Constituent Materials and Concrete. BS 8500-2:2006,
November 2006, pp. 38.
DIN, 2002. Aggregates for Mortar and Concrete; Part 100: Recycled Aggregates. DIN
4226 – 100, February 2002, pp. 18.
Domingo-Cabo, A., Lázaro, C., López-Gayarre, F., Serrano-López, M.A., Serna, P.,
Castaño-Tabares, J.O., 2009. Creep and shrinkage of recycled aggregate concrete.
Construction and Building Materials 23 (7), 2545–2553.
Dosho, Y., Kikuchi, M., Narikawha, M., Ohshima, A., Koyama, A., Miura, T., 1998.
Application of Recycled Concrete for Structural Concrete – Experimental Study
on the Quality of Recycled Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate Concrete. ACI
Special Publication SP179-61A, pp. 1073–1101.
European Environment Agency, 2008. Effectiveness of Environmental Taxes and
Charges for Managing Sand, Gravel and Rock Extraction in Selected EU
Countries. EEA Report No. 2/2008. Schultz Grafisk, Copenhagen. <http://
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2008_2> (accessed on August 17,
2009).
European Committee for Standardization CEN, 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of
Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN
1992-1. CEN, Brussels, 225pp.
Evangelista, L., Brito, J., 2007. Mechanical behaviour of concrete made with fine
recycled concrete aggregate. Cement and Concrete Composites 29 (5), 397–401.
Fisher, C., Werge, M., 2009. EU as a Recycling Society. ETC/SCP Working Paper 2/
2009. <http://scp.eionet.europa.eu.int> (accessed on August 14, 2009).
Gómez-Soberón, J.M.V., 2002a. Shrinkage of Concrete with Replacement of
Aggregate with Recycled Concrete Aggregate. ACI Special Publication SP209-
26, pp. 475–496.
Gómez-Soberón, J.M.V., 2002b. Creep of Concrete with Substitution of Normal
Aggregate by Recycled Concrete Aggregate. ACI Special Publication SP209-25,
pp. 461–474.
2264 S. Marinković et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 2255–2264
González-Fonteboa, B., Martínez-Abella, F., 2008. Concretes with aggregates from
demolition waste and silica fume. Materials and mechanical properties.
Building and Environment 43 (4), 429–437.
Guinée, J.B. et al., 2001a. LCA – An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards – Part 2a:
Guide. Final Report. <http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/research-
projects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html> (accessed on August 17, 2009).
Guinée, J.B. et al., 2001b. LCA – An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards – Part 2b:
Operational Annex. Final Report. <http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrial-
ecology/researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html> (accessed on
August 17, 2009).
Hansen, T.C. (Ed.), 1992. Recycling of Demolished Concrete and Masonry. Taylor &
Francis, London and New York.
Hansen, T.C., Narud, H., 1983. Strength of recycled concrete made from crushed
concrete coarse aggregate. Concrete International – Design and Construction 5
(1), 79–83.
ISO, 2005. Business Plan. ISO/TC 71 Concrete, Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed
Concrete. <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/687806/ISO_
TC_071__Concrete__reinforced_concrete_and_pre-stressed_concrete_.pdf?nod-
eid=1162199&vernum=0> (accessed on August 21, 2009).
ISO, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment. Set of International
Standards: ISO 14040-14043. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Li, X., 2008. Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China; Part I. Material behavior
of recycled aggregate concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (1-2),
36–44.
Li, Z., 2006. A new life cycle impact assessment approach for buildings. Building and
Environment 41 (10), 1414–1422.
Levy, S.M., Helene, P., 2004. Durability of recycled aggregates concrete: a safe way to
sustainable development. Cement and Concrete Research 34 (11), 1975–1980.
López-Gayarre, F., Serna, P., Domingo-Cabo, A., Serrano-López, M.A., López-Colina,
C., 2009. Influence of recycled aggregate quality and proportioning criteria on
recycled concrete properties. Waste Management 29 (12), 3022–3028.
López-Mesa, B., Pitarch, Á., Gallego, T., 2009. Comparison of environmental impacts
of building structures with in situ cast floors and with precast concrete floors.
Building and Environment 44 (4), 699–712.
Malesev, M., Radonjanin, V., Marinkovic, S., 2007. Recycled concrete as aggregate for
producing structural concrete. In: Bragança, L., Koukkari, H., Blok, R., Gervasio,
H., Veljkovic, M., Plewako, Z., Landolfo, R., Ungureanu, V., Silva, L.S. (Eds.),
Sustainability of Constructions – Integrated Approach to Life-time Structural
Engineering. COST Action C25. Proceedings of the First Workshop, Lisbon, 13–
15 September 2007. Multicomp Lda, Portugal, pp. 2.61–2.68.
Marinkovic, S., Radonjanin, V., Malesev, M., Lukic, I., 2008. Life cycle
environmental impact assessment of concrete. In: Bragança L., Koukkari, H.,
Blok, R., Gervasio, H., Veljkovic, M., Plewako, Z., Landolfo, R., Ungureanu, V.,
Silva, L.S., Haller, P. (Eds.), Sustainability of Constructions – Integrated
Approach to Life-time Structural Engineering. COST Action C25. Proceedings
of Seminar: Dresden, 6-7 October 2008. Addprint AG, Possendorf, Herstellung,
pp. 3.5–3.16.
Mroueh, U.M., Eskola, P., Laine-Ylijoki, J., 2001. Life-cycle impacts of the use of
industrial by-products in road and earth construction. Waste Management 21
(3), 271–277.
Nagataki, S., Gokce, A., Saeki, T., Hisada, M., 2004. Assessment of recycling process
induced damage sensitivity of recycled concrete aggregates. Cement and
Concrete Research 34, 965–971.
NCHRP 4-21, 2000. Waste and Recycled Materials Use in the Transportation
Industry. <http://www.rmrc.unh.edu> (accessed on February 02, 2010).
OFRIR Project, 2003. <http://ofrir.lcpc.fr> (accessed on February 02, 2010).
Öko-Institut, 2007. Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems GEMIS.
<http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/en/index.htm> (accessed on January 20,
2008).
Olorunsogo, F.T., Padayachee, N., 2002. Performance of recycled aggregate concrete
monitored by durability indexes. Cement and Concrete Research 32 (2), 179–185.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2009a. Sustainability in the construction
industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and
Building Materials 23 (1), 28–39.
Ortiz, O. et al., 2010. Environmental performance of construction waste: Comparing
three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Waste Management 30
(4), 646–654.
Otsuki, N., Asce, M., Miyazato, S., Yodsudjai, W., 2003. Influence of recycled
aggregate on interfacial transition zone, strength, chloride penetration and
carbonation of concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 15 (5), 443–
451.
Poon, C.S., Azhar, S., Kou, S.C., 2003. Recycled aggregates for concrete applications.
In: Proceedings of the Conference Materials Science and Technology in
Engineering, Hong Kong, January 2003, pp. 16.
Poon, C.S., Shui, Z.H., Lam, C.S., Fok, H., Kou, S.C., 2004. Influence of moisture states
of natural and recycled aggregates on the slump and compressive strength of
concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 34 (1), 31–36.
Poon, C.S., Lam, C.S., 2008. The effect of aggregate-to-cement ratio and types of
aggregates on properties of pre-cast concrete blocks. Cement and Concrete
Composites 30 (4), 283–289.
Procter and Gamble, 2005. Life Cycle Impacts Assessment. End Points versus Mid
Points. <http://www.scienceinthebox.com/en_UK/sustainability/lcia_en.html>
(accessed on August 17, 2009).
Rahal, K., 2007. Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled coarse aggregate.
Building and Environment 42 (1), 407–415.
RILEM TC 121-DRG, 1994. RILEM recommendation: specifications for concrete with
recycled aggregates. Materials and Structures 27, 557–559.
Salem, R.M., Burdette, E.G., Jackson, N.M., 2003. Resistance to freezing and thawing
of recycled aggregate concrete. ACI Materials Journal 100 (3), 216–221.
Sanchez de Juan, M., Gutierrez, P.A., 2004. Influence of recycled aggregate quality on
concrete properties. In: Proceedings of the International RILEM Conference: The
Use of Recycled Materials in Building and Structures, Barcelona, Spain, 8–11
November 2004, pp. 545–553.
SIS, 1993. SRPS B.B8.033: Mineral Aggregate. Determination of Crushability by
Compression in Cylinder. Serbian Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade
(in Serbian).
SIS, 1982a. SRPS B.B8.044: Natural and Crushed Stone Aggregate. Test for Freezing
Resistance. Serbian Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade (in Serbian).
SIS, 1982b. SRPS B.B8.031: Crushed Aggregate. Determination of Particle Density
and Water Absorption. Serbian Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade (in
Serbian).
SIS, 1982c. SRPS B.B8.036: Crushed Aggregate. Determination of Fine Particles with
Wet Sieve Analysis. Serbian Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade (in
Serbian).
SIS, 1984. SRPS B.B8.042: Natural and Crushed Stone Aggregate. Chemical Analysis
of Aggregates for Concretes and Mortar. Serbian Institution for Standardization
SIS, Belgrade (in Serbian).
SIS, 1986a. SRPS B.B8.037: Mineral Aggregate. Determination of Friable Particles.
Serbian Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade (in Serbian).
SIS, 1986b. SRPS B.B2.010: Aggregate for Concrete. Technical Requirements. Serbian
Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade (in Serbian).
SIS, 1986c. SRPS B.B8.004: Crushed Aggregate. Determination of Petrographic
Composition. Serbian Institution for Standardization SIS, Belgrade (in Serbian).
SIS, 1978. SRPS B.B8.045: Testing of Natural Rock. Testing of Natural and Crushed
Aggregate by Machine ‘‘Los Angeles”. Serbian Institution for Standardization
SIS, Belgrade (in Serbian).
TEKES, 2000. By-products in Earth Construction. Tekes, Technology Review 96/
2000, Helsinki. <http://www.tekes.fi> (accessed on January 30, 2010).
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M., Alting, L., 1997. Environmental Assessment of Products,
vol. 1. Chapman & Hall, London.
Wittmaier, M., Langer, S., Sawilla, B., 2009. Possibilities and limitations of life cycle
assessment (LCA) in the development of waste utilization systems – applied
examples for a region in Northern Germany. Waste Management 29 (5), 1732–
1738.
Wu, X., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., 2005. Study of the environmental impacts based on the
‘‘green tax” – applied to several types of building materials. Building and
Environment 40 (2), 227–237.
Xiao, J., Li, J., Zhang, C., 2005. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate
concrete under uniaxial loading. Cement and Concrete Research 35 (6),
1187–1194.
Yang, K.H., Chung, H.S., Ashour, A., 2008. Influence of type and replacement level of
recycled aggregates on concrete properties. ACI Materials Journal 105 (3), 289–
296.
Zaharieva, R., Buyle-Bodin, F., Wirguin, E., 2004. Frost resistance of recycled
aggregate concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 34 (10), 1927–1932.