materials

Article
Mechanical Characterization of Gypsum Composites
Containing Inert and Insulation Materials from
Construction and Demolition Waste and Further
Application as A Gypsum Block
Paola Villoria Sáez 1, * , Mercedes del Río Merino 1 , Marica Sorrentino 2 ,
César Porras Amores 1 , Jaime Santa Cruz Astorqui 3 and Carmen Viñas Arrebola 3
1 Grupo de investigación TEMA, Departamento de Construcciones arquitectónicas y su control,
Escuela Técnica Superior de Edificación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
mercedes.delrio@upm.es (M.d.R.M.); c.porras@upm.es (C.P.A.)
2 Università degli Studi di Bari, Via Edoardo Orabona, 4, 70125 Bari BA, Italy; sor.marica@gmail.com
3 Grupo de investigación TEMA, Departamento de Tecnología de la Edificación, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Edificación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; jaime.santacruz@upm.es (J.S.C.A.);
carmen.vinas@upm.es (C.V.A.)
* Correspondence: paola.villoria@upm.es




Received: 25 November 2019; Accepted: 20 December 2019; Published: 2 January 2020


Abstract: This article analyzes the feasibility of using construction and demolition waste (expanded
polystyrene, ceramic, and concrete waste) in a gypsum matrix to manufacture plaster for interior
coatings or for prefabricated elements for interior partitions. To do this, several gypsum specimens
were prepared (4 × 4 × 16 cm) incorporating different percentages of waste based on the weight of
the gypsum (25%, 50%, and 75% of ceramic, concrete, and a mixture of both). Reference samples
were also produced (without additions) to compare the results obtained. The compounds with the
best performance were selected and lightened by preparing other samples in which 1/3 and 2/3 of
the volume of ceramic, concrete, and mixed waste were replaced with expanded polystyrene (EPS).
All samples were tested in the laboratory and the following physical and mechanical characteristics
were determined: density, surface hardness, flexural strength, compressive strength, capillary
water absorption, and thermal conductivity. Several applications were proposed for the selected
compounds. A gypsum block with a sandwich configuration was obtained (40 × 20 × 10 cm) using the
optimum compound. The block was further tested regarding its density and compression strength.
A comparative analysis showed that it is possible to produce materials with a gypsum matrix by
adding ceramic, concrete, and EPS waste, improving the behavior of the traditional gypsum and
enabling them to be applied in various construction applications. These applications have a lower
environmental impact than ordinary ones because they use less primary raw material, due to the
reuse of waste.

Keywords: plaster; recycled material; sustainable construction; interior partition; block

1. Introduction
The construction sector is one of the six components of the ecological footprint of humanity [1].
So, it is very important to rethink how to build and produce construction materials, minimizing the
environmental impacts through the perspective of a circular economy. In Europe, construction and
demolition waste make up one of the greatest waste flows generated, so its reuse and recycling is
critical. Eurostat statistics reports that in 2016, construction and demolition waste (CDW) represented

Materials 2020, 13, 193; doi:10.3390/ma13010193 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 193 2 of 14

around 34% of European global waste (about 923 million tonnes) [2]. Eurostat statistics do not explain
more about the composition of CDW, probably due to the lack of harmonization in the procedures
used to determine the amount of CDW for each Member State (MS), and also because not all of them
control waste generation flows and their treatments. However, a first approach of CDW composition
across MS was published in a report by the European Commission [3], stating that the major CDW
flows generated are from concrete (12–40%) and ceramic (8–54%), while the least produced involves
gypsum (0.2–0.4%). In addition, the amount of waste from insulating materials is growing due to the
increase of construction works aiming to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, which requires
greater insulation. On the other hand, one of the most commonly used insulating materials is expanded
polystyrene (EPS), which is not only used in panels for insulation but also as blocks and jack-arches in
slabs to lighten construction elements.
Waste management is currently considered a priority in Europe and therefore the European
Commission approved the Directive 2008/98/CE [4] which promotes waste prevention and recycling as
well as the Circular Economy Action Plan which sets the basis for a circular economy. This circular
model maximizes the use of all raw materials, products, and waste and achieves their maximum
value, minimizing disposal and incineration practices, promoting energy savings, and thus reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, Europe is also promoting CDW recovery within the Framework
Program for Research and Innovation “Horizon 2020”, by promoting and funding research projects
aiming to achieve zero-waste generation in Europe.
Major amounts of CDW are constantly generated and could serve as secondary raw materials
if they are correctly segregated, recycled, and reused, considerably decreasing the demand for raw
materials. One of the most highly recommended actions to promote zero waste and a circular economy
is to decrease the waste production by applying onsite waste prevention measures (through the design
of buildings) and set specific measures to guarantee waste separation on site for any unavoidable
waste [5]. But what is the point of implementing onsite separation and recycling measures if there
is no end use for all of this CDW? For this reason, many studies are progressively trying to replace
natural raw materials with recycling materials in order to provide an end to the use of CDW.

2. Literature Review
Many researchers have been concerned about the major environmental impact caused by the
construction sector and have conducted many studies seeking ways to prevent and recover CDW in line
with the target set by the 2009/98/CE Directive. These last years there has been an increase of research
works aiming to incorporate CDW as secondary raw materials to produce recycled construction
materials, such as concretes, mortars, or gypsums.
Many research works dealing with cement mortars have been conducted which incorporated
different types of waste, such as ceramics and concrete [6–8], insulation materials [9–11], wood waste
from demolition [12], or ladle furnace slag [13]. Most of these studies deal with recycled aggregates of
concrete and ceramic waste. For example, Muñoz-Ruiperez et al. [14] analyzed lightweight masonry
mortars made with expanded clay and recycled aggregates. Sáiz Martínez et al. [6] showed the
technical and economic feasibility of manufacturing recycled mortars substituting 100% of the sand
with recycled aggregates. Waste from insulation materials was also incorporated to reduce the density
of the compounds [15]. Morales Conde et al. [12] incorporated wood waste from demolition in mortars,
obtaining compounds with lower density and improved mechanical and thermal properties.
Other studies conducted in gypsum composites incorporated different waste streams (gypsum,
insulation materials, plastics, wood, ceramic etc.). Pedreño-Rojas et al. [16] analyzed recycled gypsum
and showed different physical proprieties in accordance with the commercial gypsum. Furthermore,
San Antonio Gonzalez [17] analyzed different compounds containing polystyrene waste, resulting in
lightweight gypsums with good thermal behavior and resistance to water, while the surface hardness
and compression strength worsened. Moreover, Santos Jimenez et al. [18] analyzed the incorporation
of ceramic waste and found that the surface hardness and water absorption by capillarity improved
Materials 2020, 13, 193 3 of 14

when less than 50% of ceramic waste was incorporated in a gypsum matrix. In general, these research
works add one single type of waste and some properties improve, while others worsen. For this reason,
more recent publications focus on materials incorporating a mixture of different wastes, in order to
seek a synergistic effect and balance the properties obtained. Del Río Merino et al. [19] analyzed
the feasibility of incorporating ceramic and extruded polystyrene waste from construction sites in
two types of gypsums. Compounds with additions of 50% of ceramic waste and 1% of expanded
polystyrene (EPS) can be used to produce prefabricated elements or cladding materials.
Finally, other studies were conducted to analyze not only the physical and mechanical properties
of the compounds but also the final building application. For instance, Santa Cruz Astorqui et al. [20]
analyzed several gypsum sandwich blocks made with two plasterboards and a lightweight core of
gypsum and EPS. Several block samples were developed and tested (both solid and hollow blocks)
with dimensions of 40 × 20 × 10 cm. The gypsum block was found to be lighter than the reference and
kept a high degree of deformability compared with the reference, allowing a good adjustment with
the deformations of the building structure. In addition, Alameda et al. [21] analyzed several gypsum
plasterboards made with polyurethane foam waste and reinforced with polypropylene fibers.
While some references were found analyzing the behavior of gypsum compounds containing
two types of CDW, this article analyzes the viability of incorporating three types of waste which
are commonly mixed on site: concrete, ceramic, and EPS waste, and defines possible construction
applications. This will result in having a smaller number of waste containers on site and simplifies
CDW separation and thus its management.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials
The materials used were:

1. Gypsum: Iberplast YG, which is produced and supplied by Placo Saint-Gobain (Madrid, Spain)
is compliant with the standard EN 13279-1 [22], and is classified as type B1 by the European
classification. The technical data sheet of the company reports the following characteristics:

• Particle size: 0–2 mm

• Surface hardness ≥ 45 Shore C units
• Mechanical compressive resistance > 2 N/mm2
• Mechanical resistance to bending > 2 N/mm2
• Thermal conductivity coefficient 0.3 W/mK
2. Ceramic waste: from the gridding of bricks. The pieces of brick were struck with a hammer
to obtain a size more suitable to be gridded in a crusher. The resulting product was sifted and
characterized as “Coarse Aggregate” (CA) and “Fine Aggregate” (FA), which were 2 mm and
1 mm, respectively.
3. Concrete waste: obtained from a CDW recycling plant from Madrid, Spain. The resulting product
was sieved and characterized as “coarse Aggregate” (CA) and “fine Aggregate” (FA), which were
2 mm and 1 mm, respectively.
4. Mixed waste: is a mixture of concrete waste (50%) and ceramic waste (50%).
5. EPS waste: were construction scarps of thermal insulation plates. The EPS plates were scratched
and sieved. The final product was a particle size between 4–6 mm.

3.2. Experimental Plan

The experimental plan was developed using the following five phases.
Materials 2020, 13, 193 4 of 14

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

3.2.1. First Phase: Waste Percentages and Sample’s Elaboration
Series of three specimens (40 × 40 × 160 mm) were prepared following the regulation EN 13279-2
[23], Series
with a of three specimens
water/gypsum (w/g)(40 × 40
ratio × 160
of 0.8 andmm) were prepared
incorporating following
ceramics, concrete,theand
regulation
mixturesEN
of
13279-2 [23], with a water/gypsum (w/g) ratio of 0.8 and incorporating ceramics,
both wastes in different progressive percentages: 25%wt, 50%wt, and 75%wt. In all of the cases concrete, and mixtures
the
of both wastes
percentages werein different
based onprogressive
the weight percentages:
of gypsum. In25%wt, 50%wt,
addition, and 75%wt.
a reference series In all of the
(without caseswas
waste) the
percentages were based on the weight
also prepared in order to compare the results. of gypsum. In addition, a reference series (without waste) was
also prepared in order
In all the series, towaste
the compare
wasthe results.
mixed with gypsum manually and subsequently the mixture was
In all the series, the waste was
added to the water. The samples spent 7 days mixed with atgypsum manually and
room temperature insubsequently
the laboratory theand
mixture
were
was added to the water. The samples spent 7 days at room temperature in the laboratory
subsequently tested after drying in an oven at a constant temperature of 40 ± 2 °C for 24 h, according and were
subsequently
to standard EN tested after[23].
13279-2 drying
All in an oven at
laboratory a constant
phases were temperature of 40 ±
carried out under 2 ◦following
the C for 24 h,conditions:
according
to standard ENof13279-2
a temperature [23].
23 ± 2 °C andAll
anlaboratory
air relativephases
humiditywere ofcarried
aroundout50 ±under
5%. the following conditions:
a temperature of 23 ± 2 ◦ C and an air relative humidity of around 50 ± 5%.
3.2.2. Second Phase: Physical and Mechanical Tests with Compounds Containing Concrete and
3.2.2. Second Phase: Physical and Mechanical Tests with Compounds Containing Concrete and
Ceramic Waste
Ceramic Waste
The following
The following preliminary
preliminary tests
tests were
were conducted
conducted toto the
the samples
samples prepared
prepared in phase 1,
in phase aiming to
1, aiming to
determine their physical and mechanical characteristics: density, surface hardness Shore
determine their physical and mechanical characteristics: density, surface hardness Shore C, flexural,C, flexural,
and compression
and compression strength
strength (Figure
(Figure 1).
1). The
The Autotest-200/10-SW
Autotest-200/10-SW machine
machine (Madrid,
(Madrid, Spain)
Spain) was used to
was used to
test the
test the samples
samples for
for flexural
flexural and
and compression
compression strengths
strengths and
and aa Shore
Shore C
C durometer
durometer for
for the
the superficial
superficial
hardness. For each test, the mean value achieved with the three samples was calculated
hardness. For each test, the mean value achieved with the three samples was calculated and results and results
were compared with the reference sample and with the minimum values established
were compared with the reference sample and with the minimum values established by the regulation, by the
regulation, i.e., flexural and compression strength above 1 MPa and 2 MPa, respectively.
i.e., flexural and compression strength above 1 MPa and 2 MPa, respectively.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Equipment
Equipment used
used for
for the tests. (a)
the tests. (a) Density;
Density; (b)
(b) Superficial
Superficial hardness
hardness -- Shore C; (c)
Shore C; (c) Flexural
Flexural
strength; (d) Compression strength.
strength.

3.2.3. Third Phase:

3.2.3. Third Phase: Incorporation
Incorporation of
of EPS
EPS Waste
Waste and
and Further
Further Tests
Tests
The best performing
The best performing compounds
compounds in in phase
phase 22 were
were identified
identified and
and selected.
selected. The
The ceramic,
ceramic, concrete,
concrete,
and mixed waste was substituted for by EPS waste in order to lighten the
and mixed waste was substituted for by EPS waste in order to lighten the compound. The compound. The substitution
of EPS was made
substitution of EPS using
was 1/3 andusing
made 2/3 of1/3
theand
aggregate in volume.
2/3 of the aggregate Samples wereSamples
in volume. made following
were made the
same procedure as that in phase 1 and were further tested regarding their density,
following the same procedure as that in phase 1 and were further tested regarding their density, superficial hardness,
mechanical strength, thermal
superficial hardness, mechanicalconductivity, and water
strength, thermal capillarity behavior.
conductivity, and water capillarity behavior.
For
For the thermal behavior, the equipment Thermal Properties Analyzer
the thermal behavior, the equipment Thermal Properties Analyzer fromfrom C-Therm
C-Therm waswas used
used
to obtain the thermal conductivity coefficient values of each sample [24,25].
to obtain the thermal conductivity coefficient values of each sample [24,25]. The measurements wereThe measurements
were
takentaken
for at for atsix
least least six different
different areas
areas of the of the sample,
sample, coveringcovering all theexcept
all the sides sides the
except theface
upper upper face
since it
since it has a rough surface. Finally, the mean values were calculated. The
has a rough surface. Finally, the mean values were calculated. The water absorption by capillaritywater absorption by
capillarity test was performed
test was performed following following
the EN the EN Standard
459-2 459-2 Standard
[26]. [26]. Samples
Samples werewere placed
placed vertically
vertically in ina
acontainer
containercontaining
containing1 1cm cmofofwater
waterduring
during10 10min.
min.Samples
Sampleswere wereweighted
weighted before
before and
and after
after the
the test
test
and the amount of absorbed water was calculated through the difference
and the amount of absorbed water was calculated through the difference between these between these measurements
(Figure 2).
measurements (Figure 2).
Materials 2020, 13, 193 5 of 14
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Figure 2. Water capillarity absorption test (left) and thermal

thermal conductivity
conductivity test
test (right).
(right).

Also, the reduction

reduction ofof the
theraw
rawmaterial
materialconsumption
consumptionwas wasalso
also examined
examined during
during this
this stage
stage as
as an
an index
index forfor
thethe environmental
environmental analysis.
analysis. ThisThis analysis
analysis waswas carried
carried out out by observing
by observing the the decrease
decrease of
of the
the
rawraw material
material consumption.
consumption. The The reduction
reduction of consumed
of consumed rawraw material
material (gypsum)
(gypsum) waswas analyzed
analyzed for
for selected
selected composites
composites andand compared
compared withwiththethe referencesample.
reference sample.ToTothis
thisend,
end,the
the quantities
quantities of each
material
material (gypsum,
(gypsum,wastes,
wastes,and
andwater)
water)were
were used to produce
used the the
to produce three samples,
three while
samples, theirtheir
while weight after
weight
demolding was considered.
after demolding After comparing
was considered. the weight
After comparing of the materials
the weight used in the
of the materials usedreference samples
in the reference
with
samplesthose of the
with specimens,
those the reduction
of the specimens, of the rawofmaterial
the reduction the raw employed can be calculated.
material employed can be calculated.

3.2.4. Fourth Phase:

3.2.4. Fourth Phase: Proposal
Proposal of
of Building
Building Applications
Applications
Considering
Consideringthe theresults
resultsobtained
obtainedininthe
thethird phase,
third phase,thethe
optimum
optimum gypsum
gypsumcompounds
compounds suitable for
suitable
use as gypsum-based products (coatings and gypsum elements for partition walls),
for use as gypsum-based products (coatings and gypsum elements for partition walls), were were selected. For
the selection,
selected. For the
the results obtained
selection, by Sanobtained
the results Antonioby González et al. [27]
San Antonio were used.
González et al.This
[27] study
were conducted
used. This
astudy
survey
conducted a survey among several experts of gypsum products in order to identify properties
among several experts of gypsum products in order to identify which are the key which are
of gypsum to be applied
the key properties as a coating
of gypsum or as a prefabricated
to be applied as a coating or element for interior partition
as a prefabricated element walls. This
for interior
study concluded
partition that study
walls. This the surface hardness
concluded thatandthewater
surfacecapillary
hardness behavior werecapillary
and water the main behavior
characteristics
were
valued for coatings applications, while density and compressive strength were chosen
the main characteristics valued for coatings applications, while density and compressive strength for interior
partition applications.
were chosen Based
for interior on these
partition results, theBased
applications. following principles
on these results,were considered
the following for this study:
principles were
considered for this study:
• The best compounds performing on surface hardness and water capillary behavior were chosen
• for
Thecoatings applications.
best compounds performing on surface hardness and water capillary behavior were chosen
• for coatings
The applications.
best compounds performing on density and compressive strength were chosen for interior
• The best compounds
partition applicationsperforming
(gypsum panelson density and compressive
and blocks). strengthwas
A higher priority were chosen
given for density
to the interior
because the material will be used to manufacture a prefabricated panel or a block and thusdensity
partition applications (gypsum panels and blocks). A higher priority was given to the needs
because
to the material
be lightweight will to
and easy be move
used and
to manufacture
install. a prefabricated panel or a block and thus
• needs
As to be lightweight
a general criterion, and easy to move
compounds and install.a higher percentage of waste and lower
incorporating
• As a general
density criterion,
were chosen, compounds
especially incorporating
for prefabricated a higher
elements, in percentage of waste
order to simplify theirand lower
transport
density
and were chosen, especially for prefabricated elements, in order to simplify their transport
installation.
and installation.
In this way, the above considerations were used to choose the optimum compounds for
each In this way, the above considerations were used to choose the optimum compounds for each
application.
application.
3.2.5. Fifth Phase: Development of A Gypsum Prefabricated Block and Tests
3.2.5. Fifth Phase: Development of A Gypsum Prefabricated Block and Tests
A gypsum block with a sandwich configuration was developed with dimensions of 40 × 20 ×
10 cm.A For
gypsum block with
this, gypsum a sandwich
laminated configuration
plasterboards werewas developed
used with dimensions
for the external layers of of
the40block
× 20 and
× 10
cm.core
the For this, gypsum
was filled laminated
with plasterboards
the best compound werein
chosen used for4.the
phase external
The layers
block was of the block
elaborated andand the
tested
core was filled
following with the discussed
the procedure best compound chosenCruz
in the Santa in phase 4. The
Astorqui block
et al. [20] was
study.elaborated
The blockand wastested
kept
following
in the procedure
a laboratory environmentdiscussed
duringin14the Santa
days Cruztesting.
before Astorqui
The etcompression
al. [20] study.test
Thewas
block was kept
carried in
out on
a laboratory environment during 14 days before testing. The compression test was
the dry block to evaluate the behavior of the partition proposed when it is exposed to an excessive carried out on the
dry block to evaluate the behavior of the partition proposed when it is exposed to an excessive
Materials 2020, 13, 193 6 of 14
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

deformation
deformation ofofthe
thestructural
structuralframework
framework and to verify
and whether
to verify this type
whether of lightweight
this type block is
of lightweight viable
block is
in the construction of interior partitions (Figure 3).
viable in the construction of interior partitions (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
The cast
cast used
used to
to fabricate
fabricate the
the gypsum
gypsum block (left) and
block (left) and compression
compression test
test (right).
(right).

While aahigh
While highcompressive
compressivestrength
strength is not
is not required
required to interior
to an an interior partition
partition because
because it must
it must only
only carry
carry
its itsweight,
dead dead weight,
a lowera stiffness
lower stiffness
is needed is needed
compared compared to conventional
to conventional partitions.
partitions. So together
So together with the
with the maximum
maximum compressivecompressive strength,
strength, the stiffness the
of stiffness
the elementof the
waselement was also
also analyzed. Foranalyzed. For the
the compression
compression
test, test, press
the universal the universal
IBERTEST press IBERTEST
MIB-60/AM MIB-60/AM
(Madrid, Spain)(Madrid,
was used.Spain)
The was used.
results The results
obtained were
obtained were
compared to the compared
ones obtainedto the
by theones obtained
previous by and
authors the with
previous authors
the current and with theproducts.
commercialized current
commercialized products.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
This section shows the results obtained with the recycled gypsum compounds and suggests
several applications for building
This section shows construction
the results obtained projects.
with the recycled gypsum compounds and suggests
several applications for building construction projects.
4.1. Results of Phase 1: Compounds Containing Inert CDW
4.1. Results of Phase
The results of 1:
theCompounds Containing
preliminary tests onInert
the CDW
reference compounds and those with inert CDW
(ceramics, concrete,
The results of and mix) are shown
the preliminary testsinon
Table
the1.reference compounds and those with inert CDW
Results show that the density increases
(ceramics, concrete, and mix) are shown in Table 1. with the addition of inert waste, regardless of the waste
type Results
added. It is possible to observe that the increment
show that the density increases with the addition is around 12–13%
of inert when
waste, 25% of inert
regardless waste
of the is
waste
added and can
type added. It isincrease
possiblebytoup to 31%that
observe when theadding 75%isofaround
increment inert waste.
12–13% when 25% of inert waste is
added and can increase by up to 31% when adding 75% of inert waste.
Table 1. Results obtained in phase 1.

Table 1. Results
Density obtained in phase
Superficial 1.
Flexural Strength Compressive
Series Compound 3
(gr/cm ) Hardness (Shore C) (MPa) Strength (MPa)
Flexural
1 YG0.8 REF Density
1.00 Superficial Hardness
59.26 2.61 Compressive
4.52
Series
2
Compound
YG0.8 + 25%CER 1.12 67.96
Strength
2.96 5.01 (MPa)
(gr/cm 3) (Shore C) Strength
3 YG0.8 + 50%CER 1.22 69.03 (MPa)
3.45 6.27
14 YG0.8 +REF
YG0.8 75%CER 1.31
1.00 74.03
59.26 3.36
2.61 6.98
4.52
YG0.8 + 25%CON
25 YG0.8 + 25%CER 1.13
1.12 70.30
67.96 3.06
2.96 5.47
5.01
6 YG0.8 + 50%CON 1.23 72.16 2.91 5.53
37 YG0.8
YG0.8+ 50%CER
+ 75%CON 1.22
1.31 69.03
76.70 3.45
2.84 6.27
6.21
48 YG0.8
YG0.8 + 25%MIX
+ 75%CER 1.31
1.12 74.03
71.23 3.36
2.95 6.98
5.46
59 YG0.8
YG0.8 + 50%MIX
+ 25%CON 1.26
1.13 76.13
70.30 3.24
3.06 6.86
5.47
10 YG0.8 + 75%MIX 1.31 77.86 3.12 6.75
6 YG0.8 + 50%CON 1.23 72.16 2.91 5.53
7 YG0.8 + 75%CON 1.31 76.70 2.84 6.21
8 For YG0.8
the results of superficial
+ 25%MIX 1.12hardness, it is71.23
seen that in all the2.95
cases the superficial
5.46hardness
increases
9 compared to
YG0.8 + 50%MIX the series
1.26of reference when
76.13 CDW is added. However,
3.24 the percentage
6.86 of
increment
10 changes
YG0.8 with the type
+ 75%MIX of waste. In fact,
1.31 the surface hardness
77.86 increases by about
3.12 15%, 17%,
6.75
and 25% after adding ceramic waste; the increments are about 19%, 22%, and 29% for concrete waste;
whileFor
thethe
increases
resultsare
of about 20%, 28%,
superficial and 30%
hardness, it isfor thethat
seen mixin
waste.
all the cases the superficial hardness
increases compared to the series of reference when CDW is added. However, the percentage of
increment changes with the type of waste. In fact, the surface hardness increases by about 15%, 17%,
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14
Materials 2020, 13, 193 7 of 14
and 25% after adding ceramic waste; the increments are about 19%, 22%, and 29% for concrete waste;
while the increases are about 20%, 28%, and 30% for the mix waste.
The flexural and
The flexural and compression
compression strengths
strengths increase
increase in in all
all cases
cases compared
compared to to the
the reference
reference samples.
samples.
In particular, flexural strengths increase when ceramic waste is added in percentages
In particular, flexural strengths increase when ceramic waste is added in percentages equal or below equal or below
50%. When higher
50%. When higher percentages
percentagesofofceramic
ceramicwaste
wasteareareincorporated,
incorporated, thethe
results slightly
results decrease,
slightly but but
decrease, are
kept above the values of the reference. The initial increment in the flexural strengths
are kept above the values of the reference. The initial increment in the flexural strengths may be due may be due to the
elasticity of the ceramic
to the elasticity material,
of the ceramic which deforms
material, itself with
which deforms itselfthe stress
with theincrement. However,
stress increment. higher
However,
percentages of ceramic
higher percentages ofwaste result
ceramic in greater
waste resultsurface gypsum-ceramic
in greater and thus more weakness
surface gypsum-ceramic and thus points
more
are created, decreasing resistance when higher percentages are added (Figure
weakness points are created, decreasing resistance when higher percentages are added (Figure 4).4).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Compounds
Compounds containing
containing 25%
25% (left),
(left), 50%
50% (center),
(center), and 75% (right)
and 75% (right) of
of mixed
mixed waste
waste (concrete
(concrete
and ceramic).
and ceramic).

Regarding the behavior of samples containing only concrete waste, the flexural strength always
decreases as the amount of waste increases, but the the results
results always
always remain
remain above
above the
the reference
reference value.
value.
This can be explained as occurring because the concrete waste is more rigid than ceramic ceramic and
and thus,
thus,
the gypsum compound containing concrete waste becomes much rigid as the percentage of waste
increases, causing
increases, causingcracks
crackstoto develop
develop earlier.
earlier. TheThe
mix mix compound
compound presents
presents a similar
a similar trend totrend to the
the ceramic
ceramic
waste waste compounds
compounds but withbut with
lower lowerbecause
values values of
because of the concrete
the concrete waste. waste.
By contrast, the values for compression strength increase with the addition of of concrete,
concrete, ceramic,
ceramic,
and mixed waste.
compounds were
From the results obtained, the following compounds were chosen:
chosen:
•
• Compounds containing
Compounds containing only
only ceramic
ceramic waste:
waste: Y0.8
Y0.8 ++ 75%CER
75%CER because
because it
it has
has the highest amount
the highest amount
of waste incorporated and present the best compressive strength (above 54%
of waste incorporated and present the best compressive strength (above 54% compared to compared to the
the
reference). In addition, the flexural strength is also high (above 32% compared with
reference). In addition, the flexural strength is also high (above 32% compared with the reference) the
reference)
and andonly
diverges diverges onlyfrom
0.09 MPa 0.09 the
MPabest
from the achieved
value best valueinachieved in compression.
compression.
•
• Compounds containing only concrete waste: Y0.8 + 50%CON because it
Compounds containing only concrete waste: Y0.8 + 50%CON because it presents
presents good
good value
value for
for
both flexural and compression strengths. The compressive strength increases by
both flexural and compression strengths. The compressive strength increases by around 22% and around 22%
andflexural
the the flexural strength
strength increases
increases by around
by around 12%. 12%.
• Compounds containing a mix of concrete and ceramic waste: Y0.8 + 50%MIX of waste because it
• Compounds containing a mix of concrete and ceramic waste: Y0.8 + 50%MIX of waste because it
presents the best value both for the compressive and flexural strengths, with increments of 51%
presents the best value both for the compressive and flexural strengths, with increments of 51%
and 24%, respectively, compared to the reference.
and 24%, respectively, compared to the reference.
These compounds were analyzed in the next phases.
These compounds were analyzed in the next phases.
4.2. Results of Phase 2: Selected Compounds Lightened with EPS Waste
4.2. Results of Phase 2: Selected Compounds Lightened with EPS Waste
The Table 2 shows the results obtained in this phase.
The Table 2 shows the results obtained in this phase.
Materials 2020, 13, 193 8 of 14

Table 2. Results obtained in phase 2.

Superficial Flexural Compression Water Thermal

Density
Series Compound Hardness Strength Strength Capillarity Conductivity
(gr/cm3 )
(Shore C) (MPa) (MPa) (cm) (W/mK)
1 YG0.8 REF 1.00 59.26 2.61 4.52 6.50 0.27
4 YG0.8 + 75%CER 1.31 74.03 3.36 6.98 5.60 0.40
4.A YG0.8 + 75%CER-1/3 EPS 1.17 68.20 3.04 6.07 6.20 0.29
4.B YG0.8 + 75%CER-2/3 EPS 1.03 63.80 2.90 4.56 6.20 0.28
6 YG0.8 + 50%CON 1.23 72.16 2.91 5.53 5.70 0.36
6.A YG0.8 + 50%CON-1/3 EPS 1.12 66.10 2.96 5.26 6.30 0.33
6.B YG0.8 + 50%CON-2/3 EPS 1.03 64.26 2.84 4.83 6.50 0.33
9 YG0.8 + 50%MIX 1.26 76.13 3.24 6.86 5.90 0.40
9.A YG0.8 + 50%MIX-1/3 EPS 1.12 70.36 3.36 5.67 5.70 0.35
9.B YG0.8 + 50%MIX-2/3 EPS 1.04 66.13 3.05 4.76 6.60 0.35

Results show that adding EPS to a gypsum compound containing ceramic and/or concrete waste
results in a decrease of the density, surface hardness, and mechanical strengths. However, the values
obtained with EPS are kept above the results achieved with the sample of reference (without additions).
Therefore, a synergistic effect occurs when incorporating ceramic and/or concrete waste (which improve
the mechanical strength and superficial hardness) and EPS waste (which reduces the density of the
compounds), resulting in a compound with balanced properties and similar behavior to the gypsum of
reference without recycled aggregates.
In particular, the incorporation of EPS decreases the density of the samples reaching the values of
the reference samples. Also, the superficial hardness decreases with the addition of EPS, but the lowest
value obtained is above the reference value (around 8% with ceramic or concrete waste and 12% with
mixed waste).
The incorporation of EPS decreases the flexural strength in the samples with ceramic waste, while
in that with concrete or mix waste increases with an incorporation of 1/3 of EPS and decreases with an
incorporation of 2/3, possibly due to a greater elasticity of the material. The addition of EPS decreases
the compressive strength of samples only with inert waste so quickly that the sample with ceramic
waste and 2/3 of EPS reaches the reference value, while the sample with mix waste and 2/3 of EPS ends
up near it.
The analysis of the water capillary absorption shows that the addition of EPS increases the water
absorption in most specimens so that the sample with 50% of concrete waste and 2/3 of recycled EPS
and the sample with 50% of mix waste and 2/3 of recycled EPS both reach the reference value in the
first case and exceed it in the second. Therefore, the lightened samples have worse behavior.
For the thermal conductivity coefficient, the results show that the EPS addition decreases the
values of the samples only with inert waste, improving their thermal behavior.
In general, from the results obtained in the laboratory, the compound Y0.8 + 75%CER + 1/3EPS
should be highlighted as a good compound for building construction materials, because it achieves
similar results to the gypsum of reference.
Table 3 shows the results obtained in the environmental analysis to calculate the amount of raw
materials consumed for each compound. The results show that the most sustainable compounds,
consuming fewer raw materials, are those incorporating ceramic and EPS waste. With these compounds,
the reduction of raw material consumption reaches around 10.3% in the compound with 75% being
ceramic waste and 2/3 being EPS waste.
Materials 2020, 13, 193 9 of 14

Table 3. Quantities of materials used to produce the samples and the reduction of raw materials
consumption compared to the reference sample.

Compound for One Cast One Sample (4 × 4 × 16 cm3 ) Reduction of

Compound Materials
Raw Material (%)
Weight (g) % Weight (g)
Gypsum 1000 55.56% 142.02 –
Water 800 44.44% 113.61 –
Y 0.8
Ceramic waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Concrete waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
EPS waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Gypsum 1000 39.22% 131.41 7.5%
Water 800 31.37% 105.13 7.5%
Y 0.8 + 75%CER Ceramic waste 750 29.41% 98.56 – –
Concrete waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
EPS waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Gypsum 1000 43.38% 130.17 8.3%
Y 0.8 + 75%CER Water 800 34.70% 104.13 8.3%
+ 1/3EPS Ceramic waste 499.9 21.68% 65.07 – –
Concrete waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
EPS waste 5.4 0.23% 0.70 – –
Gypsum 1000 48.53% 127.40 10.3%
Y 0.8 + 75%CER Water 800 38.82% 101.92 10.3%
+ 2/3EPS Ceramic waste 249.8 12.12% 31.83 – –
Concrete waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
EPS waste 10.8 0.52% 1.38 – –
Gypsum 1000 43.48% 136.43 3.9%
Water 800 34.78% 109.15 3.9%
Y 0.8 + 50%CON Ceramic waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Concrete waste 500 21.74% 68.22 – –
EPS waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Gypsum 1000 46.62% 133.08 6.3%
Water 800 37.29% 106.46 6.3%
Y 0.8 + 50%CON
Ceramic waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
+ 1/3EPS
Concrete waste 342.4 15.96% 45.57 – –
EPS waste 2.7 0.13% 0.36 – –
Gypsum 1000 50.76% 134.21 5.5%
Y 0.8 + 50%CON Water 800 40.61% 107.37 5.5%
+ 2/3EPS Ceramic waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Concrete waste 164.4 8.35% 22.06 – –
EPS waste 5.6 0.28% 0.75 – –
Gypsum 1000 43.48% 139.88 1.5%
Water 800 34.78% 111.91 1.5%
Y 0.8 + 50%MIX Ceramic waste 250 10.87% 34.97 – –
Concrete waste 250 10.87% 34.97 – –
EPS waste 0 0.00% 0.00 – –
Gypsum 1000 46.86% 134.60 5.2%
Water 800 37.49% 107.68 5.2%
Y 0.8 + 50%MIX
Ceramic waste 166.5 7.80% 22.41 – –
+ 1/3EPS
Concrete waste 164.4 7.70% 22.13 – –
EPS waste 3.1 0.15% 0.42 – –
Gypsum 1000 50.72% 134.43 5.3%
Water 800 40.57% 107.54 5.3%
Y 0.8 + 50%MIX
Ceramic waste 83.3 4.22% 11.20 – –
+ 2/3EPS
Concrete waste 82.2 4.17% 11.05 – –
EPS waste 6.3 0.32% 0.85 – –

4.3. Results of Phase 3: Proposals for Building Applications

This section shows the analyzed compounds which are more suitable to be used as interior
gypsum coatings and gypsum-based blocks for interior partition walls.
Materials 2020, 13, 193 10 of 14
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

For
It can
Materials gypsum
2019, be coatings,
12, xseen
FOR the values
that gypsum
PEER REVIEW withobtained in the waste
75% ceramic superficial hardness
provides and material
the best water capillarity 10 tests
for a coating
of 14
were used. In this sense, Figure 5 shows the values for superficial hardness and
application, presenting the second best surface hardness value and the lowest water absorptionwater absorption due
to It can be
the capillarity
index seen that
of the
by capillarity, gypsum
studied
with with
samples.
an increase 75% ceramic waste provides the best material for
by 25% of the surface hardness and a 14% reduction of water a coating
application,
absorption. presenting
It can beThe
seengypsum the
that gypsum second
compound best
with 75% surface
ceramic
can be hardness
waste
applied provides
directlyvalue andmaterial
the best
over the the lowest
untreated water application,
forpartition,
a coating absorption
in this case
index by
presenting capillarity,
the second
made with hollow bricks. with
best an increase
surface by 25%
hardness of
value the
and surface
the hardness
lowest water and a 14%
absorption reduction
index by of water
capillarity,
absorption. The gypsum compound can be applied directly over the untreated partition,
with an increase by 25% of the surface hardness and a 14% reduction of water absorption. The gypsum in this case
made
compoundwith can
hollow bricks. directly over the untreated partition, in this case made with hollow bricks.
be applied

Figure 5. Results of superficial hardness vs. water absorption based on the capillarity of phase 2
samples.
Figure 5. Results of superficial hardness vs. water absorption based on the capillarity of phase
Figure 5. Results of superficial hardness vs. water absorption based on the capillarity of phase 2
2 samples.
samples.
For a gypsum-based block comprising a partition wall, the compressive strength and the
density
For of the material are
a gypsum-based keycomprising
block properties.aTherefore, Figure
partition wall, the6compressive
shows the relationship
strength andbetween the
the density
of For
density a gypsum-based
and the
the material arecompressiveblock comprising
strength
key properties. of the
Therefore, a partition
analyzed
Figure wall, the
compounds.
6 shows compressive
Results
the relationship strength
show the
between and
thatdensity the
the lighter
and
density
material
the ofisthe
thematerial
compressive areofkey
gypsum-based
strength properties.
the compound Therefore, Figure
with the addition
analyzed compounds. Results6of
shows the
75%that
show relationship
ceramic
the between
wastematerial
lighter and with the
2/3
is the
density
recycled and
EPS. the compressive strength of the analyzed compounds. Results
gypsum-based compound with the addition of 75% ceramic waste and with 2/3 recycled EPS. show that the lighter
material is the gypsum-based compound with the addition of 75% ceramic waste and with 2/3
recycled EPS.

Figure 6. Results of density vs. compression strength of phase 2 samples.

Figure 6. Results of density vs. compression strength of phase 2 samples.
The compound Y0.8 + 75%CER + 2/3EPS can be used to manufacture gypsum-based blocks for
Thepartitions.
interior compound Figure 6. Results
Y0.8 + 75%CERof density vs. compression
+ 2/3EPS can be usedstrength of phase 2 samples.
to manufacture gypsum-based blocks for
interior partitions.
The compound
4.4. Results in Phase 4:Y0.8 + 75%CER
Development and+ 2/3EPS can
Test of the be used to manufacture
Gypsum-Based gypsum-based blocks for
Block Prototype
interior partitions.
4.4. Results in Phase 4: Development and Test of the Gypsum-Based Block Prototype
A hollow gypsum block with a sandwich configuration was chosen. The core of the sandwich
blockAwas filledgypsum
hollow with Y0.8 + 75%CER
block withand + 2/3EPS compound
a sandwich and laminated plasterboards (6 mm) were
4.4. Results in Phase 4: Development Test of theconfiguration
Gypsum-BasedwasBlockchosen. The core of the
Prototype sandwich
placed in the
block was outer
filled layers
with of+the
Y0.8 block, following
75%CER the method and
+ 2/3EPS compound of Santa Cruz Astorqui
laminated et al. [20]
plasterboards (Figure
(6 mm) 7).
were
A hollow gypsum block with a sandwich configuration was chosen. The core
placed in the outer layers of the block, following the method of Santa Cruz Astorqui et al. [20] of the sandwich
block
(Figurewas7).filled with Y0.8 + 75%CER + 2/3EPS compound and laminated plasterboards (6 mm) were
placed in the outer layers of the block, following the method of Santa Cruz Astorqui et al. [20]
(Figure 7).
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Materials 2020, 13, 193 11 of 14
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Figure 7. Design of the proposed hollow gypsum block with a sandwich configuration (dimensions
in cm).
Figure 7. Design
Figure 7. Designof
ofthe
theproposed
proposedhollow
hollowgypsum
gypsumblock with
block a sandwich
with configuration
a sandwich (dimensions
configuration in
(dimensions
cm).
in cm).
Table 4 shows the results obtained for the block prototype and compares the values obtained
withTable
the results obtained by previous works. Results show that the block developed values
is more resistant
Table 44 shows
shows thethe results
results obtained
obtained for
for the
the block
block prototype
prototype andand compares
compares the
the values obtained
obtained
(around
with 50%) than a hollow block but less than the solid block or traditional partition.
with the
the results
results obtained
obtainedby by previous
previousworks.
works. Results
Results show
show that
that the
the block
block developed
developed isis more
more resistant
resistant
(around
(around 50%)
50%) than
than aahollow
hollow block
block but
but less
less than
than the
the solid
solid block
block or
ortraditional
traditionalpartition.
partition.
Table 4. Comparison of compression strengths and weights of the block developed, traditional
partition
Table and two gypsum
4. Comparison blocks currently
of compression used
strengths andin the market
weights of the[20].
block developed, traditional partition
Table 4. Comparison of compression strengths and weights of the block developed, traditional
and two gypsum blocks currently used in the market [20].
Compression
partition and two gypsum blocks currently used in the market [20]. Strength Weight Per m2
(MPa)
Compression Strength (MPa) Weight Per m(kg)
2 (kg)
Compression StrengthWeight Per m2
Prototype developed. Hollow gypsum
Prototype developed. Hollow gypsum block block with a
0.95 0.95
(MPa) 67.06 67.06
(kg)
sandwichconfiguration
with a sandwich configuration
Prototype developed. Hollow gypsum block with a > 5.00
Gypsum
Gypsum solidsolid
blockblock >0.95
5.00 96.00 96.00
67.06
sandwich
Gypsum configuration
hollow block 0.63 75.00 75.00
Gypsum hollow block 0.63
Gypsum
Traditional partition solid
(ceramic brickblock
and plaster) 2.89 > 5.00 81.60 96.00
Traditional partition (ceramic brick and plaster) 2.89 81.60
Gypsum hollow block 0.63 75.00
Traditional
However, for partition
for an (ceramic
an interior brick
interior partition, and
partition, the plaster)
the compression 2.89
compression resistance is not so
so important 81.60 it is
important because
not a structural
structural element.
element. Its deformation is more relevant in order to adapt to the deformation of the the
However,
building for an interior partition,
structure. graphtheshows
compression
that theresistance is not so important because it is
The stress-strain graph shows that block falls into the elastic zone (Figure 8).
not a structural element.
After Itsthe
deformation is more relevant in order to adapt to the deformation ofcore
the
After the compression test, test, fractureand
the fracture and breakage
breakage produced
produced isisexamined.
examined. InIn this
this sense,
sense, thethe
core of
building
of structure. The stress-strain graph shows that thetoblock falls into the elastic zone (Figure 8).
thethe block
block wasseparated
was separated fromthe
from theplasterboards
plasterboards due
due the insufficient
to the insufficient adhesion between them them
After the compression
(possibly test, the fracture and breakage produced is examined. In this sense, the core of
(possibly duedue to
to the
the absorption
absorption of of the
the hydration
hydration water
water by
by the
the cardboard).
cardboard). Also, cracks were observed
thethe
in block
core was
of theseparated from thewith
block, coinciding plasterboards due to the insufficient adhesion between them
the inner holes, which are the most fragile areas of the block.
(possibly
However, due to the absorption of the hydration water by the cardboard). Also, cracks were observed
However, the the rest
rest of
of the
thecore
coreremains
remainscohesive
cohesive(Figure
(Figure9).
9).
in the core of the block, coinciding with the inner holes, which are the most fragile areas of the block.
However, the rest of the core remains cohesive (Figure 9).

Figure 8. Stress-strain graph of the prototype and

and aa traditional
traditional partition.
partition.

Figure 8. Stress-strain graph of the prototype and a traditional partition.

Materials 2020,
Materials 13, 12,
2019, 193x FOR PEER REVIEW 1212
of of
14 14

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9. State
9. State andand cracks
cracks of of
thethe block
block after
after compression
compression test.
test. (a)(a) side
side of of
thethe block;
block; (b)(b) block
block tested
tested

5. 5.
Conclusions
Conclusions
From thethe
From results obtained,
results it is possible
obtained, to conclude
it is possible that it isthat
to conclude viable to incorporate
it is mixes of concrete,
viable to incorporate mixes of
ceramic, and EPS waste in gypsum composites for building interior coatings or
concrete, ceramic, and EPS waste in gypsum composites for building interior coatings or prefabricated elements.
In prefabricated
particular, theelements.
followingInconclusions
particular, were reached: conclusions were reached:
the following
• • When
When considering
considering mechanical
mechanical properties,
properties, thethe
addition
addition of of
ceramic
ceramicandandconcrete
concrete waste
waste improves
improves
mechanical
mechanical behavior.
behavior.In In particular,
particular, the the incorporation
incorporationofofceramicceramicwaste
waste (until
(until reaching
reaching 75%75%
over
over the gypsum weight) increases the mechanical strengths and the
the gypsum weight) increases the mechanical strengths and the density of the gypsum without density of the gypsum
without additions.
additions.
• • Adding
Adding EPSEPS
waste in compounds
waste in compounds containing ceramicceramic
containing and concrete waste decreases
and concrete their density,
waste decreases their
improving the thermal behavior and decreasing the water capillarity
density, improving the thermal behavior and decreasing the water capillarity absorption.absorption.
• • Incorporating
Incorporatingceramic,
ceramic,concrete, and EPS
concrete, andwaste
EPS in gypsum
waste creates a synergy
in gypsum creates abetween
synergy thebetween
materials,the
because the composites obtained achieve similar or improved properties
materials, because the composites obtained achieve similar or improved properties compared compared to traditional
gypsums without
to traditional additions.
gypsums without additions.
• • Gypsums
Gypsums containing
containing inert
inert andand EPSEPS waste
waste reduce
reduce thethe environmental
environmental impact
impact of of
thethe traditional
traditional
gypsums
gypsums due
due to to
thethe reduction
reduction of of
raw raw materials
materials consumption
consumption (around
(around 7.5%7.5% when
when inert
inert waste
waste is is
incorporated
incorporated andandupup to to 10.5%
10.5% when
when EPSEPS is also
is also added).
added).
• • TheThe composite
composite + 75%CER
Y0.8Y0.8 + 75%CER is suitable
is suitable for coating
for coating application
application becausebecause
it presentsit presents the best
the best surface
surfacevalue
hardness hardness
with the value with
lowest waterthe absorption
lowest water absorption
by capillarity. by capillarity.
Moreover, Moreover,
the composite Y0.8 +
the
75%CER + 2/3EPS
composite Y0.8 +is75%CER
appropriate + 2/3EPS is appropriate
to produce to produce
hollow blocks due tohollow blocks
its density due
and to its density
compression
and compression
strength, strength,
which is similar which
to the gypsumis similar to the gypsum of reference.
of reference.
• • AA sandwich
sandwich gypsum
gypsum block
block filled
filled with
with Y0.8Y0.8+ 75%CER
+ 75%CER + 2/3EPS
+ 2/3EPS compound
compound andand laminated
laminated
plasterboards (6 mm) as external elements was found to be
plasterboards (6 mm) as external elements was found to be more resistant than currently more resistant than currently
commercialized
commercialized hollow
hollow blocks.
blocks.
In In general,
general, these
these compounds
compounds provide
provide direct advantages,
direct advantages, as the mechanical
as the mechanical and thermaland thermal
behavior
behavior iscompared
is improved improvedtocompared to gypsums,
traditional traditionalwhile
gypsums, while the consumption
the consumption of rawismaterials
of raw materials reduced. is
reduced. Additionally,
Additionally, further workfurther
shouldwork should
be made be made
focusing onfocusing on other
other building building applications
applications as well
as well as other
as other
forms forms of environmental
of environmental analysis,
analysis, such as lifesuch
cycleas life cycle analysis.
analysis.

Author
Author Contributions:P.V.S.
Contributions: “conceptualization,
P.V.S. “conceptualization,writing,
writing,review
reviewandandediting, supervision”;
editing, supervision”;M.d.R.M.
M.d.R.M.
“conceptualization, review,
“conceptualization, supervision
review, and funding”;
supervision M.S. “dataM.S.
and funding”; collection
“dataandcollection
analysis”; and
C.P.A.analysis”;
“methodology
C.P.A.
and data collection”;and
“methodology J.S.C.A. “conceptualization
data and methodology”
collection”; J.S.C.A. and C.V.A.and
“conceptualization “conceptualization
methodology”andandfunding”.
C.V.A.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
“conceptualization and funding”.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Funding: This research received no external funding
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Materials Laboratory at the School of
Building Construction of
Acknowledgments: Madrid
The (UPM).
authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Materials Laboratory at the School
of Building Construction of Madrid
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare (UPM).
no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Materials 2020, 13, 193 13 of 14

References
1. McLellan, R.; Iyengar, L.; Jeffries, B.; Oerlemans, N. Living Planet. Report 2014: Species and Spaces, People and
Places; WWF International: Gland, Switzerland, 2014.
2. Eurostat. Eurostat Statistics for Waste Flow Generation 2016. European Commision. Available online:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ (accessed on 30 June 2019).
3. Monier, V.; Hestin, M.; Trarieux, M.; Mimid, S.; Domröse, L.; Van Acoleyen, M.; Hjerp, P.; Mudgal, S. Study on
the Management of Construction and Demolition Waste in the EU; Final report for the European Commission;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
4. Commision, E. (Ed.) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste. Off. J.
Eur. Union 2008, 312, 3–30.
5. Osmani, M.; Villoria Sáez, P. Current and emerging construction waste management status, trends and
approaches. In Waste, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
6. Saiz Martínez, P.; González Cortina, M.; Fernández Martínez, F.; Rodríguez Sánchez, A. Comparative study
of three types of fine recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste (CDW), and their use in
masonry mortar fabrication. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 118, 162–169. [CrossRef]
7. Jiménez, J.; Ayuso, J.; López, M.; Fernández, J.; De Brito, J. Use of fine recycled aggregates from ceramic
waste in masonry mortar manufacturing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 679–690. [CrossRef]
8. Lee, S.-T.; Swamy, R.N.; Kim, S.-S.; Park, Y.-G. Durability of mortars made with recycled fine aggregates
exposed to sulfate solutions. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2008, 20, 63–70. [CrossRef]
9. Zia, K.M.; Bhatti, H.N.; Bhatti, I.A. Methods for polyurethane and polyurethane composites, recycling and
recovery: A review. React. Funct. Polym. 2007, 67, 675–692. [CrossRef]
10. Arroyo Sanz, R. Addition of New Polymerbased and Mineral-Based Fillers in Mortar: Influences of Polyurethane and
Afwillite on the Microstructure and Final Properties; Universidad de Burgos: Burgos, Spain, 2017.
11. Piña Ramírez, C.; del Río Merino, M.; Viñas Arrebola, C.; Vidales Barriguete, A.; Kosior-Kazberuk, M.
Analysis of the mechanical behaviour of the cement mortars with additives of mineral wool fibres from
recycling of CDW. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 210, 56–62. [CrossRef]
12. Morales-Conde, M.; Rubio-de-Hita, P.; Pérez-Gálvez, F. Composite Mortars Produced with Wood Waste from
Demolition: Assessment of New Compounds with Enhanced Thermal Properties. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017,
30, 04017273. [CrossRef]
13. Rodríguez Sáiz, Á.; Manso, J.M.; Aragón, Á.; González, J.J. Strength and workability of masonry mortars
manufactured with ladle furnace slag. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53, 645–651. [CrossRef]
14. Muñoz-Ruiperez, C.; Rodríguez, A.; Gutiérrez-González, S.; Calderón, V. Lightweight masonry mortars
made with expanded clay and recycled aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 118, 139–145. [CrossRef]
15. Arroyo, R.; Horgnies, M.; Junco, C.; Rodríguez, A.; Calderón, V. Lightweight structural eco-mortars made
with polyurethane wastes and non-Ionic surfactants. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 157–163. [CrossRef]
16. Pedreño-Rojas, M.; Flores-Colen, I.; De Brito, J.; Rodríguez-Liñán, C. Influence of the heating process on the
use of gypsum wastes in plasters: Mechanical, thermal and environmental analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215,
444–457. [CrossRef]
17. San-Antonio-González, A.; Merino, M.D.R.; Arrebola, C.V.; Villoria-Sáez, P. Lightweight material made
with gypsum and EPS waste with enhanced mechanical strength. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 28, 04015101.
[CrossRef]
18. Santos Jiménez, R.; San-Antonio-González, A.; Del Río Merino, M.; González Cortina, M.; Viñas Arrebola, C.
Gypsum Composites with CDW as Raw Material. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Struct.
Constr. Archit. Eng. 2015, 9, 835–838.
19. Del Río Merino, M.; Santa Cruz Astorqui, J.; Villoria Sáez, P.; Santos Jiménez, R.; González Cortina, M. Eco
plaster mortars with addition of waste for high hardness coatings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 649–656.
[CrossRef]
20. Santa-Cruz-Astorqui, J.; Del-Río-Merino, M.; Villoria-Sáez, P.; Porras-Amores, C. Analysis of the viability
of prefabricated elements for partitions manufactured with plaster and EPS from waste recycling. DYNA
Ingeniería Ind. 2019, 94, 415–420. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 193 14 of 14

21. Alameda, L.; Calderón, V.; Junco, C.; Rodríguez, A.; Gadea, J.; Gutiérrez-González, S. Characterization of
gypsum plasterboard with polyurethane foam waste reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Mater. Constr.
2016, 66, 100. [CrossRef]
22. UNE. Gypsum Binders and Gypsum Plasters. Part 1: Definitions and Requirements; EN 13279-1; UNE: Madrid,
Spain, 2009.
23. NSAI. Gypsum Binders and Gypsum Plasters. Part 2: Test Methods; EN 13279-2; NSAI: Dablin, Ireland, 2006.
24. Cha, J.; Seo, J.; Kim, S. Building materials thermal conductivity measurement and correlation with heat flow
meter, laser flash analysis and TCi. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2012, 109, 295–300. [CrossRef]
25. Porras Amores, C.; Santa Cruz Astorqui, J.; Del Rio Merino, M.; Villoria Sáez, P.; Viñas Arrebola, C. Thermal
behavior of traditional lightweight gypsum with construction and demolition waste materials. DYNA 2019,
94, 431–436. [CrossRef]
26. UNE. Building Lime—Part 2: Test Methods; EN 459-2; UNE: Madrid, Spain, 2011.
27. San Antonio González, A.D. Caracterización de Compuestos Eco-Eficientes de Yeso Aligerado con Residuo
de Poliestireno Extruido (XPS). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, July 2017.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).