The 7 th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

International Institute for FRP in Construction

REUSE OF GLASS THERMOSET FRP COMPOSITES IN THE

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY – A GROWING OPPORTUNITY

Lawrence C. Bank
Professor, City College of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA
lbank2@ccny.cuny.edu

Ardavan Yazdanbakhsh
Assistant Professor, City College of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA
ayazdanbakhsh@ccny.cuny.edu

ABSTRACT: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials continue to increase in usage
worldwide in the construction, infrastructure, recreational, automotive and power industries. The current
growth rate is estimated to be 6% per year according to market reports. Increases are anticipated in all
major areas including, FRP pipes, FRP tanks, FRP wind turbines, FRP boats and ships, FRP car parts,
FRP aerospace parts, and FRP in buildings and bridges (both for new structures and for repair). Much of
this increase is due to the superior environmental durability of FRP materials. Some claim this makes
FRP materials more “sustainable.” However, together with this increase in production comes an increase
in scrap and waste from this production. In addition, many of the first-generation FRP products
developed for these industries are reaching their “end-of-life” and need to be disposed of responsibly.
Recycling of waste FRP composite materials is developing into an important environmental issue. This
paper reviews possible technologies and research that the “composites for construction” community can
take to providing solutions.

1. Introduction
1.1. Market Sizes – FRP Production and Waste
According to JEC Composites (2011), “The composites industry has experienced long-term growth based
on global economic development and higher penetration into key markets (building & construction, wind
energy, aerospace, automotive…).” “The industry is expected to grow on average at 6% per year in value
for the next 5 years (5% per year in volume) from 68 Billion € (7.9 Million tonnes) in 2010 to 90 Billion €
(10.0 Million tonnes) in 2015. The shift from North America and Europe (55% of the worldwide
(production) volumes in 2010, 50% in 2015) to Asia (38% of the worldwide volumes in 2010, 43% in
2015) will continue.” “US demand for fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) composites is forecast to climb 4.7%
annually to 4.3 billion pounds (1.95 billion kg) in 2017, valued at nearly $23 billion (according to the
Freedonia Group Inc.)” (Reinforced Plastics, 2013). “The US recreational boating market is beginning to
recover with demand expected to grow 8% annually from 2011 to 2016 to reach $10.1 billion” (Reinforced
Plastics, 2012). According to the AVK (2013), “the overall GFRP market in Europe is expected to grow by
1% to an estimated 1.02 million Kilo tonnes in 2013.” The Latin American Composite Materials
Association (ALMACO) reports that last year, that the Brazilian composites industry produced 206,000
tons and earned US$ 1.492 billion (Netcomposites, 2013).
The above FRP composite material estimated production and sales numbers include both carbon and
glass FRP (and other specialty fibers in small amounts) as well as thermosetting and thermoplastic
resins. It is estimated that the percentage of glass FRP (GFRP) is upwards of 95% of all FRP produced
(Job, 2013). It is also estimated that 75% of GFRP materials produced for laminated, pultruded, molded,
sheet molding compound (SMC) and bulk molding compound (BMC) FRP composites, use thermosetting
resins. The volume of carbon FRP (CFRP) produced is significantly smaller than glass FRP. According
to Job (2013), there were “76,000 tonnes carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) compared to about 1
million tonnes GFRP parts produced in Europe in 2012.” This demand for CFRP is expected to grow to
130,000 tonnes by 2020 with the largest growth in the automotive sector (Holmes, 2014).
However, accompanying this increase in production and sales volume of FRP materials is an increase of
production waste and a looming explosive increase in FRP products reaching their end-of-life. Jacob

Page 1 of 6
(2011) reported that, “The total combined volume of end-of-life and production waste generated by the
glass thermoset composites market in Europe is expected to reach 304,000 tonnes by 2015.” In the UK
alone it is estimated that around 150,000 tonnes of GFRP are sent to landfills every year (Reinforced
Plastics, 2011). According to Composites UK (2013), “the volume of GFRP manufacturing waste
produced in the UK in 2009 was estimated at 22,750 tonnes and end-of-life waste at 5 times that
amount.” It is estimated that 10% to 15% of GFRP materials are scrapped during the production process.
The Latin American Composite Materials Association (ALMACO) estimates that 20,000 tons of waste
were generated in Brazil in 2012 (Netcomposites, 2013). Around 3,000 tonnes of carbon fibre FRP scrap
is generated annually in the USA and Europe (Wood, 2010).
The major source of FRP end-of-life waste is the marine industry. Marsh (2013) reports that, “Given the
estimated 6 million recreational craft in Europe alone, and with boat lifespans of 30-45 years, some
140,000 of these vessels per year can be expected to become due for scrapping. Most will be composite
and the majority of those will be GRP (GFRP),” Marsh (2013). Another future large end-of-life source of
waste is predicted to come from the wind power industry. According to the Swiss cement manufacturer,
Holcim (2014), “rotor blades made of fibre (composite) materials, resins and different fillers have to be
replaced after a lifespan of twenty years, which amounts to 15,000 tonnes per year to be disposed as
from 2020. From 2034 the global amount is predicted to excess 200,000 tonnes per year.”

1.2. Market Barriers - Environmental Impact

FRP materials are produced from non-renewable fossil fuels and non-recoverable mineral resources. In
addition, their processing is often highly energy intensive and can include the use of hazardous heavy
metals, styrene, and organic chemicals. As such, FRP composites, as do all materials, have an
environmental footprint that must be considered as the industry continues to grow. A number of recent
papers have begun to address the environmental and human health impacts of FRP production and
waste processes (Halliwell, 2010; Zaman et al., 2014). Legislation in Europe has been enacted to restrict
the disposal of FRP waste in landfills (Stewart, 2009). This forms part of the EU Waste Framework
Directive, that includes the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive, and the End-of
Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive. In Germany disposal by landfill is prohibited and alternative methods are
required. In 2011, The European Composites Industry Association (EuCIA) (2011) issued a position
paper stating that FRP composites can be recyclable within the EU framework. In the US landfilling is the
predominant method for disposing of FRP scrap and waste; however, these costs are steadily increasing
and currently FRP waste management (including pickup and landfilling the scraps) in the US is in the
range of $45 to $200 per tonne. The American Composites Manufacturers Association’s (ACMA) Green
Composites Council’s Recycling Committee, is beginning to address these issues. In Asia there does not
appear to be any activity with regard to limiting environmental and health impacts of FRP materials at the
present time. With the increased awareness of the environmental impacts of climate change, decreased
and more expensive natural resources, and greater global concerns for health, the barriers to FRP
production and waste disposal are likely to increase (IPCC, 2014).

2. Recycling Technologies for FRP Composites

Since the 1990s there has been a developing body of research that has been studying the issues of
recycling of FRP composites (Job, 2013; Jacob, 2011; Reynolds and Pharaoh, 2009; Pickering, 2006.)
There are three primary methods to dispose of FRP composites at the present time, (1) dumping, (2)
incineration, and, (3) reusing all or part of the composite material in a secondary process or application.

2.1. Dumping
Dumping of FRP materials and products in landfills is the preferred method in most of the world for
economic reasons. Illegal dumping is unfortunately also a common method especially for end-of-life
consumer goods. Many FRP boats are simply abandoned. GFRP production scrap is typically not sorted
and is sent to landfills in dumpsters as mixed waste that includes other waste materials of various types
(Halliwell, 2010). In building construction, such waste-sorting is now required for green building
certifications. The first step to increasing the value of this production scrap will be to ensure scrap is
sorted and separated. In particular separating high value materials (such as fibers and mats) from cured
resins and cured composite parts is needed. End-of-life waste is much more difficult to separate as most

Page 2 of 6
FRP consumer products (boats, sporting equipment) and industrial products (automotive, aerospace,
wind turbines, tanks) contain numerous embedded and attached parts typically of metallic materials or
unreinforced plastics.

2.2. Incineration
Incineration is an alternative to dumping. Incinerating FRP composite materials is more expensive than
incinerating other organic materials since additional scrubbers are needed to extract both harmful gasses
and hazardous particulates from the effluent. In addition, the residue ash still needs to be disposed of in
some fashion. Incineration is either performed with or without energy recovery. Recovering the waste
heat from the incineration process can be used to generate electricity that can improve the economics of
incineration, provided the plant invests in this technology. More recently, in Germany, the use of
incineration as part of a co-processing method to dispose of the FRP waste and produce both energy and
inorganic feedstock for production of clinker for cement manufacture has been commercialized. Known
as the “cement-kiln” method this process is being used by Holcim the Swiss cement manufacturer to
recycle wind turbine rotor blades (Jacob, 2011; Holcim, 2014). According to EuCIA (2011) this method is
compliant with the EU regulations. Given that the waste ash is used as a feedstock to produce a new
value material this process could also be classified as a reuse method.

2.3. Reuse
The sustainable method to dispose of FRP production waste or scrap from an industrial ecology
perspective is to use the material waste in another application or industrial process. If the waste material
can be recycled into a product or design of greater value than in its present state, this is referred to as
“up-cycling”; if not, it is referred to as “down-cycling.” The determination of increased or decreased value
needs to be conducted using a life-cycle-assessment (LCA) methodology that does not only include cost
considerations (e.g., Boesch and Hellweg, 2010).
FRP waste can be processed in a number of ways to extract useable material for new applications. The
size of the reused material parts or particles influences its desirability as a reusable material (called
recyclate in some literature) and influences its extraction cost. The most ecologically preferred reuse is to
enable the original product or part to be reused as an FRP part in a new application. However, there
does not appear to be much reuse potential for FRP parts (like for timber or steel beams) due to their
specialty production and applications (Halliwell, 2010).
Methods to extract fibers for reuse in new FRP composites have been considered by a number of
researchers and companies. These include a variety of thermal, chemical and fluidized bed processes to
remove the resin and filler material and to recover the fiber for reuse. There has been some commercial
success in recovering carbon fiber from CFRP waste materials due to the higher value of carbon fiber
relative to glass fiber (Wood, 2010). With increased use in commercial aircraft such as the Boeing 787
and Airbus 350 more interest is being devoted to this area (Pimenta and Pinho, 2011). It has been shown
that carbon fibers can retain their strength after thermal treatments. Glass fibers on the other hand, tend
to lose strength when extracted using thermal methods (Adams, et al, 2014; Grause, et al 2013). This
coupled with the low value of the recovered glass fibers has not made the technology commercially
viable.
The final and most viable method currently, to recover usable material from FRP composites for use in
new products is that of mechanical treatment, by shredding, grinding and milling the waste FRP
composite material into filler sized particles. The fillers may then be used in either new FRP materials
such as sheet molding or bulk molding based products (De Rosa, et al, 2005) or potentially used in
concrete materials; either with cementitious, asphaltic or polymeric binders (Meira Castro, et al., 2013,
2014). This has been the subject of a number of recent studies.

3. Use of Thermosetting GFRP Composites in Concrete Materials

The possible use of waste FRP materials as fine or coarse aggregates in concrete is of particular interest
to civil engineers.

Page 3 of 6
A number of prior research studies suggest that the partial replacement of fine aggregates with ground
FRP does not affect the durability of Portland cement concrete and mortar negatively. Tittarelli and
Moriconi (2010) investigated the alkali–silica reactivity (ASR) of ground GFRP using the method
prescribed by ASTM C 289 (2007). The results did not show any potential deleterious reactivity due to the
glassy part present in the waste. They also found that capillary water absorption and drying shrinkage of
cement-based materials with GFRP added resulted in significantly lower values than those of the cement-
based materials manufactured without GFRP. The findings from the investigations of Asokan et al. (2010)
showed that there was almost no drying shrinkage of concrete with addition of ground GFRP waste
powder. Tittarelli et al. (2010) reported that in mortars the risk of cracking induced by restrained drying
shrinkage and capillary water absorption is significantly lower in the presence of GFRP powder. However,
there are downsides to utilizing FRP waste in cementitious materials. For example, fine FRP particles can
reduce the workability of concrete due to their high surface area. In order to maintain the workability a
notable change in w/c ratio or the addition of a significant amount of superplasticizer is required (Correia
et al, 2009, Asokan et al, 2009). However, Tittarelli and Shah (2013) observed that ground GFRP
reduced the viscosity of cement paste and did so more effectively than Fly Ash. Tittarelli et al. (2010)
reported that replacing 5% to 10% of sand volume with ground GFRP caused an increase in autogenous
shrinkage. They also found that the addition of ground GFRP delayed the setting time of cement paste.
The main problem caused by using recycled FRP is associated with mechanical performance. Asokan et
al. (2009) used ground GFRP waste powder that passed the 2 mm sieve as a substitute to fine aggregate
in concrete. 50% of the GFRP waste powder particles were below 18 μm and almost 90% of the GFRP
waste powder particles were below 63 μm. They produced concrete batches with fine aggregate
replacements of 5%, 15%, 30%, and 50%. They observed a reduction of 60% in compressive strength
due to replacing 50% of the fine aggregate by GFRP. However, the values of w/c ratio for the control and
the 50% GFRP batches were 0.5 and 0.71 (for the purpose of maintaining a constant concrete
workability). Such a reduction in w/c ratio causes an approximately 40% decrease in compressive
strength (Kosmatka and Wilson, 2011). Asokan et al. (2010) performed another study in which a
superplasticizer was used in concrete batches with 5% and 15% replacement of fine aggregates with
ground GFRP (2010). In a rather anomalous result, even though the concrete batches containing GFRP
had slightly higher w/c ratios, they produced higher compressive strength values compared to the
controls.
Correia, et al. (2010) used the fine particles obtained from saw-cutting pultruded profiles. 96% of the
GFRP particles were smaller than 63 μm. These particles were used as the partial replacement of fine
aggregates in concrete. They investigated the volume replacement ratios of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%,
and used the same amount of superplasticizer in the control and the GFRP batches. Like Asokan et al.
(2009) they used higher w/c ratios for higher GFRP waste content to maintain a constant workability (w/c
ratios for the control and 20% GFRP were 0.40 and 0.46 respectively). They observed reductions of 48%
in compressive strength and 47% in splitting tensile strength due to replacing 20% of fine aggregates with
GFRP particles. These reductions can be attributed in part to the higher w/c ratio in the GFRP mix.
Tittarelli et al. (2010) used a GFRP powder obtained as an industrial by-product from a shipyard to
partially replace the sand in mortars. The GFRP powder composition was about 20% by volume glass
fiber and 80% by volume polyester resin. SEM observation showed that the powder comprised polymeric
granules surrounding the fibers of low alkali glass. Replacing 5% and 10% of sand in mortars with a w/c
ratio of 0.5 caused reductions of approximately 40% and 50% in compressive strength, respectively. The
reductions in flexural strength were approximately 17% and 20%. In another study, Tittarelli and Shah
(2013) observed that replacing 10% of the fine aggregates with the GFRP powder in mortars with a w/c
ratio of 0.50, resulted in a decrease of 20% in compressive strength. Tittarelli and Moriconi (2009) used
the same type of GFRP powder as a partial replacement of sand in mortars with a higher w/c ratio of
0.62. Their results showed that replacing 20% of the sand with the GFRP powder resulted in an
approximately 35% decrease in the compressive strength. They also used the GFRP powder to replace
25% and 50% of the sand in self-compacting concrete with a w/c ratio of 0.62 and observed relatively low
values (10% and 15% respectively) of decreases in compressive strength.
Alam et al. (2013) used GFRP scrap from a composite manufacturing process for casting waterslides.
The GFRP had a smooth gel-coat layer. Long strips of the scrap were cut into what appear to be 25 – 35
mm small squares using an abrasive wet tile saw. The GFRP was used to replace portions of 25% and

Page 4 of 6
50% by volume of the coarse aggregate in concrete with a w/c of 0.4. The GFRP particles and coarse
aggregate had similar maximum particle sizes. However, the GFRP particles had similar sizes while the
coarse aggregates were well-graded. Replacement of the coarse aggregates with the GFRP resulted in a
more than 50% and 40% decrease in the compressive strength and flexural strength of concrete,
respectively. The very smooth surface of the GFRP pieces resulted in a poor bond with mortar and was
an important reason for the significant strength loss of concrete. The flat shape and poor gradation of the
GFRP particles are among other possible reasons for the poor mechanical performance of concrete.
As described above only a small number of preliminary research studies have been conducted into the
use of FRP particle scraps or ground fillers in cementitious mortars or in concrete. More research is
needed before any definitive statements can be made regarding the viability of reusing GFRP scraps in
construction materials.

4. Conclusions
FRP composites in both the market volume and the environmental legislation and the costs of disposal
are expected to continue to grow in future years. While only a portion of this FRP material is produced for
the building and construction industry, it appears there are significant opportunities to develop solutions to
the impending environmental problems of FRP production waste and end-of-life waste from all sectors of
the FRP composites industry. The civil engineering and infrastructure industries have a long and
successful history of incorporating mechanically processed waste materials in pavements, backfill and to
a lesser extent structural cementitious materials (RILEM, 2013). Adding FRP waste materials to this can
expand opportunities for those in the industry, extend product lines, and offer sustainable material and
design solutions for construction.

5. References
Adams, R.D., et al., 2014, “Recycling of Reinforced Plastics,” Applied Composite Materials, 1-22. DOI
10.1007/s10443-013-9380-1.
Alam, S.M., E. Slater, E., and Billah, A.M., 2013, “Green Concrete Made with RCA and FRP Scrap
Aggregate: Fresh and Hardened Properties,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25(12),
1783-1794.
Asokan, P., Osmani, M., and Price, A.D.F., 2009, “Assessing the recycling potential of glass fibre
reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(9):
p. 821-829.
Asokan, P., Osmani, M., and Price, A.D.F., 2010, “Improvement of the mechanical properties of glass fibre
reinforced plastic waste powder filled concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, 24(4), 448-
460.
ASTM C289, 2007, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical
Method), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
AVK, 2013, Composites Market Report 2013, Industrievereinigung Verstärkte Kunststoffe e.V. (Federation
of Reinforced Plastics), www.avk-tv.de
Boesch, M. Elias and Hellweg, S., 2010, “Identifying Improvement Potentials in Cement Production with
Life Cycle Assessment,” Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 9143-9149.
Composites UK, 2014, http://www.compositesuk.co.uk/Information/FAQs/EndofLifeOptions.aspx
Correia, J.R., Almeida, N.M. and Figueira, J.R., 2011, “Recycling of FRP composites: reusing fine GFRP
waste in concrete mixtures,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(15), 1745-1753.
Derosa, R., Telfeyan E., and Mayes, J.S., 2005, “Current State of Recycling Sheet Molding Compounds
and Related,” Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 18, 219-240.
EuCIA, 2011, “Glass fibre reinforced thermosets: recyclable and compliant with the EU legislation,”
European Composites Industry Association (EuCIA), www.eucia.org
Goodship, V. (ed), 2009, Management, Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites, Woodhead, UK.
Grause, G., et al., 2013, “Recovery of glass fibers from glass fiber reinforced plastics by pyrolysis,”
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 15(2), 122-128.
Holcim, 2014, “Disused Rotor Blades can now be utilized in Cement Production,” http://www.holcim.com/
Holmes, M., 2014, “Carbon fibre reinforced plastics market continues growth path (Part 2),”

Page 5 of 6
 http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/36343/carbon-fibre-reinforced-plastics-market-continues-
growth-path-part-2/
Halliwell, S., 2010, “FRPs - The Environmental Agenda,” Advances in Structural Engineering, 13(5), 783-
791.
IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Intergovernmental Panel for
Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.ipcc.ch/
JEC Composites, 2011, http://www.jeccomposites.com/sites/default/files/content/files/9200-
summary_worldwide_composites_industry_2011.pdf
Jacob, A., 2011, “Composites can be recycled,” Reinforced Plastics,
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/17943/composites-can-be-recycled/
Job, S., 2013, “Recycling glass fibre reinforced composites – history and progress,” Reinforced Plastics,
57(5), 19-23.
Kosmatka, S. and Wilson, M., 2011, “Design and Control of Concrete Mixes,” in Designing and
Proportioning Concrete Mixtures, Ch. 12, Portland Cement Association (PCA), Washington, DC,
USA.
Marsh, G. 2013, “End-of-life boat disposal – a looming issue for the composites industry,”
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/33684/end-of-life-boat-disposal-a-looming-issue-for-the-
composites-industry/
Meira Castro, A. C.; Ribeiro, M. C. S.; Santos, J.; et al., 2013, “Sustainable waste recycling solution for
the glass fibre reinforced polymer composite materials industry,” Construction and Building
Materials, 45, 87-94.
Meira Castro, A.C., Carvalho, J.P., Ribeiro, M.C.S., et al, 2014, “An integrated recycling approach for
GFRP pultrusion wastes: recycling and reuse assessment into new composite materials using
Fuzzy Boolean Nets,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 420-430.
Netcomposites, 2013, http://www.netcomposites.com/news/almaco-and-ipt-develop-technologies-that-
allow-the-recycling-of-composites-in-latin-america/8283
Pickering, S.J., 2006, “Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—current status,”
Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 37(8), 1206-1215.
Pimenta, S. and S.T. Pinho, 2011, “Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for structural applications:
Technology review and market outlook,” Waste Management, 31(2), 378-392.
Reinforced Plastics, 2011, http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/17202/iit-milling-technology-makes-grp-
recycling-economic/
Reinforced Plastics, 2012, http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/26607/study-us-demand-for-
recreational-boating-products-to-exceed-10-billion-in-2016/
Reinforced Plastics, 2013, http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/35326/us-demand-for-fibre-reinforced-
plastic-composites-to-rise/
Reynolds, T., and Pharaoh, M., 2009, “An Introduction to Composites Recycling,” in Goodship, V. (ed),
2009, Management, Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites, pp. 3-19, Woodhead, UK.
RILEM, 2013, Progress of Recycling in the Built Environment, Final Report of the RILEM Technical
Committee 217-PRE, E. Vázquez, (Ed.), RILEM, Bagneux, FRANCE.
Stewart, R., “Legislation for recycling waste composites,” in Goodship, V. (ed), 2009, Management,
Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites, pp. 20-36, Woodhead, UK.
Tittarelli, F. and Moriconi, G., 2010, “Use of GRP industrial by-products in cement based composites,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, 32(3), 219-225.
Tittarelli, F., et al. 2010, “Effect of GRP by-product addition on plastic and hardened properties of cement
mortars,” in 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies,
June 28-30, 2010, Ancona, ITALY.
Tittarelli, F. and Shah, S.P., 2013, “Effect of low dosages of waste GRP dust on fresh and hardened
properties of mortars: Part 1. Construction and Building Materials, 47, 1532-1538.
Wood, S., 2010, “Carbon fiber reclamation: Going commercial,” CompositesWorld,
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-reclamation-going-commercial
Zaman, A., Gutub, S.A., Soliman, M.F., and Wafa, M.A., 2014, “Sustainability and human health issues
pertinent to fibre reinforced polymer composites usage: A review,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics
and Composites, online, doi: 10.1177/0731684414521087

Page 6 of 6