Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Recycled waste glass as fine aggregate replacement in cementitious

materials based on Portland cement
Alaa M. Rashad ⇑
Building Materials Research and Quality Control Institute, Housing & Building National Research Center, HBRC, Cairo, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

 Glass sand increased mixture workability, bleeding and segregation, whilst it decreased density.
 Glass sand decreased mechanical strength and drying shrinkage, whilst it increased ASR.
 As the particle size and glass content increased as the ASR expansion increased.
 Green sand colour effected ASR expansion. MK, FA, slag, SF, Ni2CO3, LiNO3 can it.
 Glass increased chemical and fire resistance. At long terms, it increased carbonation resistance.

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

Article history: Disposal of waste glass derived from container or packaging glass, flat glass, domestic or tableware glass
Received 12 August 2014 and continuous filament glass fibres is one of the major environmental challenges. This challenge contin-
Received in revised form 23 August 2014 ues to increase with increasing the amount of waste glass and decreasing the capacity of landfill space.
Accepted 28 August 2014
Therefore, studies have been carried out to find practical ways to recycle waste glass in building materials
such as cement, mortars, concretes and blocks. This paper presents an overview of the previous studies
carried out on the use of waste glass as partial or full natural fine aggregate replacement in traditional
Keywords:
mortar/concrete mixtures based on Portland cement (PC). Fresh properties, mechanical properties, abra-
Waste glass
Recycling
sion resistance, water absorption, chloride ion penetration, permeability, chemical resistance, carbon-
Fine aggregate ation resistance, drying shrinkage and alkali-silica reaction (ASR) expansion of mortar/concrete
Mechanical strength mixtures containing waste glass as fine aggregate replacement have been reviewed.
Durability Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
2. Heat of hydration and heat transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
3. Workability and setting time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
4. Bleeding and segregation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
5. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
6. Mechanical strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
6.1. Mortars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
6.2. Concretes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
7. Fire resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
8. Abrasion and skid resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
9. Water absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
10. Chloride ion penetration and permeability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
11. Chemical resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
12. Carbonation resistance and capillary sorptivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
13. Drying shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

⇑ Tel.: +20 (2)33351564; fax: +20 (2)33367179.

E-mail addresses: alaarashad@yahoo.com, a.rashad@hbrc.edu.eg

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.092
0950-0618/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357 341

14. ASR expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

14.1. Effect of glass content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
14.2. Effect of glass colour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
14.3. Effect of glass particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
14.4. Suppressing ASR expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
15. Waste glass combined with other recycled materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
16. Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

1. Introduction materials in Taiwan was approximately 600,000 tonnes [8], whilst

Glass is produced in many forms, including packing or container
glass, flat glass and bulb glass [1]. The uses of glass products have
increased tremendously resulting in large amounts of waste glass.
In 2005, the estimated production of the global glass was 130 Mt.
Container glass accounts was approximately fifths and flat glass
was approximately one third of the production. Production
volumes for fibre and special glass are small. The European Union
produced approximately 33 Mt of glass, whilst China and USA pro-
duced approximately 32 and 20 Mt, respectively [2]. In 2004, the
United Nations estimated the volume of yearly disposed solid
waste to be 200 million tonnes, 7% of which is made up of glass
the world over. In 2010, the percentage of waste glass was approx-
imately 4.6% of total MSW generation in the United States (Fig. 1)
[3]. In 1999/2000, the percentage of waste glass was approxi-
mately 2.1% of total MSW generation in India [4]. In Turkey, this
amounts to 120,000 tonnes, 80,000 tonnes of which are recycled,
with Germany reporting 3 million tonnes of waste glass being
recycled [5]. In 2006, Americans generated approximately 12 mil-
lion tonnes of glass, of which only 22% was recovered for recycling
[6]. Of this small percentage of recycled glass, most (90%) is used to
make new containers, whereas the remaining 10% is used for sec-
ondary applications, such as roadbed aggregates and fibreglass
insulation [6]. In Hong Kong it was estimated that approximately
373 tonnes of waste glass is generated daily in 2010. Approxi-
mately 4500 tonnes of the glass were recycled annually, the recy-
cled percentage was 3.3% and the remaining 96.7% was sent to
landfill for direct dumping [7]. In 2002, the annual waste of glass
Fig. 1. Percentage of waste glass related to total MSW generation in the United
States [3].
the amount waste of glass dumped into landfills was approxi-
mately 0.52 million tonnes in 2009 [9]. In 2010, approximately
425,000 tonnes of waste glass were produced in Portugal and only
192,000 tonnes of them were recycled [10]. In 2006, the waste
glass consumption was 2.3% and 2% in eastern Africa and Middle
Africa, respectively [11]. In 2005, the recycling rate of waste glass
was approximately 67% and 91% in Republic of Korea and Japan,
respectively [12]. Overall, there is unclear information about the
whole quantity of waste glass in the world, because of the lack of
information from different countries like the Middle East as an
example. However, it was estimated that the total amount of waste
glass generated in the EU-27 in 2007 was 25.8 Mt. This result from
a total production of glass in the EU-27 of 37.4 Mt in 2007. The
extra-EU trade of manufactured glass represented only 5–10% of
the production (Fig. 2) [13,14]. The amount of waste glass is grad-
ually increased over the recent years due to an ever-growing used
of glass products. Most of waste glass that is produced is dumped
into landfill sites or roadways sites (Fig. 3). With increasing scar-
city of landfill sites and the fact that glass is not biodegradable,
landfills did not provide an environmental friendly solution.
Waste reduction and recycling are very important elements in a
waste management framework because they help to conserve nat-
ural resources, reduce demand for valuable landfill space [7],
diminish the need of raw materials to make new product, reduce
air and water pollution, reduce energy and create new jobs. It
worth mentioning that in European zero waste program it is esti-
mated that resource efficiency improvements all along the chains
could reduce material inputs needs by 17–24% by 2030 and a bet-
ter use of resources could represent an overall saving potential of
€630 billion/year for European industry. Furthermore, more than
180,000 direct jobs in the EU by 2020, in addition to the estimated
400,000 jobs that will be created by the implementation of the
waste legislation in force. They will lead to satisfying between
10% and 40% of the raw material demand in the EU, while contrib-
uting to achieving the EU target to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions by 40% – 62 Mt of CO2/year would be avoided in 2030 [15].
Anyway, the use of recycled glass in the manufacturing of new
glass reduces energy consumption, raw materials use, and wear
and tear on machinery. However, not all used glass can be recycled
into new glass because of impurities, cost, or mixed colours [16].
Indeed, there is a need to establish new options for recycling waste
glass. One important option is to employ waste glass in building
materials. Since 1963, the first study had been carried out on the
use of glass chips to produce architectural exposed aggregate for
concrete [7]. Later, owing to the excellent hardness of glass, exten-
sive researches have been carried out to utilize recycled glass as
coarse or fine aggregate in concrete and mortar [5,17–20]. Crushed
glass particles that were used as aggregate are generally angular in
shape and may contain some elongated and flat particles. The
degree of angularity and the quantity of flat and elongated parti-
cles depends on the degree of crushing. Smaller particles, resulted
from extra crushing, exhibited somewhat less angularity and
reduced quantities of flat and elongated particles [1]. Other
investigations studied the feasibility of milling the glass cullet into
342 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357

Fig. 2. Mass balance of glass production, consumption, waste glass collection, recycling, traded and disposed [13].

Fig. 3. Waste glass landfill.

powder form and used it to replace cement in concrete and mortar
[21–26].
Already the literature has abundant of review papers related to
employing waste glass as a component of building materials. The
previous studies summarized the progresses and pointed out the
directions for the proper uses of waste glass in PC and concrete
[27]; corrosion of glass and expansion mechanism of concrete con-
taining waste glass as aggregate [16]; incorporation waste glass
into concrete as a supplementary cementing material [28]; man-
agement and recycling situation of waste glass and the experience
of using recycled waste glass in concrete products in Hong Kong [7].
Indeed, there is no article that summarizes the previous studies car-
ried out on the fresh properties, hardened properties and durability
of mortar/concrete containing waste glass (derived from container
or packaging glass, flat glass, domestic or tableware glass and con-
tinuous filament glass fibres) as partial/full natural fine aggregate
replacement which can serve market. Therefore, this paper was
written to present the previous findings related to this topic, to
act as a reference base for future researches. It worth mentioning
that the previous studied that recycled special glass (i.e. cathode
ray tube (CRT) glass and liquid crystal display (LCD) glass) as fine
aggregate in mortar/concrete will be reviewed elsewhere.
2. Heat of hydration and heat transfer
Poutos et al. [29] studied the temperature within glass concrete
during hydration when concrete exposed to 60 °C and 20 °C. The
grading of the natural aggregate and glass cullet complied with BS
882: 1992 requirements for 10 mm all-in aggregates. Natural sand
was replaced with waste glass at levels of 0% and 100%, by weight.
There were three colours of glass named emerald, amber and clear.
The results showed higher temperatures generated during hydra-
tion of concrete made of glass aggregate compared to the control.
Concrete made of green cullet showed the highest temperature fol-
lowed by concrete made of clear cullet and brown cullet, respec-
tively (Fig. 4). Exposed concrete to 60 °C, glass concrete showed
the lowest rise in temperature. Exposed concrete to 20 °C, glass
concrete showed the lowest reduction in temperature.
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
Fig. 4. Relationship between temperature and time during hydration with the
inclusion of glass sand [29].
Borhan [30] partially replaced natural sand in concretes with
recycled waste mixed colour glass (size 3–0.5 mm) at levels of
0%, 20%, 40% and 60%, by weight. Heat transfer was studied. The
results showed a slight reduction in the amount of heat conducted
through the thickness of concrete specimens at a temperature
below 100 °C. The reduction became clearer at temperature above
100 °C. With high percentage of glass there was a significant reduc-
tion in the heat transfer for all temperature levels.
From the above review of the literature in this section, it is
clearly noted that the heat of hydration with the inclusion of waste
glass sand is still needs more investigations. However, it can be
concluded that the inclusion of glass sand in the matrix increased
temperature during hydration.
3. Workability and setting time
Metwally [31] reported that the use of finely milled waste glass
in concrete mixtures had bad effect on the workability. Taha and
Nounu [32] studied the workability of concrete mixtures contain-
ing recycled glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand replacement at lev-
els of 50% and 100%, by volume. The results showed a reduction in
the workability with increasing glass sand content. The reduction
in the slump value was 28.83% and 33.33% with the inclusion of
50% and 100% glass sand, respectively. Taha and Nounu [33]
replaced natural sand in concrete mixtures with mixed colour
waste recycled glass (size <5 mm) at levels of 0%, 50% and 100%.
They measured the workability of all mixtures by slump. The
results showed a reduction in the workability with the inclusion
of glass sand. The workability decreased with increasing glass sand
content. The reduction in the slump value was 20.83% and 33.33%
with the inclusion of 50% and 100% glass sand, respectively. Tan
and Du [34] replaced natural sand in mortar mixtures with four
different glass colours named brown, green, clear and mixed colour
at levels of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. The grain sizes
of the natural sand and waste glass sand were between the upper
and lower limits of ASTM C33. The flow, which defined as the per-
centage increase in mortar mixture base diameter after 15 times of
drop on a flow table, decreased as the glass sand content increased.
Park et al. [35] partially replaced natural sand with recycled
glass (size 5 mm) at replacement levels of 0%, 30%, 50% and 70%,
by weight, in concrete mixtures. They used three different colours
named amber, emerald green and flint. They reported that the
slump and compaction efficiency decreased as the content of glass
sand increased. Limbachiya [36] studied the workability of
concrete mixtures containing mixed colour beverage waste glass.
343
Mixed colour beverage glass containers were crushed to produce
graded aggregate (size <5 mm). Natural sand was partially
replaced with waste glass at levels of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%
and 50%, by weight. The results showed a reduction in the slump
value with increasing waste glass proportions beyond 30%. Chen
et al. [37] observed a reduction in the workability of concrete mix-
tures containing waste E-glass (size 38–300 lm and 40% <150 lm)
as natural sand replacement at levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and
50%, by weight. The workability decreased with increasing glass
sand content.
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] partially replaced natural sand in
concrete mixtures with crushed waste glass (size 4.75–0.15 mm)
at levels of 0%, 10%, 15% and 20%, by weight. They measured the
workability in term of slump. The results showed a reduction in
the slump value by 23.33%, 30% and 33.33% with the inclusion of
10%, 15% and 20% glass sand, respectively. de Castro and de Brito
[39] partially replaced natural sand in concrete mixtures with
waste glass (size <4 mm) at levels of 5%, 10% and 20%, by overall
aggregate volume. Various w/c ratios were used. The workability,
by slump, was measured. The results showed a reduction in the
workability with the inclusion of glass sand. The reduction in the
slump value was 1.97%, 1.57% and 4.33% with the inclusion of 5%,
10% and 20% glass sand, respectively. Batayneh et al. [40] partially
replaced sand in concrete mixtures with crushed glass at levels of
0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%. The gradation curve of crushed glass was
close to lower limit of the specified fine aggregate limits according
to BS 882:1992. Fixed w/c ratio was used. The results showed that
the workability of the mixtures did not affect by the inclusion of
glass sand.
Malik et al. [41] reported an increase in the workability of con-
crete mixtures by replacing natural sand with waste glass (size
1.18–0 mm) at levels of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, by weight. The
workability increased as the content of glass sand increased. Ali
and Al-Tersawy [42] partially replace natural sand with recycled
glass (size 5–0.075 mm) at levels of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and
50%, by weight in SCC mixtures. They reported that the inclusion
of waste glass increased the slump flow. The increase in the slump
flow, at cement content level of 400 kg/m3, was 1.52%, 4.54%,
7.58%, 10.61% and 12.12% with the inclusion of 10%, 20%, 30%,
40% and 50% glass sand, respectively. Sharifi et al. [43] partially
replaced natural sand in SCC mixtures with recycled glass (size
2.36–0.3 mm) at levels of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%, by vol-
ume. Fixed content of w/c ratio and various dosages of superplast-
icizer were used. The results showed an increase in the workability
with the inclusion of glass sand. Borhan [30] partially replaced nat-
ural sand in concrete mixtures with recycled waste mixed colour
glass (size 3–0.5 mm) at levels of 0%, 20%, 40% and 60%, by weight.
The results showed an increase in the workability with increasing
glass sand content. Terro [44] replaced natural sand in concrete
mixtures with crushed bottle glass (size 4.75–0.075 mm) at levels
of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50% and 100%, by weight. The mixtures containing
waste glass showed higher workability than the control. On the
same line, the initial and final setting time increased with increas-
ing glass sand content. Penacho et al. [45] reported an increase in
the workability of mortar mixtures by replacing natural sand with
waste glass (size 2.38–0.149 mm) at levels of 20%, 50% and 100%,
by weight. The workability of the mixtures slightly increased with
increasing glass sand content.
Ling et al. [46] reported higher workability of mortar mixtures
containing waste glass (with approximately 23% coarser particles
10–5 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75%
and 100%, by weight. The results showed that the workability
increased as the content of glass sand increased. Ling and Poon
[47] replaced natural sand in mortar mixtures with crushed
beverage glass (size 5–0.15 mm) at levels of 0%, 50% and 100%,
by volume. The results showed that the flow table values increased
344 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357

Table 1
Effect of glass sand on the workability of mortar and concrete mixtures.

Author Glass content (%) Glass size (mm) Positive effect

Taha and Nounu [32] 50 and 100 <5 
Taha and Nounu [33] 50 and 100 <5 
Tan and Du [34] 25, 50, 75 and 100 ASTM C33 
Park et al. [35] 30, 50 and 70 5 
Limbachiya [36] 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 50 <5 
Chen et al. [37] 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 0.038–0.3 and 40% <0.150 
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] 10, 15 and 20 4.75–0.15 
de Castro and de Brito [39] 5, 10 and 20 <4 
Batayneh et al. [40] 5, 10, 15 and 20 BS 882:1992 No effect
p
Malik et al. [41] 10–40 1.18–0
p
Ali and Al-Tersawy [42] 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 5–0.075
p
Sharifi et al. [43] 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 2.36–0.3
p
Borhan [30] 20, 40 and 60 3–0.5
p
Terro [44] 10, 25, 50 and 100 4.75–0.075
p
Penacho et al. [45] 20, 50 and 100 2.38–0.149
p
Ling et al. [46] 25, 50, 75 and 100 23% (5–10)
p
Ling and Poon [47] 50 and 100 5–0.15
p
Ling and Poon [48] 100 60% <2.36, 40% 5–2.36
p
Ling and Poon [49] 100 <5

reduce w/c ratio for glass sand mixture to reach the same work-
ability of the control. This has a major effect on the strength. How-
ever, on the contrary, other studies reported that the inclusion of
waste glass sand in the mixture reduced the workability. This
reduction was related to the sharp edges, harsh texture, more
angular shape and higher aspect ratio of glass particles that hinder-
ing the movement of cement paste and the particles [33,34].

4. Bleeding and segregation

Ling and Poon [48] reported a slight increase in the bleeding

Fig. 5. Research numbers versus the effect of glass sand on the workability of
mixtures.
with increasing glass sand content. Ling and Poon [48] replaced
natural sand (passing through 2.36 mm) in mortar mixtures with
recycled blue bottles waste glass at levels of 0% and 100%, by
weight. 60% of the glass had particle size <2.36 mm, whilst the
remaining 40% had particle size of 5–2.36 mm. The results showed
higher workability with the inclusion of glass sand. The increase in
the slump value was 5.76%. Ling and Poon [49] reported that mor-
tar containing 100% beverage glass aggregate (size <5 mm) showed
higher flow table than the control. The increase in the flow table
was approximately 47%. Table 1 summarizes the mentioned
studies about the effect of waste glass sand on the workability of
mortar and concrete mixtures.
From the above review in this section, it can be noted that sev-
eral studies reported that the inclusion of waste glass sand in the
mixture increased the workability (Fig. 5). They related this posi-
tive effect of glass sand on the workability to the poorer cohesion
between the glass sand (impermeable) and smooth surface [47]
and the cement paste [44]. Also, lower absorption capacity [46]
and smoother surface of glass sand [49] are the main reasons for
higher workability. The improvement of the workability with the
inclusion of glass sand is one advantage of using this recycled
material. It is possible to use glass sand to produce HPC in which
high workability is required. On the same line, it is possible to
use glass sand to increase the workability instead of using chemical
admixtures as superplasticizer or HRWR. Moreover, it is possible to
and segregation of mortar mixtures with the inclusion of glass
sand. They also reported that the more glass sand content with
large particle sizes (10–5 mm), the higher bleeding and segrega-
tion. Taha and Nounu [32] reported severe bleeding and segrega-
tion were clearly noted in concrete mixtures containing 100%
waste glass sand (size <5 mm). Taha and Nounu [33] reported
severe bleeding and segregation of concrete mixtures containing
mixed colour waste glass as natural sand replacement at levels of
50% and 100%. The bleeding and segregation were resulted from
the inherent smooth surface and very low water absorption of
waste glass, both led to lack in adhesive bond between the compo-
nents of the concrete mixture. On the other hand, Tan and Du [34]
and Du and Tan [50] reported no segregation or bleeding was
observed in mortar mixtures containing waste glass sand at levels
of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight.
From the above review of the literature in this section, it can be
concluded that the inclusion of waste glass sand in the mixture
increased its bleeding and segregation. The bleeding and segrega-
tion increased with increasing glass sand content.
5. Density
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] reported that the fresh density of
concrete mixtures decreased by 1.26%, 1.96% and 2.26% with the
inclusion of 10%, 15% and 20% waste glass (size 4.75–0.15 mm)
as natural sand replacement, by weight. Batayneh et al. [40]
reported a reduction in the fresh unit weight of concrete mixtures
containing crushed waste glass (close to lower limit of the speci-
fied fine aggregate limits according to BS 882:1992) as partially
replacement of natural sand, by weight. The reduction in the fresh
unit weight was 0.24%, 0.15%, 0.71% and 0.84% with the inclusion
of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% glass sand, respectively. de Castro and
de Brito [39] reported a reduction in the fresh density of concrete
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
Table 2
Effect of glass sand on the fresh and dry density of mortars and concretes.
Author Glass content (%)
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] 15 and 20
Batayneh et al. [40] 5, 10, 15 and 20
de Castro and de Brito [39] 5, 10 and 20
Borhan [30] 20, 40 and 60
Penacho et al. [45] 20, 50 and 100
Taha and Nounu [32,33] 50 and 100
Tan and Du [34] 100
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] 15 and 20
Sharifi et al. [43] 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50
Penacho et al. [45] 20, 50 and 100
Lee et al. [9] 25, 50, 75 and 100
Ling et al. [51] 25, 50, 75 and 100
Ling and Poon [49] 100
Ling and Poon [47] 50 and 100
mixtures containing waste glass (size <4 mm) as natural fine
aggregate (fine limestone river sand) replacement at levels of 5%,
10% and 20%, by overall aggregate volume. The results showed that
the reduction in the fresh density was 0.72%, 0.72% and 1.1% with
the inclusion of 5%, 10% and 20% glass sand, respectively.
Borhan [30] reported a reduction in the fresh unit weight of
concrete mixtures containing recycled waste mixed colour glass
(size 3–0.5 mm) as partially replacement of natural sand at levels
of 20%, 40% and 60%, by weight. The reduction in the fresh unit
weight was 0.12%, 0.54% and 1.86% with the inclusion of 20%,
40% and 60% glass sand, respectively. Penacho et al. [45] replaced
natural sand in mortar mixtures with waste glass (size 2.38–
0.149 mm) at levels of 20%, 50% and 100%, by volume. The results
showed a reduction in the fresh bulk density of the mixtures with
the inclusion of glass sand. The fresh density decreased with
increasing glass sand content. Taha and Nounu [32,33] reported a
reduction in the fresh density of concrete mixtures containing
mixed colour waste glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand replace-
ment at levels of 50% and 100%. The reduction in the fresh density
was 0.41% and 2.05% with the inclusion of 50% and 100% glass sand,
respectively. Tan and Du [34] reported a reduction in the fresh den-
sity of mortar mixtures containing higher content of different col-
ours waste glass as natural sand replacement. The fresh density
decreased as the glass sand content increased. The fresh density
of mortar with 100% brown, green, clear and mixed colours glass
sand was 97%, 96%, 95% and 97% of the normal mortar, respec-
tively. Du and Tan [50] replaced natural sand in concrete mixtures
with recycled brown-coloured soda-lime glass at levels of 0%, 25%,
50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. The results showed a reduction in
the fresh density of the mixtures with the inclusion of glass sand.
The fresh density decreased with increasing glass sand content.
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] reported that the dry density of
concrete specimens decreased by 0.17%, 0.58% and 0.71% with
the inclusion of 10%, 15% and 20% crushed waste glass (size
4.75–0.15 mm) as natural sand replacement, by weight. Sharifi
et al. [43] reported a reduction in the density of SCCs by partially
replacing natural sand with recycled glass (size 2.36–0.3) at levels
of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%, by volume. The reduction in the
density was 4.71%, 0.95%, 1.32%, 1.51% and 1.28% with the inclu-
sion of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% glass sand, respectively. Pena-
cho et al. [45] reported a reduction in the dry density of mortar
specimens by replacing natural sand with waste glass (size 2.38–
0.149 mm) at levels of 20%, 50% and 100%, by weight. This reduc-
tion increased with increasing glass sand content. Lee et al. [9]
replaced natural sand in concrete blocks with waste glass at levels
of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Various waste glass particle sizes of
un-sieved, <2.36 mm, <1.18 mm and <600 lm were used. The
results showed a reduction in the hardened density of concrete
blocks with increasing glass sand content and decreasing glass
345
Glass size (mm) Decreased fresh density Decreased dry density
p
4.75–0.15
p
BS 882:1992
p
<4
p
3–0.5
p
2.38–0.149
p
<5 mm
p
ASTM C33
p
4.75–0.15
p
2.36–0.3
p
2.38–0.149
p
Un-sieved, <2.36, <1.18 and <0.6
p
2.36–0.15
p
<5
p
5–0.15
particle size. The reduction in the hardened density was approxi-
mately 1.744% and 7.28% with the inclusion of 25% and 100% glass
sand (size <600 lm), whilst it was approximately 0.46% and 1.97%
with the inclusion of 25% and 100% glass sand (size <2.36 mm),
respectively. Ling et al. [51] replaced natural sand in mortar spec-
imens with recycled glass derived from crushed beverage glass
(size 2.36–0.15 mm) at levels of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by
volume. The hardened density of the mortar specimens slightly
decreased with increasing glass sand content. Ling and Poon [49]
reported a reduction in the hardened density of mortar by replac-
ing natural sand with 100% beverage glass (size <5 mm). This
reduction was approximately 1.71%. Ling and Poon [44] reported
a slight reduction in the hardened density of mortar specimens
containing beverage glass (size 5–0.15 mm) as natural sand
replacement at levels of 50% and 100%, by volume. The hardened
density decreased as the content of the glass sand increased.
Table 2 summarizes the mentioned studies about the effect of
waste glass sand on the fresh and dry density of mortar and con-
crete mixtures.
From the above review in this section, it can be noted that the
inclusion of waste glass sand decreased the fresh and dry density.
This reduction in the density can be attributed to the lower specific
gravity [34,38] and the lower density of waste glass sand compared
to natural sand [32,33]. The reduction in the concrete density with
the inclusion of glass sand would lead to a reduction in the dead
weight of the building constructed. This can be considered as one
advantage of using this material. This also may a courage factor
of the used glass sand in concrete in engineering applications.
6. Mechanical strength
6.1. Mortars
Shayan and Xu [52] studied the compressive strength, at age of
28 days, of mortars containing waste glass (size 4.75–0.15 mm) as
natural sand replacement at levels of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, by
weight. The results showed an increase in the compressive
strength with increasing glass sand content. Corinaldesi et al.
[53] studied the compressive strength and flexural strength, at
age of 180 days, of mortars containing waste glass as fine aggre-
gate. Natural sand was partially replaced with waste glass at levels
of 0%, 30% and 70%, by weight. There were three different particle
sizes of waste glass: up to 36 lm, from 36 to 50 lm and from 50 to
100 lm. Various w/c ratios were used. The results showed that the
inclusion of 30% glass sand (size 36 lm) exhibited the highest flex-
ural strength followed by 70% (size from 50 to 36 lm), 70% (size
36 lm), 30% (size from 50 to 36 lm), 30% (size 100–50 lm), 70%
(size 100–50 lm), whilst the control mixture came in the last
346 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
place. The mixture of 70% glass (size 100–50 lm) showed the high-
est compressive strength followed by 70% (size 50–36 lm) or 30%
(size 100–50 lm) and 70% (size 36 lm), respectively. Mixtures of
30% (size 36 lm) and 30% (size 50–36 lm) showed comparable
compressive strength to the control. Penacho et al. [45] reported
higher compressive strength at age of 90 days of mortars by replac-
ing natural sand with waste glass (size 2.38–0.149 mm) at levels of
20%, 50% and 100%, by volume.
Bhandari and Tajine [54] partially replaced natural sand in mor-
tar blocks with white and colour glass (size 4.74–1.18 mm) at lev-
els of 0%, 10%, 20% and 30%, by weight. They reported a reduction
in the compressive strength with the inclusion of glass sand. The
reduction in the white glass sand specimens was higher than that
of colour ones. Tan and Du [34] reported a reduction in the com-
pressive strength and flexural strength of mortars containing
waste glass with different colours as natural sand replacement at
levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. At almost cases, these
strengths decreased with increasing glass sand content. The reduc-
tion in the 28 days flexural strength was smaller than 10% if the
content of glass sand was less than 75%. At 100% glass sand, the
reduction in the flexural strength was dropped from 70% to 90%
according to glass type. The splitting tensile strength slightly
increased with the inclusion of 25% glass sand, then decreased with
increasing glass sand content. The static and dynamic modules of
elasticity decreased with increasing glass sand content. This reduc-
tion was high in the case of clear glass. Park and Lee [35] partially
replaced natural sand in mortars with brown waste glass (size
4.75–0.3 mm) at levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% and 100%, by weight.
They found a reduction in the compressive strength and flexural
strength with increasing glass sand content. The strength was
noticeably decreased when the glass sand content was more than
20%. Degirmenci et al. [55] studied strength characteristics, at ages
of 7, 28 and 90 days, of mortars containing waste glass (size
4–0.25 mm) in term of waste glass contents and glass colours.
Natural fine aggregate (limestone) was replaced with different col-
ours of waste glass (white, green and brown) at levels of 10%, 30%
and 100%, by weight. Fixed w/c ratio of 0.47 was used. The lime-
stone aggregate and glass aggregate had the same sieve size. They
reported that the compressive strength and flexural strength
decreased with increasing glass content. Mortars containing 30%
glass sand achieved comparable compressive strength and flexural
strength with that of limestone sand. The difference in strength
due to glass colour could be ignored.
Ling et al. [46] reported a reduction in the compressive strength
and flexural strength of mortars containing waste glass (with
approximately 23% coarser particles 10–5 mm) as natural sand
replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. The
reduction in the 28 days compressive strength was 5.1%, 10.9%,
13.5% and 16.7% with the inclusion of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% glass
sand, respectively. The reduction in the 90 days flexural strength
was 8.2%, 19.1%, 22.5% and 34.5% with the inclusion of 25%, 50%,
Table 3
Effect of glass sand on the mechanical strength of mortars.
Author Glass content (%)
Shayan and Xu, [52] 10, 20, 30 and 40
Corinaldesi et al. [53] 30 and 70
Penacho et al. [45] 20, 50 and 100
Bhandari and Tajine [54] 10, 20 and 30
Tan and Du [34] 25, 50, 75 and 100
Park and Lee [35] 10, 20, 50 and 100
Degirmenci et al. [55] 10, 30 and 100
Ling et al. [46] 25, 50, 75 and 100
Ling et al. [51] 25, 50, 75 and 100
Ling and Poon [47] 50 and 100
Ling and Poon [48] 100
Ling and Poon [49] 100
75% and 100% glass sand, respectively. Ling et al. [51] replaced nat-
ural sand in mortars with conventional crushed beverage glass
(size 2.36–0.15 mm) at levels of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by
volume. The compressive strength and flexural strength at age of
28 days decreased with increasing glass sand content due to the
weaker adhesion between the smooth surface of the glass particles
and cement. Ling and Poon [47] reported a reduction in the 90 days
flexural strength of mortars containing beverage waste glass (size
5–0.15 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 50% and
100%, by volume. The reduction was 13.33% with the inclusion of
50% glass sand. The reduction in the flexural strength increased
as the glass sand content increased. They also studied the compres-
sive strength of all mixtures. Similar trend of the results was
obtained. Ling and Poon [48] reported a reduction in the compres-
sive strength and flexural strength at ages of 7, 28 and 90 days of
mortars containing 100% recycled blue bottles waste glass (60%
<2.36 mm and 40% 5–2.36 mm) as natural sand (passing through
2.36 mm) replacement, by weight. The reduction in the flexural
strength due to the inclusion of waste glass was 36.7% and 33.6%
at ages of 28 and 90 days, respectively. Ling and Poon [49] reported
a reduction in the compressive strength and flexural strength of
mortar containing 100% beverage glass (size <5 mm) as natural
sand replacement compared to the control. Table 3 summarizes
the mentioned studies about the effect of waste glass sand on
the mechanical strength of mortars.
6.2. Concretes
Metwally [31] reported that the use of finely milled waste glass
in concrete mixtures improved the mechanical properties of con-
crete at later ages. Batayneh et al. [40] reported a gradually
increase in the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength
and flexural strength of concretes containing crushed waste glass
(close to lower limit of the specified fine aggregate limits according
to BS 882:1992) as natural sand replacement at levels of 5%, 10%,
15% and 20%, by weight. Borhan [30] reported 15% enhancement
in the 28 days splitting tensile strength of concrete containing
20%, by weight, recycled waste mixed colour glass (size
3–0.5 mm) as natural sand replacement. On the other hand, the
inclusion of 60% of waste glass as natural sand replacement caused
22% reduction. The compressive strength results at age of 28 days
showed an enhancement by 4.23% at replacement level of 20%,
whilst it showed a reduction of 6.6% with the inclusion of 60% glass
sand. At age of 90 days, the compressive strength decreased with
increasing glass sand content (Fig. 6).
Turgut and Yahlizade [56] reported an enhancement in the
mechanical strength of paving concrete blocks by partially
replacement natural sand (size 4.75–0 mm) with white waste glass
(size 1.18–0 mm) at levels of 10%, 20% and 30%, by weight. The
enhancement in the compressive strength with the inclusion of
10%, 20% and 30% glass sand was 47.66%, 68.94% and 31.49%,
Glass size (mm) Positive effect
p
4.75–0.15
p
0.1–0.036
p
2.38–0.149
4.75–1.18 
ASTM C33 
4–0.3 
4–0.25 
23% 10–5 
2.36–0.15 
5–0.15 
60% <2.36 and 40% 5–2.36 
<5 
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
Fig. 6. Effect of glass sand content on concrete compressive strength [30].
Fig. 7. Effect of glass sand content on concrete compressive strength [37].
respectively. The enhancement in the flexural strength was 22.29%,
90% and 49.27% with the inclusion of 10%, 20% and 30% glass sand,
respectively, whilst the enhancement in the splitting tensile
strength was 27.86%, 46.56% and 3.82%, respectively. The enhance-
ment in the ultrasonic pulse velocity was 27.86%, 46.56% and 3.82%
with the inclusion of 10%, 20% and 30% glass sand, respectively.
Gautam et al. [57] reported that partially replacement natural sand
in concretes with waste glass (size 4.75–0.15 mm) at levels of 10%
and 20% increased the compressive strength, whilst replacement
levels of 30% and 40% decreased it. Malik et al. [41] partially
replaced natural sand with recycled waste glass (size 1.18–
0 mm) at levels of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, by weight. The
results showed an increase in the compressive strength with the
inclusion of 10%, 20% and 30% glass sand, whilst the inclusion of
40% glass sand reduced it. The enhancement in the 28 days com-
pressive strength was 20%, 25% and 9.8% with the inclusion of
10%, 20% and 30% glass sand, respectively, whilst the reduction in
the 28 days compressive strength was 8.5% with the inclusion of
40% glass sand. Chen et al. [37] observed a significant improvement
in the compressive strength of waste E-glass (size <75 lm) con-
crete mixtures at late ages (Fig. 7). The compressive strength of
specimens with 40 wt.% E-glass content was 17%, 27% and 43%
higher than that of control specimen at ages of 28, 91 and 365 days,
respectively. The particle size of 75 lm approximately passed the
347
strength requirement of pozzolanic materials as proposed by Shao
et al. [21] and E-glass had higher aluminosilicate content, which
behaved very beneficial performance in concrete mixtures. Oliveira
et al. [58] replaced natural sand in concretes containing 101.5 kg/
m3 fly ash (FA) with amber waste glass (size 10–0.07 mm) at levels
of 0%, 25%, 50% and 100%, by weight. The maximum particle size of
glass sand was 4.76 mm. Fixed w/b ratio and 0.2% of HRWR, by
cement weight, for 25% glass sand and 0.3% for 50% and 100% glass
sand were used. The results showed an increase in the compressive
strength at ages of 7 and 28 days with increasing glass sand con-
tent. The enhancement in the compressive strength was 24%, 25%
and 29% with the inclusion of 25%, 50% and 100% glass sand,
respectively.
Du and Tan [50] reported that no effect of glass sand, up to
100%, on concrete compressive strength before 28 days. At age of
90 days, the compressive strength increased with the inclusion of
25%, 50%, 75% and 100% glass sand as natural sand replacement,
by weight. The compressive strength increased with increasing
glass sand content. Lee et al. [9] reported a reduction in the com-
pressive strength at ages of 7 and 28 days by replacing natural sand
in concrete blocks with waste glass (particle sizes of un-sieved,
<2.36 mm and < 1.18 mm) at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%.
On the contrary, glass sand with particle size <600 lm increased
the compressive strength. The reduction in the 28 days compres-
sive strength was 10.55% and 16.75% with the inclusion of 25%
and 100% glass sand (size <2.36 mm), whilst the enhancement in
the 28 days compressive strength was 5.1% and 34.31% with the
inclusion of 25% and 100% glass sand (size <600 lm). Ismail and
Al-Hashmi [38] studied the compressive strength and flexural
strength of concretes containing crushed waste glass (size 4.75–
0.15 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 10%, 15% and
20%, by weight. The compressive strength at age of 3 and 7 days
increased with the inclusion of glass sand, whilst it decreased at
age of 14 days. At age of 28 days, 20% glass sand showed the high-
est compressive strength. The enhancement in the compressive
strength with the inclusion of 20% glass sand was 4.32%, whilst
the reduction in the compressive strength with the inclusion of
10% and 15% glass sand was 8.41% and 4.54%, respectively. The
flexural strength increased with the inclusion of glass sand, at all
ages. The enhancement in the 28 days flexural strength was
3.56%, 6.96% and 11.2% with the inclusion of 10%, 15% and 20%
glass sand, respectively.de Castro and de Brito [39] reported a
reduction in the compressive strength of concretes containing
waste glass (size <4 mm) as natural fine aggregate replacement
at levels of 5%, 10% and 20%, by overall aggregate volume. The
reduction in the compressive strength was approximately 10.94%,
17.19% and 14.06% with the inclusion of 5%, 10% and 20% glass
sand, respectively. Ali and Al-Tersawy [42] reported a reduction
in the compressive strength, splitting strength, flexural strength
and Young’s modulus of SCCs containing waste glass (size 5–
0.075 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 10%, 20%,
30%, 40% and 50%, by weight. When cement content was 400 kg/
m3, the reduction in the 28 days compressive strength was 4.5%,
14.47%, 17.04%, 22.19% and 23.63% with the inclusion of 10%,
20%, 30%, 40% and 50% glass sand, respectively, whilst the reduc-
tion in the Young’s modulus was 2.28%, 7.52%, 8.92%, 11.79% and
12.61%, respectively. Sharifi et al. [43] reported a reduction in the
SCCs compressive strength at ages of 3, 7, 14 and 28 days by par-
tially replacing natural sand with recycled glass (size 3.36–0.3)
up to 50%, by volume. The reduction in the 28 days compressive
strength was 2.93%, 3.28%, 5.92%, 7.15% and 8.22% with the inclu-
sion of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% glass sand, respectively. Lim-
bachiya [36] studied the compressive strength, flexural strength
and elastic modulus of concretes containing mixed colour beverage
waste glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand replacement. Natural
sand was partially replaced with waste glass at levels of 0%, 5%,
348 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357

Table 4
Effect of glass sand on the mechanical strength of concretes.

Author Glass content (%) Glass size (mm) Positive effect

p
Batayneh et al. [40] 5, 10, 15 and 20 BS 882:1992
p
Borhan [30] 20 3–0.5 (age 28-d)
60 3–0.5  (age 28-d)
20, 40 and 60 3–0.5  (age 90-d)
p
Turgut and Yahlizade [56] 10, 20 and 30 1.18–0
p
Gautam et al. [57] 10 and 20 4.75–0.15
Gautam et al. [57] 30 and 40 4.75–0.15 
p
Malik et al. [41] 10, 20 and 30 1.18–0
Malik et al. [41] 40 1.18–0 
p
Chen et al. [37] 40 <0.75
p
Oliveira et al. [58] 25, 50 and 100 10–0.07
p
Du and Tan [50] 25, 50, 75 and 100 – (age 90-d)
p
Lee et al. [9] 25, 50, 75 and 100 <0.6
Lee et al. [9] 25, 50, 75 and 100 Un-sieved, <2.36, <1.18 
p
Ismail and Al-Hashmi [38] 10, 15 and 20 4.75–0.15 (Flexural)
p
10, 15 and 20 4.75–0.15 (Compressive at ages of 3 and 7 days)
10, 15 and 20 4.75–0.15  (Compressive at age of 14 days)
de Castro and de Brito [39] 5, 10 and 20 <4 
Ali and Al-Tersawy [42] 10, 20, 30 40 and 50 5–0.075 
Sharifi et al. [43] 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 2.36–0.3 
Limbachiya [36] 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 50 <5  (For 30% and 50%)
Park et al. [35] 30, 50 and 70 <5 
Taha and Nounu [32] 50 and 100 <5 
Terro [44] 25, 50 and 100 4.75–0.075 
Taha and Nounu [33] 50 and 100 <5 

after there was gradual reduction in these values with increasing

Fig. 8. Research numbers versus the effect of glass sand on the mechanical strength
of mortars.
Fig. 9. Research numbers versus the effect of glass sand on the mechanical strength
of concretes.
10%, 15%, 20%, 30% and 50%, by weight. The results showed that up
to 20% glass sand, no influence on the compressive strength, flex-
ural strength and elastic modulus values of the concretes, but there-
glass sand content. Park et al. [35] partially replaced fine aggregate
with recycled glass (size <5 mm) at replacement levels of 0%, 30%,
50% and 70%, by weight, in concretes. They used three different col-
ours named amber, emerald green and flint. The compressive
strength, tensile strength and flexural strength of concretes demon-
strated a decreasing tendency with increasing glass sand content.
The mechanical properties of concretes did not display any notable
difference depending on the colour of glass sand.
Taha and Nounu [32] reported that no major difference was
found in compressive strength of concretes with the presence of
recycled glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels
of 50% and 100%, by volume. The reduction in the 28 days compres-
sive strength was approximately 5% and 3.33% with the inclusion of
50% and 100% glass sand, respectively. At age of 364 days, the inclu-
sion of 50% glass sand reduced the compressive strength by approx-
imately 3.7%, whilst the inclusion of 100% glass sand increased it by
7.4%. Terro [44] reported that 10% waste glass (size 4.75–0.075 mm)
as natural sand replacement showed comparable compressive
strength to the control concrete. On the other hand, the replace-
ment levels of 25%, 50% and 100%, by weight, decreased it. The
reduction in the compressive strength was 6.33%, 8.86% and
40.51% with the inclusion of 25%, 50% and 100% glass sand, respec-
tively. Taha and Nounu [33] reported a reduction in the splitting
tensile strength and flexural strength of concretes containing mixed
colour waste glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand replacement at lev-
els of 50% and 100%. On the other hand, no significant differences in
the compressive strength were obtained with the inclusion of glass
sand. Table 4 summarizes the mentioned studies about the effect of
waste glass sand on the mechanical strength of concretes.
From the above review in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, it can be noted
that the inclusion of waste glass sand in mortars/concretes
decreased the strength as reported by several studies (Figs. 8 and
9). The reduction in the strength was mainly due to the smooth
surface and sharper edges of glass particles, resulted in weaker
bond strength at the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between glass
particles and cement paste matrix [34]. Ling and Poon [48] related
the reduction in the strength due to the weaker bonding strength
of cement paste with smooth surface glass aggregate compared
to that of rough natural sand aggregate. Park and Lee [35] related
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
the reduction in the strength to the cracks created by expansion
pressure caused by the ASR generated from the silica in waste
glass, and the reduction in adhesive strength between the surface
of the waste glass and the cement paste. The reduction in the
strength by using glass sand is the one of the shortcoming of using
this material which limits its wide use by engineers However, on
the contrary, few number of studies reported higher mechanical
strength with the inclusion of waste glass sand. The increase in
the strength mainly was due to the surface texture and strength
of the glass particles compared to natural sand [40]. Another study
[21] related this enhancement in strength to the pozzolanic
reaction of fine glass particles (particle size of 75 lm).
According to the colour of glass sand, some studies [55,59]
reported that the colour of the glass did not display any notable
difference on the strength. On the other hand, Tan and Du [34]
reported that clear glass exhibited lower strength.
7. Fire resistance
Terro [44] replaced natural sand in concretes with crushed bot-
tle glass (size 4.75–0.075 mm) at levels of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50% and
100%, by weight. The residual compressive strength after exposure
to 60, 150, 300, 500 and 700 °C were studied. The mixture contain-
ing 10% glass sand showed higher residual compressive strength
above 150 °C.
It can be clearly noted that there is a distinct lack in the study
the effect of waste glass sand on the fire resistance of mortar/con-
crete. Indeed the fire resistance of mortar/concrete containing
waste glass sand is still needs more investigations. This can be a
major topic for future investigations.
8. Abrasion and skid resistance
Turgut and Yahlizade [56] partially replaced natural sand in
concrete paving blocks with white waste glass at levels of 0%,
10%, 20% and 30%, by weight. The particle sizes of natural sand
ranging from 4.75 to 0 mm, whilst they ranging from 1.18 to
0 mm for glass sand. Fixed w/c ratio was used. They studied the
abrasion resistance at age of 28 days according to TS 2824 EN
1338 [60]. They reported that the enhancement in the abrasion
resistance was 9.45%, 14.81% and 8.53% with the inclusion of
10%, 20% and 30% glass sand, respectively. Su and Chen [61] par-
tially replaced sand in asphalt concretes with waste glass (size
64.75 mm) at levels of 0%, 5%, 10% and 15%, by total aggregate
weight. They reported that the skid resistance in both longitudinal
and transverse directions increased as the glass sand content
increased.
On the contrary, Ling et al. [46] reported a reduction in the abra-
sion resistance, at age of 28 days, of mortars containing waste glass
(with approximately 23% coarser particles 5–10 mm) as natural
sand replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight.
The reduction in the abrasion resistance increased with increasing
glass sand content. On the same line, Ling and Poon [48] reported a
reduction in the abrasion resistance, at age of 28 days, of mortar
containing 100% recycled blue bottles waste glass (60% <2.36 mm
and 40% 2.36–5 mm) as natural sand (passing through 2.36 mm)
replacement, by weight.
It is safe to conclude that the abrasion resistance of mortar/con-
crete with the inclusion of waste glass sand is still needs more
investigations. It is clearly noted that there are contradictory
reports about the effect of glass sand on abrasion resistance. Some
studies reported positive effect, whilst the others reported negative
effect.
349
9. Water absorption
Taha and Nounu [32] reported a reduction in the percentage of
water absorption with the inclusion of recycled glass (size <5 mm)
as natural sand replacement at levels of 50% and 100%, by volume.
Taha and Nounu [33] reported a reduction in the water absorption
of concretes containing mixed colour recycled waste glass (size
<5 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 50% and 100%.
The water absorption reduced with increasing glass sand content.
Ling and Poon [49] reported a reduction in the percentage of water
absorption of mortar containing 100% beverage glass (size <5 mm)
instead of natural sand. The reduction was approximately 14.49%.
Malik et al. [41] reported a reduction in the percentage of water
absorption of concretes by replacing natural sand with waste glass
(size 1.18–0 mm) at levels of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, by weight. The
reduction in the percentage of water absorption was 26.2%, 37.64%,
46.36% and 55.86% with the inclusion of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%
glass sand, respectively. Bhandari and Tajine [54] reported a reduc-
tion in the water absorption of mortar blocks by replacing natural
sand with waste glass (size 4.75–1.18 mm) at levels of 10%, 20%
and 30%, by weight. de Castro and de Brito [39] partially replaced
natural fine aggregate in concretes with waste glass (size <4 mm)
at levels of 0%, 5%, 10% and 20%, by volume. The water absorption
by capillary results showed a reduction in the 5% and 10% glass
concretes compared to the control. On the contrary, 20% glass con-
crete showed higher water absorption (by capillary) than the con-
trol. The results of water absorption by immersion showed an
increase with the inclusion of glass sand. Ling and Poon [48]
replaced natural sand (passing through 2.36 mm) in mortars with
recycled blue bottles waste glass (60% <2.36 mm and 40% 5–
2.36 mm) at levels of 0% and 100%, by weight. The results showed
a slight increase in the initial surface absorption and a slight reduc-
tion in the final water absorption of mortar specimens with the
inclusion of glass sand.
Turgut and Yahlizade [56] reported an increase in the percent-
age of water absorption of paving concrete blocks at age of 28 days
by replacing natural sand (size 4.75–0 mm) with white waste glass
(size 1.18–0 mm) at levels of 10%, 20% and 30%, by weight. The per-
centage of water absorption for all glass sand specimens was
approximately similar, which exhibited 16.67% higher water
absorption in comparison with the control. Limbachiya [36]
reported an increase in the initial surface absorption of concretes
containing mixed colour beverage glass (size <5 mm) as natural
sand replacement at levels of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30% and 50%, by
weight. The results showed an increase in the initial surface
absorption with increasing glass sand content beyond 15%. Ling
et al. [46] replaced natural sand in mortars with waste glass (con-
taining approximately 23% coarser particles 10–5 mm) at levels of
25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. The results showed a slight
increase in the initial surface absorption and final water absorption
with the inclusion of glass sand. The increase in the initial surface
absorption was 43.68% with the inclusion of 100% waste glass. This
could be attributed to the larger particle size and angular shape of
glass, resulted in larger pore volumes in mortars. Lee et al. [9]
replaced natural sand in concrete blocks with waste glass at levels
of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Various w/c ratios and various
waste glass particle sizes of un-sieved, <2.36 mm, <1.18 mm and
<600 lm were used. The results showed an increase in the percent-
age of water absorption with increasing glass sand content. Speci-
mens containing glass sand with particle size <600 lm showed the
highest percentage of water absorption. Penacho et al. [45]
reported an increase in the water absorption of mortars by replac-
ing natural sand with waste glass (size 2.38–0.149 mm) at levels of
20%, 50% and 100%, by volume. The water absorption increased
with increasing glass sand content. Table 5 summarizes the
350 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357

Table 5
Effect of glass sand on the water absorption/ of mortars and concretes.

Author Glass content (%) Glass size (mm) Positive effect

p
Taha and Nounu [32] 50 and 100 <5
p
Taha and Nounu [33] 50 and 100 <5
p
Ling and Poon [49] 100 <5
p
Malik et al. [41] 10–40 1.18–0
p
Bhandari and Tajine [54] 10, 20 and 30 4.75–1.18
p
de Castro and de Brito [39] 5, 10 and 20 <4 (For 5% and 10% (by capillary)
5, 10 and 20 <4  (By immersion)
Ling and Poon [48] 100 60% <2.36 and 40% 5–2.36  (Initial)
p
Ling and Poon [48] 100 60% <2.36 and 40% 5–2.36 (Final)
Turgut and Yahlizade, [56] 10, 20 and 30 4.75–0 
Limbachiya [36] 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 50 <5 
Ling et al. [46] 25, 50, 75 and 100 23% 10–5 
Lee et al. [9] 25, 50, 75 and 100 Un-sieved, <2.36, <1.18 and <0.6 
Penacho et al. [45] 20, 50 and 100 2.38–0.149 

increased proportion of porous matrix, with inherent segregation/

bleeding characteristics of glass sand mixtures.

10. Chloride ion penetration and permeability

Chen et al. [37] exposed concretes containing waste E-glass

Fig. 10. Research numbers versus the effect of glass sand on the water absorption of
mortars and concretes.
Fig. 11. Total charge passed versus E-glass sand content [37].
mentioned studies about the effect of waste glass sand on the
water absorption of mortars and concretes.
From the above review in this section, it can be noted that there
are contradictory conclusions about the effect of glass sand on the
water absorption (Fig. 10). Some researchers believed that the
inclusion of glass sand in the matrix reduced the water absorption
value. This reduction may be related to the nature of glass which
impermeable material [32] and its negligible water absorption
value [33,49]. On the contrary, others believed that the inclusion
of glass sand in the matrix increased the water absorption value.
Limbachiya [36] reported that the increase in the water absorption
value due to the inclusion of glass sand is thought to be due to the
(size <75 lm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 10%, 20%,
30% and 40%, by weight, to rapid chloride penetration depth (RCPT)
according to ASTM C1202-97. They reported that by incorporation
of E-glass in the mixtures, the total charge passed was less than
2000 Coulimbs which indicated very low chloride ion penetration.
Concretes with E-glass particles have a denser internal structure
providing the specimens with effective barrier against chloride-
ion penetration. Chen et al. [37] reported that the inclusion of
waste glass in mortars as natural sand replacement at levels of
25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight, led to higher resistance to chlo-
ride ion penetration (Fig. 11). Du and Tan [50] reported that the
inclusion of glass sand in concretes as natural sand replacement
at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight, led to higher resis-
tance to chloride ion penetration. This resistance increased with
increasing glass sand content.
On the contrary, de Castro and de Brito [39] studied the chloride
penetration depth of concretes containing waste glass (size
<4 mm) as natural fine aggregate replacement at levels of 5%,
10% and 20%, by overall aggregate volume. The results showed
an increase in the chloride penetration depth by approximately
28.88%, 34.4% and 7.77% with the inclusion of 5%, 10% and 20%
glass sand, respectively. Su and Chen [61] reported an increase in
the asphalt concretes permeability by replacing part of natural
sand with waste glass (size 64.75 mm) at levels of 5%, 10% and
15%, by total aggregate weight. The increase in the permeability
increased as the glass sand content increased. Oliveira et al. [58]
replaced natural sand in concretes with amber waste glass (maxi-
mum particle size 4.76 mm) at levels of 0%, 25%, 50% and 100%, by
weight. They reported that concretes containing 25% and 50% glass
sand showed higher water and oxygen permeability at ages of 28
and 63 days, whilst concrete containing 100% glass sand showed
lower water and oxygen permeability at age of 28 days compared
to the control. At age of 63 days, 100% glass sand showed compa-
rable water and oxygen permeability to the control. Penacho
et al. [45] studied water permeability of different types of mortars
under pressure based on EN 1015-21. Natural sand was replaced
with waste glass (size 2.38–0.149 mm) at levels of 0%, 20%, 50%
and 100%, by volume. The results showed an increase in the perme-
ability with the inclusion of glass sand.
From the above review of the literature in this section, it can be
noted that there are contradictory results about the effect of waste
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357 351

glass sand on the chloride penetration depth and permeability.

However, most of studies reported that the inclusion of glass sand
in the matrix increased the chloride penetration depth and perme-
ability of matrix.

11. Chemical resistance

Chen et al. [37] exposed concretes containing waste E-glass (size

<75 lm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%
and 50%, by weight, to sulphate attack according to ASTM C267-01.
They concluded that the addition of E-glass significantly improved
sulphate resistance of concrete according to the results of weight
loss and strength reduction. Ling et al. [48] studied the chemical
resistance of mortars containing waste glass (with approximately
23% coarser particles 10–5 mm) as natural sand replacement at lev-
els of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight, by immersing the speci-
mens in 3% sulphuric acid solution (H2SO4), up to 12 weeks, in
accordance to ASTM C267. The results showed better resistance to
acid attack with the inclusion of 75% and 100% glass sand. This is
because the glass had higher resistance to acid attack than natural
sand [62]. Ling and Poon [48] exposed mortars containing recycled
blue bottles waste glass (60% <2.36 mm and 40% 5–2.36 mm) as
natural sand (passing through 2.36 mm) replacement at levels of
0% and 100%, by weight, to 3% H2SO4 up to 12 weeks. The results
showed that the control specimen exhibited the most significant
deterioration with respect to the loss of mass. The inclusion of glass
sand in mortar significantly reduced the mass loss. The increase in
the sulphate resistance with the inclusion of glass sand is one
advantage of using this recycled material. Thus, glass concrete
may be suitable for applications in the cases of aggressive sulphate
soil, groundwater, industrial effluents, and wastes from chemical
and mining industries, as well as in seawater.
From the above review of the literature in this section, it can be
noted that the effect of waste glass sand on the chemical resistance
of the matrix is still needs more investigations. However, the inclu-
sion of glass sand in the matrix increased its sulphate and its sul-
phuric acid resistance.
12. Carbonation resistance and capillary sorptivity
de Castro and de Brito [39] reported a general improvement in
terms of carbonation resistance of concretes containing waste glass
(size <4 mm) as natural fine aggregate replacement at levels of 5%,
10% and 20%, by overall aggregate volume, at long terms (56 and
91 days). On the other hand, at ages of 7 and 28 days the carbon-
ation depths were greater in glass concretes and grew with the
replacement level. Oliveira et al. [58] reported that concrete sorp-
tivity coefficient at ages of 28 and 63 days reduced with the inclu-
sion of amber waste glass sand (size 4.75 mm). The sorptivity
coefficient, at ages of 28 and 63 days, decreased as the content of
glass sand increased. The reduction attained its maximum value
of 39%, at age of 28 days, with the inclusion of 100% glass sand,
whilst it attained 29% at age of 63 days.
From the above review of the literature in this section, it can be
noted that there is a distinct lack in the study the effect of waste
glass sand on the carbonation resistance of mortar/concrete.
However, according to the available literature, it can be concluded
that the inclusion of glass sand (5–20%) improved carbonation
resistance at long terms (56 and 91 days), whilst it decreased
carbonation resistance at ages of 7 and 28 days.
13. Drying shrinkage
Ling and Poon [47] reported a reduction in the drying shrinkage,
up to 90 days, of mortar specimens containing crushed beverage
Fig. 12. Drying shrinkage of mixed colour glass sand mortars [34].
glass (size 5–0.15 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of
50% and 100%, by volume. The reduction in the drying shrinkage
increased as the glass sand content increased. Limbachiya [36]
studied the drying shrinkage of concretes containing mixed colour
beverage glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels
of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30% and 50%, by weight. The results showed
that up to 20% glass sand there was no influence on the drying
shrinkage, but thereafter there was a gradual reduction in the
shrinkage with increasing glass sand content. Ling and Poon [49]
reported a reduction in the drying shrinkage of mortar containing
100% beverage waste glass (size <5 mm) as natural fine aggregate
replacement compared to the control. Tan and Du [34] studied
the drying shrinkage of mortar specimens containing mixed colour
waste glass (size between the upper and lower limits of ASTM C33)
as natural sand replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by
weight. They reported that the drying shrinkage values were less
than 750  106 mm/mm at 56 days, specified as acceptable for
concrete by Australian Standard AS3600. The natural sand mortar
had the highest drying shrinkage. The drying shrinkage reduced
with the inclusion of glass sand. The reduction in the drying
shrinkage increased with increasing glass sand content up to 45%
(Fig. 12). Du and Tan [50] reported that the inclusion of glass sand
in concrete specimens, as natural sand replacement at levels of
25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight, showed innocuous drying
shrinkage. Ling et al. [46] reported a reduction in the drying shrink-
age, up to 112 days, of mortars containing waste glass (with
approximately 23% coarser particles 10–5 mm) as natural sand
replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. This
reduction increased as the glass sand content increased. Mortar
containing 100% waste glass showed 17% reduction in the drying
shrinkage.
de Castro and de Brito [39] studied the shrinkage of concrete
specimens containing waste glass (size <4 mm) as natural sand
replacement at levels of 5%, 10% and 20%, by overall aggregate vol-
ume. The results showed approximately 12.77% and 18% increase
in the shrinkage with the inclusion of 5% and 20% glass sand,
respectively. On the other hand, the inclusion of 10% glass sand
reduced the shrinkage by approximately 7.28%. Ling and Poon
[48] reported a reduction in the drying shrinkage of mortar con-
taining 100% recycled blue bottles waste glass (60% <2.36 mm
and 40% 5–2.36 mm) as natural sand replacement, by weight. This
reduction was valid from 1 day up to approximately 85 days.
Beyond 85 days up to 112 days, the control mortar showed lower
drying shrinkage. Penacho et al. [45] reported that mortars con-
taining 20% and 50% waste glass (size 2.38–0.149 mm) as partially
352 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
Table 6
Effect of glass sand on the drying shrinkage of mortar and concrete specimens.
Author Glass content (%)
Ling and Poon [47] 50 and 100
Limbachiya [36] 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 50
Ling and Poon [49] 100
Tan and Du [34] 25, 50, 75 and 100
Ling et al. [46] 25, 50, 75 and 100
de Castro and de Brito [39] 10
5 and 20
Ling and Poon [48] 100
Ling and Poon [48] 100
Penacho et al. [45] 20 and 50
Penacho et al. [45] 100
replacement of natural sand, by volume, exhibited similar shrink-
age to the control, whilst 100% glass sand increased it by approxi-
mately 19%. Table 6 summarizes the mentioned studies about the
effect of waste glass sand on the drying shrinkage of mortar and
concrete specimens.
From the above review in this section, it can be noted that the
inclusion of waste glass sand in mortar and concrete specimens
reduced the drying shrinkage as reported by several studies. The
reduction in the drying shrinkage with the inclusion of waste glass
sand may be related to the low water absorption capacity of the
glass cullet [46–48,62] and impermeable properties of the glass
[49]. The reduction in the drying shrinkage with the inclusion of
glass sand is one advantage of using this recycled material. As
known, drying shrinkage is one of the main causes of cracks in
large concrete structures. So that using glass sand in large concrete
structures, such as floors and dams, can alleviate this problem.
14. ASR expansion
14.1. Effect of glass content
Serpa et al. [10] partially replaced natural fine aggregate in mor-
tars with Portuguese recycled glass at levels of 0%, 5% and 20%, by
weight. The results showed that replacing natural fine aggregate
with waste glass did not lead to increase in the ASR expansion at
age of 14 days, but led to a slight increase in the ASR expansion
at age of 28 days. The expansion increased with increasing glass
content. Limbachiya [36] studied the ASR expansion at ages of 3,
7 and 14 days of concretes containing mixed colour beverage glass
(size <5 mm) as natural sand replacement at levels of 0%, 5%, 10%,
15% and 20%, by weight. The results showed an increase in the ASR
expansion with increasing glass sand content (Fig. 13). Idir et al.
[63] studied the ASR expansion of mortars containing waste glass
as natural fine aggregate replacement at levels of 20% and 40%,
by weight. The results showed an increase in the ASR expansion
with increasing glass sand content. Kou and Poon [64] partially
replaced natural sand in mortars with cullet waste beverage glass
bottles (size <5 mm) at levels of 0%, 15%, 30% and 45%, by weight.
The waste glass was a blend of three different colours of bottles
Fig. 13. Effect of glass sand on expansion of mortar bars [36].
Glass size (mm) Positive effect
p
5–0.15
p
<5
p
<5
p
ASTM C33
p
23% 10–5
p
<4
<4 
p
60% <2.36 and 40% 2.36–5 1 day to 85 days
60% < 2.36 and 40% 2.36–5  Beyond 85 days up to 112 days
2.38–0.149 No effect
2.38–0.149 
glass (30% colourless, 40% green and 30% brown). They used the
accelerated test accordance with ASTM C1260 (80 °C, 1 N NaOH
solution). The expansion of mortar bars were measured up to
28 days. The results showed an increase in the ASR expansion with
increasing glass sand content. Yuksel et al. [65] partially replaced
natural sand in mortars with waste glass at levels of 0%, 10%,
20%, 40% and 50%, by weight. The results showed an increase in
the ASR expansion with increasing glass sand content. On the other
hand, the inclusion of 30% glass sand may not cause deleterious
effect.
Ling and Poon [47] reported an increase in the ASR expansion of
mortars containing crushed beverage glass (size 5–0.15 mm) as
natural sand replacement at levels of 50% and 100%, by volume.
The ASR expansion increased with increasing glass sand content.
Oliveira et al. [58] reported that ASR expansion of concretes con-
taining amber glass (maximum particle size 4.76 mm) as natural
sand replacement increased with increasing glass sand content.
Ling and Poon [49] reported an increase in the ASR expansion of
mortar containing 100% beverage waste glass (size <5 mm) as fine
aggregate. Park et al. [59] reported that the expansion rate by ASR
expansion in accordance with ASTM C 1260 showed an increase
tendency with increasing emerald green waste glass (size
<5 mm). The increase in the expansion in mortar specimens by
ASR was approximately 85.7%%, 116.67%, 159.76%, 228.5% and
285.71% with the inclusion of 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% and 100% glass
sand, respectively, as shown in Fig. 14. Ling et al. [46] reported
an increase in the ASR expansion of mortars containing waste glass
(with approximately 23% coarser particles 10–5 mm) as natural
sand replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight.
The ASR expansion increased with increasing glass sand content.
Shayan and Xu [52] replaced natural fine aggregate in mortars
with recycled waste glass (size 4.75–0.15 mm) at levels ranging
from 0% to 100% with an increment of 10%, by weight. The ASR
expansion results showed the larger the content of glass in mortar
bars, the higher the expansion. Jin et al. [66] studied the ASR
Fig. 14. Relative expansion for mortar bars containing glass sand [59].
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
Fig. 15. SEM image of a glass particle showing an ASR formation in the particle
boundary [10].
expansion, up to 14 days, of mortars containing clear soda-lime
glass as natural sand replacement at levels ranging from 0% to
100% with an increment of 10%, by weight. The results showed
an increase in the ASR expansion with increasing glass sand
content. Topçu et al. [67] studied the ASR expansion of mortars
containing waste glass as natural fine aggregate replacement.
Natural sand was replaced with waste glass (size 4.75–0.3 mm)
at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. The results showed
an increase in the ASR expansion with increasing glass sand con-
tent. Degirmenci et al. [55] studied the ASR expansion, at ages of
14 and 21 days, of mortars containing 10%, 30% and 100% glass
sand. They reported that the expansion of ASR increased with
increasing glass sand content. On the contrary, Ismail and Al-Hash-
mi [38] partially replaced natural sand in concretes with crushed
waste glass (size 4.75–0.15 mm) at levels of 0%, 10%, 15% and
20%, by weight. They reported that the inclusion of waste glass
reduced the ASR expansion. This reduction increased as the con-
tent of waste glass increased. Du and Tan [50] replaced natural
sand in concretes with waste glass at levels of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%
and 100%, by weight. They reported that the inclusion of glass sand
reduced the ASR expansion. This reduction increased with increas-
ing glass sand content.
From the above review in this part, it can be noted that glass
sand content showed a significant impact on ASR expansion. The
ASR expansion increased with increasing glass sand content. This
is because the 100% glass sand had a high quantity of amorphous
ASR products but the gels were essentially located in the glass par-
ticles interfaces [10]. This indicated, as pointed out by Dhir et al.
[68], that the dissolution and superficial leaching of the glass silica
and formation of a silica gel surface surrounding the aggregate
(Fig. 15) and explained the expansion evolution over time.
14.2. Effect of glass colour
Tan and Du [34] studied the ASR expansion of mortar specimens
containing waste glass with different colours as natural sand
replacement at levels of 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. They
reported that green and brown glass was non-reactive, whilst clear
glass was potentially deleterious. Du and Tan [69] reported that
mortars with clear glass sand (size 4.75–0.3 mm) exhibited higher
ASR expansion. The effect was found to be potentially deleterious if
clear glass particles were used to replace more than 50% of natural
sand. On the other hand, green and brown glass sand mortars
proved to be innocuous regardless of the replacement level. Jin
et al. [66] studied the ASR expansion of mortars containing 10%
waste glass with different colours instead of natural sand. The
353
results showed that clear glass exhibited the highest expansion fol-
lowed by amber glass, whilst green glass showed the lowest
expansion.
Topçu et al. [67] studied the ASR expansion of mortars contain-
ing waste glass with different colours (green, brawn and white) as
natural fine aggregate replacement. The results showed that mor-
tars containing white glass sand showed the highest expansion fol-
lowed by mortars containing brawn glass sand, whilst mortars
containing green glass sand showed the lowest expansion. Degirm-
enci et al. [55] studied the ASR expansion, at ages of 14 and
21 days, of mortars containing waste glass in term of glass colours.
Natural fine aggregate (limestone) was replaced with different col-
ours of waste glass (white, green and brown) at levels of 10%, 30%
and 100%. Fixed w/c ratio of 0.47 was used. The natural limestone
aggregate and glass aggregate had the same sieve size. They
reported that the specimens containing white glass sand exhibited
the highest expansion followed by brown glass sand and green
glass sand, respectively. The different mortar bars did not show
considerable ASR expansion after 14 days in which all bars were
able to mitigate ASR expansion below 0.1%.
Saccani and Bignozzi [70] partially replaced natural sand in
mortars with different types of crushed waste glass derived from
cullet at levels of 10%, 25% and 35%, by weight. The glass types
were soda-lime glass, uncoloured boro-silicate glass, amber boro-
silicate glass and lead-silicate glass. The expansion results showed
that specimens containing lead-silicate glass exhibited the highest
expansion followed by boro-silicate glass, amber boro-silicate glass
and lime glass, respectively. Yuksel et al. [65] partially replaced
natural sand in mortars with flint glass (from post-consumer win-
dows glass) and green glass (from soda bottles waste) at levels of
0%, 10%, 20%, 40% and 50%, by weight. The specimens containing
flint glass showed higher ASR expansion than that containing green
glass. Zhu et al. [71] reported that mortars containing waste glass
sand (size 4.75–0.3 mm) exhibited higher ASR compared to the
control. They also reported that the ASR expansion of mortars con-
taining blue glass sand > flint > amber > green. On the other hand,
Dhir et al. [68] replaced natural sand in concretes with different
colours waste glass (green, flint and amber) (size 2–0.063 mm) at
levels of 50% and 100%, by weight. They reported that the use of
glass as fine aggregate could produce significant expansion due
to the harmful ASR. The colour of glass played a major role in defin-
ing the amount of expansion. Green glass produced the largest
quantity of expansion, whilst flint glass produced the least. Du
and Tan [72] reported that brown glass sand showed better ASR
resistance than green glass sand in the long term.
From the above review in this part, it can be noted that glass
colour showed a significant impact on ASR expansion. The ASR
expansion may be followed the order of blue glass sand > flin-
t > amber > brawn > green glass. Some studies [35,66] pointed out
that green colour glass would be the least reactive in the ASR
expansion due to its high content of Cr2O3, which is added for
greenish colour. Brown glass sand mortar also exhibited similarly
small ASR expansion as mortar containing green glass sand.
14.3. Effect of glass particle size
Jin et al. [66] studied the ASR expansion up to 14 days of mor-
tars containing 10% clear soda-lime glass as natural sand replace-
ment. Different particle sizes of glass sand related to U.S.
standard were used. The results showed that maximum expansion
occurred for sieve size No. 16 (2.36–1.18 mm), whilst mortar bars
containing 10% of sieve size No. 50 (0.3 mm) glass sand exhibited
approximately the same expansion as the reference. Mortar bars
with 10% of sieve No. 100 (0.15 mm) or pan (pass sieve No. 100)
showed less expansion than the reference bars. Xie et al. [73]
partially replaced natural sand in mortars with crushed beverage
354 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357

bottles glass having different particle sizes (sieved with #8, #16,
#30, #50 and #100) at levels of 0% and 10%, by weight. The results
showed a slight increase in the ASR expansion of mortars contain-
ing 10% glass sand finer than sieve #50 (0.3 mm). The coarser
aggregate (larger than #50) resulted higher ASR expansion. Rajabi-
pour et al. [74] partially replaced natural sand in mortars with
mixed colour soda-lime glass, containing different particle sizes,
at levels of 0%, 10%, 25%, 50% and 100%, by weight. They reported
that glass sand containing particles smaller than sieve #30
(0.6 mm), the ASR expansion was minimal. On the other hand, lar-
ger size glass particles showed larger and more active microcracks
that render their high ASR reactivity.
Corinaldesi et al. [53] reported that no ASR expansion has been
detected with particle size up to 100 lm of glass particles that par-
Fig. 16. Effect of different particle sizes of glass sand on ASR expansion at 14 and
tially replaced natural sand at levels of 30% and 70%, by weight,
28 days [75].
thus reflecting the feasibility of waste glass reuse as fine aggregate
in mortar and concrete. Idir et al. [63] studied the ASR expansion of
mortars containing different fineness of mixed colour waste glass.
Marble sand was partially replaced with waste glass at levels of
20% and 40%, by weight. The mean diameters of the used waste
glass ranging from 3750 to 7.8 lm. The results showed that the
ASR expansion decreased with increasing waste glass fineness.
Lee et al. [75] crushed post-consumer glass bottles with a green
colour for four different particle sizes of un-sieve glass having max-
imum size of 5 mm, <2.36 mm, <1.18 mm and <0.60 lm. In mor-
tars, natural sand was replaced with waste glass at levels of 0%
and 100%, by weight. The glass mortars showed higher ASR expan-
sion than the control. The expansion increased with increasing
glass sand particle size (Fig. 16).
Idir et al. [76] reported that ASR expansion of mortars contain-
ing mixed colour glass (40% colourless, 33% brawn, 20% green, 15
blue and 6% impurities) at levels of 20% and 40% decreased with Fig. 17. Mitigated ASR expansion of glass sand mortar by MK [78].
increasing glass sand specific surface area. No swelling due to
ASR was observed when glass grains were less than 1 mm. They
also reported that fine glass powders with specific surface areas met the ASTM C 1260 requirements at age of 14 days. On the other
ranging from 180 m2/kg to 540 m2/kg reduced the expansions of hand, at age of 28 days serious expansion and cracks were
mortars subjected to ASR. Du and Tan [69] partially replaced natu- observed. For higher content of glass sand, the incorporation of
ral sand in mortars with different colours of waste glass at levels of mineral admixtures such as FA and metakaolin (MK) (at least
0% and 25%. For each colour there were different particle sizes of 10%) were able to suppress the ASR expansion (Fig. 17). Topçu
2.36, 1.18, 0.6, 0.3 and 0.15 mm. The results showed an increase et al. [67] reported that the inclusion of 10–20% FA or 1–2% Li2CO3
in the ASR expansion with increasing glass size regardless glass (lithium carbonate) in mortars containing glass sand was able to
colour. The maximum and minimum ASR expansion occurred at reduce the ASR expansion. Kou and Poon [64] reported that replac-
2.36 mm and 0.15 mm sized glass sand, respectively. They also ing cement with 33% FA can reduce the ASR expansion, in mortar
reported that if glass sand was smaller than 2.36 mm, pozzolanic bars, resulted from replacing natural sand with waste glass (size
reaction would occur since the ASR expansion started to decrease <5 mm) at levels of 15%, 30% and 45%, by weight. Ling et al. [46]
from 2.36 mm till 0.15 mm. reported that 10–30% MK was able to suppress mortars ASR expan-
From the above review in this part, it can be noted that all stud- sion caused by glass sand. Ling and Poon [48] reported higher ASR
ies agreed that the ASR expansion of glass mortars decreased with expansion of mortars containing 100% recycled blue bottles waste
increasing glass sand fineness. On the other hand, the optimal glass glass (60% <2.36 mm and 40% 5–2.36 mm) as natural sand (passing
sand particle size that showed the lowest ASR expansion is still dif- through 2.36 mm) replacement, by weight. The harmful in the ASR
ferent from one research to another. Jin et al. [66] and Xie et al. [73] expansion caused by glass sand could be mitigated by replacing
believed that glass sand with 0.3 mm particle size is enough to sup- part of cement (20%) with MK.
press ASR expansion of glass sand mortars, whilst Rajabipour et al. Du and Tan [69] reported that 30% FA or 60% slag were the most
[74] reported <0.6 mm and Idir et al. [76] reported <1 mm. What- effective ASR expansion suppressing methods since they could
ever, the critical particle size for pozzolanic reaction to occur was reduce the alkalinity in the pore solution and decrease the porosity
differently observed as 1.18–0.6 mm [76] or 0.3–0.15 mm [77]. In and permeability of the cement paste, thus controlling the ASR
fact, increasing ASR expansion by using glass sand is the major expansion mechanism. The inclusion of 10% silica fume (SF) could
shortcoming of this recycled material. However, the ASR expansion also reduce the ASR expansion. Addition of steel fibres or lithium
can be mitigated as will be explained in the following section. compounds was less effective. By using supplementary cementi-
tious materials, ASR expansion in clear glass sand mortar could
14.4. Suppressing ASR expansion be reduced to below acceptable limits. Taha and Nounu [32]
reported that the use of recycled glass (size <5 mm) as natural sand
Lam et al. [78] reported that mortar bars containing 100% mixed replacement at levels of 50% and 100%, by volume, in concretes
colour (30% colourless, 40% green and 30% brown) recycled glass possessed high risk of ASR expansion and cracks were observed,
(size <5 mm) had ASR expansion coupled with serious cracks., whilst 60% slag, 10% MK and 1% lithium nitrate (LiNO3) limited
whilst mortar bar containing 50% glass sand plus 50% natural sand the potential ASR expansion risk.
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
Table 7
Different methods to suppress ASR expansion in glass sand mortar and concrete
specimens.
Author Protection method
Lam et al. [78] – At least 10% FA or MK
Topçu et al. [67] – 10–20% FA
– 1–2% Li2CO3
Kou and Poon, [64] – 33% FA
Ling et al. [46] – 10–30% MK
Ling and Poon [48] – 20% MK
Du and Tan [69] – 30% FA or 60% slag
– 10% SF
– Fibres or lithium compounds
Taha and Nounu, [32] – Slag, 10% MK and 1% LiNO3
Oliveira et al. [58] – FA
Dhir et al. [68] – MK or slag
Lee et al. [75] – 10% MK or 50% FA
Maraghechi et al. [79] – Glass sand annealed at 650 °C for 40 min
Du and Tan [72] – 10–50% FA, 45–60% slag, 12.5% SF, 1.5–2%
steel fibres and 0.5–2% lithium compounds
Oliveira et al. [58] reported that ASR expansion of concretes
containing amber waste glass (maximum particle size 4.76 mm)
as natural sand replacement at levels of 25%, 50% and 100%, by
weight, largely mitigated with the inclusion of FA. Dhir et al. [68]
reported that ASR expansion caused by the inclusion of glass sand
in concretes could be controlled by the use of slag and MK. Lee
et al. [75] reported that ASR expansion caused by glass sand could
be reduced by using 50% FA or 10% MK. Maraghechi et al. [79]
incorporating 100% mixed colour glass sand with gradation in
the range of #4 to #100 sieves (4.75–0.15 mm) annealed at differ-
ent temperatures for different periods in mortars. They reported
that exposed glass to elevated temperatures could effectively mit-
igate ASR expansion. It was found that the reactive size fraction of
glass cullet (between #4 and #30 sieves) (4.75 and 0.6 mm), when
annealed at 650 °C for 40 min showed the lowest ASR expansion.
Du and Tan [72] reported that ASR expansion of concretes contain-
ing glass sand can be mitigated by incorporation 10–50% FA, 45–
60% slag, 12.5% SF, 1.5–2% steel fibres and 0.5–2% lithium com-
pounds. Table 7 summarizes the mentioned studies about different
methods to suppress ASR expansion in mortar and concrete speci-
mens containing glass sand.
From the above review in this part, it can be noted that the ASR
expansion of mortar and concrete specimens containing glass sand
can be mitigated by adding 10–30% MK, 20–50% FA, 50–60% slag,
10% SF, 1–2% Ni2CO3, 1% LiNO3 and suitable amount of fibres.
In general view, using glass as fine aggregate in mortars and
concretes showed some advantages, in which some properties
are improved, and some disadvantages, in which some properties
are defected. The advantages of using glass sand are increasing
workability, reducing density, increasing carbonation resistance
at later ages, increasing chemical resistance, increasing fire resis-
tance and decreasing shrinkage. On the other hand, the disadvan-
tages of using glass sand are decreasing compressive strength,
decreasing carbonation resistance at early ages and increasing
ASR expansion. Some properties are still need more investigations
as abrasion resistance, fire resistance, water absorption, chloride
ion penetration and permeability.
15. Waste glass combined with other recycled materials
Poon and Chan [80] partially replaced recycled concrete aggre-
gate which used as aggregate in concrete blocks with 10% of differ-
ent waste materials. These materials were 5% crushed tile
combined with 5% waste glass (5T5G) and 4% crushed brick with
4% waste glass combined with 2% crushed tile (4B4G2T). Only
the recycled fine aggregate was used (size <5 mm). The aggre-
gate/cement ratio was 3:1. The results showed 5.42% and 4.52%
355
reduction in the density of the blocks with the inclusion of 5T5G
and 4B4G2T, respectively. The compressive strength and splitting
tensile strength decreased with the inclusion of these waste mate-
rials. The reduction in the 28 days compressive strength was
22.48% and 17.76% with the inclusion of 5T5G and 4B4G2T, respec-
tively. The results also showed that the percentage of water
absorption increased by 47.17% and 35.85% with the inclusion of
5T5G and 4B4G2T, respectively. The results showed higher skid
resistance for 5T5G and 4B4G2T compared to the control. It was
mainly due to the rough surface texture of the contaminating par-
ticles. On the other hand, the abrasion resistance was lower.
Lam et al. [78] replaced recycled aggregate which used as fine
aggregate in concrete blocks with mixed colour (30% colourless,
40% green and 30% brown) recycled crushed glass (size <5 mm)
at levels of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, by weight. They studied
the compressive strength, tensile splitting strength, the percentage
of water absorption and ASR expansion. The results showed a
reduction in the 90 days compressive strength with increasing
glass sand content. On the same line, the tensile splitting strength
decreased with increasing glass sand content. ASR expansion
increased with increasing glass sand content. On the other hand,
the percentage of water absorption decreased with increasing glass
sand content.
16. Remarks
The current review paper carried out on reviewing the previous
works that investigated the effect of waste glass (derived from con-
tainer or packaging glass, flat glass, domestic or tableware glass
and continuous filament glass fibres) which used as fine aggregate
replacement in mortars and concretes. Fresh properties, hardened
properties and durability of mortars and concretes containing glass
sand were reviewed. The remarks of this literature review can be
summarized as following:
1. The inclusion of glass sand in the matrix increased temper-
ature during hydration.
2. Some studies reported that the inclusion of glass sand
increased the workability of the mixtures. Others reported
contradictory effect. The initial and final setting time
increased with increasing glass sand content.
3. Bleeding and segregation increased with increasing glass
sand content, whilst density (fresh and dry) decreased with
increasing glass sand content.
4. Most of studies reported lower mechanical strength with
increasing glass sand content. This reduction was mainly
due to the smooth surface and sharper edges of glass parti-
cles that resulted in weaker bond at the ITZ between glass
particles and cement paste matrix. Others reported higher
strength by the inclusion of glass sand with particle size of
75 lm. The enhancement in strength was related to the poz-
zolanic reaction of glass at this particle size. There is no sig-
nificant impact of the colour of the glass on the strength.
5. The inclusion of 10% glass sand increased the residual com-
pressive strength of concrete after exposure to fire up to
700 °C.
6. There are contradictory reports about the effect of glass sand
on abrasion resistance. Some studies reported positive
effect, whilst the others reported negative effect.
7. Some studies reported that the inclusion of glass sand
reduced the water absorption. This reduction may be related
to the negligible water absorption of the glass. Others
reported adverse impact.
8. Most of studies reported that the inclusion of glass sand in
the matrix increased the chloride penetration depth and per-
meability of concretes.
356 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
9. The inclusion of glass sand in the matrix increased its sul-
phate and sulphuric acid resistance. On the same line, the
inclusion of glass sand (5–20%) improved carbonation resis-
tance at long terms (56 and 91 days), whilst it decreased car-
bonation resistance at ages of 7 and 28 days.
10. Drying shrinkage decreased with increasing glass sand con-
tent. This reduction may be related to the low water absorp-
tion capacity and the impermeable properties of glass.
11. In general, the inclusion of glass sand in the matrix increased
ASR expansion. ASR expansion increase as the content of
glass sand increased. On the same line, as the particle size
of glass sand increased as the ASR expansion increased.
Some researchers reported that 0.3 mm particle size of glass
sand is enough to suppress ASR expansion.
12. The colour of glass sand showed a significant effect on the
ASR expansion. The ASR expansion may be followed the
order of blue glass sand > flint > amber > brawn > green
glass.
13. ASR expansion of mortars and concretes containing glass
sand can be mitigated by adding 10–30% MK, 20–50% FA,
50–60% slag, 10% SF, 1–2% Ni2CO3, 1% LiNO3 and suitable
amount of fibers.
References
[1] Siddique Rafat. Chapter 4: waste glass. Waste materials and by-products in
concrete; 2008. p. 147–75, Springer, <http://link.springer.com/book/
10.1007%2F978-3-540-74294-4>.
[2] IEA. Tracking industrial energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. OECD/IEA; 2007.
p. 1–321.
[3] EPA. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United
States: facts and figures for 2010. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-530-F-005; December 2011. p. 1–12.
[4] CPCB. Stat of solid waste generation, collection, treatment and disposal in
metrocities. Series VUPS/46/1999-2000.
_ [41] Malik MIqbal, Bashir Muzafa, Ahmed Sajad, Tariq Tabish, Chowdhary Umar.
[5] Topçu Ilker Bekir, Canbaz Mehmet. Properties of concrete containing waste
glass. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:267–74.
[6] EPA. Environmental protection agency municipal solid waste division-glass;
Aug. 2008. <www.epa.gov/garbage/glass.htm>.
[7] Ling Tung-Chai, Poon Chi-Sun, Wong Hau-Wing. Management and recycling of
waste glass in concrete products: current situations in Hong Kong. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2013;70:25–31.
[8] Su N, Chen JS. Physical properties of glass asphalt concrete and its applications.
In: The first conference on roadway pavement, Taiwan; 2000. p. 12–26.
[9] Lee Gerry, Poon Chi Sun, Wong Yuk Lung, Ling Tung Chai. Effects of recycled
fine glass aggregates on the properties of dry-mixed concrete blocks. Constr
Build Mater 2013;38:638–43.
[10] Serpa D, Santos Silva A, de Brito J, Pontes J, Soares D. ASR of mortars containing
glass. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:489–95.
[11] Pipatti R, Sharma C, Yamada M, Alves JWS, Gao Q, Guendehou GH, et al. Waste
generation, composition and management data. Chapter 2, IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; 2006. p. 1–23.
[12] Terazono A, Moriguchi Y, Yamamoto YS, Sakai S-I, Inanc B, Yang J, et al. Waste
management and recycling is Asia. Int Rev Environ Strategies
2005;5(2):477–88.
[13] Ramboll Ökopol. Study on recyclable waste glass in the context of the
development of end-of-waste criteria for the EU waste framework directive.
Interim report; 21 April 2010.
[14] Vieitez Elena Rodriguez, Eder Peter, Villanueva Alejandro, Saveyn Hans. End-
of-waste criteria for glass cullet: Technical proposals. JRC Scientific and
Technical Reports, JRC-IOTS, EUR 25220 EN; December 2011.
[15] COM. Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. 398
final; 2014. p. 1–23.
[16] Shi Caijun. Corrosion of glasses and expansion mechanism of concrete
containing waste glasses as aggregates. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE)
2009;October:529–34.
[17] Kozlova S, Millrath K, Meyer C, Shimanovich S. A suggested screening test for
ASR in cement-bound composites containing glass aggregate based on
autoclaving. Cem Concr Compos 2004;26:827–35.
[18] Tuan Bui Le, Hwang Chao-Lung, Lin Kae-Long, Chen Yuan-Yuan, Young Mung-
Pei. Development of lightweight aggregate from sewage sludge and waste
powder for concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:334–9.
[19] Yun Tae Sup, Jeong Yeon Jong, Han Tong-Seok, Youm Kwang-Soo. Evaluation of
thermal conductivity for thermally insulated concretes. Energy Build
2013;61:125–32.
[20] Oliveira R, de Brito J, Veiga R. Incorporation of fine aggregates in renderings.
Constr Build Mater 2013;44:329–41.
[21] Shao Yixin, Lefort Thibaut, Moras Shylesh, Rodriguez Damian. Studies on
concrete containing ground waste glass. Cem Concr Res 2000;30:91–100.
[22] Cassar Josmar, Camilleri Josette. Utilisation of imploded glass in structural
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:299–307.
[23] Miao Liu. Incorporating ground glass in self-compacting concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2011;25:919–25.
[24] Shi Caijun, Wu Yanzhong, Riefler Chris, Wang Hugh. Characteristics and
pozzolanic reactivity of glass powders. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:987–93.
_
[25] Özkan Ömer, Yüksel Isa. Studies on mortars containing waste bottle glass and
industrial by-product. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:1288–98.
[26] Carsana Maddalena, Frassoni Massimiliano, Bertolini Luca. Comparison of
ground waste glass with other supplementary cementitious materials. Cem
Concr Compos 2014;45:39–45.
[27] Shi Caijun, Zheng Keren. A review on the use of waste glasses in the production
of cement and concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007;52:234–47.
[28] Federico LM, Chidiac SE. Waste glass as a supplementary cementitious
material in concrete – critical review of treatment methods. Cem Concr
Compos 2009;31:606–10.
[29] Poutos KH, Alani AM, Walden PJ, Sangha CM. Relative temperature changes
within concrete made with recycled glass aggregate. Constr Build Mater
2008;22:557–65.
[30] Borhan Tumadhir Merawi. Properties of glass concrete reinforced with short
basalt fibre. Mater Des 2012;42:265–71.
[31] Metwally IM. Investigations on the performance of concrete made with
blended finely milled waste glass. Adv Struct Eng 2007;10(1):47–53.
[32] Taha Bashar, Nounu Ghassan. Utilizing waste recycled glass as sand/cement
replacement in concrete. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE 2009;December:709–21.
[33] Taha Bashar, Nounu Ghassan. Properties of concrete contains mixed colour
waste recycled glass as sand and cement replacement. Constr Build Mater
2008;22:713–20.
[34] Tan Kiang Hwee, Du Hongjian. Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part I –
fresh, mechanical and durability. Cem Concr Compos 2013;35:109–17.
[35] Park SB, Lee BC. Studies on expansion properties in mortar containing waste
glass and fibers. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(7):145–52.
[36] Limbachiya Mukesh C. Bulk engineering and durability properties of washed
glass sand concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:1078–83.
[37] Chen CH, Wu JK, Yang CC. Waste E-glass particles used in cementitious
mixtures. Cem Concr Res 2006;36(3):449–56.
[38] Ismail Zainab Z, Al-Hashmi Enas. Recycling of waste glass as a partial
replacement for fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Manage 2009;29:655–9.
[39] de Castro Sara, de Brito Jorge. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made
with crushed glass aggregates. J Clean Prod 2013;41:7–14.
[40] Batayneh Malek, Marie Iqbal, Asi Ibrahim. Use of selected waste materials in
concrete mixes. Waste Manage 2007;27:1870–6.
Study of concrete involving use of waste glass as partial replacement of fine
aggregates. IOSR J Eng (IOSRJEN) July 2013;3(7):8–13.
[42] Ali EE, Al-Tersawy SH. Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine
aggregate in self compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:785–91.
[43] Sharifi Yasser, Houshiar Mahamoud, Aghebati Behnam. Recycled glass
replacement as fine aggregate in self-compacting concrete. Front Struct Civil
Eng 2013;7(4):419–28.
[44] Terro Mohamad J. Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at
elevated temperatures. Build Environ 2006;41:633–9.
[45] Penacho Paulo, de Brito Jorge, Veiga MRosário. Physico-mechanical and
performance characterization of mortars incorporating fine glass waste
aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2014;50:47–59.
[46] Ling Tung-Chai, Poon Chi-Sun, Kou Shi-Cong. Feasibility of using recycled glass
in architectural cement mortars. Cem Concr Compos 2011;33:848–54.
[47] Ling Tung-Chai, Poon Chi-Sun. A comparative study on the feasible use of
recycled beverage and CRT funnel glass as fine aggregate in cement mortar. J
Clean Prod 2012;29–30:46–52.
[48] Ling Tung-Chai, Poon Chi-Sun. Properties of architectural mortar prepared
with recycled glass with different particle sizes. Mater Des 2011;32:2675–84.
[49] Ling Tung-Chai, Poon Chi-Sun. Effects of particle size of treated CRT funnel
glass on properties of cement mortar. Mater Struct 2013;46:25–34.
[50] Du Hongjan, Tan Kiang Hwee. Concrete with recycled glass as fine aggregates.
ACI Mater J 2014;111–M05 January–February:47–58.
[51] Ling Tung-Chai, Poon Chi-Sun, Lam Wai-Shung, Chan Tai-Po, Fung Karl Ka-Lok.
Utilization of recycled cathode ray tubes glass in cement mortar for X-ray
radiation-shielding applications. J Hazard Mater 2012;199–200:321–7.
[52] Shayan Ahmad, Xu Aimin. Value-added utilisation of waste glass in concrete.
Cem Concr Res 2004;34:81–9.
[53] Corinaldesi V, Gnappi G, Moriconi G, Montenero A. Reuse of ground waste
glass as aggregate for mortars. Waste Manage 2005;25(2):197–201.
[54] Bhandari PS, Tajne KM. Use of waste glass in cement mortar. Int J Civil Struct
Eng 2013;3(4):704–7011.
[55] Degirmenci Nurhayat, Yilmaz Arin, Cakir Ozge Andic. Utilization of waste glass
as sand replacement in cement mortar. Indian J Eng Mater Sci
2011;18(August):303–8.
[56] Turgut P, Yahlizade ES. Research into concrete blocks with waste glass. Int J
Civil Environ Eng 2009;1(4):203–9.
[57] Gautam SP, Srivastava Vikas, Agarwal VC. Use of glass wastes as fine aggregate
in concrete. J Acad Indust Res 2012;1,6(November):320–2.
[58] Oliveira LA, Castro-Gomes JP, Santos P. Mechanical and durability properties of
concrete with ground waste glass sand. In: 11th International conference on
 A.M. Rashad / Construction and Building Materials 72 (2014) 340–357
durability and building materials and components, Istanbul, Turkey; 11–14
May 2008.
[59] Park Seung Bum, Lee Bong Chung, Kim Jeong Hwan. Studies on mechanical
properties of concrete containing waste glass aggregate. Cem Concr Res
2004;34:2181–9.
[60] TSE Standard 2824-EN 1338. Paving blocks-requirements and test methods;
2005.
[61] Nan Su, Chen JS. Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with
recycled glass. Resour Conserv Recycl 2002;32:259–74.
[62] Wang HZ. A study of the effects of LCD glass sand on the properties of concrete.
Waste Manage 2009;29(1):335–41.
[63] Idir Rasheda, Cyr M, Tagnit-Hamou. Use of waste glass as powder and
aggregate in cement-based materials. In: SBEIDCO – 1st international
conference on sustainable built environment infrastructures in developing
countries, ENSET Oran (Algeria); 12–14 October 2009. p. 109–16.
[64] Kou SC, Poon CS. Properties of self-compacting concrete prepared with
recycled glass aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31:107–13.
[65] Yuksel Cihat, Ahari Reza saleh, Ahari Babak Abbaspoursani, Ramyar Kambiz.
Evaluation of three test methods for determining the alkali-silica reactivity of
glass aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2013;38:57–64.
[66] Jin Weihua, Meyer Christian, Baxter Stephen. Glascrete – concrete with glass
aggregate. ACT Mater J, Journey 2000;97–M27 March–April:208–13.
[67] _
Topçu Ilker Bekir, Boğa Ahmet Raif, Bilir Turhan. Alkali-silica reactions of
mortars produced by using waste glass as fine aggregate and admixtures such
as fly ash and Li2CO3. Waste Manage 2008;28:878–84.
[68] Dhir Ravindra K, Dyer TD, Tang MC. Alkali-silica reaction in concrete
containing glass. Mater Struct 2009;42:1451–62.
[69] Du Hongjian, Tan Kiang Hwee. Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part II –
Alkali-silica reaction and mitigation methods. Cem Concr Compos
2013;35:118–26.
357
[70] Andrea Saccani, Bignozzi Maria Chiara. ASR expansion behavior of recycled
glass fine aggregates in concrete. Cem Concr Res 2010;40:531–6.
[71] Zhu Huiying, Chen Wen, Zhou Wei, Byars Ewan A. Expansion behaviour of
glass aggregates in different testing for alkali-silica reactivity. Mater Struct
2009;42:485–94.
[72] Du Hongjian, Tan Kiang Hwee. Effect of particle size on alkali-silica reaction in
recycled glass mortars. Constr Build Mater 2014;66:275–85.
[73] Xie Z, Xiang W, Xi Y. ASR potentials of glass aggregates in water-glass activated
fly ash and Portland cement mortars. J Mater Civil Eng 2003;January/
February:67–74.
[74] Rajabipour Farshad, Maraghechi Hamed, Fischer Gregor. Investigating the
alkali-silica reaction of recycled glass aggregates in concrete materials. J Mater
Civil Eng ASCE 2010;December:1201–8.
[75] Lee Gerry, Ling Tung-Chai, Wong Yuk-Lung, Poon Chi-Sun. Effects of crushed
glass cullet sizes, casting methods and pozzolanic materials on ASR of concrete
blocks. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:2611–8.
[76] Idir Rachida, Cyr Martin, Tagnit-Hamou Arezki. Use of fine glass as ASR
inhibitor in glass aggregate mortars. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1309–12.
[77] Yamada K, Ishiyama S. Maximum dosage of glass cullet as fine aggregate
mortar. In: Dhir TD, Newlands M, Dyer RK, editors. Achieving sustainability in
construction. London: Thomas Telford; 2005. p. 185–92.
[78] Lam Chi Sing, Poon Chi Sun, Chan Dixon. Enhancing the performance of pre-
cast concrete blocks by incorporating waste glass – ASR consideration. Cem
Concr Compos 2007;29:616–25.
[79] Maraghechi Hamed, Shafaatian Seyed-Mohammad-Hadi, Fischer Gregor,
Rajabipour Farshad. The role of residual cracks on alkali silica reactivity of
recycled glass aggregates. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34:41–7.
[80] Poon Chi-Sun, Chan Dixon. Effects of contaminates on the properties of
concrete paving blocks prepared with recycled concrete aggregates. Constr
Build Mater 2007;21(1):164–75.