Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Evaluation of reclaimed municipal solid waste incinerator sands in

concrete
G. Mathews IV a, *, R. Sinnan b, M. Young b
a
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, School of Science, Engineering, and Technology, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike Olmsted W236B,
Middletown, PA, 17057, USA
b
Research Assistant, School of Science, Engineering, and Technology, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA

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

Article history: U.S. municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) ash is generally disposed of in landfills, due to the absence
Received 20 November 2018 of approved avenues to repurpose the material through recycling. This work investigates the utilization
Received in revised form of MSWI bottom ash sands in concrete that have been reclaimed from a recycling plant in Central
24 April 2019
Pennsylvania. Physical and chemical properties of the reclaimed sands are examined for suitability as a
Accepted 29 April 2019
Available online 3 May 2019
partial replacement for fine aggregates in concrete. The performance of raw incinerator ash vs. Reclaimed
sands in concrete are compared through microstructure SEM analysis, shrinkage, compression strength,
and hydrogen gas production due to metallic aluminum present in incinerator ash. It is found that
Keywords:
Solid waste
reclaimed sands satisfy most ASTM requirements to be used as a lightweight concrete aggregate. Despite
MSWI this, it is currently not recommend to use reclaimed sands in concrete due to the formation of empty
Waste-to-energy holes in the cement matrix microstructure due to hydrogen gas production. These holes cause cracks in
Recycled the concrete which leads to reduced structural capacity of the material. It is also not recommended that
Ash raw ash be used in concrete due to significant amounts of drying shrinkage, leaching concerns, and the
unclean nature of the ash.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction federal regulations governing the performance of MSWI ash as a

In 2014, the U.S. produced 258 million tons of municipal solid
waste (MSW) of which 89 million tons were recycled and com-
posted, 33 million tons were combusted using energy recovery, and
the remaining 136 million tons were disposed of in landfills (USEPA,
2014). MSW that is not recycled, landfilled, or composted is com-
busted at municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) plants where
MSWI bottom ash and fly ash waste streams are generated and
eventually landfilled. The majority of modern MSWI plants operate
as Waste-To-Energy (WTE) facilities which convert MSW to energy
(primarily steam and electricity) through thermal conversion
(Michaels, 2014). Approximately 12.8% of the total MSW stream in
the U.S. is converted into energy via WTE plants. In comparison,
several European countries have implemented recycling initiatives
to ensure that MSWI ash is utilized in road construction and con-
crete, with some countries recycling up to 80% of their MSWI bot-
tom ash (An et al., 2014).
MSWI ash is not recycled in the U.S. due to: a) a lack of state and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gfm5121@psu.edu (G. Mathews).
construction material, and b) the absence of a MSWI ash product
that can meet both Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
permit requirements and structural performance standards.
Instead MSWI ash is sent to a landfill once it can be classified
through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards as a
non-hazardous material via a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test (USEPA, 1992). MSWI bottom ash will pass a
TCLP for landfill disposal due to its low leaching potential, however,
MSWI fly ash may not pass a TCLP due to the material's small
particle size and high concentration of heavy metals and salts (An
et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018). In the U.S., MSWI
bottom ash and fly ash streams are combined into a single waste
product that is capable of passing a TCLP. The effectiveness of using
water washing to improve the performance of MSWI fly ash was
investigated in (Yakubu et al., 2018), where it was found that the
concentration of heavy metals and leaching decreased in the
washed fly ash. EPA TCLP limits are provided in Table 1 (EPA, 2018)
along with DEP leaching limits for use of MSWI ash in construction
materials. Leaching limits have been provided for select heavy
metals that will govern the use of this material over other

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.387
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849 839

Table 1 ash in concrete and associated issues, and the studies state that
Reclaimed sand concrete leachates. MSWI ash is unusable in concrete without being refined to remove/
Heavy Reclaimed Sand EPA Non-Hazard DEP Permit (WMGM061) pretreated for significant amounts of ultra-fine particles (fly ash),
Metal Concrete (mg/L)a Limits (mg/L) Option 2 Limits (mg/L) salts, heavy metals, and organic components. To this point, studies
Aluminum 0.5667 NA 5 on using MSWI ash in concrete have not explored utilizing an ash
(Al) product that is produced through industrial post processing after
Arsenic 0.0225 5 0.25 incineration. In addition, current studies do not explore the
(As)
behavior of raw ash from a MSWI incinerator vs. the same raw ash
Barium 1.3933 100 50
(Ba) treated at a post-processing facility.
Cadmium 0.0016 1 0.125 This works explore the performance of concrete that in-
(Cd) corporates reclaimed sands that are refined from MSWI ash. The
Chromium 0.0262 5 2.5
MSWI ash is refined at the Pure Recovery Group recycling plant
(Cr)
Lead (Pb) 0.1012 5 0.375
(Pure Recovery, 2018) in York, Pennsylvania. These reclaimed sands
Mercury 0.0002 0.2 0.05 are classified as a 100% post-consumer material and have been
(Hg) approved for construction use via DEP permit WMGM061. There is
Selenium 0.0190 1 1 a significant potential to utilize reclaimed sands in concrete due to
(Se)
sustainability initiatives. One possible initiative is through Leader-
Silver (Ag) 0.0049 5 2.5
ship in Engineering and Environmental Design (LEED) (LEED
a
Testing results obtained from (Sweeney, 2016a).
USGBC, 2018) credits, if the material meets LEED regulations. In
addition, in 2018 it cost $34.80-$68.48/ton (EREF, 2018) to dispose
of MSWI ash in a landfill which provides an opportunity to subsi-
measured leachates (i.e. more metals, organics). It can be seen that dize the material. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the Pure
the DEP limits are much more severe than the TCLP requirements Recovery group is one of only a few recycling plants in the U.S.
for landfill disposal. In this work, MSWI ash must conform to the refining MSWI ash for use in construction materials. The goal of this
leaching requirements of DEP permit WMGM061, which authorizes work is to assess the feasibility of using reclaimed sands in con-
the processing and beneficial use of MSWI aggregates for con- crete. This assessment is done by evaluating reclaimed sands per
struction use in Pennsylvania. This permit provides 3 sets of fine aggregate material standards, and evaluating concrete mixed
leaching limits based on the specific application of MSWI ash in a with reclaimed sands though microstructure analysis, compression
construction material, and the material in this work must meet strength, and shrinkage. The process to produce reclaimed sands
option 2 for encapsulated products (i.e. recycled aggregates and material properties are discussed in the next section.
encapsulated in concrete). From Table 1, it can be seen that leach-
ates from concrete incorporating reclaimed sands meet the DEP 2. Materials
permit limits. It should be noted that a Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure (SPLP) (USEPA, 1994) test was used to obtain 2.1. Reclaimed sand production
the reclaimed sand leachates, and the DEP permit accepts results
from both the TCLP and SPLP tests. The SPLP test was used in this The reclaimed sands in this work are refined from raw inciner-
work since it is more representative of actual exposure condition of ator ash obtained from the York County Solid Waste Authority
it-situ concrete. The TCLP test exposes materials to a solution of (YCSWA) (YCSWA, 2018) incinerator plant. The YCSWA plant is a
acetic acid before measuring leachate amounts, which is supposed WTE mass burn facility that processed 431,412 tons of waste and
to represent the harsh exposure conditions of a landfill. The SPLP produced approximately 141,176 tons of incinerator ash by weight
test exposes materials to a solution that simulates acid rain expo- in 2016 (Sweeney, 2016a unpublished report; YCSWA, 2016).
sure, which is representative of normal weather conditions. Separate streams are produced for bottom ash and fly ash at the
The DEP limits are not adequate to mitigate strength reduction YCSWA plant, and for landfill disposal the streams are combined
in construction materials due to the presence of aluminum. In proportionally as needed to satisfy EPA non-hazard leaching limits.
concrete, the aluminum in MSWI ash produces hydrogen gas In this work, the combined bottom ash þ fly ash stream is sent to
(Nithiya et al., 2018) that pushes the material outwards leading to the Pure Recovery Group recycling plant where the ash is refined
volume changes, shrinkage, and cracking. This has a deleterious using a patented process from the Pure Recovery Group
effect on the shrinkage and compression strength of concrete (Kim (Vandemierden, 2014). At the Pure Recovery Group, MSWI ash
et al., 2015). In the particular case of aerated concrete, hydrogen gas particles are subjected to a density separation process and treat-
production from MSWI bottom ash can have a beneficial effect by ment procedures which are designed to remove the majority of
reducing the time needed for gas foaming (Li et al., 2018). In a large ferrous and non-ferrous impurities. The density separation
comparison of several MSWI ash concrete studies (Lynn et al., process utilizes a drum with internal flights and an internal water
2016), shows that concrete strength consistently increases when wash system (Sweeney, 2016b unpublished report) to separate
treatment methods are applied that address hydrogen gas pro- material into separate particle fractions by density. Ferrous com-
duction due to aluminum. The vast majority of studies on MSWI ash ponents removed using a drum magnetic system, while non-
utilization have been focused on low cementitious construction ferrous metals are removed using an Eddy Current Separator. This
materials where hydrogen gas production from aluminum is not a refinement process is outlined in Fig. 1. At the end of the process
concern; such as road subbase (Lynn et al., 2017; Van Praagh et al., gravel and sand size fraction materials are produced, and this work
2018), embankment fill (Zhang et al., 2016), and masonry block is focused on the sand size fractions. This refinement process is
(Holmes et al., 2016; Lynn et al., 2017). The utilization of MSWI ash outlined in Figs. 1, and Fig. 2 shows the density separator and Eddy
in these applications has been heavily investigated in the U.S., Current system equipment.
Europe, and Asia as discussed in (An et al., 2014; Dou et al., 2017; The reclaimed sands used in this study are sand size aggregates
Song et al., 2015) and referenced within. Studies are provided by taken from the recycled aggregate product bin (Fig. 1(b)) at Pure
(An et al., 2014, 2017; Kim et al., 2015; Minane et al., 2017; Rubner Recovery. Material produced from this combination of systems has
et al., 2008; Verbinnen et al., 2017) that investigate the use of MSWI been evaluated over several years in (Sweeney, 2016a unpublished
840 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849

Fig. 1. Pure Recovery recycling process: (a) procedure A; (b) procedure B. Modified from (Vandemierden, 2014) with permission from Jay Berman, Pure Recovery Group.

Fig. 2. Recycling equipment: (a) Liquid Density Separator (LDS); (b) Drum Magnetic Separator (DMS). Photos used with permission from Jay Berman, Pure Recovery Group.

report), which ultimately lead to DEP approval of the reclaimed
sands. Raw MSWI ash undergoes a significant filtering process
when refined through Pure Recovery's recycling procedure, and
this can be observed by noting the difference in appearance of raw
incinerator ash vs. Reclaimed sands shown in Fig. 3. Raw incinerator
ash contains large metal pieces and organics that are filtered out
through the reclaimed sand refinement process, and it can be seen
from Fig. 3 that reclaimed sands are a much cleaner material than
raw ash. In addition, the raw ash has significantly more fly ash in it
than reclaimed sands.
An X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis on reclaimed sands vs. Raw
ash shows that both materials are composed of approximately
39.50% metal compounds. This suggests that despite the Pure
Recovery process removing large metal pieces from the ash, that
significant improvement is needed in the process to remove small
particle fractions of metal. These particles tend to be inherently
weaker than the rest of the material that make up reclaimed sands.
Currently it is not practical to remove these particles via recycling
practices. The full XRF analysis results will be discussed in section
2.2. The friability of both raw ash and reclaimed sands depends on
whether the small metal particles in the material are removed. The
metal particles (up to 39.5% of the material) are very friable while
the rest of the material is not friable. This implies that the material
will have friability issues if the metal particles aren't removed.
Pretreatment methods are available to reduce hydrogen gas
production from the aluminum in reclaimed sands as discussed in
 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849
Fig. 3. Raw MSWI ash and reclaimed sands: (a) Raw ash; (b) Reclaimed sands.
studies by (Dou et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2015; Xuan and Poon, 2018).
The majority of pretreatment methods mitigate or accelerate
through hydrogen gas production utilizing a) treatments with
concentrated strong base solutions and/or salts (eg. NaOH, CaCL,
etc.), or b) aging periods of several months to change the pozzolanic
nature of the reclaimed sands. The practicality of pretreatment
methods has not been investigated at an industrial level from an
economic, scalability, or production standpoint. This study will
focus on the effects that Pure Recovery's recycling process has on
MSWI bottom ash and its viability as a material in concrete without
treatment methods.
2.2. Physical properties
The coarse aggregate in this work is limestone gravel with a
maximum particle size of 3.81 cm (1.5 in) classified as AASHTO #57
aggregate (blend of AASHTO 5, 6, and 7 stones). These aggregates
meet the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
requirements for gravel used in concrete as outlined in publication
408 (PENNDOT, 2016). Sandstone, composed mostly of quartz, and
classified as Type A concrete sand per publication 408 is used as
fine aggregate in this study. In general, aggregate requirements
outlined in publication 408 are the same as those specified by ASTM
C33 with negligible differences. The bulk density, specific gravity/
absorption capacity, and void content of the coarse and fine
Table 2
Aggregate physical properties.
Bulk Density kg/m3 (lb/ft3)
Limestone Gravel (AASHTO #57) 1634(102)
Sandstone (Type A concrete sand) 1906(119)
Reclaimed Sands 929(58)
Raw MSWI Ash 782(49)
841
Fig. 4. Reclaimed sand gradation.
aggregates are provided in Table 2. Coarse and fine aggregate
properties were obtained through testing on laboratory stockpiles,
and from Table 2 it can be seen that both the gravel and sandstone
have physical properties typically associated with concrete aggre-
gates. All gravel and sandstone aggregates were obtained from
Pennsy Supply (Pennsy Supply, 2018) quarries in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. In addition, Type I/II Portland Cement is used in this
project which was obtained from Pennsy Supply.
From the bulk densities and specific gravities in Table 2, it can be
seen that both reclaimed sands and raw ash are significantly lighter
than concrete sand. This is due to the density of waste materials
that make up raw ash and reclaimed sands which in general are
lighter than silica sand. Both the raw ash and reclaimed sands can
be classified as lightweight concrete aggregates (bulk density
limit ¼ 1120 kg/m3 (70 lb/ft3)) by density per ASTM C330 - Stan-
dard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Con-
crete, and the broader goal of this work is to utilize reclaimed sands
in lightweight applications. A sieve analysis of three reclaimed sand
samples and sandstone were performed per ASTM C136, and it can
be seen in Fig. 4 that all samples met the gradation requirements of
ASTM C330 with the initial exception of two points. These two
points correspond to the #8 (2.38 mm) and #30 (0.595 mm) sieve
size, and ASTM C330 does not impose a graduation requirement on
these particle sizes. The absorption capacity of both raw ash and
reclaimed sands is significantly higher than sandstone as shown in
Table 2, and this is attributed to the formation of microfissures
throughout the incineration process. At the YCSWA plant, solid
waste is subjected to target temperatures of 982 # C during com-
bustion and then cooled via water filled troughs (YCSWA, 2018).
This drastic change in temperature causes expansion and contrac-
tion in the material leading to the development of microfissures,
and these microfissures provide additional pathways for particles
to absorb liquids. As seen in Table 2 these microfissures do not
significantly increase the void content of the raw ash or reclaimed
sand particles.
Specific Gravity Absorption Capacity (%) Void Content (%)
2.81 0.36 43.72
2.56 1.17 34.60
1.31 30.49 29.00
1.44 27.68 45.34
842 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849

Table 3
XRF analysis (by concentration).

Compound Reclaimed Sands (%) Raw Ash (%)

Calcium (Ca) 33.995 34.035

Iron (Fe) 26.089 26.061
Silica (Si) 13.956 13.935
Aluminum (Al) 8.715 8.727
Zinc (Zn) 4.035 4.019
Sulfur (S) 2.365 2.360
Titanium (Ti) 2.236 2.237
Copper (Cu) 2.031 2.046
Magnesium (Mg) 1.605 1.627
Potassium (K) 1.526 1.516
Phosphorus (P) 1.047 1.052
Lead (Pb) 0.555 0.547
Chlorine (Cl) 0.544 0.543
Manganese (Mn) 0.377 0.328
Barium (Ba) 0.226 0.230
Chromium (Cr) 0.169 0.161
Strontium (Sr) 0.144 0.413
Tin (Sn) 0.125 0.118
Nickel (Ni) 0.103 0.105
Antimony (Sb) 730.2 ppm 677.8 ppm
Zirconium (Zr) 679.7 ppm 675.8 ppm
Bromide (Br) 179 ppm 181.8 ppm
Vanadium (V) 148.3 ppm 189 ppm
Rubidium (Rb) 85.6 ppm 87.4 ppm
Molybdenum (Mo) 81.7 ppm 85.1 ppm
Gallium (Ga) e 76.9 ppm
Yttrium (Y) 80.5 ppm 75.3 ppm
Niobium (Nb) e 29.1 ppm Fig. 5. Pressure chamber and incubator.

2.3. Chemical composition and deleterious materials

ASTM C33/C330 specifies four main tests to assess the amount of
deleterious compounds in fine aggregates as follows: 1) Organic
A chemical breakdown of reclaimed sands vs. Raw ash is pro-
Impurities (ASTM C40), 2) Loss on Ignition (ASTM C114), 3) Sulfate
vided through X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis in Table 3, and it
Soundness (ASTM C114), and 4) Freeze-Thaw (ASTM C666). Per
can be seen that both materials have an almost identical chemical
ASTM C40, the amount of organic impurities in a fine aggregate
composition. The Pure Recovery Group process does not chemically
sample is estimated by gaging the color of a 3% sodium hydroxide
alter raw ash, but primarily filters out the fly ash component from
solution containing the sample material. An organic plate or
the material. The major components of both materials include
Gardner color wheel is used to classify the color of the samples, and
calcium (34%) and silica (14%) which are common in sand, and
per PennDot publication 408 any material used as fine aggregate in
metal compounds which account for 39.5% of the composition.
concrete must have a maximum color corresponding to organic
Materials containing sulfur can be problematic in concrete due to
plate no. 3 or Gardner color 11. Three organic impurities tests were
sulfate attacks, however, sulfur only accounts for 2.4% of the
performed on reclaimed sand samples per ASTM C40 with the re-
composition which is considered a negligible amount. At sand size
sults provided in Table 4, and it can be seen that all samples meet
particle levels, both raw ash and reclaimed sands contain trace
publication 408 requirements. This is expected given the inciner-
amounts of glass or glass-like material, and therefore are expected
ation process needed to produce reclaimed sands. Synthetic organic
to have low Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) potential. In addition, ASR is
compounds (SOC) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are vol-
primarily a concern for large particle sizes (i.e. gravel size aggre-
atized at intense heats, and this is discussed in (Sweeney, 2016b
gate), and the gradation of the reclaimed sands show that less than
unpublished report). In addition (Sweeney, 2016b unpublished
1% of the material is 4.75 mm or larger. Studies performed by
(Müller and Rübner, 2006) reported no significant cracking or
expansion due to ASR in MSWI bottom ash concrete samples.
The hydrogen gas produced from reclaimed sands and raw ash
was measured using the pressure chamber in Fig. 5. A sodium hy-
droxide solution of 500 mL water, 100 g reclaimed sands/raw ash,
and 20 g NaOH at 60 # C was used to excite a hydrogen gas reaction
from the aluminum in the material. Pressure was measured every
5 s over approximately 20 h, and the results are shown in Fig. 6.
From the graph it can be seen that more hydrogen gas was pro-
duced from the raw ash, and this is expected due to the presence of
more small particles in the material. For all practical purposes after
20 h the reclaimed sands pressure plateaued, while the raw ash
pressure continued to increase. This suggests that the raw ash will
continue to produce hydrogen gas long after 20 h. The raw ash
produced 0.0977 mol of hydrogen per 646 mL of solution, while the
reclaimed sands produced 0.0743 mol of hydrogen per 646 mL of
solution.
Fig. 6. Hydrogen gas production.
 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849 843

Table 4 2.4. Concrete mix proportions

Organic Impurities test results.

Gardner Color Value In this work reclaimed sands are used as a partial replacement
Sample 1 5
for sandstone in concrete at replacement ratios of 90/10, 80/20, and
Sample 2 5 70/30, with the second number denoting the percentage of
Sample 3 6 reclaimed sands in the mix. Corresponding mix designs are pro-
vided in Table 5, and all reclaimed sand proportions are calculated
based on a control mix with a design 28 day compression
strength ¼ 24 MPa (3500 psi). These replacement ratios were
report), provides a detailed SPLP analysis on the organics of selected to represent a practical utilization of reclaimed sands in
reclaimed sands, and it is found that organic impurities are not a concrete mixes, since recycled materials tend to be structurally
significant concern. The loss on ignition test evaluates the amount weaker than natural aggregates.
of volatile compounds in fine aggregate by heating material sam-
ples up to 950 ± 50 # C in a muffle furnace and measuring how much
2.5. Testing of reclaimed sand concrete
material was burned off. Per ASTM C330 the loss on ignition of fine
aggregate samples must be less than 5%. Preliminary loss of ignition
A scanning electron microcopy (SEM) analysis was performed to
testing on the reclaimed sands indicates that more than 5% of the
assess the effect that raw ash and reclaimed sands have on the
material is burned off during the test. However, this test requires
microstructure of concrete. It is expected that hydrogen gas effects
further investigation with respect to the evolving chemical nature
and shrinkage cracks will be prevalent in the reclaimed sand and
of reclaimed sands during cement hydration. Soundness and
raw ash samples. SEM images were obtained for the control mix
Freeze-Thaw testing are used to assess the durability of concrete
and 80/20 reclaimed sand and raw ash samples. Samples were
when subjected to simulated environmental conditions through
made by coating concrete in epoxy and then polishing the surface
accelerated aging tests, i.e. rapid freezing and thawing cycles.
using grinding paper and diamond polishing paste. The surface of
PennDot is currently updating publication 408 to specific Freeze-
all samples were coated in iridium to negate any charging effects
Thaw testing over sulfate soundness, and freeze-thaw testing will
from materials in the concrete. Images are provided at 500x, 2500x,
be performed on concrete incorporating reclaimed sands in a future
and 5000x magnification in Fig. 7 e 9. Boxes drawn on the SEM
study.
images indicate locations that are zoomed in on at larger

Table 5
Concrete mix proportions a.

Concrete Mix Design Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate Reclaimed Sands Raw Ash Cement Water
kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3) kg/m3 (lb/yd3)

Control 1191(2008) 691(1165) NA NA 377(635) 199(335)

90/10 1191(2008) 622(1049) 36(60) 39(66) 377(635) 199(335)
80/20 1191(2008) 553(932) 71(119) 78(131) 377(635) 199(335)
70/30 1191(2008) 484(816) 106(179) 117(197) 377(635) 199(335)
a
Volumetric conversions can be made utilizing Table 2.

Fig. 7. Control SEM (a) 500x; (b) 2500x; (c) 5000x

844 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849

Fig. 8. 80/20 raw ash SEM: (a) 500x; (b) 2500x; (c) 5000x

Fig. 9. 80/20 reclaimed sands SEM: (a) 500x; (b) 2500x; (c) 5000x

magnifications. An Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDXS) magnification images, and a more representative composition of
was performed on all SEM samples to obtain the chemical the can be obtained by analyzing serval different spots on an image
composition of the concrete, and the results are shown in Table 6. It through EDXS.
should be noted that the EDXS analysis was only run on the 250X Shrinkage is one of the main concerns in using MSWI bottom
 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849 845

Table 6
Concrete composition (EDXS) (by weight).

Compound Control Mix (%) 80/20 Reclaimed Sands (%) 80/20 Raw Ash (%)

Oxygen (O) 42.72 43.01 44.18

Carbon (C) 21.06 23.02 25.19
Calcium (Ca) 22.57 19.76 17.64
Silica (Si) 8.79 9.00 7.79
Iron (Fe) 1.17 1.15 1.28
Aluminum (Al) 1.29 1.27 1.00
Magnesium (Mg) 1.16 0.89 1.34
Sulfur (S) 0.67 0.62 0.57
Phosphorus (P) e 0.44 e
Potassium (K) 0.32 0.45 0.43
Sodium (Na) 0.12 0.32 0.38
Chlorine (Cl) 0.11 0.08 0.21

Table 7
Mortar mix proportions.

Concrete Mix Design Fine Aggregate g Reclaimed Sands g Raw Ash g Cement g Water g

Control 700 NA NA 256 121

50/50 350 153 131 256 121

ash in concrete due to the material's high absorption capacity. The
drying shrinkage of reclaimed sand mixes are investigated in this
study through 2.54 cm (1 in) x 2.54 (1 in) x 29.21 cm (11.5 in)
mortar bars, and the corresponding mix designs are provided in
Table 7. A 50/50 mix of sandstone to reclaimed sands and a control
mix were used for the shrinkage tests. In addition, 50/50 raw
incinerator ash mortar samples are tested to evaluate the effects of
the reclaimed sand refinement process on shrinkage. In general a
50/50 mix would not be practical for recycled materials, but the mix
is used in this study to assess shrinkage under a worst case con-
dition. Four samples were prepared for each mortar mix per ASTM
596 and cured in lime water. Samples were tested at 1, 7, and 28
days, and the shrinkage results are shown in Fig. 10.
The 28-day compression strength of reclaimed sand, raw ash,
and control mix concrete samples has been determined for each
mix design in Table 4. Compression testing was performed per
ASTM C39. Unbounded metal caps with an elastomeric insert
meeting the requirements of ASTM C1231 were used to cap the
cylinders. Three 10.16 cm (4 in) x 20.32 cm (8 in) cylinders were
tested for each mix design and the results are provided in Fig. 11.
When making concrete cylinders with reclaimed sands, it was
observed that the surface of the cylinders contained pockets of
voids as shown in Fig. 12(a)e(b). These voids are created due to
trapped hydrogen gas in the concrete, and in general form towards
the top of the cylinders in this work. In prior studies exploring the
use of MSWI ash in concrete (An et al., 2014, 2017; Kim et al., 2015;
Minane et al., 2017; Rubner et al., 2008; Verbinnen et al., 2017), the
behavior of trapped hydrogen gas with respect to concrete height is
not investigated. In (An et al., 2014), surface voids in cylinders made
with MSWI bottom ash are evenly distributed along the height of
the samples. Other studies referenced in this work do not provide
enough information to make this assessment. It should be noted
that MSWI bottom ash in (An et al., 2014) was obtained from a
refuse-derived fuel (RDF) WTE facility, which processes trash
differently than the YCSWA mass-burn incinerator. In addition, the
material in (An et al., 2014) does not undergo a secondary refine-
ment process. For the materials in this study, it is suspected that the
behavior of trapped hydrogen gas varies with respect to height, and
this variation will cause a corresponding change in concrete den-
sity. This variation in density has significant implications on pour-
ing concrete containing reclaimed sands, as it is generally assumed
that poured concrete maintains a constant density. To better un-
derstand the effect of hydrogen gas production in reclaimed sand
concrete, 10.16 cm (4 in) x 20.32 cm (8 in) cylinders were made and
tested for density with respect to sample height. The cylinders were

Fig. 10. Shrinkage of Reclaimed Sands vs. Raw Ash. Fig. 11. Compression strength of Reclaimed Sand and Raw Ash concrete.
846 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849
Fig. 12. Reclaimed Sand concrete cylinders: (a) Mushroom top effects; (b) Trapped hydrogen gas voids; (c) Cylinder top after mushroom top removal.
cut into five equal thickness disks to measure density with respect
to height, and a typical disk sample is shown in Fig. 13(a). The
density of the disks were found utilizing standard specific gravity
testing procedures similar to those outlined in ASTM C128, and the
testing setup is shown in Fig. 13(b). In this study the testing setup is
used to measure the density of disk samples in air and in a vacuum,
which is needed to eliminate the contribution of internal air voids
to disk density. Three control mix and 80/20 reclaimed sand con-
crete samples have been tested and the results are provided in
Fig. 14.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Microstructure analysis
From Fig. 7(a), it can be seen that the control sample has a
mostly uniform cement matrix without significant cracking or
voids. At 2500x and 5000x magnification, autogenous shrinkage
cracks become present which is expected for normal curing con-
ditions. In comparison, the raw ash concrete exhibits large voids
(dark circle in Fig. 8) which are due to hydrogen gas production in
the material. Cracks form around these holes weaken the internal
structure of the cement matrix. Cracking due to autogenous
shrinkage has been significantly reduced in the raw ash sample,
which is attributed to the pozzolanic action of the fly ash particles
in the material. It should be noted that autogenous shrinkage
cannot be captured using the shrinkage bar mortar test for drying
shrinkage, since this shrinkage occurs during the first 24 h of
curing. In Fig. 9, at 500X magnification the reclaimed sand sample
contains significantly more hydrogen gas voids than the raw ash
samples. Without the fly ash particles the hydrogen gas effects are
more pronounced on the reclaimed sand samples, despite the raw
ash actually producing more hydrogen gas (see Fig. 6). In general,
the hydrogen gas effects are much more damaging to the cement
matrix than shrinkage cracks. The EDXS analysis in Table 6 shows
that the composition of the concrete does not changes significantly
between the control and 80/20 mixes. In particular, the change in
silica content is negligible between the mixes, which would imply
that ASR will not be an issue.
3.2. Drying shrinkage
The contraction/expansion of each sample is provided both as a
length measurement (cm) and as a percentage of the original
sample length. As noted in, one of the 50/50 reclaimed sand sam-
ples was broken during handling and could not be tested. In Fig. 10,
it can be seen that the shrinkage of the reclaimed sand and control
mix samples are negligible, where the raw ash samples underwent
significant shrinkage. This raw ash shrinkage is attributed to the
sizeable amount of fly ash in the raw ash particles. Fly ash is a more
cementitious material than bottom ash, and correspondingly ab-
sorbs more water when mixed in concrete which leads to increased
drying shrinkage. All of the samples experienced shrinkage or
negligible expansion from day 1 to day 7, after which the sample
lengths remained nearly constant for the rest of the test. This is in
keeping with standard drying shrinkage tests where the vast ma-
jority of moisture is evaporated within 24 h. ASTM C330 provides a
shrinkage limit of 0.07% for lightweight aggregates used in con-
crete. All of the reclaimed sand samples are well below this limit,
however it should be noted that ASTM C330 specifies 5.08 cm (2 in)
x 5.08 (2 in) cross sectional mortar samples as opposed to the
2.54 cm (1 in) x 2.54 (1 in) samples. It is anticipated based on the
 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849 847

low shrinkage results of this study, that shrinkage will not be an

issue in 5.08 cm (2 in) x 5.08 cm (2 in) reclaimed sand mortar
samples.

3.3. Compression strength

It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the compression strength of both

the reclaimed sand and raw ash samples decrease as the mix
replacement ratio increases. This is to be expected as both
reclaimed sands and raw ash aggregates are structurally weaker
than sandstone. Furthermore the hydrogen gas effect plays a more
prominent role in the concrete as the replacement ratio increases.
All samples were loaded until a consistent force could no longer be
maintained on the cylinder, and the 90/10 and 70/30 compression
samples broke in a similar fashion to the 80/20 cylinders (i.e.
splitting or confinement failures).
It should be noted that all reclaimed sand and raw ash cylinders
exhibited the formation of a brittle top during curing as shown in
Fig. 12(a)-12(b). This brittle top is attributed to the hydrogen gas
production from the reclaimed sands and raw ash during hydration.
Cylinder molds constrict the movement of concrete from the bot-
tom and sides, and when hydrogen gas is produced, material in the
mold is pushed upwards leading to the formation of a “mushroom
top” on the finished surface of the concrete. In addition, trapped
hydrogen gas forms voids along the outside of the cylinder walls as
seen in Fig. 12(b). The formation of these voids are discussed in the
“Disk Test” section of this work. Performing compression testing on
cylinders with mushroom tops will not produce representative
compression strengths, as the primary failure mode of the cylinder
will be due to crushing of the brittle cylinder top. Therefore a
concrete saw was used to remove the mushroom top portion on all
reclaimed sand and raw ash compression samples. A typical cross
section of a cylinder after the mushroom top is removed is shown if
Fig. 12(c). After removal of the mushroom top, cylinders maintained
a height between 19.05 cm (7.5 in) e 19.53 cm (7.69 in) with an
outlier of 90/10 reclaimed sand sample 1 at 18.11 cm (7.13 in). It is
well known that the height of a cylinder can affect the compression
strength and failure mechanism of a concrete sample. However, this
strength change will be minimal with respect to the amount of
concrete removed from the reclaimed and raw ash samples and
therefore is considered negligible in this work.
The compression strength of the raw ash samples are signifi-
cantly higher than the reclaimed sand samples, and this is attrib-
uted to the fly ash in the raw ash. The fly ash acts as additional
cementations material which allows the raw ash sample to cure to a
denser configuration. Increasing the compression strength of
Fig. 13. Disk test setup: (a) Disk sample; (b) Density test equipment.
reclaimed sand concrete is straightforward through the use of ad-
mixtures and/or additional cement, but addressing significant

Fig. 14. Disk density vs. height: (a) Vacuum samples; (b) Non-vacuum samples.
848 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849
shrinkage in raw ash concrete is problematic and potentially not
practical.
3.4. Disk test
From Fig. 14 it is evident that the variation of theoretical
maximum specific gravity between all samples is relatively con-
stant with a range of 2.60e2.75, which implies that the concrete
mixture for all samples is homogenous. The density of the disk
samples is plotted with respect to height in Fig. 14, and the 80/20
samples show a significant decrease in density from the bottom of
the cylinder to the top. This trend is consistent in both the vacuum
and non-vacuum 80/20 samples, which indicates that changes in
sample density are due to the presence of trapped hydrogen gas.
The control mix samples display a similar decreasing density trend,
but the magnitude is much less pronounced and negligible. The
variation in density with respect to height is attributed to pressure
differences in concrete when poured into a mold. When concrete is
poured into a cylinder mold, the bottom of the cylinder is subjected
to the most pressure due to the weight of the concrete above. The
distribution of hydrogen gas should be relatively constant along the
height of the cylinder, but the pressure exerted on the gas will vary
with respect to height. Due to this pressure difference the volume
the trapped hydrogen gas occupies decreases moving from the top
of the cylinder downwards. A decrease in trapped hydrogen volume
corresponds to an increase in density leading to the trends shown
in Fig. 14. Surface voids due to trapped hydrogen gas are visible
towards the top of reclaimed sand cylinders (see Fig. 12(a) e 12(b)),
and this is due to the presence of less pressure and correspondingly
more volumetric expansion of trapped hydrogen gas.
4. Conclusions
Based on the studies in this work, the following can be observed
for the use of raw ash and reclaimed sands in concrete:
$ While the Pure Recovery Group process produces a cleaner
material than raw ash, the process does not change the chemical
breakdown of the material, and needs to be improved to address
small metal particle removal and hydrogen gas effects. Until
these changes are implemented, it is not recommend that
reclaimed sands be used in concrete since the internal structure
of the material is compromised. To address hydrogen gas con-
cerns, a chemical treatment will need to be developed and
implemented at the Pure Recovery Group plant.
$ With changes needing to be made to effectively utilize
reclaimed sands, it is not possible to pinpoint an optimal
replacement ratio for the material to be used in concrete. It is
expected that once the material can be treated successfully, it
will be used with replacement ratios <20%. Typically, recycled
materials are used at low replacement ratios due to their
inherently weaker structure in comparison to natural
aggregates.
$ It is not recommended that raw ash be used in concrete in any
capacity. The material is not clean and has significant leaching
and drying shrinkage issues.
$ More research is needed to assess the durability of reclaimed
sand concrete through freeze-thaw testing and rapid chloride
permeability. This testing will be performed once an effective
treatment process has been developed for the reclaimed sands.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support and
guidance provided by the York County Solid Waste Authority and
the Pure Recovery Group, L.P. on this project. The authors would
also like to thank Sean Sweeny and Alison L'Hommedieu D'Airo
from Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. for their continued support and
collaboration.
References
An, J., Kim, J., Golestani, B., Tasneem, K.M., Al Muhit, B.A., Nam, B.H., Behzadan, A.H.,
2014. Evaluating the Use of Waste-To-Energy Bottom Ash as Road Construction
Materials. ” Produced for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
An, J., Kim, J., Nam, B.H., 2017. Investigation on impacts of municipal solid waste
incineration bottom ash on cement hydration. ACI Mater. J. 114 (5), 701e711.
Y.C.S.W.A., 2016. Annual Report. York, PA, United States.
Y.C.S.W.A., 2018. York County Solid Waste Authority.” York County Solid Waste
Authority, York, PA, United States.
Dou, X., Ren, F., Nguyen, M.Q., Ahamed, A., Yin, K., Chan, W.P., Chang, V.W.-C., 2017.
Review of MSWI bottom ash utilization from perspectives of collective char-
acterization, treatment and existing application. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Pergamon 79, 24e38.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. “eCFR d Code of Federal Regulations (Title
40: Protection of Environment, Part 261 - Identification and Listing of Haz-
ardous Waste).
EREF, 2018. Analysis of MSW Landfill Tipping Fees: April 2018. Raleigh, North
Carolina, United States.
Holmes, N., O'Malley, H., Cribbin, P., Mullen, H., Keane, G., 2016. Performance of
Masonry Blocks Containing Different Proportions of Incinator Bottom Ash. In:
Sustainable Materials and Technologies, vol. 8. Elsevier, pp. 14e19.
Kim, J., Nam, B.H., Al Muhit, B.A., Tasneem, K.M., An, J., 2015. Effect of chemical
treatment of MSWI bottom ash for its use in concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. Thomas
Telford Ltd 67 (4), 179e186.
LEED USGBC, 2018. Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design. Jul. 10,
2018. https://new.usgbc.org/leed.
Li, X., Liu, Z., Lv, Y., Cai, L., Jiang, D., Jiang, W., Jian, S., 2018. Utilization of Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration Bottom Ash in Autoclaved Aerated concrete.” Con-
struction and Building Materials, vol.178. Elsevier, pp. 175e182.
Luo, H., Cheng, Y., He, D., Yang, E.-H., 2019. Review of Leaching Behavior of
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) ash.” Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, vol.668. Elsevier, pp. 90e103.
Lynn, C.J., Dhir OBE, R.K., Ghataora, G.S., 2016. Municipal Incinerated Bottom Ash
Characteristics and Potential for Use as Aggregate in concrete.” Construction
and Building Materials, vol. 127. Elsevier, pp. 504e517.
Lynn, C.J., Ghataora, G.S., Dhir OBE, R.K., 2017. Municipal Incinerated Bottom Ash
(MIBA) Characteristics and Potential for Use in Road pavements.” International
Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, vol. 10. No longer published by
Elsevier, pp. 185e201, 2.
Michaels, T., 2014. The 2014 ERC Directory of Waste-To-Energy Facilities. ” Energy
Recovery Council (ERC), Washington, D.C., United States.
Minane, J.R., Becquart, F., Abriak, N.E., Deboffe, C., 2017. Upgraded Mineral Sand
Fraction from MSWI Bottom Ash: an Alternative Solution for the Substitution of
Natural Aggregates in Concrete Applications.” Procedia Engineering, vol.180.
Elsevier, pp. 1213e1220.
Müller, U., Rübner, K., 2006. The microstructure of concrete made with municipal
waste incinerator bottom ash as an aggregate component. Cement Concr. Res.
Pergamon 36 (8), 1434e1443.
Nithiya, A., Saffarzadeh, A., Shimaoka, T., 2018. Hydrogen Gas Generation from
Metal Aluminum-Water Interaction in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
(MSWI) Bottom ash.” Waste Management, Pergamon, vol.73, pp. 342e350.
Pennsy Supply, 2018. Pennsy Supply. ” Harrisburg, PA, United States.
Pennsylvania Department of Transporation, 2016. PennDOT Publication 408 Spec-
ification. ” Harrisburg, PA, United States.
Pure Recovery, 2018. “Pure Recovery e Enhanced Ash Recycling L.P.” York, PA,
United States.
Rubner, K., Haamkens, F., Linde, O., 2008. Use of municipal solid waste incinerator
bottom ash as aggregate in concrete. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. GeoScience-
World 41 (4), 459e464.
Song, Y., Li, B., Yang, E.-H., Liu, Y., Ding, T., 2015. Feasibility Study on Utilization of
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Bottom Ash as Aerating Agent for the
Production of Autoclaved Aerated concrete.” Cement and Concrete Composites,
vol. 56. Elsevier, pp. 51e58.
Sweeney, S., 2016a. Research and Development Completion Report for Aggregate
and Sand Products from Mixed Municipal Waste Combustion Ash. Camp Hill,
PA, United States.
Sweeney, S., 2016b. General Permit Application. Camp Hill, PA, United States.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1992. SW-846 Test Method 1311:
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. ” USEPA, Washington, D.C., United
States.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1994. SW-846 Test Method 1312:
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure. ” USEPA, Washington, D.C., United
States.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2014. Advancing Sustainable Mate-
rials Management: 2014 Tables and Figures, Assessing Trends in Material
Generation, Recycling, Composting, Combustion with Energy Recovery and
Landfilling in the United States, November 2016.” USEPA, Washington, D.C.,
 G. Mathews IV et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 229 (2019) 838e849
United States.
Van Praagh, M., Johansson, M., Fagerqvist, J., Gro €nholm, R., Hansson, N.,
Svensson, H., 2018. “Recycling of MSWI-bottom ash in paved constructions in
Sweden e a risk assessment.” Waste Management. Pergamon 79, 428e434.
Vandemierden, J., 2014. Ash Processing and Metals Recovery Systems and Methods
(Patent 8,905,242 B2). United States Patent Office.
Verbinnen, B., Billen, P., Van Caneghem, J., Vandecasteele, C., 2017. Recycling of
MSWI Bottom Ash: A Review of Chemical Barriers, Engineering Applications
and Treatment Technologies.” Waste and Biomass Valorization, vol.8. Springer
Netherlands, pp. 1453e1466, 5.
Xuan, D., Poon, C.S., 2018. Removal of Metallic Al and Al/Zn Alloys in MSWI Bottom
Ash by Alkaline treatment.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol.344. Elsevier,
849
pp. 73e80.
Yakubu, Y., Zhou, J., Shu, Z., Tan, Y., Zhao, Z., Mbululo, Y., 2018. Potential Industrial
Utilization of Pre-treated Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly ash.” Waste
Management & Research, SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England, vol.36,
pp. 635e644, 7.
Yang, Z., Tian, S., Liu, L., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., 2018. Recycling Ground MSWI Bottom
Ash in Cement Composites: Long-Term Environmental impacts.” Waste Man-
agement, Pergamon, vol.78, pp. 841e848.
Zhang, Y., Soleimanbeigi, A., Likos, W.J., Edil, T.B., 2016. “Geotechnical and leaching
properties of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash for use as embankment
fill material.” transportation research record. J. Transp. Res. Board SAGE Pub-
licationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA 2579 (1), 70e78.