at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e6

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Closed-loop recycling of recycled concrete aggregates

Iqbal Marie*, Hisham QuiasrawiDepartment of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Hashemite University, Zarka, Jordan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 March 2012Received in revised form24 May 2012Accepted 12 July 2012Available online xxx

Keywords:Recycled concrete aggregateParent concreteConcrete life cycleWorkability

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: iqbal@hu.edu.jo, iamarie2002@y

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020

Please cite this article in press as: Marie, I., Q(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.20

a b s t r a c t

Reduce, reuse and recycle for environment recovery and respect are the key principles of a sustainableconstruction material. Much research has been conducted regarding the use of recycled concreteaggregates (RCA) in concrete mixes recycled from parent concrete of natural source aggregates, referredhere as first generation. Recycling the RCA forming a second loop of recycling concrete is referred here asthe second generation of RCA. This study concentrates on the properties of the second generationconcrete. The concrete mixes considered in this study are conventional mixes made of 100% naturalaggregates (NA), mixes containing up to 20% replacement of NA with RCA, producing first generationconcrete and mixes containing up to 20% replacement of NA with aggregates obtained by recycling thefirst generation concrete (R-RCA), producing the second generation concrete. Properties that have beenstudied are workability, absorption, compressive and tensile strengths. The results show that the use ofRCA and R-RCA has an adverse effect on concrete properties. Results show that the use of up to 20%replacement of NA by RCA or R-RCA instead of NA is allowed for producing concretes of accepted quality.The second generation RCA performed better than the first generation RCA. It is also shown that theclosed-loop recycling is possible and advantages maintaining the sustainability of the natural resourcesand the environment.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Concrete is one of the most widely used building materials. Theannual average production is about 1 ton of concrete per humanbeing in the world (Van den Heede and De Belie, 2012).Consumption of natural aggregates, which constitute the bulk ofconcrete, is rapidly increasing with the increase of the productionand utilization of concrete. According to the large-scale use ofnatural aggregates, it is imperative to evaluate the environmentalimpact of this material correctly (Marinkovi�c et al., 2010).

Natural aggregates are definitely essential and valuableresources for the economic and social development of mankind, butthey must be produced and used according to the sustainabledevelopment principles (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010). Utilizationof concrete that uses RCA as a construction material is expected tocontribute to solving the issue of lack of raw materials, and thuswould allow the construction of infrastructures using a circulatorysystem for resources (Tokushige, 2007).

In fact, as far as the cradle-to-cradle concept is gaining impor-tance today for sustainability, then products should be designed insuch a way that enable materials to maintain their status as

ahoo.com (I. Marie).

All rights reserved.

uiasrawi, H., Closed-loop rec12.07.020

resources (Braungart et al., 2007). Therefore, at their end of lifecycle, the materials re-enter further life cycles, in substitution ofnatural materials.

The environmental benefits of recycled aggregate use can playa key role in reducing the need for landfill waste disposal andconserve natural aggregates with benefits to the natural environ-ment (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010). The rubble of demolishedconcrete can simply be reused as raw materials for concreteproduction or simply in many other applications. From the resourceand environmental viewpoints, recycled aggregate can play a keyrole in conserving natural resources and diverting million tons ofbuilding construction and demolition wastes from landfill, thusmaintaining the environment.

Aggregates obtained by recycling demolished concrete aremainly used as aggregates in granular base or sub-base applica-tions, as well as for embankment and earth constructionworks. Thereason is that the quality of recycled concrete aggregates is usuallylower than the quality of natural aggregate (Marinkovi�c et al.,2010).

The technical problems of incorporating RCA into new concretemixes are well known and have been addressed through research.Although RCA has lower quality than NA concrete, it still can beused for structural concrete provided that RCA fulfills somerequirements (RECOMMENDATION and DE LA RILEM, 1994).

ycling of recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Cleaner Production

I. Marie, H. Quiasrawi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e62

Corinaldesi (2010) studied the feasibility of the use of crushedconcrete as coarse aggregates and stated that the use of up to 30%RCA instead of NA is allowed for producing concrete of acceptedquality and is likely to be quite adequate for some projects. De Juanand Gutiérrez (2009) concluded that the main reason for lowerphysical quality of RCA compared to NA is due to the certainamount of mortar and cement paste from original concrete thatremains attached to the NA after crushing. In comparison withnatural normal weight aggregates, recycled aggregates are weaker,more porous and have higher values of water absorption. Thedensity, water absorption and abrasion resistance are listed inTable 1 for both RCA and NA as studied by several authors.

According to Male�sev et al. (2010), concrete compressive andtensile strengths mainly depend on the quality of recycled aggre-gate. If good quality aggregate obtained by crushing higher strengthclass concrete is used for the production of new concrete, therecycled aggregate has no influence on the compressive strength,regardless of the replacement ratio of natural coarse aggregatewithrecycled aggregate. This indicates that the parent concrete prop-erties which are to be used for producing RCA have amajor effect onthe quality of the obtained concrete.

The test results and some successful applications in pavementsand building structures studied by Xu-ping (2009), lead to positiveresponses on the practical use of RAC in Civil Engineering. The useof RCA in concrete mixes results in a reduction in compressivestrength of the first generation concrete when compared with NAconcrete (Xiao et al., 2005). The results of research studies showthat when RCA are used to replace up to 20e30% by weight of thecoarse NA in concrete, little effect on the properties of concrete isnoticed (Batayneh et al., 2007). Thus a conservative value forreplacement of aggregate is 20% bymass which has been adopted inBS 8500-2 (Parekh and Modhera). Based on previous researchers’findings and recommendations a 20% replacement of NA with RCAis considered in this study. Recycling concrete results in reductionof its quality, and the parent concrete properties has an effect on theRCA concrete (Padmini et al., 2009). Then investigating the prop-erties of the second generation R-RCA concrete is essential forcontinuous recycling.

Subsequent to production and use of the first generation recy-cled concrete, a problematic situation will occur within landfillsafter the removal of construction and demolition waste if noalternative recycling path is identified or established. As a conse-quence, the consumption of natural mineral resources will there-fore increase, leading to a necessary creation of a closed-looprecycling option in concrete production, with the possibility ofsecond generation concrete plausible under the R-RCA ideas ofobtaining first generation concrete. Therefore, the characteristics ofthe second generation concrete require investigation. Paraphrased,is it possible to reuse the second generation RCA concrete in newconcrete mixes?

1.1. Life-cycle of concrete

Concrete as a construction material has a life-cycle with fivedistinct main phases. These phases are: rawmaterial extraction and

Table 1Properties of RCA compared to NA.

Property RCA compared to NA

Density Density of RCA is decreased up to 10% comto density of NA

Water absorption Water absorption of coarse RCA ranges froup to 9.2% compared to NA 0.5% up to 5.0

Abrasion resistance The abrasion resistance of RCA is decreaseto 70% compared to NA

Please cite this article in press as: Marie, I., Quiasrawi, H., Closed-loop rec(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020

production phase, construction, service, demolition and disman-tling, and at last disposal or recycling phase.

The increase of the volume of construction rubble is due todemolition and maintenance of old buildings or which results fromnatural destructive phenomena such as earthquakes. etc. At thedemolition phase, which represents the end-of-life, in terms of theamount of produced waste is reported by Marinkovi�c et al. (2010),where the disposal of demolished concrete addressed to landfill isthat for each 1 m3 of demolished concrete a 1 m3 of waste, isproduced while for recycling of demolished concrete to produceRCA, the recovery percentage of coarse recycled aggregate isassumed to be 60% and the rest (fine particles produced by recy-cling) is assumed to be disposed in landfill and not be used for otherpurposes. This means that from 1 m3 of demolished concrete,0.4 m3 is waste.

The first phase of raw material extraction and last one ofdisposal and recycling in the concrete life-cycle have the maincontribution to the environment in terms of consumption of rawnatural materials and production of waste material.

Based on the cradle-to-cradle life cycle where the end-of-lifedisposal step for the concrete material is a recycling process, thenthe use of the demolitionwaste as an aggregate replacement avoidsthe mining of natural aggregates which negatively affects the visualand ecological aspects of the natural environment. Failure torecycle this waste material results in environmental disruptionthrough unnecessary landfill disposal (Richardson et al., 2011). Therecycled product should pass certain physical and mechanicalproperties. If the resulting properties of the recycled material meetthe characteristics requirements then it can flow to the next loop oflife for concrete material production. Since aggregates generallyoccupy 70e80% of concrete volume, they should be carefullyselected in order to control the quality of the concrete. Thedemolition phase of the life cycle of concrete plays a significant rolein recycling process and should be handled with great precautionsand testing.

The end of life recycling process is a method used to minimizethe environmental impact of products by employing sustainableproduction, operation, and disposal practices and aims to incor-porate social responsibility into product development (ECOMII,2010). Fig. 1 represents a closed-loop life cycle of concrete material.

This work studies the concrete waste production in the lastphase in terms of the second loop which produces the secondgeneration of RCA and studies its properties. The major differencebetween NA, RCA and the R-RCA is the amount of cement mortarattached on the surface of aggregate. When old concrete is crushed,a certain amount of mortar from the original cement mortarremains attached to the stone particles of RCA, which forms aweak,porous and brittle layer (De Juan and Gutiérrez, 2009). Tam et al.(2007) worked on developing techniques for reducing theamount of mortar attached to the RCA and modify its quality.

Mymrin and Corrêa (2007) in his study referred to the possi-bility of new concrete production from waste concrete with addi-tion of fly ash without utilization of new cement in proportion of79% concrete waste, 11% of fly ash and 10% of water. This willminimize the impact of cement industry on the environment.

References

pared (Poon et al., 2004), (De Juan and Gutiérrez, 2009)

m 3.5%%.

(Rahal, 2007), (López-gayarre et al., 2009),(Xiao et al., 2005), (Qasrawi et al., 2012)

d up (Poon et al., 2004), (López-gayarre et al., 2009)

ycling of recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Cleaner Production

Fig. 1. Life cycle of concrete material for the first and the second generation ofconcrete.

I. Marie, H. Quiasrawi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e6 3

The concept of 5-R rule for waste management is established inthe schematic diagram Fig. 2 which represents the waste manage-ment hierarchy. A necessity when attempting to reduce wastematerial in landfill is waste management which allows and directsthe construction activities to an environmentally friendly process,therefore reducing the eventual material within landfill. Whenwaste materials are diverted from landfills multiple environmentaland economic advantages are identified. These include preservationof raw materials, reduction in cost associated with waste disposaland consequently the efficient use of the materials (Batayneh et al.,2007). The application of the 5-R rule for concrete as a constructionmaterial refers to reuse, recycle, reduce, recovery and respect. It callsfor the reduction of consumption and extraction of raw materialsnecessary for environmental conservation, along with thecontinued recycling and reusing of construction and demolitionwaste. Consequently the continuous use of recycling also reducesthe amount of waste to be dumped in landfill. If waste is notdisposed of correctly, adverse environmental effects will occur.Therefore the 5-R rule specifically reuse, recycle and reduce aretargeted at material recovery and mutual respect for the environ-ment. The goal of reducing the environmental impact of industrialactivity is widely accepted as aworthwhile goal (Hodge et al., 2010).In the mineral industry, the project life cycle is limited by the non-renewability. However, advances in recycling can turn a non-renewable resource into a renewable one, at least partially(Blengini et al., 2012).

2. Experimental procedure

In order to evaluate the performance of the second generationconcrete, three types of coarse aggregates are used to producedifferent concrete mixes. Hansen and Narud (1983) found that the

5-R Recycling Rule

Reuse

Recycling

Reduction Recovery Respect

Fig. 2. The 5-R rule of construction wastes management hierarchy. (sourse: I.Marie).

Please cite this article in press as: Marie, I., Quiasrawi, H., Closed-loop rec(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020

compressive strength of recycled concrete is strongly correlatedwith the waterecement ratio (w/c) of the original concrete if otherfactors are kept the same. Based on that finding, a constant free w/cis used. Also constant mixing water content is used in all mixes inorder to minimize the factors that affect concrete properties.

The three types of coarse aggregates used are:

1. Natural coarse aggregates (NA) are crushed limestone fromlocal sources used to obtain the control concrete mix.

2. RCA was obtained by crushing the previously tested concretesamples in the lab to produce the first generation concrete.These particles were then washed, dried and sieved using thestandard sieves for coarse aggregates.

3. R-RCA was obtained by crushing the first generation concretesamples that were tested in the lab to produce the secondgeneration concrete. These particles were then washed, driedand sieved using the standard sieves for coarse aggregates.

4. Gradation of the NA, RCA and R-RCA aggregates was obtainedusing ASTM C 136. For each type alone, several sizes werecombined in order to obtain a grading that is accepted by ASTMstandards.

5. Fine aggregate used in all mixes is natural desert siliceous sandwhich is the most common type used in local sites. The sand isvery fine, fineness modulus is 1.48, and does not fall within thestandard limits of the ASTM grading requirements for fineaggregate.

The procedure followed in the preparation of RCA and R-RCA isas described by Montgomery and Sturgiss (1996).

The cement used in all mixes is ordinary Portland cement con-forming to ASTM C 150-92 e Type I specifications.

The following steps summarize the testing program that hasbeen followed:

1. Concrete mixes with 0% up to 20% replacement of NAwith RCAare prepared and tested to verify the feasibility of the use of the20% replacement of NA with RCA. The mix proportionsmeasured in terms of kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) andthe fresh concrete properties, slump and unit weight results areshown in Table 2.

2. Three types of concrete mixes were prepared:a. Control mix with zero replacement of the NA.b. Concrete-containing RCA were prepared by replacing up to

20% by weight of the NA with RCA producing the firstgeneration concrete. All other variables are kept the same.

c. Concrete-containing R-RCA aggregates were prepared byreplacing 20% by weight of the NA with R-RCA obtainedfrom the first generation parent concrete to produce thesecond generation concrete. All other variables are kept thesame.

3. NA concrete mixes were proportioned to produce a concretethat is mobile, stable, and compactable. Medium workabilityconcrete, slump of 80 mm, without using admixtures, andstrength of about 30 MPa have been the target values for themix. These values are the most common ones in local sites. Awater/cement ratio of 0.56 was found to be sufficient toproduce NA mixes of strength exceeding 30 MPa. Because ofthe extreme fineness of the sand, mixes were sticky and lackingmobility. This resulted in relatively high water content, whichled to relatively high cement content.

4. All mixes were tested for workability using the slump testdescribed in ASTM C 143. The mix proportions and freshproperties of NA, RCA, and R-RCA concrete are shown in Table 3.

5. Cubes for all the mixes of 100 mm side length were preparedand cured in the laboratory in a water bath under

ycling of recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Cleaner Production

Table 4Properties of first versus second generation concrete relative to the natural aggre-

Table 2Mix proportions and fresh concrete properties for 0% up to 20% RCA concrete.

% RCA Mix proportions (kg/m3 of finished concrete) Nominal w/c ratio Slump (mm) Unit mass kg/m3

Water Cement C.A F.A RCA

0 252 446 961 585 0.0 0.56 75 23155 252 446 961 585 48.05 0.56 65 231110 252 446 961 585 96.1 0.56 52 231115 252 446 961 585 144.15 0.56 45 229620 252 446 961 585 169 0.56 41 2273

I. Marie, H. Quiasrawi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e64

a temperature of 20� � 2 �C; then tested at the age of 28 daysfor compressive strength. The average of three values wasrecorded as the strength of concrete.

6. Several standard prisms of 100� 100� 500mmwere preparedand cured in the laboratory in a water bath under a tempera-ture of 20� � 2 �C, then tested at the age of 28 days for flexuraltensile strength. The average of three values was recorded asthe tensile strength of concrete.

7. Several standard cylinders of 150� 300mmwere prepared andcured in the laboratory in a water bath under a temperature of20� � 2 �C, then tested at the age of 28 days for splitting tensilestrength. The average of three values was recorded as thesplitting tensile strength of concrete.

8. The NA, RCA and the R-RCA were tested for water absorption.9. Properties including workability, compressive strength, split-

ting tensile strength, flexural tensile strength and waterabsorption of first versus second generation concrete relative tothe natural aggregates concrete are tabulated in Table 4.

3. Results and discussion

Crushed concrete was used to substitute up to 20% by mass ofthe conventional natural coarse aggregates used in themixwhich isfound to be of accepted effect on the first generation concrete. Theconcrete mixes with recycled concrete aggregates exhibitedreduction in compressive, flexural and splitting-tensile strengthscompared to normal concrete, which can be clearly seen in Fig. 3.

A reduction in the slump value with the increase of thereplacement percentage of the coarse aggregates with recycledcrushed concrete is also observed. The reduction of slump forrecycled concrete aggregates replacement is due to the fact thatabsorption of crushed concrete is higher than that of coarse aggre-gate. Therefore, the higher the percentage of recycled concreteaggregate, the lower the slump is. Moreover, the irregularity of thesurface of the recycled concrete aggregates affects theworkability ofconcrete. Due to the reduced workability of the recycled concreteaggregatemixes, either a type of superplasticizers shouldbe used, orthe percentage of the recycled concrete aggregate should becontrolled (Batayneh et al., 2007).

Table 4 summarizes the properties of first versus secondgeneration concrete relative to the natural aggregates concrete. Theresults show that:

1. The reduction in the slump value for the first generation RCAconcrete is higher than that for the second generation R-RCAconcrete.

Table 3Mix proportions and fresh properties of NA, RCA, and R-RCA concrete.

Concrete type Mix proportions (kg/m3 of finished concrete) w/cratio

Slump(mm)

Water Cement C.A F.A RAa

Control mix 252 446 961 585 0.0 0.56 75.331st generation 252 446 961 585 169 0.56 412nd generation 252 446 961 585 169 0.56 68

a RA referred to 20% replacement of recycled aggregate either (RCA or R-RCA).

Please cite this article in press as: Marie, I., Quiasrawi, H., Closed-loop rec(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020

2. The strength of the first generation concrete with RCA is lessthan that of its parent concrete made with NA.

3. The second generation of R-RCA concrete shows higherstrength than the first generation concrete but still lower thanthat of NA concrete (Fig. 4).

Amount and properties of the residual mortar (RMC) in therecycled concrete aggregates significantly affect the mechanicaland durability properties of the new concrete. However, there iscurrently no standard method for the determination of the RMC inRCA. Image analysis can be used to quantify the residual mortarcontent in the recycled concrete aggregates. In fact, differenttechniques have been used and reported by some authors for suchmeasurements (Abbas et al., 2009). In this work, the RMC is qual-itatively quantified by visual inspection of the RCA.

Visually it is clear that during the crushing of the first generationconcrete of lower strength than the NA concrete, most of themortarphase gets separated from the aggregate surface. At the same timethe mortar phase is getting crushed to finer particles which getremoved during sieving. Hence, the quantity of mortar in the formof attached mortar in R-RCA and pieces of mortar in recycledaggregate is relatively lower than the amount attached to the RCAwhich are produced by crushing concrete produced fromNA parentconcrete. As the strength of the parent concrete decreases, asshown in the first generation concrete, the quantity of mortaradhering to the R-RCA decreases too. This results in enhancing theproperties of the second generation concrete aggregates (Fig. 4).

It is important to note that curing time more than 28 days hasnot been studied as factor affecting the second generation concretemechanical properties in this work. However, Kou et al. (2011)showed that recycled aggregate concretes had lower compressivestrength but higher splitting tensile strength than normal aggre-gate concrete after 5 years of water curing.

Water absorption increases for the first generation RCA relativeto the NA due to the higher quantity of attached mortar to thenatural aggregates. The concrete mixes of the first generation ofRAC exhibited reduction in compressive, flexural and splitting-tensile strengths compared to normal concrete. The reduction incompressive strength with a 20% substitute of recycled crushedconcrete is about 20%. However, the concrete mixes of the secondgeneration of R-RCA exhibited increase in compressive andsplitting-tensile strengths compared to first generation concrete.

gates concrete.

Property 1st generation 2nd generation

RCA comparedto NA concrete

R-RCA comparedto NA concrete

Workability (slump) 30% decrease 12% decreaseCompressive strength 20% decrease 12% decreaseSplitting tensile strength 10% decrease 5% decreaseFlexural tensile strength 12% decrease 8% decreaseWater absorption 50% increase 20% increase

ycling of recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Cleaner Production

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25Crushed concreete percentage

Stre

ngth

(MPa

) compressive strengthSplitting strengthFlexural strength

Fig. 3. Compressive, splitting tensile and flexural strength for concrete mixes withdifferent percentage replacement of NA with RCA.

Fig. 4. Relative strengths of the different concrete mixes.

I. Marie, H. Quiasrawi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e6 5

The decrease in compressive strength with a 20% substitute of R-RCA is about 12% relative to the NA concrete mix.

Results for strength as percentage reduction compared to thenormal aggregates concrete are shown in Table 4. The secondgeneration concrete exhibits better properties than the firstgeneration concrete. This verifies the use of several crushingprocesses to reduce the amount of the cement mortar attached toaggregates which consecutively improve the quality of the RCA.

4. Conclusions

Based on the laboratory test results and on the physical obser-vations, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Both the first and the second generation concrete have lowerworkability (slump) when compared with normal concrete.However, the workability of the second generation is betterthan that of the first generation.

2. Both the first and the second generation concrete have adverseeffect on both the compressive and tensile strength. However,the strength of the second generation is higher than that of thefirst generation.

3. Both RCA and R-RCA have high absorption when comparedto NA. However, the R-RCA has less absorption than that ofthe RCA.

Please cite this article in press as: Marie, I., Quiasrawi, H., Closed-loop rec(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020

4. The second recycling loop revealed that the use of the firstgeneration concrete to produce the R-RCA is advantageous forthe production of recycled aggregate concrete mixes.

5. The closed-loop recycling of concrete is freeing the recycledaggregates from adhered cement paste which assists in theimprovement of recycled aggregate concrete properties.

6. The closed-loop recycling is possible and advantages main-taining the sustainability of the natural resources and theenvironment.

5. Further research

The research presented in this article is a part of a comprehensiveresearch that has started at Civil EngineeringDepartment, HashemiteUniversity in order to evaluate the properties of R-RCAaggregates andtheir effect on the end properties of concrete. The research willinclude the effect of various factors, such as age, w/c, curing temper-ature on the mechanical properties of concrete, such as strength andmodulus of elasticity. Furthermore, the researchwill study the impactof R-RCA aggregate on the durability of concrete, such as shrinkage,sulfate attack, chloride penetration and steel corrosion.

Further research will also include the use of the crushed finesobtained after the second generation aggregates as sand replace-ment in concrete mixes.

References

Abbas, A., Fathifazl, G., Fournier, B., Isgor, O., Zavadil, R., Razaqpur, A., Foo, S., 2009.Quantification of the residual mortar content in recycled concrete aggregates byimage analysis. Materials Characterization 60, 716e728.

Batayneh, M., Marie, I., Asi, I., 2007. Use of selected waste materials in concretemixes. Waste Management 27, 1870e1876.

Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin(Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. Journal ofCleaner Production 18, 1021e1030.

Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., �Solar, S., Shields, D.J., Hámor, T., Vinai, R.,Agioutantis, Z., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment guidelines for the sustainableproduction and recycling of aggregates: the Sustainable Aggregates ResourceManagement project (SARMa). Journal of Cleaner Production, 177e181.

Braungart, M., Mcdonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creatinghealthy emissions e a strategy for eco-effective product and system design.Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1337e1348.

Corinaldesi, V., 2010.Mechanical and elastic behaviourof concretesmadeof recycled-concrete coarse aggregates. Construction and Building Materials 24, 1616e1620.

De Juan, M.S., Gutiérrez, P.A., 2009. Study on the influence of attached mortarcontent on the properties of recycled concrete aggregate. Construction andBuilding Materials 23, 872e877.

ECOMII, 2010. Cradle-to-Cradle Definition (1-1-2012). www.ecomii.com/ecopedia/cradle-to-cradle.

Hansen, T.C., Narud, H., 1983. Strength of recycled concrete made from crushedconcrete coarse aggregate. Concrete International 5, 79e83.

Hodge, M., Ochsendorf, J., Fernández, J., 2010. Quantifying potential profit frommaterial recycling: a case study in brick manufacturing. Journal of CleanerProduction 18, 1190e1199.

Kou, S.C., Poon, C.S., Etxeberria, M., 2011. Influence of recycled aggregates on longterm mechanical properties and pore size distribution of concrete. Cement andConcrete Composites 33, 286e291.

López-gayarre, F., Serna, P., Domingo-cabo, A., Serrano-lópez, M., López-colina, C.,2009. Influence of recycled aggregate quality and proportioning criteria onrecycled concrete properties. Waste Management 29, 3022e3028.

Male�sev, M., Radonjanin, V., Marinkovi�c, S., 2010. Recycled concrete as aggregate forstructural concrete production. Sustainability 2, 1204e1225.

Marinkovi�c, S., Radonjanin, V., Male�sev, M., Ignjatovi�c, I., 2010. Comparative envi-ronmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. WasteManagement 30, 2255e2264.

Montgomery, D., Sturgiss, D., 1996. Properties of Concrete Incorporating RecycledConcrete Aggregates. National Symposium on the Use of Recycled Materials inEngineering Construction, 30e31 May, Sydney, Australia, pp. 153e156.

Mymrin, V., Corrêa, S.M., 2007. New construction material from concrete produc-tion and demolition wastes and lime production waste. Construction andBuilding Materials 21, 578e582.

Padmini, A., Ramamurthy, K., Mathews, M., 2009. Influence of parent concrete onthe properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Construction and BuildingMaterials 23, 829e836.

Parekh, D., Modhera, C. Assessment of recycled aggregate concrete. Journal ofEngineering Research and Studies, E-ISSN 0976-7916.

ycling of recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Cleaner Production

I. Marie, H. Quiasrawi / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e66

Poon, C., Shui, Z., Lam, L., Fok, H., Kou, S., 2004. Influence of moisture states ofnatural and recycled aggregates on the slump and compressive strength ofconcrete. Cement and Concrete Research 34, 31e36.

Qasrawi, H., Marie, I., Tantawi, H., 2012. Use of Recycled Concrete Rubble as CoarseAggregates in Concrete. In: 5th Jordanian International Civil EngineeringConference, 17the19th January, Jordan, pp. 281e287.

Rahal, K., 2007. Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled coarse aggregate.Building and Environment 42, 407e415.

RECOMMENDATION, R., DE LA RILEM, R., 1994. I2I-DRG guidance for demolition andreuse of concrete and masonry (Recommandations pour la démolition et lerecyclage du beton et des maçonneries). Materials and Structures 27, 557e559.

Richardson, A., Coventry, K., Bacon, J., 2011. Freeze/thaw durability of concrete withrecycled demolition aggregate compared to virgin aggregate concrete. Journalof Cleaner Production 19, 272e277.

Please cite this article in press as: Marie, I., Quiasrawi, H., Closed-loop rec(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020

Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C., Le, K.N., 2007. Removal of cement mortar remains fromrecycled aggregate using pre-soaking approaches. Resources, Conservation andRecycling 50, 82e101.

Tokushige, K.M.A., 2007. Environmentally Conscious Concrete. CBM-CI InternationalWorkshop, Karachi, Pakistan, pp. 155e163.

Van den Heede, P., De Belie, N., 2012. Environmental impact and life cycle assess-ment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theo-retical calculations. Cement and Concrete Composites, 431e442.

Xiao, J., Li, J., Zhang, C., 2005. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregateconcrete under uniaxial loading. Cement and Concrete Research 35,1187e1194.

Xu-ping, L., 2009. Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China: part II. Structuralbehaviour of recycled aggregate concrete and engineering. Resources, Conser-vation and Recycling 53, 107e112.

ycling of recycled concrete aggregates, Journal of Cleaner Production