ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 112-M04
Concrete Made with Recycled Glass Aggregates:
Mechanical Performance
by Diogo Serpa, Jorge de Brito, and Jorge Pontes
This study aims at characterizing the mechanical performance of
concrete made with varying glass content (5, 10, and 20% of the
overall volume of aggregates) and analyzing the influence of the
size of these aggregates (fine, coarse, or both) on that performance.
The use of glass aggregates as an environmentally friendly alter-
native to dumping it as waste reduces the consumption of natural
resources and requires the space needed for dumping grounds. The
aggregates were studied in terms of density and abrasion. Fresh
concrete was tested for workability and density. Hardened concrete
was tested for compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strength;
modulus of elasticity; and abrasion wear. It was found that the
incorporation of glass aggregates in concrete leads to a loss of its
mechanical performance, although this is not significant for ratios
of up to 10% of the volume of natural aggregates, except for abra-
sion resistance, where there is an improvement. A better perfor-
mance was seen in concrete with coarse glass aggregates, followed
by concrete with fine glass aggregates, and finally, concrete with
the simultaneous incorporation of coarse and fine glass aggregates.
Keywords: mechanical performance; recycled glass aggregates; sustainability.
INTRODUCTION
The treatment and elimination of waste, frequent resort
to dumping, and excessive consumption of raw materials
are growing concerns. The United Nations has estimated
the annual production of waste to be around 4.409 × 1011 lb
(200 million tonnes), of which 7% is glass.1
In Portugal, according to INE’s national statistics,2 each
person produced 1036 lb (470 kg) of solid waste per year
in the 2004-2009 period, and the highest figure in terms of
glass was for 2008 with 2.121 × 109 lb (962,041 tonnes).
Meanwhile, in 2009, a total of €374.7 million of products
made with glass was consumed. Oliveira et al.3 reports that
from 1999 to 2005, in Portugal, only 30% of the glass was
recycled and 70% was dumped. According to Al-Sibahy and
Edwards,4 in the UK, 6.415 × 1010 lb (29.1 million tonnes) of
waste are produced per year, of which 4.2% are glass. Wang
and Huang,5 Wang,6 and Su and Chen7 state that Taiwan
produced 1.1 × 109 lb (500,000 tonnes) of glass per year,
part of which comes from glass produced for LCDs, which
is unfit for dumping because of its chemical treatment. This
whole situation involves considerable energy consumption
because glass is produced at high temperatures, and increased
environmental impacts due to raw material consumption and
space taken by dumping grounds. These aspects ought to
be improved.
Like other waste materials (plastics,8,9 rubber,10,11
concrete,12,13 and ceramics14,15), glass can be incorporated in
concrete to partly replace natural aggregates and thus reduce
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015
TECHNICAL PAPER
the environmental impact associated with both quarries and
dumps for solid waste.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study assesses whether glass waste can be used
as aggregate in concrete to help solve the environmental
problem of its disposal. The innovative aspects are linked to
the use of a constant aggregate grading distribution, deter-
mined according to Faury’s method, and the determination
of the influence of different sizes and replacement ratios of
glass aggregates on various characteristics of mechanical
performance (compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural
strength; modulus of elasticity; and abrasion wear) over
time. The goal was to confirm/refute results for some of the
properties from previous works as well as to present new
data that may improve understanding of the properties of
concrete with recycled glass aggregates. This work supple-
ments those of Serpa et al.,16 which studies the alkali-silica
reaction vulnerability of concrete with recycled glass aggre-
gate, and Castro et al.,17 which evaluates the durability
performance of similar types of concrete.
LITERATURE REVIEW
General introduction
The studies mentioned in this section have used various
materials in different conditions; therefore, it was deemed
necessary to detail some fundamental parameters.
Al-Sibahy et al.4 used glass to produce lightweight
concrete where expanded clay was used as coarse aggre-
gate, natural sand as fine aggregate, and 0.0197 to 0.0394 in.
(0.5 to 1 mm) and 0.0394 to 0.0788 in. (1 to 2 mm) glass
replaced natural aggregates at ratios of 15, 30, and 45%.
The glass had different colors but its origin was not stated.
Metakaolin was also used as hydraulic binder replacement
at ratios of 5 and 10%. Chen et al.18 used industrial glass
from LCD production to replace fine aggregates at 10, 20,
and 30% ratios. They also used pozzolanic materials such as
fly ash and blast furnace slag. Wang and Huang5 used glass
from LCD production to replace fine aggregates at 10, 20,
and 30% ratios. Blast-furnace slag was also used.
Kou and Poon19 used recycled glass from waste bottles to
replace fine and coarse aggregates up to 0.394 in. (10 mm)
ACI Materials Journal, V. 112, No. 1, January-February 2015.
MS No. M-2012-184.R3, doi: 10.14359/51687366, received October 25, 2012, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
29
at 10, 20, and 30% ratios. Fly ash was added to the mixtures.
Wang6 used glass from LCD production and replaced the
fine fraction at 20, 40, 60, and 80% ratios.
Ismail and Al-Hashmi20 studied the use of waste from
the Iraqi state company for glass production, replacing fine
aggregates at ratios of 10, 15, and 20%.
Limbachiya21 used glass bottle waste of different colors at
ratios of 65 to 70% for green glass, 25 to 30% for transparent
glass, and 5% for brown glass. A chemical analysis showed
it was soda-lime glass. Limbachiya21 replaced 15, 20, 30,
and 50% of the fine aggregates.
Oliveira et al.3 used amber glass crushed in a jaw-crusher
to replace natural sand with particles smaller than 0.1875 in.
(4.76 mm) at replacement ratios of 15, 50, and 100%.
Alhumoud et al.22 used a soda-lime glass aggregate from
crushed bottles to replace all aggregates (fine and coarse,
both alternatively and simultaneously) at ratios of 10, 25, 50,
and 100%. Terro,23 just like Alhumoud et al.,22 used various
sizes (fine, coarse, and both) to replace natural aggregates at
ratios of 10, 25, 50, and 100%.
Park et al.24 incorporated glass sand as replacement of
fine natural aggregates in concrete at 30, 50, and 70% ratios.
Glass was procured from green-, amber-, and flint-colored
bottles and glassware.
Topçu and Canbaz1 used glass from colored bottles as
0.1576 to 0.6304 in. (4 to 16 mm) aggregates to replace the
same-sized natural aggregates at 15, 30, 45, and 60% ratios.
Workability
When recycled glass aggregates are used to replace
natural aggregates, there is no agreement as to the repercus-
sions on workability: some authors report that it increases
workability,4,5,18,19,22,23 even though the use of additions such
as pozzolans may influence the results,18 and others argue
that it decreases due to the geometry of the material.1,3,20,21,24
Density
The literature is unanimous when it comes to concrete
density, because glass has a lower density than natural
aggregates, which in turn lowers the density of concrete with
glass aggregates.
Compressive strength
Even though results vary from study to study, it is found
that increasing the incorporation of glass aggregates in
concrete leads to a loss of compressive strength (CS) at
the same age, but its value still increases over time, as in
conventional concrete. Chen et al.18 and Wang6 replaced fine
natural aggregates (FNA) with fine glass aggregates (FGA)
from LCDs and although the CS decreased, within each
mixture it increased over time. Park et al.24 also showed that
increasing the replacement of natural aggregates (NA) by
glass aggregates (GA) decreases the CS, but there is no linear
correlation between CS and GA content. However, Limba-
chiya21 demonstrated that for replacement ratios up to 20%,
the CS does not change significantly, but it does for higher
ratios. For bigger aggregates Topçu and Canbaz1 reported a
decrease of the CS as the replacement ratio increased and
noted that there was proportionality between the loss of CS
30
and the GA incorporation ratio. Terro23 found a CS reduction
for high replacement percentages, but a replacement of 50%
of coarse glass aggregates (CGA) led to a lower CS than a
replacement of 100%. Alhumoud et al.22 obtained a contin-
uous decrease of CS as the incorporation of CGA increased,
but for a 10% ratio, the CS was higher than that of the refer-
ence concrete (RC). When replacing coarse aggregates (CA)
and fine aggregates (FA) simultaneously, Kou and Poon19
showed that the CS fell with the ratio of replacement of NA
by GA, but it increased with age for each mixture. Terro23
compared three replacement options (CA only, FA only, and
CA and FA) and showed that for the same replacement ratio,
it was not obvious which glass aggregates’ size confers the
best performance. For a fixed overall replacement ratio,
however, the mixture of coarse and fine aggregates always
yielded the worst performance. Alhumoud et al.22 showed
that the replacement of CA led to better results than that of
FA, and that the CA + FA option yielded the worst results in
terms of CS, except for the 50% replacement ratio, where the
FA gave better results than the CA. Park et al.24 suggested
that the decrease of CS for greater incorporation ratios of
FGA could be due to a loss of adhesion between cement
paste and aggregate.
Splitting tensile strength
The splitting tensile strength (STS) is also frequently
reported in the literature. Generally it decreases as the GA’s
incorporation ratio increases. Topçu and Canbaz1 found the
same trend for the incorporation of CGA, and Wang6 again
found this trend for 28-day STS, with incorporation of FGA.
Park et al.24 found also that the greater the percentage replace-
ment of FNA in concrete, the lower the resulting STS; they
also found that just as for the CS, a lower-quality paste-aggre-
gate adhesion leads to lower STS for greater incorporation of
recycled aggregates. For mixtures of aggregate sizes, Kou and
Poon19 also determined that the STS falls as the incorporation
of recycled aggregates goes up.
The authors are unaware of published studies that compare
the STS of mixture with CGA, FGA and a mixture of
both (CFGA).
Flexural strength
Another important characteristic of concrete is its flexural
strength (FS). Topçu and Canbaz1 had nonconclusive results,
because there is an apparent decrease in FS as the incor-
poration of GA, increases but the comparison of different
concrete families does not show a direct correlation between
CGA and FS. In concrete with FGA, Park et al.24 showed
a decrease in 28-day FS with higher FGA content, but no
linear correlation, becuase the FS’s drop between 0 and 30%
incorporation is much less pronounced than it is between
30 and 50% and between 50 and 70%. Limbachiya21 showed
there was a decrease in FS, but only for ratios of 20% or
more; for lower ratios, the FS was the same as that of the
RC. Wang6 found a reduction of 28-day FS for greater FGA
incorporation ratios.
The authors are unaware of any published literature
comparing the FS performance of concrete with FGA only,
CGA only, and FGA and CGA simultaneously.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015
Table 1—Main characteristics of mixtures produced
ID RC C05C C10C C20C C05F C10F C20F C05FC C10FC C20FC
Aggregates replaced, % 0.00 5.00 10.00 19.6 5.00 10.00 20.00 5.00 10.00 20.00
Fine aggregates replaced, % 0.00 0 0 0 11.14 22.27 44.54 5.57 11.14 22.27
Coarse aggregates replaced, % 0.00 9.07 18.15 35.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.54 9.07 18.15
w/c 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.57

Modulus of elasticity at a metakaolin/glass ratio of 22%, improves the STS and

Studies indicate a general trend towards a decrease in
the modulus of elasticity (ME) as the incorporation of
GA in concrete increases. Topçu and Canbaz1 found that
with the highest CGA incorporation ratios in concrete the
ME decreased, but just as for the FS this decrease was not
linear, since there were discrepancies between mixtures with
different CGA ratios. Limbachiya21 reported that FGA incor-
porations up to 20% do not change the value of the ME,
but, for higher ratios, the ME goes down. Kou and Poon19
showed that the 28-day ME decreases as the incorporation
ratio of CGA and FGA increases.
We are unaware of literature that compares the ME of
concrete mixtures with GA of different sizes and varying
incorporation ratios.
Correlations between mechanical properties
Eurocode 224 states that the average values of ME (Ecm)
can be correlated with the characteristic values of CS (fck)
using Eq. (1)
Ecm = 0.30 × fck2/3 (1)
The average values of STS (fctm) can also be correlated with
the characteristic values of CS using Eq. (2)
fctm = 0.30 × fck2/3 (2)
For concrete with recycled glass aggregates, Kou and Poon19
obtained a correlation between the average values of ME
and the average values of CS (fcm), using Eq. (3)
Ecm = 2.9858 × fcm0.565 (3)
Also, for concrete with recycled glass aggregates, Park
et al.24 determined a correlation between the average values
of STS and the average values of CS, using Eq. (4), and the
average values of FS (fctm,f) were correlated with the average
value of CS, using Eq. (5)
fctm = –0.001 × fcm2 + 0.1089 × fcm (4)
fctm,f = –0.0004 × fcm2 + 0.1622 × fcm (5)
Incorporation of additions
It was found that the use of pozzolans can help to improve
the mechanical performance of concrete with GA. Al-
Sibahy and Edwards4 stated that the incorporation of metaka-
olin as a replacement of cement improves the CS “with the
maximum increase in compressive strength being observed
improves the ME by as much as 43%.”
Abrasion resistance
No study was found in the literature from referenced scien-
tific journals in which the abrasion resistance of concrete
with recycled glass aggregates was analyzed.
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN
Materials
Natural aggregates (NA) and recycled glass aggre-
gates (GA) were used. The NA were limestone gravel and
river sand. The glass waste came from a Portuguese waste
management firm and was soda-lime obtained from firms
that produce construction and automobile glass. This glass
was collected, screened, washed, and crushed to standard
size ranges, all of which were used in this research. The
concrete was produced with CEM II A-L 42.5-type cement
and tap water.
Composition of concrete mixtures
In accordance with EN 206-1,26 a reference concrete
(RC) was produced with a target CS, measured in cubes,
of 6281.7 psi (44 MPa), and workability within the slump
range (Abrams cone test) of 4.92 ± 0.39 in. (125 ± 10 mm).
According to the standard, this corresponds to a C30/37
strength class (strength at 28 days of 4351.1 psi [30 MPa] in
cylinders with a diameter of 5.91 in. [15 cm] or of 5366 psi
[37 MPa] in cubes with a side of 5.91 in. [15 cm]). The
mixtures’ volumetric proportions are given in Table A1 in
the Appendix.*
The GA were incorporated in concrete as replacement by
volume of NA, according to their size (that is, keeping the
grading distribution constant in all mixtures). A total of 10
concrete mixtures were prepared.
The replacement ratios were determined as a function
of the overall volume of fine and coarse aggregates and
were: 5, 10, and 20% (Table 1). In terms of glass particle
sizes, in some mixtures, only fine aggregates (FGA) were
used; in others, only coarse (CGA); and in yet others, fine
and coarse simultaneously. Fine particles here were those
passing through the 0.157 in. (4 mm) sieve, while coarse
particles were those passing through the 0.88 in. (22.4 mm)
sieve for NA and the 0.44 in. (11.2 mm) sieve for GA and
were retained in the 0.157 in (4 mm) sieve. The difference in
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org/publications in PDF format,
appended to the online version of the published paper. It is also available in hard copy
from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the
time of the request.

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015 31

Table 2—Results of aggregate tests
Sand Gravel
Fine Coarse Glass Glass 4.76 to 9.5 9.5 to 19.0 9.5 to 38.1
167.7 163.7 157.6 157.1 171.5 170.9 169.6
Apparent particle density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3)
(2687.5) (2624.0) (2526.3) (2517.3) (2749.1) (2739.3) (2718.5)
161.4 165.9 157.5 156.9 165.9 165.1 165.3
Oven-dry particle density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3)
(2587.4) (2657.9) (2524.5) (2515.2) (2657.9) (2646.3) (2648.9)
Saturated surface dry particle density, lb/ft3 161.6 163.7 157.6 157.0 168.0 167.2 166.9
(kg/m3) (2589.3) (2623.3) (2525.2) (2516.0) (2692.4) (2679.8) (2674.3)
Water absorption, % 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 1.22 1.29 0.97
93.6 96.3 84.5 84.5 89.7 88.9 89.0
Loose bulk density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3)
(1500.0) (1543.0) (1353.7) (1353.7) (1438.3) (1424.9) (1426.2)
Los Angeles wear, % — — — 38.37 34.16 30.84 31.92
Shape index, % — — — 30.5 18.6 17.9 10.2

maximum size between the NA and the GA was due to the
unavailability of coarser GA in quantities large enough for
the needs, but the lower sizes of NA were replaced by GA up
to 100% (this means that the replacement ratio of the C20C
mixture [Table 1] is in reality 19.6%, not 20%).
Every replacement was proportional in each of the aggre-
gates’ size ranges in order not to affect the size distribution;
therefore, all mixtures are identical to the RC in terms of
particle size distribution.
Finally, to maintain the same workability (slump within an
acceptable range) the water-cement ratio (w/c) was adjusted
whenever necessary (Table 1).
Preparation of test specimens
The concrete mixtures were prepared as follows: the mixer
was prepared and prewetted and the coarse aggregates, fine
aggregates, half the water, the cement, and the rest of the water
were added, in that order. Three minutes were needed for the
mixture to become homogeneous, and the whole mixing
process took approximately 5 minutes. All the molds were
lubricated with a release agent and then the concrete was cast
and vibrated. After 24 hours, the specimens were demolded
and left to cure according to the conditions prescribed for each
test. Two castings were made per mixture type, according to
Table A2. The first was a test piece to adjust the compressive
strength and workability, and the second yielded all the speci-
mens for the hardened-state concrete.
Aggregate tests
To characterize the aggregates, it was necessary to perform
tests on all aggregates, such as the size distribution (NP EN
933-1:200027 and NP EN 933-2:199928), density and water
absorption (NP EN 1097-6:20029), and on the coarse aggre-
gates only, the bulk density test (NP EN 1097-3:200830),
shape index (NP EN 933-4:200831), and Los Angeles wear
(LNEC E237:197032) tests.
Fresh concrete tests
Fresh-state concrete was subjected to the slump test (NP EN
12350-2:200933) and density test (NP EN 12350-6:200934).
Hardened concrete test
The hardened-state concrete was subjected to the compres-
sive strength test at 7, 28, 56, and 91 days (NP EN 12390-
3:200935), the splitting tensile strength test (NP EN 12390-
6:200336), the flexural strength test (NP EN 12390-5:200937),
the modulus of elasticity test (LNEC E 397:199338), and the
abrasion-resistance test (DIN 52108:200239).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Aggregate properties
Table 2 shows that the natural and glass aggregates have
different densities. Because bulk density depends on the
material’s density, these properties show a similar trend. The
approximately constant ratio between bulk density and density
of the two materials proves that their void content is similar.
The water absorption of the NA (lower than 1.4%) is real-
istic, while the value for glass is much lower than that for
the NA, probably due to their nonporous nature (the small
differences between the various types of density tested
supports that line of thinking).
The results of the Los Angeles wear test show that all the
materials comply with the criteria imposed by standard LNEC
E-373 (maximum 50%) for aggregates to be used in structural
concrete. The results for the NA are between 30 and 35%.
Glass has a higher wear (approximately 38%), which may be
because it is more brittle than the NA. The test indicates that
the aggregates are suitable for the intended use.
The shape index results show that the coarse glass aggre-
gates have a more irregular and less spherical shape than the
NA, which may affect the results of the concrete tests.
Fresh concrete properties
Workability—Each line in Fig. 1 represents the slump
value for each family of concrete mixtures with the same
recycled aggregates (coarse only, fine only, and both) as a
function of the replacement ratio. In Table 1, the bottom
row presents the w/c of each of the same families according
to the replacement ratio. Even though there are differences
in the slump results, all mixtures fell within the acceptable
and the target ranges, even though the original w/c of the
reference mixture had to be changed in a few cases to meet
the criterion. These results show that the workability of the

32 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015

Fig. 1—Slump versus replacement ratio.
Fig. 2—SEM image of interface between fine GA and
cement matrix.
mixtures with CGA slightly increased with their ratio, which
may be due to their large, polished, smooth surface that
makes it easier for the material to slide despite its highly
irregular shape (Fig. 2). The FGA led to a decrease in work-
ability, even with a higher w/c, which may be because they
have more edges and are rougher than the equivalent NA.
The CFGA mixture also led to a decreasing trend in work-
ability, even though a higher w/c led to a slight increase in
the mixture with a 20% incorporation ratio. Therefore, the
finer glass aggregates’ influence outweighed that of the
coarser particles in terms of concrete workability.
These results confirm that concrete workability gener-
ally decreases with the incorporation of GA. The studies
that report that this characteristic is not affected have used
pozzolans to improve it4,18 or LCD glass with a hydrophobic
nature5,18—materials with properties that might change
concrete’s workability. Out of the literature that reports
that slump decreases as glass is incorporated, Ismail and
Al-Hashmi20 found that it decreased compared with the RC
by 23.3% and 33.3% for 10% and 20% replacement with
FGA, respectively, but Limbachiya21 detected no changes in
workability up to a 20% replacement ratio, contrary to this
study. In fact, when FGA were incorporated, there was an
initial drop in slump that had to be offset by an increase in
the w/c.
Density—Figure 3 presents the density of each concrete
family, with GA as a function of the replacement ratio. As
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015
Fig. 3—Concrete density versus replacement ratio.
expected, a decreasing trend was found because glass’s density
is lower than that of the NA. The volume of fine aggregates
replaced is greater than that of coarse aggregates (Table 1)
for the 20% ratio because the coarse GA’s size range did not
match the full size range of the coarse NA, and this led to
a bigger difference in density in the corresponding mixtures.
This trend is common to all the studies analyzed. Wang
and Huang5 observed 0.6% and 1.2% reductions in density
relative to the RC for replacement ratios of 10% and 20%,
respectively. For the same ratios, the reductions in this study
were 1.2% and 2.8%, respectively. This bigger reduction
occurs because the LCD glass used by Wang and Huang5 had
a density—152.8 lb/ft3 (2450 kg/m3)—lower than that in this
study. Ismail and Al-Hashmi20 obtained reductions of 1.3 and
2.3%, which is consistent with the results of this study.
Hardened concrete properties
Compressive strength—Table 3 shows the average CS
of the various mixtures at different ages (7, 28, 56, and
91 days), as well as the values relative to the RC.
Table 3 shows that the strength of the mixtures develops
differently for the same incorporation ratios, as a function
of the size of the recycled aggregates incorporated. For
CGA, the mixtures with 5% (C05C), 10% (C10C), and 20%
(C20C) incorporation have very similar values after 28 days.
However, after 91 days, the CS of the C05C mixture is close
to that of the RC, while the CS of the C10C and C20C
mixtures is similar but different from that of the first two.
From 28 to 56 days, different incorporation ratios develop
differently, with greater gains by C05C and lower by C20C.
The lowest relative value at 28 days compared with the RC
is 89.5% for the C20C mixture.
For a 15% incorporation of CGA, Topçu and Canbaz1 found
a CS of 92.3% that of the RC—slightly higher than the one
in this study, which may be due to a lower w/c (0.54). Terro23
reported that an incorporation of 10% CGA led to a 10%
increase in CS versus the RC, which did not happen in this
study and is probably due to the admixture used. Terro23 does
not explain the reason why, with an incorporation of 25%, a
concrete with a CS similar to that of the RC was produced.
For fine recycled aggregates, the development over time
is similar for the C05F and C10F mixtures, but the C20F
increases less between 56 and 91 days than in the other
periods. The CS of the C05F, C10F, and C20F is perceptibly
lower than that of the RC, which may be due to the equal or
higher w/c of these mixtures (respectively 0.55, 0.57, and
33
Table 3—Compressive strength at 7, 28, 56, and 91 days (average, variation to RC, and standard deviation)
fcm,7, psi σ, psi fcm,28, psi σ, psi fcm,56, psi σ, psi fcm,91, psi σ, psi
(MPa) Δ, % (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % (MPa)
RC 5409.9 (37.3) — 159.5 (1.1) 6903.8 (47.6) — 43.5 (0.3) 7367.9 (50.8) — 203.0 (1.4) 7527.5 (51.9) — 101.5 (0.7)
C05F 4554.2 (31.4) 84.2 72.5 (0.5) 5859.5 (40.4) 84.7 116.0 (0.8) 6468.7 (44.6) 87.9 174.0 (1.2) 6918.3 (47.7) 91.9 130.5 (0.9)
C05FC 3132.8 (32.6) 87.6 43.5 (0.3) 5961.0 (41.1) 86.3 43.5 (0.3) 6468.7 (44.6) 87.8 159.5 (1.1) 6845.8 (47.2) 91.0 130.5 (0.9)
C05C 5235.9 (36.1) 96.9 116.0 (0.8) 6454.2 (44.5) 93.3 130.5 (0.9) 7092.3 (48.9) 96.3 159.5 (1.1) 7208.4 (49.7) 95.9 72.5 (0.5)
C10F 4554.2 (31.4) 84.3 145 (1.0) 5729.0 (39.5) 82.8 101.5 (0.7) 6294.6 (43.4) 85.4 87.0 (0.6) 6642.7 (45.8) 88.3 130.5 (0.9)
C10FC 4786.2 (33.0) 88.5 29.0 (0.2) 5743.5 (39.6) 83.1 72.5 (0.5) 6323.6 (43.6) 85.9 130.5 (0.9) 6773.3 (46.7) 90.0 101.5 (0.7)
C10C 5003.8 (34.5) 92.6 101.5 (0.7) 6309.1 (43.5) 91.2 188.5 (1.3) 6628.2 (45.7) 90.0 101.5 (0.7) 6860.3 (47.3) 91.1 87.0 (0.6)
C20F 4409.1 (30.4) 81.7 203.0 (1.4) 5496.9 (37.9) 79.5 101.5 (0.7) 6091.6 (42.0) 82.6 116.0 (0.8) 5598.5 (38.6) 74.5 97.0 (0.6)
C20FC 4003.0 (27.6) 74.2 72.5 (0.5) 5061.8 (34.9) 73.3 130.5 (0.9) 5540.4 (38.2) 75.3 290.1 (2.0) 5598.5 (38.6) 74.5 348.1 (2.4)
C20C 5105.3 (35.2) 94.5 159.5 (1.1) 6178.6 (42.6) 89.5 116.0 (0.8) 6280.1 (43.3) 85.2 130.5 (0.9) 6802.3 (46.9) 90.3 159.5 (1.1)

0.58, against 0.55 of the RC), and it is more perceptible the
bigger the difference. Another explanation can be the higher
specific area of FGA by comparison with CGA and NA due
to its irregular/angular shape (Fig. 2), which increases the
porosity of the FGA/cement paste ITZ (interfacial transition
zone) and weakens that bond. It is also found based on these
results that the strength gain lasts longer in the C05F and
C10F mixtures than in the RC, even though testing at older
ages would be needed to clarify this matter.
Ismail and Al-Hashmi20 found an increase in the CS, from
5845 to 6657 psi (40.3 to 45.9 MPa), when the replacement
ratio rose from 10 to 20%, contrary to this study (the CS
of the RC was 6382 psi [44 MPa], lower than that of the
mixture with 20% of FGA, also contrary to this study).
Terro23 described a decrease in CS from 5874 psi (40.5 MPa)
for a mixture with 10% FGA to 5366 psi (37.0 MPa) for
a mixture with 25% FGA. The values presented by Ismail
and Al-Hashmi,20 however, have a CS higher than the RC
(5729 psi [39.5 MPa]), which again can result from the
admixture used. Consequently, it can be deduced that in
most studies an increase in the replacement ratio leads to
a decrease in the CS, but the RC does not always have the
highest CS.
As for the mixtures with a mixture of CGA and FGA, the
performance of C05FC and C10FC is similar to that of C05F
and C10F and there is also lower strength gain in the period
from 56 to 91 days in both the C20FC and C20F mixtures.
Compared with the RC, there is a decrease in CS from the
C05FC and C10FC mixtures to the C20FC mixture, which is
probably due to the w/c increasing from 0.55 in C05FC and
C10FC to 0.57 in C20FC.
Kou and Poon19 found that the CS of a mixture with 15%
incorporation of both CGA and FGA was 98.5% that of the
RC, at both 7 and 28 days. This difference from this study
may be due to the different w/c used (0.37 for both mixtures
in Kou and Poon19 and 0.55 and 0.57 in this study).
A relationship was found between the CS of the mixtures
with FGA and those with CGA and FGA, indicating that
the FGA influence this property more significantly than the
CGA. Generally it can be said that all the mixtures have a
similar behavior (Table 3), with the CS varying as a function
of the incorporated GA ratio and the w/c. Nonetheless, the
mixture with the best results relative to the RC at any age
is the C05C (with figures of 96.9% at 7 days and 93.3% at
28 days), and the one with the worst results is the C20FC
(with 74.2% at 7 days and 73.3% at 28 days).
Terro23 and Alhumoud et al.22 compared the performance
of concrete mixtures with various sizes of glass aggregates
at 10 and 25% incorporation ratios and found that those with
the best values incorporated CGA only, followed by those
with FGA only, and finally those with both CGA and FGA.
Terro23 found that for a replacement ratio of 10%, the CS
figures relative to the RC were respectively 108%, 102%,
and 92% for the three concrete families mentioned previ-
ouslu, while for a for a replacement ratio of 15%, they were
98%, 93%, and 66%. These values show similar trends to
those found in this study in terms of relative CS values for
each concrete family and replacement ratio. But Terro23 did
not explain why some of the mixtures with GA had a better
CS than the RC.
Splitting tensile strength—The splitting tensile strength
(STS) was measured at 28 days and all results are organized
in Table 4. Figure 4 depicts the relationship between the STS
of the various concretes with GA and the STS of the RC,
compared with the results from previous studies. Overall,
there is a clear decrease from the RC to the mixtures with 5%
GA incorporation for all the concrete families (around 20%).
The comparison of the families shows that they all have a
slightly unstable behavior as the replacement ratio increases.
The worst relative performance occurs interchangeably in
the mixtures with FGA only and with both CGA and FGA,
and the best is found in the mixtures with CFA only and FGA
only, also interchangeably. Bearing in mind the natural vari-
ability of this property (in conventional concrete, too), it can
be said that it is not significantly affected by the size of the
incorporated GA and, consequently, their greater or lesser
roughness. In fact, for a replacement of 20% the three GA
options lead to very similar values of STS.
For mixtures with 15 and 30% of CGA, Topçu and
Canbaz1 obtained an STS of 90.3% and 88.4% relative to
that of the RC, respectively, which are above the values
obtained in this study for the mixtures with 10% and 20%
CGA incorporation. It is found that the losses found rela-
tive to the RC, due to the incorporation of GA, are much

34 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015

Table 4—Splitting tensile strength at 28 days (average, variation relative to RC, and standard deviation)
0 5 10 20
fctm,sp,28, Σ, psi fctm,sp,28, psi fctm,sp,28, psi fctm,sp,28, psi
psi (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % σ, psi (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % σ, psi (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % σ, psi (MPa)
CGA 464.1 (3.2) 82.8 14.5 (0.1) 464.1 (3.2) 83.0 29.0 (0.2) 391.6 (2.7) 71.0 14.5 (0.1)
FGA 551.1 29.0 464.1 (3.2) 84.2 29.0 (0.2) 406.1 (2.8) 73.9 0.0 (0.0) 377.1 (2.6) 68.6 14.5 (0.1)
(3.8) (0.2)
CGA/
435.1 (3.0) 79.4 14.5 (0.1) 435.1 (3.0) 78.6 14.5 (0.1) 391.6 (2.7) 69.4 14.5 (0.1)
FGA

Table 5—Flexural strength at 28 days (average, variation relative to RC, and standard deviation)
0 5 10 20
σcm,sp,28, psi Σ, psi σcm,sp,28, psi σ, psi σcm,sp,28, psi σ, psi σcm,sp,28, psi
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % (MPa) (MPa) Δ, % σ, psi (MPa)
CGA 783.2 (5.4) 92.8 0.0 (0.0) 710.7 (4.9) 83.5 29.0 (0.2) 681.7 (4.7) 80.7 14.5 (0.1)
855.7 0.0
FGA 667.2 (4.6) 79.1 14.5 (0.1) 594.7 (4.1) 69.9 14.5 (0.1) 609.2 (4.2) 71.9 0.0 (0.0)
(5.9) (0.0)
CGA/FGA 696.2 (4.8) 82.1 0.0 (0.0) 652.7 (4.5) 75.9 14.5 (0.1) 551.1 (3.8) 65.2 0.0 (0.0)

Fig. 5—Fracture surface of flexural strength test specimens

with CGA (left) and FGA (right).

Fig. 4—Splitting tensile strength of mixtures with glass

aggregates relative to RC versus replacement ratio (present
and previous studies).
higher than those obtained by Topçu and Canbaz,1 which
may be due to poorer adhesion between the cement matrix
and the GA. Kou and Poon19 found that the STS decreased
from 496.0 psi (3.42 MPa) for the RC to 472.8 and 462.7 psi
(3.26 and 3.19 MPa) for the mixtures with 15% and 30% GA
incorporation, respectively. These values have a lower STS
variation compared with the RCs than those in this study.
Flexural strength—The FS was also measured at 28 days
and the results are shown in Table 5. Figure 5 shows exam-
ples of the fracture surface of specimens subjected to this
test. The FS figures of the various mixtures with GA rela-
Fig. 6—Flexural strength of mixtures with glass aggre-
tive to that of the RC are presented in Fig. 6, compared
gates relative to RC versus replacement ratio (present and
with the results from previous studies. It was found that
previous studies).
the C05C mixture has the best relative value with 92.8%,
and the C20FC the worst with 65.2%. Individual analysis increases as the GA size decreases, proving that the lesser
of the mixtures indicates that the families with CGA and shape irregularity of the CGA versus that of the FGA can
both CGA and FGA have a similar performance. As seen be beneficial for this property. However, there are no results
before, however, the increase in GA incorporation from in the literature to check this theory against and it therefore
10 to 20% is worse for the second family than the first, prob- demands further study.
ably because of the higher w/c. The mixtures with FGA only Ismail and Al-Hashmi20 stated that the FS increased with
show a similar trend from 5 to 10% incorporation ratio, but the incorporation ratio of FGA. This contradicts the results
the result for the 20% ratio is unnatural (there is gain in FS) obtained in this study with FGA, which may be due to the
and is probably associated with an undetected experimental higher w/c for the mixtures with FGA in this study. Topçu
error. Nonetheless, it can be said that the FS goes down as and Canbaz1 showed that the FS decreased as the replace-
the GA incorporation ratio increases and that the gradient ment ratio increased, but the trend was not well defined

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015 35

Table 6—Modulus of elasticity at 28 days (average, variation relative to RC, and standard deviation)
0 5 10 20
Ecm,sp,28, ksi Ecm,sp,28, ksi σ, ksi Ecm,sp,28, ksi Ecm,sp,28, ksi
(GPa) σ, ksi (GPa) (GPa) Δ, % (GPa) (GPa) Δ, % σ, ksi (GPa) (GPa) Δ, % σ, ksi (GPa)
5772.5 58.0 5424.4 5642.0
CGA 105.0 98.6 159.5 (1.1) 102.6 493.1 (3.4)
(39.8) (04) (37.4) (38.9)
5496.9 101.5 5076.3 72.5 5192.3 5264.9
FGA 92.2 94.5 58.0(0.4) 95.8 58.0 (0.4)
(37.9) (0.7) (35.0) (0.5) (35.8) (36.3)
5221.4 203.1 5322.9 5322.9.9
CGA/FGA 95,0 96,8 58.0 (0.4) 96.7 58.0 (0.4)
(36.0) (1.4) (36.7) (36.7)

Table 7—Abrasion wear at 91 days (average, variation relative to RC, and standard deviation)
0 5 10 20
ΔL, in. σ, in.
(mm) (mm) ΔL, in. (mm) Δ, % σ, in. (mm) ΔL, in. (mm) Δ, % σ, in. (mm) ΔL, in. (mm) Δ, % σ, in. (mm)
CGA 0.167 (4.24) 90.9 0.02 (0.6) 0.165 (4.18) 89.7 0.02 (0.4) 0.156 (3.96) 84.8 0.01 (0.3)
0.184 0.02
FGA 0.182 (4.62) 99.1 0.00 (0.1) 0.192 (4.87) 104.5 0.01 (0.2) 0.186 (4.72) 101.1 0.02 (0.6)
(4.66) (0.4)
CGA/FGA 0.182 (4.63) 99.3 0.01 (0.3) 0.179 (4.53) 97.2 0.02 (0.4) 0.173 (4.40) 94.4 0.01 (0.3)

Fig. 7—Modulus of elasticity of mixtures with glass aggre-
gates relative to RC versus replacement ratio (present and
previous studies).
and therefore it cannot be compared with these results for
mixtures with CGA.
Modulus of elasticity—The modulus of elasticity (MO) was
measured at 28 days and the results are presented in Table 6
and Fig. 7, compared with the results from previous studies.
They show that there is no significant variation in the MO
between the RC and any of the mixtures of the three fami-
lies of GA—that is, neither the incorporation of GA nor their
size seem to have a noticeable repercussion on the MO of
concrete. However, one can detect a similar behavior of the
concrete mixtures with FGA and with both FGA and CGA,
where the MO is slightly below that of the mixtures with CGA
only. Here again it is not possible to confirm this premise in
the literature and therefore further study is required.
For concrete with CGA, Topçu and Canbaz1 could not
obtain a clear trend in terms of the MO (RC = 5366.4 ksi
[37 GPa]; 15% CGA = 8702.3 ksi [60 GPa]; and 30%
CGA = 3625.9 ksi [25 GPa]), and therefore these results
cannot be compared with those from this study. For concrete
with FGA, Limbachiya21 determined that there was no vari-
ation of the MO for replacement ratios up to 20%, which
differs slightly from these conclusions. In fact, Limbachiya21
kept the w/c constant in all mixtures of the same strength
Fig. 8—Abrasion wear of mixtures with glass aggregates
relative to RC versus replacement ratio.
grade, while in this study, the w/c was increased to keep
the workability constant, which negatively affected all the
mechanical properties. For concrete with a mixture of CGA
and FGA, Kou and Poon19 determined that the MO decreased
as the GA ratio increased (RC = 4320.1 ksi [29.8 GPa]; 15%
GA = 4235.1 ksi [29.2 GPa]; and 30% GA = 4104.6 ksi
[28.3 GPa]). These absolute values and the relative varia-
tions are smaller than in this study but they show the general
same trend.
Abrasion resistance—The specimens’ abrasion resistance
(AR) was determined at 91 days and the results are summa-
rized in Table 7 and represented in Fig. 8. Figures greater than
100% indicate that the wear in mixtures with replacement of
NA by GA is higher than in the RC and vice-versa. The AR
depends fundamentally on the cohesivity of the cement paste
and on its capacity to hold the coarse aggregates; therefore,
it is highly dependent on the adhesion between the paste
and the coarse aggregates. When coarse natural aggregates
(CNA) are replaced by CGA, the greater roughness of the
latter improves the AR, as noted in the concrete family with
CGA only, where the AR increases with the replacement
ratio. The effect is less pronounced in the family with both
CGA and FGA and practically vanishes in the family with
FGA only, meaning that the incorporation of FGA does not

36 ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015

Fig. 9—Splitting tensile strength versus 28-day compres-
sive strength.
Fig. 10—Flexural strength versus 28-day compressive strength.
significantly influence this property (the slight worsening in
some mixtures is related to changes in the w/c).
In the absence of other works on the AR of concrete with
GA, similar studies with other recycled aggregates are used.
Evangelista et al.,12 using fine recycled concrete aggregates,
found that the aggregate-paste bond is the main factor in
improving the results of the abrasion wear test. De Brito
et al.40 found that the w/c influenced the AR of concrete
with coarse ceramic aggregates; therefore, the AR results
in concrete with FGA may have been influenced by the
increase in that ratio. Park et al.,24 using FGA as replace-
ment of natural aggregates, put forward the hypothesis that
the poor adhesion between the FGA’s surface and the cement
paste led to worse results in the mechanical tests.
Correlations between properties—To determine
possible mathematical models of the mechanical behavior
of the mixtures studied and because the 28-day CS is the
most frequently used/studied mechanical property, it was
compared with the MO, the STS and the FS. Figures 9
through 11 show that the GA led to concrete with mechanical
behavior compatible with the mathematical models proposed
in the EN 1992-1-1:2004 standard.25 When compared with
the models proposed by Park et al.24 or even Kou and Poon,19
there is some difference, which may be due to the fact that
these authors only studied one type of replacement (in terms
of size of the GA) and at greater ratios. The low values of the
correlation factor in two of the three relationships devised
are due to the narrow range of the different properties’ values
obtained in this experimental work.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015
Fig. 11—Modulus of elasticity versus 28-day compres-
sive strength.
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental plan was performed to study the feasi-
bility of using recycled glass aggregates to replace natural
aggregates up to a 20% replacement ratio, in the production
of concrete. The results demonstrate that:
1. The compressive strength is more affected by fine
aggregates than by coarse ones; this effect can be minimized
by using superplasticizers to keep both the workability and
the w/c constant in all mixtures;
2. In terms of splitting and flexural tensile strength, the fine
aggregates lead to worse results, but again, this can be mini-
mized by using superplasticizers and keeping the workability
and the w/c constant, so as not to jeopardize durability;
3. There is no noticeable influence on the modulus of elas-
ticity, which remained practically constant for the various
replacement ratios; the fine aggregates, however, lead to a
slight decrease in the modulus of elasticity;
4. There is a general improvement in abrasion resistance in
concrete with coarse glass aggregates, with optimal results
for the mixture with a 10% replacement ratio; for fine aggre-
gates, this trend is negligible;
5. By comparing the various results obtained and with
those from the EN 1992-1-1:2004 standard,25 it is concluded
that it is viable to replace natural aggregates by glass aggre-
gates in concrete production.
Therefore, the use of these aggregates is possible, but a
general trend of poorer mechanical behavior must be taken
into account. When using these aggregates in concrete, it is
preferable to use coarse ones; but if it is planned to use fine
aggregates, mixed or not with coarse ones, superplasticizers
should be used to maintain the workability without jeopar-
dizing the mechanical performance by increasing the w/c.
AUTHOR BIOS
Diogo Serpa received his MSc in civil engineering at the Technical Univer-
sity of Lisbon (IST), Lisbon, Portugal. His research interests include the
mechanical performance of concrete made with recycled glass aggregates.
Jorge de Brito is a Full Professor at IST. He received his MSc and PhD
in civil engineering from IST. His research interests include deterioration,
rehabilitation and management of concrete structures and sustainable
construction.
Jorge Pontes is a Chemical Engineer at Faculdade de Ciências e Tecno-
logia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa (FCT-UNL), Caparica, Portugal,
and a Project Researcher at IST. He receive his MSc in civil engineering
at FCT-UNL.
37
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the ICIST Research
Institute, IST, Technical University of Lisbon and the FCT (Foundation for
Science and Technology).
REFERENCES
1. Topçu, I. B., and Canbaz, M., “Properties of Concrete Containing
Waste Glass,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 34, No. 2, 2004,
pp. 267-274. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.07.003
2. National Institute of Statistics, “Management of Waste in Portugal,
2004-2009, Information to the medial,” INE, Aug. 4, 2010. (in Portuguese)
3. Oliveira, L.; Gomes, J.; and Santos, P., “Evaluation of the Perfor-
mance of the Replacement of Natural Sand by Glass Waste Sand in Struc-
tural Concrete,” National Meeting of Structural Concrete 2008, Guimarães,
Portugal, 2008. (in Portuguese)
4. Al-Sibahy, A., and Edwards, R., “Mechanical and Thermal Proper-
ties of Novel Lightweight Concrete Mixtures Containing Recycled Glass
and Metakaolin,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 31, 2012, pp.
157-167. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.095
5. Wang, H. Y., and Huang, W. L., “A Study on the Properties of
Fresh Self-Consolidating Glass Concrete (SCGC),” Construction and
Building Materials, V. 24, No. 4, 2010, pp. 619-624. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2009.08.047
6. Wang, H. Y., “A Study on the Effects of LCD Glass Sand on the Prop-
erties of Concrete,” Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), V. 29, No. 1,
2009, pp. 335-341. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.005
7. Su, N., and Chen, J. S., “Engineering Properties of Asphalt Concrete
Made with Recycled Glass,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, V. 35,
No. 4, 2002, pp. 259-274. doi: 10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00007-1
8. Ferreira, L.; de Brito, J.; and Saikia, N., “Influence of Curing Condi-
tions on the Mechanical Performance of Concrete Containing Recycled
Plastic Aggregate,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 36, 2012, pp.
196-204. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.098
9. Silva, R.; de Brito, J.; and Saikia, N., “Influence of Curing Conditions
on the Durability-Related Performance of Concrete Made with Selected
Plastic Waste Aggregates,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 35, No. 1,
2013, pp. 23-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.08.017
10. Bravo, M., and de Brito, J., “Concrete Made with Used Tyre Aggre-
gates: Durability-Related Performance,” Journal of Cleaner Production,
V. 25, No. 4, 2012, pp. 42-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.066
11. Valadares, F.; Bravo, M.; and de Brito, J., “Concrete with Used Tire
Rubber Aggregates: Mechanical Performance,” ACI Materials Journal,
V. 109, No. 3, May-June 2012, pp. 283-292.
12. Evangelista, L., and de Brito, J., “Mechanical Behavior of
Concrete Made with Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 29, No. 5, 2007, pp. 397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2006.12.004
13. Evangelista, L., and de Brito, J., “Durability Performance of
Concrete Made with Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates,” Cement
and Concrete Composites, V. 32, No. 1, 2010, pp. 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2009.09.005
14. de Brito, J.; Pereira, A. S.; and Correia, J., “Mechanical Behavior
of Non-Structural Concrete Made with Recycled Ceramic Aggregates,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 27, No. 4, 2005, pp. 429-433. doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.07.005
15. Correia, J.; de Brito, J.; and Pereira, A. S., “Effects on Concrete
Durability of Using Recycled Ceramic Aggregates,” Materials and Struc-
tures, V. 39, No. 2, 2006, pp. 169-177. doi: 10.1617/s11527-005-9014-7
16. Serpa, D.; Santos Silva, A.; de Brito, J.; Pontes, J.; and Soares, D.,
“ASR of Mortars Containing Glass,” Construction and Building Materials,
V. 47, 2013, pp. 489-495. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.058
17. de Castro, S., and de Brito, J., “Evaluation of the Durability of
Concrete Made with Crushed Glass Aggregates,” Journal of Cleaner
Production, V. 41, 2013, pp. 7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.021
18. Chen, S. H.; Chang, C. S.; Wang, H. Y.; and Huang, W. L., “Mixture
Design of High Performance Recycled Liquid Crystal Glass Concrete
(HPGC),” Construction and Building Materials, V. 25, No. 10, 2011,
pp. 3886-3892. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.012
19. Kou, S. C., and Poon, C. S., “Properties of Self-Compacting
Concrete Prepared with Recycled Glass Aggregates,” Cement and
38
Concrete Composites, V. 31, No. 2, 2009, pp. 107-113. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2008.12.002
20. Ismail, Z. Z., and Al-Hashmi, E. A., “Recycling of Waste Glass as
a Partial Replacement for Fine Aggregate in Concrete,” Waste Manage-
ment (New York, N.Y.), V. 29, No. 2, 2009, pp. 655-659. doi: 10.1016/j.
wasman.2008.08.012
21. Limbachiya, M. C., “Bulk Engineering and Durability Properties of
Washed Glass Sand Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 23,
No. 2, 2009, pp. 1078-1083. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.022
22. Alhumoud, J. M.; Al-Mutairi, N. Z.; and Terro, M. J., “Recycling
Crushed Glass in Concrete Mixtures,” International Journal of Envi-
ronment and Waste Management, V. 2, No. 1/2, 2008, pp. 111-124. doi:
10.1504/IJEWM.2008.016996
23. Terro, M. J., “Properties of Concrete Made with Recycled Crushed
Glass at Elevated Temperatures,” Building and Environment, V. 41, No. 5,
2006, pp. 633-639. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.018
24. Park, S. B.; Lee, B. C.; and Kim, J. H., “Studies on Mechanical
Properties of Concrete Containing Waste Glass Aggregate,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 34, No. 12, 2004, pp. 2181-2189. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconres.2004.02.006
25. EN 1992-1-1:2004, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures -
Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp.
26. EN 206-1:2000, “Concrete—Part 1: Specification, Performance,
Production and Conformity,” European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium, 2000, 72 pp.
27. NP EN 933-1:2000, “Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates,
Part 1: Determination of Particle Size Distribution—Sieving Method,”
Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 2000. (in Portuguese)
28. NP EN 933-2:1999, “Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates,
Part 2: Determination of Particle Size Distribution—Test Sieves, Nominal
Size of Apertures,” Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal,
1999. (in Portuguese)
29. NP EN 1097-6:2003, “Tests for Mechanical and Physical Proper-
ties of Aggregates, Part 6: Determination of Particle Density and Water
Absorption,” Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003. (in
Portuguese)
30. NP EN 1097-3:2008, “Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties
of Aggregates, Part 3: Determination of Loose Bulk Density and Voids,”
Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 2008. (in Portuguese)
31. NP EN 933-4:2008, “Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates,
Part 4: Determination of Particle Shape—Shape Index,” Instituto Português
da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 2008. (in Portuguese)
32. LNEC E237:1970, “Determination of the Water Absorption by
Capillarity,” Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 1970. (in
Portuguese)
33. NP EN 12350-2:2009, “Testing Fresh Concrete, Part 2: Slump-Test,”
Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009. (in Portuguese)
34. NP EN 12350-6:2009, “Testing Fresh Concrete, Part 6: Density”
Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009. (in Portuguese)
35. NP EN 12390-3:2009, “Testing Hardened Concrete, Part 3: Compres-
sive Strength of Test Specimens,” Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon,
Portugal, 2009. (in Portuguese)
36. NP EN 12390-6:2003, “Testing Hardened Concrete, Part 6: Tensile
Splitting Strength of Test Specimens,” Instituto Português da Qualidade,
Lisbon, Portugal, 2003. (in Portuguese)
37. NP EN 12390-5:2009, “Testing Hardened Concrete, Part 5: Flexural
Strength of Test Specimens,” Instituto Português da Qualidade, Lisbon,
Portugal, 2009. (in Portuguese)
38. LNEC E 397:1993, “Hardened Concrete: Determination of the
Modulus of Elasticity in Compression,” Instituto Português da Qualidade,
Lisbon, Portugal, 1993. (in Portuguese)
39. DIN 52108:2002, “Testing of Inorganic Non-Metallic Materials—
Wear Test Using the Grinding Wheel according to Boehme—Grinding
Wheel Method,” Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, Germany 2002.
(in German)
40. de Brito, J., “Abrasion Resistance of Concrete Made with Recycled
Aggregates,” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, V. 3, No. 1,
2010, pp. 58-64. doi: 10.1080/19397030903254710
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2015
 Table A1 - Composition of the reference concrete (RC)

Sieves range [in] (mm) Material retained [%] Volumes [ft3/ft3] (m3/m3)
1.24-1.77 (31.5-45) 0.0 0.0000
0.88-1.24 (22.4-31.5) 0.0 0.0000
0.63-0.88 (16-22.4) 17.8 0.1202
Coarse
0.44-0.63 (11.2-16) 17.7 0.1195
0.31-0.44 (8-11.2) 6.8 0.0459
0.22-0.31 (5.6-8) 6.8 0.0459
0.16-0.22 (4-5.6) 6.0 0.0405
0.08-0.16 (2-4) 11.1 0.0750
0.04-0.08 (1-2) 9.6 0.0648
0.02-0.04 (0.5-1) 6.0 0.0405
Fine

0.01-0.02 (0.25-0.5) 14.2 0.0959

0.005-0.01 (0.125-0.25) 4.0 0.0270
0.002-0.005 (0.063-0.125) 0.0 0.0000
0-0.002 (0-0.063) 0.0 0.0000
Cement 0.1148
Water 0.1925
Void volume 0.0174
Total volume 1.0000

Table A2 - Summary of the tests performed on hardened concrete in 1st and 2nd casting

Property Age [days] No. of specimens Shape and size [in] (mm)
Compressive Cubic
1st casting 28 3
strength 5.91 × 5.91 × 5.91 (150 × 150 × 150)
7 3
Compressive 28 5 Cubic
strength 56 3 5.91 × 5.91 × 5.91 (150 × 150 × 150)
91 3
Prismatic
2nd casting
Flexural strength 28 2 5.91 × 5.91 × 23.62 (150 × 150 × 600)
(a·b·h)
Cylindrical
Splitting tensile
28 3 5.91 × 11.81 (150 × 300)
strength
(ø·h)