Next Article in Journal
Wind Power Short-Term Forecasting Method Based on LSTM and Multiple Error Correction
Next Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Animal Glue as an Additive on the Properties of Lime Architectural Grouts
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Strength and Microstructural Characteristics of Blended Cement-Admixed Clay with Bottom Ash
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Review on the Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) in Concrete Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/su15043796
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating the Suitability of Waste Glass as a Supplementary Binder and Aggregate for Cement and Concrete

by
Maria Stefanidou
1,
Fotini Kesikidou
1,*,
Stavroula Konopisi
1 and
Thanasis Vasiadis
2
1
Laboratory of Building Materials, School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
iGlass S.A., 574 00 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3796; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043796
Submission received: 23 January 2023 / Revised: 10 February 2023 / Accepted: 17 February 2023 / Published: 19 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Building Materials and Sustainable Architecture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Multiple studies propose the incorporation of waste glass into concrete as a sustainable solution covering many aspects, including preserving natural resources, utilizing waste materials and reducing concrete cost. In the present study, the suitability of different types of flat glass waste from a local industry as a supplementary binder or aggregate was examined. Different protocols were followed based on the European and American Standards. The chemical composition, density, mineralogy and salts content of the samples were tested. For the use of the glass waste as a binder, the strength activity and pozzolanicity indexes were measured according to EN 450-1 and ASTM C593, respectively. For the use of the glass waste as aggregates, the granulometry and the flakiness and shape indexes of the samples were determined. Alkali-silica reaction, freeze-thaw and magnesium sulfate tests for the aggregates were also performed. It can be concluded that waste glass has a medium pozzolanic behavior and can be used as a supplementary cementitious material. Nonetheless, the chemical composition, as well as the purity, of waste glass play an important role for the binder and aggregate in the mixture.

1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, humanity has faced the challenge of climate change and the need to reduce CO2 emissions, while the discovery of alternative resources has become unavoidable. The construction sector should lead the way in these efforts, as cement production is the third-largest source of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide [1]. Therefore, several alternative materials have been studied to substitute parts of cement, as well as natural aggregates, in concrete. Among others, recycled glass has been tested as a supplementary cementitious binder, as well as a material to substitute part of the natural aggregates in mortars and concrete [2,3,4,5]. Glass is mainly divided in three categories, based on its composition: soda-lime glass (a combination of sodium and calcium silicate), used in windows and laboratory equipment; potash-lime glass (a blend of potassium and calcium silicate), used in objects that must withstand extreme temperatures; and potash-lead glass (a combination of potassium and lead silicate), used for synthetic gems, electric bulbs, focal lenses, crystals, prisms, etc. [6]. Waste glass is comprised of container glass, flat (windows, windscreens etc.) glass and other glass (light bulbs, laboratory tubes) [6]. Globally, the amount of glass being recycled is around 21%, 32% of which comes from the recycling of containers, whereas only around 11% comes from the recycling of flat glass (windows, etc.) [7].
Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) are used as a replacement for clinker during cement production, as well as a replacement of cement during concrete production. Some of the most used SCMs are fly ash [8], ground granulated blast furnace slag [9], silica fume [10] and metakaolin [11]. Over the years, the use of fly ash in concrete has been established by several standards (ASTM C618, EN 450, AS 3582.1, CSA A3001 etc.) [12]. Based on these standards, the incorporation of SCMs in concrete should meet certain criteria in terms of their chemical composition (carbon content, aluminosilicate components, alkalis content) and their pozzolanic activity [13]. Shi et al. [14] studied the properties and pozzolanic reactivity of glass powders obtained during beads production. The results of their study showed that the finer the glass powder, the higher its pozzolanic activity will be. Khmiri et al. [15] assessed the pozzolanic activity of waste glass, coming from recycled containers, as a partial replacement of cement in mortars. They studied four granulometric classes of glass powder (<20, <40, 40–80, 80–100 μm) and concluded that waste glass exhibits pozzolanic behavior when its fineness is under 20 μm. Omran et al. [16] studied the long-term performance of glass powder concrete from bottle glass in field applications such as slabs, sidewalks and walls. They concluded that the use of waste glass powder enhanced the microstructure of concrete, especially with age, therefore, improving its durability, compressive/tensile/flexural strength and elastic modulus. Vaitkevicius et al. [17] investigated the properties of ultra-high-performance concrete by incorporating waste glass powder from bottles. They found that the use of glass powder increased the dissolution of Portland cement, thus, accelerating the hydration process; however, the pozzolanic behavior of glass was less than that of silica fume. The combination of glass powder and silica fume with cement resulted in the best compressive strength. Islam et al. [18] found that the addition of glass powder in cement mortars slightly increased the workability, whereas the optimum percentage of glass was found to be around 20%, as it improved the compressive strength over time.
On the other hand, the use of waste glass as an aggregate in concrete depends on several properties, such as the granulometry, the particles’ shape, the chemical composition and the reactivity. The latter plays an important role in the incorporation of glass in concrete as it influences the ability of the material to expand due to the alkali-silica reaction (ASR), which occurs between the alkaline pore solution of concrete and various forms of silica contained in the aggregates [19]. Rajabipour et al. [19,20] conclude that aggregate reactivity depends on the type of silica mineral it contains, the size and distribution of these minerals and the presence of calcium, which reacts with silica. Another factor affecting the reaction is the size of the aggregates, with a moderate particle size resulting in the highest expansion based on several studies. In terms of the mechanical resistance of aggregates in concrete, the Los Angeles or Micro Deval tests are usually applied. Mardani-Aghabaglou et al. [21] studied the performance of concrete with fine recycled concrete aggregates and glass aggregates, concluding that the compressive strength of the concrete containing glass aggregates was slightly lower, partly due to the higher friability of glass, found to be almost double compared to limestone aggregates [21]. De Castro and de Brito [22] investigated the properties of concrete with glass aggregates from buildings and car window panels. The authors tested the abrasion and shape index of the glass cullet, leading to higher values compared to gravel.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the suitability of different types of flat waste glass (mirror and windows) from a local company as supplementary binders or aggregates for concrete. Several properties of the raw materials have been studied, such as the chemical composition, density, pH and mineralogy of the different waste glasses. Different protocols were followed according to the European and American Standards to evaluate the reactivity of waste glass and its performance as a supplementary cementitious material. Moreover, the geometrical properties of the aggregates were measured (granulometry and the flakiness and shape indexes). The potential alkali reactivity, the resistance to freezing and thawing, as well as the fragmentation of the aggregates were determined. Finally, the samples were also subjected to immersion in a magnesium sulfate solution to test their behavior in a durability test.

2. Materials and Methods

The aim of this paper is to study the suitability of different glass waste, taken from flat glass (mirrors and windows), as a supplementary binder or aggregate in concrete. The following types of glass waste were investigated:
  • Glass from mirrors, which have one of their sides coated with a thin layer of silver.
  • Glass from common monolithic windows.
  • Glass from tempered flat glass, which is heated to improve its durability.
  • Sediment from the cutting of mirrors and windows (in dust form).
All four different types of glass waste, shown in Figure 1, (mirror, monolithic, tempered and sediment) were investigated as a substitute for cement, and three of them (mirror, monolithic and tempered) were tested as a substitute for aggregates.
The experimental part is divided in three sections. The first section is focused on the chemical properties of the glass waste. The four tested samples (mirror, monolithic, tempered and sediment) were crushed and sieved under 75 μm to determine their composition, salts content, pH, density and mineralogy. The chemical compositions of the raw materials were analyzed using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) with AAnalyst-400, Perkin Elmer, Massachusetts, USA. Ionic chromatography (IC thermos Scientific DIONEX ICS-1100, Shine, Shandong, China) was used to detect the soluble salts content of the binders and the density of the samples was measured using a gas pycnometer (Ultrapyc 3000, Anton Paar, Graz, Austria). The mineralogy was characterized by X-Ray Diffraction Spectroscopy (XRD—D2 Phaser, Bruker, Massachusetts, USA), and the amorphous content was determined with EVA V0.5 Software. The particle size distribution was recorded with a Malvern Mastersizer 2000, Malvern, UK (laser scattering technique). The results of the tests were evaluated according to EN 450-1 (Fly ash for concrete—Part 1: Definition, specifications and conformity criteria) [23].
The second section of the experimental part is devoted to the suitability of the four types of waste glass (mirror, monolithic, tempered and sediment) as a supplementary cementitious material. Cement mortars were produced in prismatic molds (4 × 4 × 16) cm according to EN 196-1 [24]. In each mixture, 30% of cement (type CEM I42.5) was substituted by a different type of waste glass. The mixtures produced are given in Table 1. The workability of the mixtures was measured according to EN 1015-3 [25]. Mixtures with finer glass (<45 μm) are less workable based on the flow table test (Table 1). The flexure and compressive strength of the specimens were tested at 28 and 90 days according to EN 196-1 [24]. The results were evaluated based on the requirements set by EN 450-1 [23].
The pozzolanicity index of the four types of waste glass was measured according to ASTM C593 (Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Other Pozzolans for Use with Lime) [26]. Therefore, mortar mixtures containing 180 g of hydrated lime, 360 g of the tested waste glass and 1450 g of standard sand (AFNOR) were produced and molded in cubic (5 × 5 × 5) cm molds. The mixtures (Table 2) were placed in an oven for 7 days at 54 °C saturated air. After 7 days, the specimens were demolded and kept in a chamber with 21 °C and RH95% for 28 days.
The suitability of the waste glass to be used as aggregates substitute was studied in the third section of this experimental work. The granulometry of the aggregates was measured according to EN 993-1 [27]. EN 933-3 [28] and EN 933-4 [29] were followed to determine the flakiness and shape indexes of the waste glass aggregates. Moreover, all aggregates were subjected to an alkali-silica reaction test according to the American Standard ASTM C1260 [30], where cement mortars containing glass aggregates were immersed in sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH 1N) and kept in an oven at 80 °C until the end of the test. The aim of this test is to record any change in the size as a result of the reaction between the silicon content of the glass and the alkali content of the cement. The wear resistance of the aggregate samples was tested following the micro-Deval’s wet method, based on EN 1097-1 [31]. The waste glass aggregates were subjected to freeze-thaw cycles with and without the presence of salt, following the European Standards EN 1367-1 [32] and EN 1367-6 [33], respectively. The samples were immersed in water with and without the presence of salts (NaCl) and subjected to freeze-thaw cycles. After 10 cycles, their weight loss was recorded. Finally, the waste glass aggregates were subjected to a magnesium sulfate test according to EN 1367-2 [34]. During the test, the samples were immersed in magnesium sulfate solution for a period of 17 h. After immersion, the aggregates were drained for 2 h and dried at 110 °C. After the completion of 5 cycles, the change in the mass of the samples was measured.
The chemical composition of the four different types of glass under 75 μm (mirror, monolithic, tempered and sediment), measured by AAS, is presented in Table 3. The soluble salts content is given in Table 4, and Table 5 shows the density and pH values of the glass cullet. The mineralogy of the materials is presented in Figure 2.
Based on the chemical analysis of the raw materials (Table 3), the binders have a content of SiO2 around 75% wt., Na2O around 8–9% wt. and CaO 10% wt. The free calcium oxide (CaOFree) varies between 0.28–1.40%. Generally, all four types of samples could be characterized as soda-lime glass [35]. The Loss of Ignition (L.I.) at 1000 °C, for all of the types of waste glass, is below 2.05%, where sediment is the only binder with 2.05% L.I., which indicates that there is no organic matter in the sample (oils from cut off saws, etc.).
The chlorides content is below 0.01% wt. and the sulfates range between 0.22–0.33% (Table 4). From Table 5, it can be seen that the pH level of the binders is relatively high, varying between 8.22–10.45. The sediment has the highest pH level. The density deviates between 2.4856–2.4937 g/cm3.
The amorphous silicon content of the samples, based on the XRD analysis presented in Figure 2, extends from 83.4–85.7%.
The particle size distribution of the binders is given in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The samples were grinded in two different fineness, under 75 μm and 45 μm. The samples seem to have similar distributions of particles, with the exception of sediment (45), which is finer than the other binders.

3. Results

3.1. Testing of Glass Waste as a Supplementary Binder

The flexure and compressive strength results for the use of waste glass as a binder are given in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8. Waste glass was tested in two different fineness levels, under 75 μm and under 45 μm.
The results of the binders under 75 μm are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Mixture C is the reference cement mortar according to EN 196-1 [24]. It could be claimed that the addition of waste glass retains, or even improves, the flexure strength of the mortars. The monolithic waste glass showed the highest strength results, reaching 7.89 MPa at 28 days.
On the other hand, compression is hindered by the addition of 30% of waste glass binder, as can be observed in Figure 6. The mirror glass mixture only reached 56.57% of the C mixture’s strength, while the Monolithic and Tempered glasses reaching 68% and 83.64%, respectively.
The results under flexure, shown in Figure 7, are similar, or even better, than the ones of the reference C mortar. Moreover, grinding the material under 45 μm seems to improve the compressive strength of the mixtures (Figure 8). In this case, the Mirror glass mixture shows 75.95% of the reference mortar’s 28d strength (C), while the Monolithic and Tempered mixtures show 89.63% and 80.42%, respectively, at 28 days. The mixture with Sediment glass reaches 76.96% of the C mixture’s strength. At 90 days, the compression is over 90% for all of the glass mixtures, with the exception of the Mirror glass mixture.
The pozzolanicity index, tested according to ASTM C593 [26], is given in Figure 9 for the glass waste under 75 μm. The Mirror and Monolithic mixtures seem to have similar behavior with respect to the compression, varying between 5.26–5.45 MPa at 28 days, which is above the limit set by the standard (4.1 MPa). The Tempered mixture (75) had a lower performance, with 4.57 MPa at 28 days. On the other hand, the compression remains at the same levels as it was for the glass under 45μm (4.94–6.27 MPa) (Figure 10). The higher water demand of these mixtures could potentially have affected the results. In general, waste glass binders can be considered to have moderate pozzolanic behavior; however, further grinding of the material could improve their reactivity.

3.2. Testing of Glass Waste as a Supplementary Aggregate

Three of the four types of waste glass (mirror, monolithic and tempered) were tested as supplementary aggregates (the fourth was in dusty form). The samples were crushed and sieved and their granulometry is shown in Figure 11. All of the samples have 0–8 mm particles, but it should be mentioned that higher granulometries with particles larger than 8 mm were not preferred due to their flakiness, which would affect the mechanical behavior when used in mortars [36]. The flakiness and shape indexes for the aggregates is presented in Table 6. The Mirror glass aggregates had the highest values, as the flakiness index was 26.39% and shape was 27.44%. This means that mirror glass particles have a more elongated shape, which could be explained by the coating of silver used in the production of mirrors to hold the particles together and prevent them from breaking easily. The Monolithic glass aggregates follow, with flakiness of around 19.81% and shape 14.35%. The lowest values are for the Tempered glass aggregates, with 18.09% flakiness and 13.22% shape index; this can be explained as, during its production stage, the material is processed to improve its mechanical performance, and is broken in small rectangular pieces for safety reasons.
The alkali-silica reaction is perhaps the most important factor when it comes to the use of recycled aggregates in concrete. Glass aggregates, due to their contents of silica, have a higher risk of reacting with the alkalis of cement. To investigate their performance, cement mortars containing the tested aggregates were produced, immersed in a sodium hydroxide solution and kept in an oven at 80 °C. During the test, the specimens’ length was recorded, and their length change is depicted in Figure 12. The Mirror and Monolithic mortars presented shrinkage up to 16 days of testing, while the Tempered mixture was the only one to reach an expansion of 25% at 16 days. This means that the Tempered glass is more reactive, and this could be attributed to its chemical composition. Although there are small differences with the Mirror and Monolithic glasses, the Tempered glass has the higher contents in SiO2 (75.81%), Na2O (9.14%) and CaO (11.50%). Moreover, the sample has the highest percentage of reactive CaO (10.22%) and amorphous silicon content (85.7%).
The resistance to wear was tested by a micro-Deval test (wet condition), and the performance of the glass aggregates is given in Table 7. All of the types of aggregates have a weight loss of over 58%, which is considered high and is attributed to the fragile behavior of glass.
Table 8 and Table 9 present the results of the freeze-thaw testing (with and without the presence of salts) and magnesium sulfate test. All of the samples of waste glass aggregates (mirror, monolithic and tempered) had a weight loss of between 0 and 0.2% during the freeze-thaw testing without the presence of NaCl. On the other hand, when salts were used, the weight loss of the samples was slightly increased, but by less than 0.5%.
For the magnesium sulfate test, the Mirror glass aggregates lost around 4.5% of their weight and the Monolithic glass aggregates lost around 5.0%. Finally, the Tempered glass aggregates had the highest loss in weight (10%).

4. Discussion

4.1. Glass Waste as Binder

The EN 450-1 [23] standard specifies the requirements for the chemical and physical properties of fly ash as an addition to producing concrete. The limits set by the standard and the classification of the waste glass binders are shown in Table 10. Mirror, Monolithic and Tempered glass are identified as Category A, based on their Loss of Ignition, which is below 2%. Sediment is barely above (2.05%), and thus belongs to Category B. The chloride and sulfate content of all the binders is below 0.10%. The free calcium oxide and reactive calcium also comply with the limits set by the regulation. The aluminosilicate compounds (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3) of the four types of glass binders is above 70%. On the other hand, the content of waste glass in alkalis varies between 8.33–9.14%, which is above the 5% limit.
According to ASTM C618 [37], based on the content of SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3, SO3 and the L.I., glass belongs to Class N (Raw or calcined natural pozzolans). However, depending on the type of the glass and its chemical composition, several tests applied for fly ashes should be considered. For example, due to the high content of the material in alkalis, the testing of the glass binders for ASR is also necessary.
Table 11 lists the percentages of compressive strength of the cement mortars containing glass waste as binder, compared to the reference cement mortar. The EN 450-1 standard specifies that fly ash can be used to substitute cement if the attained strength of the tested mortar is 75% of the reference mortar at 28 days and 85% at 90 days. Based on this, it can be concluded that grinding the glass under 45μm improved the performance of the mechanical strength of the mortars. The Mirror (45) glass did not achieve the required strength at 90 days. On the other hand, the compressive strength of the Monolithic (45) is above the limits of the standard, while both the Tempered (75) and Tempered (45) mixtures comply with the requirements in terms of strength. Finally, the Sediment (45) reached the levels of strength at 28 and 90 days under compression. Eventually, the results agree with the research that indicates the long-term behavior of concrete containing glass as binder, due to the pozzolanic activity of the glass powder and the enhancement of the microstructure [16,38].
Regarding the pozzolanicity index measured by testing the compression strength of lime-based mortars, all of the mixtures reached the required 4.1 MPa at 7 and 28 days. The compressive strength ranged between 4 and 6 MPa at 28 days; thus, the glass binders could be characterized as a medium pozzolanic material. Further grinding of the material in higher fineness could improve the pozzolanic behavior of the glass binders [15].

4.2. Glass waste as Aggregates

The suitability of aggregates in concrete is specified in EN 12620 (Aggregates for concrete) [39]. The limits for water soluble salts content are given in Table 12. All three types of aggregates have a low content of chlorides, below 0.01%. The Monolithic and Tempered aggregates comply with the 0.2% limit of the standard for sulfates. However, the Mirror aggregates slightly surpass this limit, having a 0.33% content of sulfates.
In terms of the flakiness and shape indexes of the aggregates, the Monolithic and Tempered belong to FI 20 and SI 20 class, according to EN 12620 (Table 13). The Mirror glass, on the other hand, is classified FI 35 and SI 40, as the aggregates have a more elongated shape.
With respect to the alkali-silica reactivity of the aggregates, the Mirror and Monolithic aggregates have a very low risk of expansion and can be safely used in concrete. However, the Tempered aggregates exhibited a high expansion rate of 24%, over the 0.20% limit given by ASTM [30], which means that their use could lead to the formation of ASR gel and, eventually, the expansion and cracking of the concrete. Thus, if Tempered glass aggregates are considered as an alternative to conventional aggregates, several measures should be taken to mitigate the ASR reaction, such as the use of supplementary materials, including fly ash, silica fume, etc. Furthermore, as stated by Shi et al. [14], the use of glass powder could mitigate the possibility of ASR.
The wear resistance of all three types of glass aggregates is relatively high, varying between 58–69.8%. The Mirror aggregates exhibit the lowest fragmentation, while the Monolithic glass has the highest. EN 12620 [39] specifies that the micro-Deval coefficient should be declared according to the application or end-use.
In terms of the freeze-thaw and magnesium sulfate resistance, all of the types of aggregates presented no extreme weight losses and, hence, belong to the F1 and MS18 classes according to EN 12620 [39].

5. Conclusions

The paper focuses on the suitability of waste glass as a supplementary binder or aggregate in concrete. Four types of waste glass (mirror, monolithic, tempered, sediment) deriving from the production of mirrors and windows were tested as binders and three of them (mirror, monolithic, tempered) were tested as aggregates. The tests performed followed the European and American norms for use of fly ash and aggregates in concrete. Based on the results, it can be concluded that:
  • The chemical composition of the waste glass complies with the limits set by the regulations for use in concrete.
  • All four binders have similar properties; however, their strength activity index, differs. The Mirror mixture had the poorest performance, not reaching the required 75% of the standard at 28 days. The Tempered and Sediment mixtures achieved the best results at 28 and 90 days. Moreover, the grinding of the material under 45μm improved the mechanical properties of the mortars.
  • The pozzolanicity index was over 4.1 MPa, which is the limit set by the regulation. All of the samples can be classified as moderate pozzolanic materials. Further grinding could potentially increase their pozzolanicity.
  • The flakiness and shape indexes for the Monolithic and Tempered aggregates was lower than those of the Mirror aggregates. This was also confirmed from the wear resistance test, as the Mirror glass had the lowest weight loss.
  • Overall, the wear resistance of the glass aggregates was high due to the fragile nature of glass; therefore, their use should be considered depending on the specific application of the concrete.
  • The samples have high silica and alkali contents. The alkali-silica reaction test for the aggregates showed that the Mirror and Monolithic glass aggregates could be used safely in concrete as no expansion was observed. However, the Tempered glass exhibited expansion during the test.
  • Finally, all of the samples of glass aggregates had good durability in the freeze-thaw and magnesium sulfate tests.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S. and F.K.; methodology, M.S.; experimental investigation, F.K. and S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, F.K.; writing—review and editing, M.S.; supervision, M.S.; funding acquisition, iGlass S.A. T.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

It is funded within the framework of the Operational Programme “Central Macedonia” of the PA 2014-2020, Innovative Investment Plans, and co-financed by the Greek State and the European Union and, in particular, by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), KMP6-0079534.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Stefanidou, M.; Kesikidou, F.; Konopisi, S.; Vasiadis, T. Investigating the Suitability of Waste Glass as a Supplementary Binder and Aggregate for Cement and Concrete. Sustainability 2023, 14, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043796.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andrew, R.M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2018, 10, 195–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Stefanidou, M.; Anastasiou, E.; Mantziou, O.; Mpougla, E.; Vasiliou, E.; Konti, P.D.; Antoniadis, K. Incorporation of Glass Particles in High-Performance Mortars. Waste Biomass-Valorization 2016, 7, 879–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Papayianni, I.; Konopisi, S.; Datsiou, K.; Kesikidou, F. Products of Alkali-Activated Calcareous Fly Ash and Glass Cullet. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2014, 3, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de Azevedo, A.R.G.; Alexandre, J.; Zanelato, E.B.; Marvila, M.T. Influence of incorporation of glass waste on the rheological properties of adhesive mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Harrison, E.; Berenjian, A.; Seifan, M. Recycling of waste glass as aggregate in cement-based materials. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2020, 4, 100064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ogundairo, T.O.; Adegoke, D.D.; Akinwumi, I.I.; Olofinnade, O.M. Sustainable use of recycled waste glass as an alternative material for building construction-A review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 640, 012073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Key Figures on Glass Recycling Worldwide as of 2018. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1055604/key-figures-glass-recycling-globally/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  8. Wirth, X.; Benkeser, D.; Yeboah, N.N.N.; Shearer, C.R.; Kurtis, K.E.; Burns, S.E. Evaluation of Alternative Fly Ashes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials. ACI Mater. J. 2019, 116, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Özbay, E.; Erdemir, M.; Durmuş, H.I. Utilization and efficiency of ground granulated blast furnace slag on concrete properties—A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 105, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Siddique, R. Utilization of silica fume in concrete: Review of hardened properties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 923–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Siddique, R.; Klaus, J. Influence of metakaolin on the properties of mortar and concrete: A review. Appl. Clay Sci. 2009, 43, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Juenger, M.; Provis, J.; Elsen, J.; Matthes, W.; Hooton, R.D.; Duchesne, J.; Courard, L.; He, H.; Michel, F.; Snellings, R.; et al. Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Concrete: Characterization Needs. MRS Proc. 2012, 1488, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. American Coal Association. Technical Report on Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shi, C.; Wu, Y.; Riefler, C.; Wang, H. Characteristics and pozzolanic reactivity of glass powders. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khmiri, A.; Chaabouni, M.; Samet, B. Chemical behaviour of ground waste glass when used as partial cement replacement in mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 44, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Omran, A.F.; D.-Morin, E.; Harbec, D.; Tagnit-Hamou, A. Long-term performance of glass-powder concrete in large-scale field applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 135, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vaitkevičius, V.; Šerelis, E.; Hilbig, H. The effect of glass powder on the microstructure of ultra high performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Islam, G.S.; Rahman, M.; Kazi, N. Waste glass powder as partial replacement of cement for sustainable concrete practice. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Rajabipour, F.; Giannini, E.; Dunant, C.; Ideker, J.H.; Thomas, M.D. Alkali–silica reaction: Current understanding of the reaction mechanisms and the knowledge gaps. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 76, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rajabipour, F.; Asce, M.; Maraghechi, H.; Fischer, G. Investigating the Alkali-Silica Reaction of Recycled Glass Aggregates in Concrete Materials. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 2010, 22, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mardani-Aghabaglou, A.; Tuyan, M.; Ramyar, K. Mechanical and durability performance of concrete incorporating fine recycled concrete and glass aggregates. Mater. Struct. 2014, 48, 2629–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. de Castro, S.; de Brito, J. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 41, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. EN 450-1:2012; Fly Ash for Concrete. Definition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
  24. EN 196-1:1995; Methods of Testing Cement—Part 1: Determination of Strength. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 1995.
  25. EN 1015-3:2003; Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry—Part 3: Determination of Consistence of Fresh Mortar (by Flow Table). European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
  26. ASTM C 593-95; Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Other Pozzolans for Use with Lime for Soil Stabilization. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
  27. EN 933-1; Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates—Part 1. Determination of Particle Size Distribution-Sieving Method. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
  28. EN 933-3; Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates—Part 3. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  29. EN 933-4; Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates—Part 4. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  30. ASTM C1260; Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). American Standard. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2001; pp. 1–5.
  31. EN 1097-1; Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates—Part 1: Determination of the Resistance to Wear (Micro-Deval). European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
  32. EN 1367-1; Tests for Thermal and Weathering Properties of Aggregates—Part 1: Determination of Resistance to Freezing and Thawing. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  33. EN 1367-6; Tests for Thermal and Weathering Properties of Aggregates—Part 6: Resistance to Freezing and Thawing in the Presence of Salt. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
  34. EN 1367-2; Tests for Thermal and Weathering Properties of Aggregates—Part 2: Magnesium Sulfate Test. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  35. Britannica: Soda-Lime Glass. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/technology/soda-lime-glass (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  36. Oluwasola, E.A.; Afolayan, A.; Ipindola, O.O.; Popoola, M.O.; Oginni, A.O. Effect of Aggregate Shapes on the Properties of Concrete. Lautech J. Civ. Environ. Stud. 2020, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. ASTM C618-03; Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003.
  38. Penacho, P.; de Brito, J.; Veiga, M.R. Physico-mechanical and performance characterization of mortars incorporating fine glass waste aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 50, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. EN 12620; Aggregates for Concrete. European Standard. European Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 1998; Volume 32, pp. 12–14. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 03796 g001 550
Figure 1. Types of glass waste tested (a) mirror, (b) monolithic, (c) tempered, (d) sediment.
Figure 1. Types of glass waste tested (a) mirror, (b) monolithic, (c) tempered, (d) sediment.
Sustainability 15 03796 g001
Sustainability 15 03796 g002 550
Figure 2. XRD analysis of the different types of waste glass.
Figure 2. XRD analysis of the different types of waste glass.
Sustainability 15 03796 g002
Sustainability 15 03796 g003 550
Figure 3. Particle size of binders below 75 μm.
Figure 3. Particle size of binders below 75 μm.
Sustainability 15 03796 g003
Sustainability 15 03796 g004 550
Figure 4. Particle size of binders below 45 μm.
Figure 4. Particle size of binders below 45 μm.
Sustainability 15 03796 g004
Sustainability 15 03796 g005 550
Figure 5. Flexure strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 75 μm).
Figure 5. Flexure strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 75 μm).
Sustainability 15 03796 g005
Sustainability 15 03796 g006 550
Figure 6. Compressive strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 75 μm).
Figure 6. Compressive strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 75 μm).
Sustainability 15 03796 g006
Sustainability 15 03796 g007 550
Figure 7. Flexure strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 45 μm).
Figure 7. Flexure strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 45 μm).
Sustainability 15 03796 g007
Sustainability 15 03796 g008 550
Figure 8. Compressive strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 45 μm).
Figure 8. Compressive strength of cement mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 45 μm).
Sustainability 15 03796 g008
Sustainability 15 03796 g009 550
Figure 9. Compressive strength of lime mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 75 μm).
Figure 9. Compressive strength of lime mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 75 μm).
Sustainability 15 03796 g009
Sustainability 15 03796 g010 550
Figure 10. Compressive strength of lime mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 45 μm).
Figure 10. Compressive strength of lime mortars containing glass waste as binder (under 45 μm).
Sustainability 15 03796 g010
Sustainability 15 03796 g011 550
Figure 11. Granulometric curves of glass waste aggregates.
Figure 11. Granulometric curves of glass waste aggregates.
Sustainability 15 03796 g011
Sustainability 15 03796 g012 550
Figure 12. Length change of the specimens during alkali-silica reaction test.
Figure 12. Length change of the specimens during alkali-silica reaction test.
Sustainability 15 03796 g012
Table
Table 1. Composition of the mixtures for strength activity index.
Table 1. Composition of the mixtures for strength activity index.
MixtureCementGlass BinderSandWaterWorkability
gggmlcm
C450-135022521.0
Mirror (75)315135135022520.5
Monolithic (75)315135135022521.0
Tempered (75)315135135022518.5
Mirror (45)315135135022518.8
Monolithic (45)315135135022519.5
Tempered (45)315135135022519.5
Sediment (45)315135135022518.0
Table
Table 2. Composition of the mixtures for pozzolanicity index.
Table 2. Composition of the mixtures for pozzolanicity index.
MixtureMirror (75)Monolithic (75)Tempered (75)Mirror (45)Monolithic (45)Tempered (45)Sediment (45)
Hydrated lime (g)180180180180180180180
Tested glass (g)360360360360360360360
Standard sand (g)1450145014501450145014501450
w/b0.550.570.550.610.610.570.61
Workability (cm)15.515.515.217.016.815.515.5
Table
Table 3. Chemical composition of the different types of glass waste (by AAS).
Table 3. Chemical composition of the different types of glass waste (by AAS).
Total Oxides (%) wt.MirrorMonolithicTemperedSediment
Na2O8.338.999.148.37
K2O0.040.050.060.03
CaO9.579.3511.509.93
Fe2O34.484.691.023.55
Al2O30.190.110.070.11
MgO1.441.341.731.05
SiO274.0974.7875.8174.67
CaOFree1.120.281.101.40
Reactive CaO--10.22-
L.I. (1000 °C)1.160.360.372.05
Table
Table 4. Soluble salts content of the different types of glass waste.
Table 4. Soluble salts content of the different types of glass waste.
Soluble Salts Content (%) wt.MirrorMonolithicTemperedSediment
SO30.330.220.230.24
Cl−<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Table
Table 5. pH values, density and amorphous content of the different types of glass waste.
Table 5. pH values, density and amorphous content of the different types of glass waste.
ValueMirrorMonolithicTemperedSediment
pH8.508.229.6710.45
Density (g/cm3)2.4899
±0.0013%		2.4937
±0.01229%		2.4856
±0.0042%		2.4880
±0.0119%
Amorphous content
(%) by XRD Analysis		84.983.485.784.8
Table
Table 6. Flakiness index and shape index of glass waste aggregates.
Table 6. Flakiness index and shape index of glass waste aggregates.
Index (%)MirrorMonolithicTempered
FI26.3919.8118.09
SI27.4414.3513.22
Table
Table 7. Wear resistance (micro-Deval).
Table 7. Wear resistance (micro-Deval).
SampleWeight Loss (%)
Mirror58.0%
Monolithic69.8%
Tempered66.0%
Table
Table 8. Weight loss of glass waste aggregates during freeze-thaw test.
Table 8. Weight loss of glass waste aggregates during freeze-thaw test.
SpecimenWeight Loss (%) (no NaCl)Weight Loss (%) (with NaCl)
Mirror0.0%0.1%
Monolithic0.2%0.5%
Tempered0.0%0.5%
Table
Table 9. Weight loss of glass waste aggregates during magnesium sulfate test.
Table 9. Weight loss of glass waste aggregates during magnesium sulfate test.
SpecimenWeight Loss (%)
Mirror4.5%
Monolithic5.0%
Tempered10.0%
Table
Table 10. Classification of the binders according to EN 450-1.
Table 10. Classification of the binders according to EN 450-1.
Element (%)Limits According EN 450-1Class
L.I.Category A: <5.0% wt.
Category B: 2.0–7.0% wt.
Category C: 4.0–9.0% wt.		Mirror, Monolithic, Tempered < 2% (Category A)
Sediment = 2.05% (Category B)
Cl−<0.10% wt.All < 0.10%
SO3<3% wt.All < 3%
Free calcium oxide<2.5% wt.All < 2.5%
Reactive calcium oxide<10% wt.All < 10%
SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3>70% wt.All > 70%
Na2O<5% wt.All > 5%
Table
Table 11. Strength activity index according to EN 450-1.
Table 11. Strength activity index according to EN 450-1.
MixtureStrength Activity Index (%)
28 Days90 Days
Mirror (75)56.5763.50
Monolithic (75)68.0085.28
Tempered (75)83.6489.05
Mirror (45)75.9776.17
Monolithic (45)89.6393.28
Tempered (45)80.4292.90
Sediment (45)76.96101.15
Table
Table 12. Salt content according to EN 12620.
Table 12. Salt content according to EN 12620.
TestEN LimitClass
Water soluble chloride content<0.01% wt.Mirror, Monolithic, Tempered < 0.01%
Water-soluble sulfate content≤0.2% wt.
No requirement		Monolithic, Tempered < 0.2% (SS0.2)
Mirror > 0.2%
Table
Table 13. Classification of flakiness and shape indexes of glass waste aggregates (ΕΝ 12620).
Table 13. Classification of flakiness and shape indexes of glass waste aggregates (ΕΝ 12620).
IndexMirrorMonolithicTempered
FI class352020
SI class402020
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stefanidou, M.; Kesikidou, F.; Konopisi, S.; Vasiadis, T. Investigating the Suitability of Waste Glass as a Supplementary Binder and Aggregate for Cement and Concrete. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3796. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043796

AMA Style

Stefanidou M, Kesikidou F, Konopisi S, Vasiadis T. Investigating the Suitability of Waste Glass as a Supplementary Binder and Aggregate for Cement and Concrete. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):3796. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043796

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stefanidou, Maria, Fotini Kesikidou, Stavroula Konopisi, and Thanasis Vasiadis. 2023. "Investigating the Suitability of Waste Glass as a Supplementary Binder and Aggregate for Cement and Concrete" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3796. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043796

APA Style

Stefanidou, M., Kesikidou, F., Konopisi, S., & Vasiadis, T. (2023). Investigating the Suitability of Waste Glass as a Supplementary Binder and Aggregate for Cement and Concrete. Sustainability, 15(4), 3796. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043796

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop