Moving towards 100% recovery of concrete demolition

waste across Europe

A review of barriers and opportunities for the concrete

industry

Karl Downey

Postgraduate Certificate in Sustainable Value Chains

25 September 2016

Page 2 of 16

Table of Contents

1. Brief background and organisation information ................................................................... 3

2. The Sustainability Challenge / Opportunity ......................................................................... 4

3. Critical Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Options for concrete recovery and recycling ....................................................................... 5

3.2 Environmental assessment of concrete recycling ............................................................... 6

3.3 Barriers to recovery of concrete C&DW .............................................................................. 7

3.4 Concrete sector initiatives ................................................................................................. 11

4. Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 12

5. Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 13

6. Appendix 1: Interview list ................................................................................................... 16

Figures and Tables

Table 1: C&DW management in selected countries .............................................................................. 8

Figure 1: Concrete C&DW recycling value chain ................................................................................... 9

Abbreviations

C&DW – Construction and demolition waste

CSI – Cement Sustainability Initiative

GWP – Global warming potential

LCA – Life cycle assessment

RCA – Recycled concrete aggregate

Page 3 of 16

1. Brief background and organisation information

The recommendations in this paper are addressed to the European concrete industry

generally.

Concrete is the most used construction material in the world. It is composed of cement,

aggregates, water, and, sometimes, additions and chemical admixtures1. Cement is the binder,

which reacts with the water to “glue” the other ingredients together. Aggregates include fine

aggregates (sand) and coarse aggregates, and are generally produced from gravel or crushed

rock, or recycled material.

The European concrete industry is largely made up of small, local companies. For example,

the European Ready-Mix Concrete Organisation counted around 1,300 concrete producers and

6,600 plants among its European member countries in 2013 (ERMCO 2014), and there are

around 5,500 precast concrete companies and 8,000 plants in Europe (BIBM 2015). The

aggregates industry is also made up of small companies – 15,000 companies and 25,000

quarries in Europe (UEPG n.d.) – who produce aggregates for concrete and other applications.

The European cement industry, by contrast, is made up of medium to large companies, many

of which are owned by multi-national groups. The large cement companies typically produce

concrete too, but this only makes up a small share of the total concrete market in a given

country.

The author is employed by CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association. CEMBUREAU

is the representative body of the European cement industry, based in Brussels and with

members in 28 European countries. CEMBUREAU is a main member of The Concrete

Initiative, an advocacy initiative grouping the European cement, aggregates, ready-mix and

precast concrete industries. CEMBUREAU is also a member of the European Concrete

Platform (ECP), a technical and advocacy platform grouping the European cement,

admixtures, ready-mix and precast concrete industries.

At a global level, the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), part of the World Business

Council for Sustainable Development, is a CEO-led initiative of cement companies, which

promotes sustainability initiatives within the cement and concrete industry (CEMBUREAU is

a Communication Partner of the CSI). Recently, the CSI was the initiator of a project to

develop a global responsible sourcing scheme for concrete, soon to be launched as the Concrete

Sustainability Council (of which the ECP is also a founding member).

1 The proportions of these ingredients will depend on the required properties of the concrete, such as

strength, resistance to harsh environments, durability etc., but are roughly as follows, by volume: 10-

15% cement, 60-75% aggregates, 15-20% water (NRMCA n.d.).

Page 4 of 16

2. The Sustainability Challenge / Opportunity

Some 2.5 billion tonnes of waste were produced in the EU in 2010. Of this, 25-30% is

construction and demolition waste (C&DW) (European Commission 2016).

The Waste Framework Directive of the European Union (European Commisssion 2008) set

down a target of 70% recovery of C&DW by 2020. Many countries or regions have already

exceeded this target: e.g. the Netherlands, where recovery is at 93% (European Commission

2015f), or Flanders, where a 75% target by 2000 was already defined in 1995 (Vynkce &

Vrijders 2016). However, many other countries and regions are still lagging: for example

Bulgaria and Romania, where recovery rates are low and statistics are inconsistent or non-

existent (European Commission 2015a&b).

This paper looks at the specific case of concrete C&DW2, which accounts for a third to two

thirds of all C&DW (Bio Intelligence Service 2011). Tackling the huge volumes of concrete

demolition waste produced will have the benefits of reducing extraction of primary raw

materials and reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill. The sustainability challenge

is how to go beyond the target set by the European Commission and reach 100% recovery of

concrete demolition waste across Europe. The word “recovery” is deliberately used here to

mean re-use, recycling or any other useful function for waste which substitutes primary

material and keeps demolition concrete from being disposed of in landfill. The objective,

therefore, is to reach 100% recovery and 0% disposal; how that waste should be used is

discussed later.

This challenge is explored from the point of view of the concrete industry. Is the industry

implicated in the targets set by the European Commission, and can leadership by the concrete

industry itself accelerate the trend?

2 Although the term “C&DW” covers waste from construction as well as demolition, this paper will only

discuss concrete waste from demolition, as this is much more significant in terms of volumes generated.

Page 5 of 16

3. Critical Analysis

3.1 Options for concrete recovery and recycling

To recycle concrete at the end of its life, it is crushed to produce recycled concrete aggregates

(RCA)3.

For the purposes of this paper, three broad uses of crushed demolition concrete will be

distinguished4:

A. Use as an aggregate in new concrete (sometimes referred to as “closed-loop” recycling)

B. Use as an aggregate in unbound applications

C. Backfilling

A. Recycled concrete aggregates in concrete

Replacing coarse (diameter ≥ 4mm) natural aggregates in concrete by coarse RCA has been

studied extensively (e.g. Özalp et al. 2016; Quattrone et al. 2014; Agrela et al. 2013). Concrete

with a high percentage of coarse RCA (20-50%) tends to have worse performance than

concrete with natural aggregates due mainly to the higher water absorption and lower density

of RCA due to adhered hardened cement paste. For low-strength applications, the difference

in performance can be less (Agrela et al. 2013).

For that reason, the recommended maximum quantity of coarse RCA in concrete given in

standards depends on the strength class of the concrete and the exposure conditions. The

European concrete standard, EN 206-1, provides (informative) guidance on the use of up to

50% coarse RCA in concrete depending on the application (CEN 2014). Further guidance is

given in national annexes to this standard.

When concrete is crushed to be recycled, coarse particles are generated, as well as a large

amount of particles of less than 4mm diameter (“fines”). Fines from recycled concrete can

present difficulties for recycling into concrete: they can increase water absorption and

decrease strength, and their quality can be variable due to difficulties with separating out

impurities (Fan et al. 2016). Therefore, their use in concrete is more limited by standards than

coarse RCA (CEN 2014), and unbound applications is the usual use.

B. Unbound applications

Unbound applications are those uses of RCA without a binder such as cement or asphalt, but

where the material is nevertheless subject to certain engineering requirements such as shape,

compressive strength or fragmentation resistance, and therefore may require some processing

before use (Jiménez 2013).

Unbound applications are the most common recycling method of concrete demolition waste.

RCA can in some cases even offer better properties than natural aggregates for some

applications such as road sub-base, due to its angular shape and residual binding capacity due

to remaining cement paste (Interviewee #2).

3 In some cases it is also possible to re-use concrete directly at the end of its life, for example with

precast concrete elements (Huuhka et al. 2015). 4 It is, in principle, also possible to use RCA in asphalt, although this is not widespread and suffers

some technical difficulties (Qasrawi & Asi 2016), and will not be discussed further here.

Page 6 of 16

C. Backfilling

Backfilling covers all other material recovery of C&DW. There is no commonly agreed

definition of backfilling (Bio by Deloitte et al. 2016), but for the purpose of this paper it is

understood as use of waste, usually without prior processing or engineering requirements, in

applications such as quarry restoration, landscaping, embankments, landfill cover etc.

Backfilling is considered recovery under the Waste Framework Directive. In the context of its

proposal for a revised directive, the European Commission has proposed a definition for

backfilling; key to this definition is the idea that the waste must substitute primary material

(European Commission 2015h).

Backfilling does have a benefit – use of primary material is reduced – but in the case of

concrete, value is lost since the potentially excellent mechanical properties of RCA are not

fully availed of if it is backfilled along with other waste. It seems clear that backfilling of

concrete demolition waste should be avoided where possible. At the very least, there should be

an obligation to sort C&DW before backfilling, in order to remove recyclable waste such as

concrete.

3.2 Environmental assessment of concrete recycling

Life-cycle assessments (LCA) of coarse RCA prepared for use in concrete have found that the

environmental impact (particularly for the impact category “global warming potential”, GWP)

is often greater than that of natural coarse aggregates (Marinković et al. 2010; Lisbona et al.

2016; Müller et al. 20155). For example, for the case studied by Lisbona et al. in the north of

Spain, GWP was about 18% higher for recycled aggregates. This is due to the extra processing

needed to achieve suitable quality for use in concrete, and/or increased transport distances

compared to natural aggregates. In general, the higher the quality of aggregate needed, the

higher the CO2 footprint due to processing (Quattrone et al. 2014). Furthermore, structural

concrete containing RCA requires a higher cement content to obtain the same concrete

properties, further reducing the environmental benefit6.

Since the overall impact is highly dependent on the aggregates’ transport mode and distance,

it is difficult to make generalisations about the impact of using RCA in concrete. Concrete

with RCA can show better LCA results than traditional concrete when transport distances of

the recycled aggregates are very short compared to natural aggregates7. This could become a

more common situation in future, with recycled aggregates being available closer to the place

of demand, i.e. urban centres (Marinković et al. 2010).

LCA results do not necessarily provide the complete picture, however. The environmental

indicators used in traditional LCAs do not consider other impacts (environmental or

otherwise) such as occupation of landfill space or (local) resource depletion, which would need

to be assessed to determine the overall sustainability of concrete using RCA (Lisbona et al.

2016; Colina & De Larrard 2016).

5 This study was commissioned by CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association. 6 For Colina & De Larrard (2016), this is only the case for concrete with 100% RCA; for lower RCA

content the environmental impact is similar to traditional concrete. 7 For example, for the case studied by Marinković et al. (2010) in Serbia, this ratio was 20 km versus

150 km.

Page 7 of 16

3.3 Barriers to recovery of concrete C&DW

Numerous studies and policy reports have identified the general barriers to greater C&DW

recovery, which are not necessarily unique to concrete (e.g. Bio Intelligence Service 2011; JRC

European Commission 2011; Bio by Deloitte et al. 2016).

There is great diversity across Europe with regard to these drivers and barriers. Seven

countries selected for their diversity are compared in Table 1, which allows certain trends to

be observed.

France (outside of Paris) and Romania can be characterised as countries with a low population

density and plentiful supply of primary materials. The Netherlands and the south-east of

England are the opposite: they lack both primary materials and landfill space. For that

reason, solutions to C&DW evolved out of necessity in the latter two regions, but such

circumstances would be impossible to export to France or Romania.

In Western Europe a “recycling culture” can be said to exist, as evidenced by political will to

deal with C&DW, and voluntary industry initiatives. In Romania this is not yet the case.

Looking to other industries, gypsum and glass have commonalities with concrete: low value

means less incentive to recover it at end of life (unlike metals, for example). This has led

producers to actively engage in the recovery of their end-of-life materials and contribute to the

financing of collection systems (Eurogypsum 2015). This suggests that greater engagement

with other actors in the recycling value chain could be useful also for concrete.

The concrete C&DW recycling value chain is made up of a number of actors (see example in

Figure 1, based on Interview #5), each with their own commercial motivations and legal

obligations. A region with successful C&DW management tends to have policy in place which

incentivises all these actors to act towards the same objective.

The examples in Table 1 indicate that countries or regions with higher recovery rates tend to

have some or all of the following attributes: restrictions on landfilling of C&DW; a high

population density; binding, enforced regulation on C&DW sorting; industry commitment to

managing C&DW; sufficient waste management facilities; and guidance or standards for use

of recycled materials. Of these, the most urgent and perhaps easiest to export to other

countries would be a requirement to carry out pre-demolition audits and sort C&DW, and a

restriction on landfilling. Once this is in place, there is a business opportunity for

entrepreneurs to process and market this material (Interviewee #5).

The final step, still not developed in many countries, is to develop guidance or standards

which encourage use of recycled aggregates in ever more demanding applications.

Page 8 of 16

Table 1: C&DW management in selected countries

Country C&DW

generated

per year

(million

tonnes)1

C&DW

recovered2

Recycled

aggregates

as a

percentage

of total

aggregates3

Population

density (people

per km2)4

Availability

of primary

aggregates

Legislation on

C&DW

Industry position, initiatives etc.

France 65 63% 6% 122 high Binding, but not

always enforced. Rules

on backfilling very

open.

Construction industry is committed to

improving C&DW management, and

research projects as well as innovative

collection schemes exist.

Finland 2.2 77%5 1% 18 high6 Legislation promoting

use of concrete for

unbound applications;

high landfill costs.

Industry commitments exist; technical

standards for use of demolition concrete

available since the 1990s.

Germany 87.6 90% 12% 234 high Strong regulations on

e.g. C&DW sorting

(though variability by

region).

Industry initiatives for C&DW

management have existed for many

years.

Netherlands 25.7 93% 20.5% 503 low Very well developed,

including landfill

bans.

Multiple initiatives, including a new

“green deal” (the “Betonakkoord”) for

sustainable concrete between industry

and the government.

Romania 0.95 <40%7 0% 86 high No binding legislation. Lack of recycling facilities, lack of

leadership or coordination among

industries.

Spain 29.5 52-83%8 0% 93 high Low landfill taxes. Regional initiatives exist, but there is a

lack of nationwide efforts on C&DW.

UK 45 86.5% 22% 269 varies by

region

Landfill taxes;

voluntary waste

management plans.

Multiple industry initiatives exist.

Note: Differences in definitions, data quality, etc., mean that the numbers cannot always be directly compared from one country to another. All data is from European Commission (2015b-g),

with reference year 2012 except where noted, with supplementary information from Interviewees #1–#4.

1. Excludes excavated soils

2. Includes backfilling except where noted

3. Source: (UEPG n.d.)

4. Source: (The World Bank n.d.)

5. Data is for 2011

6. Assumption based on fact that recycled aggregates only make up 1% of all aggregates produced

7. Data is unreliable. Excludes backfilling

8. There are inconsistencies between different sources of data.

Page 9 of 16

Figure 1: Concrete C&DW recycling value chain

Page 10 of 16

Barriers to closed-loop recycling of concrete

Despite the fact that use of coarse RCA in concrete is possible in the right conditions,

this practice is still not widespread: in most European countries the recycled content of

concrete is less than 1% on average (ERMCO 2016).

One of the reasons is a lack of experience or trust in RCA. Therefore, work is ongoing in

several countries to provide guidance on the use of RCA in concrete, e.g. in Belgium

(Vynkce & Vrijders 2016).

A practical barrier is the fact that small concrete producers do not have space to store

RCA separately. One solution to this would be to blend a small amount (e.g. 5-10%) of

RCA with primary aggregates at aggregate quarries. Concrete standards may have to be

adjusted slightly to take this practice into account (Interviewee #6).

Processing demolition concrete to the level where it can be used in concrete has a

another disadvantage: it produces more fines, a by-product with little commercial value

(Quattrone et al. 2014). This means that it can be more attractive for a recycler to sell

concrete demolition waste wholly for unbound applications – where both coarse and fine

particles can easily be used together – rather than further processing and separation of

the coarse aggregates, for use in concrete. Improving the possibilities to use recycled

fines in concrete could remove this paradox, and encourage recyclers to process concrete

C&DW to a higher quality with a view to selling it all to concrete producers

(Interviewee #3).

Should closed-loop recycling of concrete be promoted?

Quality material from C&DW is not always available consistently or locally, and

recycled content does not necessarily mean lower environmental impacts. Therefore, the

European concrete industry’s position up to now has been that targets for recycling of

C&DW should not include targets on recycled content of concrete (The Concrete

Initiative 2015). Natural aggregates are abundant, and aggregate demand is such that

100% recycling of concrete across Europe could be achieved with all demolition concrete

being used as aggregates for unbound application (European Concrete Platform 2014).

Stakeholders and literature agree, however, that an effort to increase the possibilities

for closed-loop recycling is nevertheless worthwhile. Close to urban areas, land for

quarries faces competition from other uses, and therefore construction aggregates can

suffer local scarcity (Ioannidou et al. 2014). An effort to achieve greater closed-loop

recycling of concrete into concrete would be of benefit to the concrete industry itself in

such areas. Furthermore, the industry would have benefits in terms of image by

promoting the recyclability of its products (competing materials, such as steel, can claim

near 100% recycling of their products at end of life) (Interviewee #6).

The aim should not be to arrive at a situation where all concrete produced has a high

recycled content. But widening the scope of possible applications, while also creating a

demand for high-quality RCA, reduces the chance that demolition concrete will be

consigned to applications where its properties are not fully exploited.

Page 11 of 16

3.4 Concrete sector initiatives

The European concrete industry has not made a coordinated effort to promote concrete

demolition waste recovery up to now, although it has given input to EU policy

developments (The Concrete Initiative 2015; European Concrete Platform 2014). The

Cement Sustainability Initiative proposed a set of indicators to measure and promote

concrete recycling in 2009, but this has not been followed up since then (Cement

Sustainability Initiative 2009).

However, the large number of company or national initiatives suggests a willingness to

work on this topic. LafargeHolcim (a global cement, concrete and aggregates producer)

has launched a recycled aggregate service, which includes all services to do with

collecting, recycling and recovery of concrete waste (Interviewee #3). Numerous

European and national research projects are investigating various aspects of concrete

recycling, from advanced sorting and processing techniques, to the use of fines in cement

(e.g. HISER n.d.; R-beton n.d.; Recybéton n.d.).

There appears to be a lack of awareness of the outcomes of such projects, and they often

do not lead to action at European level or replication in other countries. This is

something that could be coordinated better by European organisations, in the form of

sharing of best practices or using research results as input to the development of

technical standards or guidelines.

Page 12 of 16

4. Conclusions and recommendations

The preceding analysis indicates that for any country or region, there are specific stages

in the evolution towards higher value-added recycling of concrete, passing from

eliminating landfilling, eliminating backfilling, and moving towards high quality

processing of demolition concrete for use in ever more demanding situations, be they

unbound or in concrete. Any strategic action plan should help each region to reach the

next step in this evolution, bearing in mind its specific (geographical, developmental)

circumstances. Therefore, the recommendations below should lead to actions specific to

the context in question.

The subsequent Strategic Action Plan will be developed on the basis of these

recommendations. Leadership by the European organisations described in Chapter 1 of

this paper will be fundamental in implementing the Plan.

Recommendations

1. Advocacy at national and European level

It is recommended that the European concrete industry promote policy that encourages

recycling of demolition concrete. This would include, at the very least, a ban on

landfilling of concrete demolition waste; tightening of rules on what kind of operations

can be considered backfilling; and a call for mandatory pre-demolition audits and sorting

of C&DW. In more developed countries, policy requests should be more nuanced and

promote the best available techniques for concrete recycling for the most appropriate

applications.

2. Engagement with other actors in the recycling value chain

It is recommended that the European concrete industry take leadership to drive demand

for quality RCA. Engagement and leadership can help promote selective demolition of

buildings and sorting of waste, which in turn provides quality assurance and reliability

to purchasers of recycled products. Engagement could include voluntary commitments to

use RCA in concrete, and collaboration with other actors in the value chain on pilot

projects, in order to demonstrate the possibilities of recycling.

3. Involvement in research projects and sharing of best practices

Much work is already happening in academia and in European and national research

projects on concrete recycling. It is recommended that the European concrete industry

be fully involved in such projects in order to improve recycling processes and explore the

limits for safe use of RCA, including fines, in all applications. This would aid the further

development of standards or guidelines to enable concrete to be recycled in the most

appropriate and highest value application in all cases.

Page 13 of 16

5. Bibliography

Agrela, F., Alaejos, P. & Juan, M.S. De, 2013. Properties of concrete with recycled

aggregates. In F. Pacheco-Torgal et al., eds. Handbook of Recycled Concrete and

Demolition Waste. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 304–329.

BIBM, 2015. European Precast Concrete Industry Factbook 2015, Available at:

http://www.bibm.eu/documenten/bibm-factbook-2015-(final).pdf.

Bio by Deloitte et al., 2016. Workshop “Improving management of construction and

demolition waste” 25th May 2016 Background Paper.

Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Service contract on management of construction and

demolition waste - SR1. Final Report Task 2, Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/2011_CDW_Report.pdf.

Cement Sustainability Initiative, 2009. Recycling Concrete, Geneva. Available at:

http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=11133&NoSe

archContextKey=true [Accessed July 22, 2016].

CEN, 2014. EN 206 Concrete - Specification, performance, production and conformity.

Colina, H. & De Larrard, F., 2016. The French National Project “Recybeton”: Recycling

Concrete into Concrete. II International Conference on Concrete Sustainability

ICCS16, pp.1091–1101.

ERMCO, 2016. Overview of use of RA in concrete in Europe and USA and applicable

regulations (unpublished).

ERMCO, 2014. Ready-mixed concrete industry statistics. Year 2013. , (July). Available

at: http://www.ermco.eu/documents/statistics/ermco-statistics-y-2013-final-

version.pdf.

Eurogypsum, 2015. Roadmap and proposal of procedures for the implementation of a

sustainable value chain, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015a. Construction and Demolition Waste management in

Bulgaria, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015b. Construction and Demolition Waste management in

Finland, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015c. Construction and Demolition Waste management in

France, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015d. Construction and Demolition Waste management in

Germany, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015e. Construction and Demolition Waste management in

Romania, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015f. Construction and Demolition Waste management in the

Netherlands, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015g. Construction and Demolition Waste management in

United Kingdom, Brussels.

European Commission, 2015h. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2008/98/EC on

waste, Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:c2b5929d-999e-11e5-b3b7-

01aa75ed71a1.0018.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.

European Commission, 2016. Waste - Environment - European Commission.

European Commisssion, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Official

Journal of the Europian Union, L13, pp.3–30. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/.

European Concrete Platform, 2014. The Waste Hierarchy, Concrete and Recycling,

Available at: http://www.europeanconcrete.eu/images/stories/Documents/2904 - ecp

Page 14 of 16

- waste hierarchy and concrete recycling - 2014-05-15.pdf.

Fan, C.-C. et al., 2016. Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled aggregates from

crushed concrete wastes. Construction and Building Materials, 112, pp.708–715.

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061816302136.

HISER, HISER Project - Holistic Innovative Solutions for an Efficient Recycling and

Recovery of Valuable Raw Materials from Complex Construction and Demolition

Waste (HISER). Available at: http://www.hiserproject.eu/ [Accessed September 15,

2016].

Huuhka, S. et al., 2015. Reusing concrete panels from buildings for building: Potential

in Finnish 1970s mass housing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101,

pp.105–121. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.017.

Ioannidou, D. et al., 2014. New indicator for resource accessibility assessment, based on

surface land cover. In WorldSB14 Barcelona. pp. 1–7.

Jiménez, J.R., 2013. Recycled aggregates (RAs) for roads. In F. Pacheco-Torgal et al.,

eds. Handbook of Recycled Concrete and Demolition Waste. Woodhead Publishing,

pp. 351–377.

JRC European Commission, 2011. Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for

Construction and Demolition ( C&D ) Waste Management - A practical guide to Life

Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Available at:

http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/waste-Guide-to-LCTLCA-for-C-D-waste-

management-Final-ONLINE.pdf.

Lisbona, A., Dolado, J.S. & Vegas, I., 2016. Sustainability Assessment of Concrete with

Recycled Concrete Aggregates. In II International Conference on Concrete

Sustainability. pp. 1124–1135. Available at:

http://www.iccs16.org/frontal/doc/Ebook_ICCS16.pdf.

Marinković, S. et al., 2010. Comparative environmental assessment of natural and

recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Management, 30(11), pp.2255–2264.

Müller, C., Reiners, J. & Palm, S., 2015. Closing the loop: What type of concrete re-use is

the most sustainable option? Available at:

http://www.theconcreteinitiative.eu/images/Newsroom/Publications/2016-01-

16_ECRA_TechnicalReport_ConcreteReuse.pdf.

NRMCA, NRMCA | Applications & Promotion | Concrete Basics. Available at:

http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/ [Accessed September 10, 2016].

Özalp, F. et al., 2016. Effects of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition

wastes on mechanical and permeability properties of paving stone, kerb and

concrete pipes. Construction and Building Materials, 110, pp.17–23.

Qasrawi, H. & Asi, I., 2016. Effect of bitumen grade on hot asphalt mixes properties

prepared using recycled coarse concrete aggregate. Construction and Building

Materials, 121, pp.18–24. Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.101.

Quattrone, M., Angulo, S.C. & John, V.M., 2014. Energy and CO2 from high

performance recycled aggregate production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

90, pp.21–33. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.06.003.

R-beton, Ressourcenschonender Beton – Werkstoff der nächsten Generation (Resource-

friendly concrete - material for the next generation). Available at: http://www.r-

beton.de/ [Accessed September 1, 2016].

Recybéton, Projet National RECYBETON - Accueil. Available at:

http://www.pnrecybeton.fr/ [Accessed September 1, 2016].

The Concrete Initiative, 2015. Construction & demolition waste Policy do’s & don’ts,

Brussels. Available at:

http://www.theconcreteinitiative.eu/images/Newsroom/Factsheets/The_Concrete_Ini

tiative_CDW_dos_donts_2015-10-21.pdf [Accessed July 22, 2016].

Page 15 of 16

The World Bank, Population density (people per sq. km of land area). Available at:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST [Accessed September 24, 2016].

UEPG, Estimates of Aggregates Production data 2012. Available at:

http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/estimates-of-production-data/data-2012 [Accessed

September 24, 2016a].

UEPG, Estimates of Aggregates Production data 2014. Available at:

http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/estimates-of-production-data/data-2014 [Accessed

September 15, 2016b].

Vynkce, J. & Vrijders, J., 2016. Reycling of Construction and Demolition Waste - An

Overview of RILEM Achievements and State of the Art in the EU. In II

International Conference on Concrete Sustainability. Madrid, pp. 55–65.

Page 16 of 16

6. Appendix 1: Interview list

# Name &

position

Organisation Activity Country Date Method

1 Alina Cristea,

Sustainable

Development

Manager

Holcim Romania Cement,

concrete and

aggregates

producer

Romania 24/08/2016 By phone

2 Peter Broere,

Association

Secretary

BRBS Recycling National

association

of recycling

companies

Netherlands 24/08/2016 By phone

3 Mark

Tomlinson,

Business

Development

Manager

LafargeHolcim Cement,

concrete and

aggregates

producer

Worldwide 24/08/2016 By phone

4 Leo Dekker,

Manager

Technology &

Sustainability

Mebin Concrete

producer

Netherlands 24/08/2016 By phone

5 Jose Blanco,

Secretary

General

European

Demolition

Association

Demolition Europe 12/09/2016 By phone

6 Jean-Marc

Potier,

Technical

Director

SNBPE -French

Ready-Mix

Concrete

Association

National

concrete

association

France 13/09/2016 By phone