sustainability

Review
A Literature Review on the Use of Recycled Construction and
Demolition Materials in Unbound Pavement Applications
Paulo Miguel Pereira and Castorina Silva Vieira *

CONSTRUCT, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The construction industry is one of the biggest sectors of economic activity in the European
Union, consuming more energy and natural resources than any other industrial activity. Additionally,
construction and demolition (C&D) waste is the most common waste produced throughout the
European Union. A more efficient and effective use of natural resources and the attenuation of
environmental impacts provoked by their extraction could be accomplished if correct construction and
demolition waste management and recycling policies were implemented. The use of recycled C&D
waste in road pavement layers is a solution with economic and environmental benefits that has been
widely studied in recent decades. This paper provides a literature review on the relevant engineering
properties of different types of recycled aggregates coming from C&D waste, a comparison with the
properties of natural aggregates, and how these recycled aggregates perform in the long-term when
used in unbound pavement applications. An analysis of the current status of C&D waste generation
and recovery practices in the European Union is also presented. The aim of this review is to further
encourage the use of recycled materials coming from C&D waste, particularly in unbound pavement
applications, since, in general, research conducted worldwide has proven their good performance in
the short and long-term.

Citation: Pereira, P.M.; Vieira, C.S. Keywords: environmental sustainability; construction and demolition waste; recycled aggregates;
A Literature Review on the Use of long-term behaviour; unbound pavement applications
Recycled Construction and
Demolition Materials in Unbound
Pavement Applications. Sustainability
2022, 14, 13918. https://doi.org/ 1. Introduction
10.3390/su142113918
The construction industry produces large amounts of waste resulting from various
Academic Editor: Jorge de Brito activities, such as the cleaning of construction sites, leftovers and waste materials from
construction, demolition and maintenance, conservation and rehabilitation of structures
Received: 28 July 2022
and infrastructures. At the same time, the construction industry consumes large quantities
Accepted: 20 October 2022
of natural resources.
Published: 26 October 2022
Reducing the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources has long been one
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral of the constant concerns associated with preserving the environment. The significant
with regard to jurisdictional claims in consumption of natural resources, around 14.0 ton/year per capita in the European Union
published maps and institutional affil- (7.1 ton/year per capita are non-metallic minerals, making up half of the total) [1], makes
iations. it necessary to promote significant changes in patterns of consumption. It is therefore
fundamental to promote studies and applications involving alternative materials.
Nearly all human and industrial activities generate some kind of waste, and the
increasing accumulation of this is the cause of serious economic and environmental concern
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
all over the world. In 2020, the total waste generated in the European Union (EU) was
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
2151 million tonnes [2]. Demolition and construction activities (798 million tonnes, 37.1% of
distributed under the terms and
the total) and quarrying and mining activities (504 million of tonnes, 23.4% of the total) are
conditions of the Creative Commons
the main economic sectors that generated waste in 2020 (Figure 1). It is worth mentioning
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// that 96.5% of the total waste produced by these two sectors were soils or mineral waste
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (waste rocks, excavated earth, construction and demolition waste, road construction waste,
4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113918 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 30

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 2 of 28

or mineral waste (waste rocks, excavated earth, construction and demolition waste, road
construction
dredging waste,
spoil, dredging
tailings, spoil, The
and others). tailings,
amountandofothers). The amount
rare mineral waste inofrelation
rare mineral
to the
waste in relation to the total waste
total waste generated was 64.0% [2]. generated was 64.0% [2].

1. Distribution
Figure 1.
Figure Distribution of
of waste
waste generated
generated in
in 2020
2020 by
by domestic
domestic consumers
consumers and
and economic
economic activities
activities in
in
the European
the European Union
Union (data
(data from
from[2]).
[2]).

Construction
Construction and demolition
demolition (C&D) waste is a huge and voluminous waste stream,
representing
representing around
around 35%35% of of all
all waste
waste generated
generated in in the
the EU,
EU, four
four times
times more
more than
than the
the total
total
household waste produced. C&D wastes are composed of various
household waste produced. C&D wastes are composed of various materials, such as materials, such as bricks,
concrete, glass, wood,
bricks, concrete, glass,metals,
wood, gypsum, plastics, excavated
metals, gypsum, soils, solvents,
plastics, excavated soils, and asbestos,
solvents, and
many of which
asbestos, many of have the have
which potential to be recycled.
the potential C&D wastes
to be recycled. C&D arisewastesfrom
arisea from
wide arange
wide
of activities,
range including
of activities, the construction,
including maintenance,
the construction, rehabilitation
maintenance, and demolition
rehabilitation and demoli- of
buildings, and civil engineering infrastructures.
tion of buildings, and civil engineering infrastructures.
C&D
C&D waste,
waste, dumped
dumped illegally
illegally inin ravines
ravines and
and open
open areas,
areas, contaminates
contaminates soil soil and
and can
can
cause
cause underground water pollution and forests fires. The illegal dumping of C&D waste
underground water pollution and forests fires. The illegal dumping of C&D waste
can
can cause
causerisks
riskstotohuman
humanhealth
healthandandtotothe environment,
the environment, including
including transportation
transportation obstacles
obsta-
leading to accidents, impact on the urban landscape, air pollution, soil
cles leading to accidents, impact on the urban landscape, air pollution, soil and ground- and groundwater
contamination, degraded
water contamination, infrastructure,
degraded and waste
infrastructure, and of landof
waste [3,4].
land [3,4].
The
The recycling of C&D waste is an antique practice, conducted by
recycling of C&D waste is an antique practice, conducted by Ancient
Ancient Egyptians,
Egyptians,
Greeks,
Greeks, and Romans. In the 20th century, after World War II, it began to
and Romans. In the 20th century, after World War II, it began to find
find expression
expression
during
during the
the reconstruction
reconstruction of of buildings
buildingsin inEurope
Europe[5].[5].
In recent years, the circular economy concept has attracted increasing attention. Its
In recent years, the circular economy concept has attracted increasing attention. Its
goal is to offer an alternative method to dominant traditional models of consuming natural
goal is to offer an alternative method to dominant traditional models of consuming nat-
resources. It focuses on three main approaches: reduction, re-use, and recycling.
ural resources. It focuses on three main approaches: reduction, re-use, and recycling.
The use of recycled C&D wastes reduces natural resources’ consumption and avoids
The use of recycled C&D wastes reduces natural resources’ consumption and avoids
the landfilling of inert materials. Despite these advantages, some developed countries have
the landfilling of inert materials. Despite these advantages, some developed countries
very low recycling rates of C&D waste [6].
have very low recycling rates of C&D waste [6].
Geotechnical design and construction, which are often placed at the beginning of a
Geotechnical design and construction, which are often placed at the beginning of a
civil engineering project, can significantly contribute to improving overall sustainable de-
civil engineering project, can significantly contribute to improving overall sustainable
velopment by incorporating sustainable practices, including the use of unconventional, en-
development by incorporating sustainable practices, including the use of unconvention-
vironment friendly materials and the reuse of waste materials such as the C&D waste [7–9].
al, environment friendly materials and the reuse of waste materials such as the C&D
In Europe, around 40% of natural aggregates are consumed in unbound layers of trans-
waste [7–9].
portation In Europe, [10].
infrastructures around This40% of natural
suggests that theaggregates
dependence areonconsumed in unbound
natural aggregates in
layers of transportation
geotechnical works is high, infrastructures
and that the[10]. This suggests
inclusion thataggregates
of recycled the dependence on natural
can significantly
aggregatestointhe
contribute geotechnical
perseveration works is high,
of the and that the inclusion of recycled aggregates
environment.
can significantly contribute to the perseveration
In recent decades, several studies have been of the environment.
carried out showing the possibility
of using recycled aggregates from C&D waste in concrete [11–14], pipe bedding and
backfilling [15,16], and in base and sub-base layers of transportation infrastructures [17–24].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 3 of 28

However, there are very few studies regarding the long-term behaviour of recycled C&D
materials, particularly in geotechnical applications. Being unconventional materials, it
is fundamental to enable their wide application gain the confidence of the construction
industry, by providing evidence of their suitable long-term performance.
A more extensive use of recycled aggregate in transportation infrastructures is key to
meeting the ambitious targets of the EU circular economy action plan.
As a framework of this theme, this paper presents, first, an overview on the legislation
and C&D waste recycling rates in the European Union. Thereafter, a literature review on
the research and application of recycled aggregates from C&D waste, with an emphasis
mainly on their use as a filling material for embankments and as base and subbase layers
for transportation infrastructures, is pointed out. Physical, mechanical, and geotechnical
properties of recycled C&D materials have been studied by researchers all over the world.
Their main findings are described and discussed herein. The paper ends with some case
studies on the use of recycled aggregates in unbound pavement layers.
The goal of this review is to further encourage the use of recycled aggregates coming
from C&D waste, particularly in unbound pavement applications, since, in general, research
conducted worldwide has proven their good performance in the short and long-term.

2. State of Play in the European Union

2.1. European Union Legislation on C&D Waste
In the EU, there is currently no specific legislation for C&D waste. This waste stream
is regulated by the Waste Framework Directive [25], which institutes the legislative frame-
work for waste management in the community. In this Directive, there are two important
references concerning C&D waste. One is related to the exclusion from the scope of the
Directive uncontaminated soil and other naturally occurring excavated materials (sub-
paragraph (c) of Article 2: “uncontaminated soil and other naturally occurring material
excavated in the course of construction activities where it is certain that the material will
be used for the purposes of construction in its natural state on the site from which it was
excavated shall be excluded”). The other one refers to the recycling target to be reached
by 2020 (subparagraph (b) of Article 11: “by 2020, the preparing for re-use, recycling and
other material recovery, including backfilling operations using waste to substitute other
materials, of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste ( . . . ) shall be increased to
a minimum of 70% by weight”).
In the EU, some countries took measures way before Directive 2008/98/EC, creating
various regulations and initiatives to encourage proper C&D waste management. For
instance, in the Netherlands, there have been a variety of initiatives since 1993 which led
to a C&D waste recycling rate of 90% in 1999 [26]. The main factors used to achieve this
high recycling rate were the separation at source of various types of C&D waste, a healthy
market for recycled products, and prohibition of the landfill of recyclable C&D waste. Since
2000, most landfills have obtained an exemption from the C&D waste landfill ban, due to
insufficient capacity to recover or incinerate these waste streams [26]. However, landfilling
this fraction is not attractive because of the high landfill fee (€122 per tonne).
Another example of best practice in the management of C&D waste is Denmark, where
C&D waste recycling is a common practice. The target of achieving, in 2004, a recycling
rate of 90% was reached in 1997, and it has remained at this level since then [26]. Until the
1980s, Denmark still relied heavily on landfills. The move from landfills was precipitated
by concerns about groundwater pollution, particularly because all of Denmark’s drinking
water comes from groundwater [26]. In 1985, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency
began to regulate the reuse of asphalt. In 1990, it allowed the reuse, without prior approval,
of clean stone materials, unglazed tile materials, and concrete in building and construction
works [27]. Later, local councils were tasked with the duty of drafting regulations on C&D
waste in order to increase its recycling. Regulations should cover provisions that mandate
separation at source when the total C&D waste from a building or construction project
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 4 of 28

exceeds 1 tonne [27]. The waste tax for landfilling C&D waste, one of the highest in the EU,
has also proved to be an effective tool to increase the recycling of C&D waste.
However, there are still many EU countries where the management of C&D waste is
at an early stage, needing to go a long way in order to achieve the success of countries with
higher levels of development. This is the case of Portugal and Spain, whose governments
only passed a national decree to regulate the production and management of C&D waste
in 2008.
It is also important to mention that the European Commission developed the EU
Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol [28], published in 2016, aiming at the proper
management of this waste stream, which can bring considerable benefits to the construction
and recycling sectors.
The EU Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol contains a relevant set of guide-
lines aimed at improving the identification, separation and collection at source, logistics,
processing, and quality management along the entire line of C&D waste management,
boosting recycling and confidence in the quality of recycled materials.

2.2. Composition of C&D Waste

The constitution of C&D waste depends largely on the type of construction site. For
instance, a road construction generates a large quantity of excavated soils and rocks that,
should it not be possible to use them afterwards, will become waste. Depending on the
region of the globe, a huge amount of concrete waste or mixed waste (concrete, mortar,
brick masonry, . . . ) is produced in a building demolition site. Therefore, the diversity
of construction activities makes it hard to establish reliable consumption standards or
waste generation rates per capita, per work, or per square metre of construction. In a
benchmarking exercise, various researchers have sought to establish quantitative ranges
of C&D waste generation rates depending on the construction techniques, structure type,
and traditional practices [26]. These rates tie the construction activity and the quantity of
waste per unit of built, rehabilitated, or demolished area to indicators of C&D waste, for
different types of techniques, structures, and practices. For example, precast structures
generate less C&D waste because the fabrication process is very controlled and currently
specific for each construction. In the meantime, the expected volume of C&D waste and its
constitution is substantially different if reinforced concrete structures or timber are used.
New buildings’ construction generates 18 to 33 kg per m2 of built-up area of concrete waste
with the use of concrete structures, while timber-based structures produce 10 times less
waste [26]. The demolition of residential buildings can produce up to 840 kg of concrete
waste per m2 demolished, whereas the demolition of timber-based structures can generate
up to 300 kg per m2 [26].
Table 1 offers a summary of the range of components of C&D waste across the EU [6].
C&D waste is generally composed of large amounts of inert materials with smaller quanti-
ties of other components.
The European Commission has published a comprehensive list with specific codes for
the wastes arising from different economic activities, usually referred to as the European List
of Waste (LoW), stipulated by the Commission Decision 2000/532/EC [29] and amended
by the Commission Decision 2014/955/EU [30]. Chapter 17 of the LoW refers to C&D
wastes, providing a specific code (with six digits) for the main types of wastes produced by
the construction industry.
The variety in the composition of C&D waste is due to factors such as construction
time, origin of production, and local construction practices. This variability conditions
its recovery, so an adequate sorting and selection of the appropriate preparation process
becomes a basic requirement for consideration in the production of recycled aggregates of
quality and added value.
Selective demolition, also known as “construction in reverse” or “deconstruction”,
consists in a sequence of demolition activities that allow the separation and sorting of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 5 of 28

building components and valuable building materials such as metals, windows, doors,
tiles, bricks, plasterboards, and so on [28].
Selective demolition is normally carried out in two phases. The first is characterized
by the rigorous dismantling of construction materials used to fill the buildings, and is
carried out using mainly manual techniques that involve the use of small equipment, such
as pneumatic hammers [31]. The second concerns the demolition of the main structure
of the building, separating the materials that constitute it. The separation of materials is
carried out according to their characteristics, in a safe and efficient way, minimizing dust,
noise and vibrations [31].

Table 1. Ranges of composition of C&D waste by waste category for European countries (according
to [6]).

Minimum Maximum
Waste Category
Percentage (% w/w) Percentage (% w/w)
Concrete and Masonry (Total) 40.0 84.0
Concrete 12.0 40.0
Masonry 8.0 54.0
Asphalt 4.0 26.0
Others Mineral Waste 2.0 9.0
Wood 2.0 4.0
Metal 0.2 4.0
Gypsum 0.2 0.4
Plastics 0.1 2.0
Miscellaneous 2.0 36.0

Selective demolition allows for the implementation of systems for the selective collec-
tion of waste at the place of its production with a view to its maximum recovery. From a
general point of view, selective demolition has several advantages over the traditional one,
which are [31,32]:
• Increased diversion rate of C&D wastes from landfill and consequent land use preser-
vation;
• Valorisation of waste as secondary raw materials consequently reducing the need for
primary raw materials;
• Enhanced environmental protection both at the local and global scale by reducing
waste landfilling and the use of new materials;
• Reduction in overall demolition costs through landfill charge savings and revenues
from the sale of secondary raw materials.
All these aspects lead to the perception of selective demolition as absolutely essential
for a sustainable built environment.

2.3. Recovering Rates of C&D Waste

The term “recycling” is difficult to apply coherently to C&D waste across countries, as
there is a wide range of recovery and recycling activities carried out. Recovery can, to a
small extent, be incineration of waste with energy recovery, but generally the term recovery
is used as “material recovery”, namely backfilling operations using waste to replace other
materials.
C&D waste was identified as a priority waste stream by the EU, and thus, the European
Commission approved the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC [25] which promotes
waste recovery and sets a specific target for C&D waste recovery.
It should be noted that the 70% recovery target for non-hazardous C&D waste in
the Waste Framework Directive [25] includes “preparing for re-use, recycling and other
material recovery including backfilling operations [ . . . ]”. Furthermore, the definition of
recycling unequivocally excludes “[ . . . ] the reprocessing into materials that are to be used
as fuels or for backfilling operations”.
 C&D waste was identified as a priority waste stream by the EU, and thus, the Eu-
ropean Commission approved the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC [25] which
promotes waste recovery and sets a specific target for C&D waste recovery.
It should be noted that the 70% recovery target for non-hazardous C&D waste in the
Waste Framework Directive [25] includes “preparing for re-use, recycling and other ma-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 6 of 28
terial recovery including backfilling operations […]”. Furthermore, the definition of re-
cycling unequivocally excludes “[…] the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as
fuels or for backfilling operations”.
Figure
Figure 22 illustrates the different
illustrates the differentrecovery
recoverylevels
levelsofof C&D
C&D waste
waste using
using a colour
a colour scale.
scale. A
Avery
veryhigh
high recovering rate is represented by a dark green colour and an orange
recovering rate is represented by a dark green colour and an orange colour in- colour
indicates
dicates aalow
lowrecovering
recoveringrate
rate(<(<70%). Darkblue
70%). Dark blueidentifies
identifiesthe
thecountries
countriesthat
thathave
haveaa100%
100%
C&D waste recovery
C&D waste recovery rate.rate.

Figure 2. EU recovering rates of non-hazardous C&D waste in 2018 (data from [33]).
Figure 2. EU recovering rates of non-hazardous C&D waste in 2018 (data from [33]).

Accordingto
According toEuropean
European Environment
Environment Agency
Agency [29],
[29], in
in 2018,
2018, the
theEU EUgenerated
generatedaround
around
393 million tonnes of no-hazardous C&D waste (Table 2). The recovery raterate
393 million tonnes of no-hazardous C&D waste (Table 2). The recovery of
of non-
hazardous C&D waste is generally high in EU countries (Figure 2). Most countriesinin
non-hazardous C&D waste is generally high in EU countries (Figure 2). Most countries
2018 already
2018 already meet
meet the
the Waste
Waste Framework
FrameworkDirective
Directivetarget
target[25] to to
[25] prepare
prepare forfor
reuse, recy-
reuse, re-
cycling, or other material recovery, including backfilling operations, 70%, by weight,ofof
cling, or other material recovery, including backfilling operations, 70%, by weight,
non-hazardousC&D
non-hazardous C&Dwaste.
waste.
Table22and
Table andFigure
Figure2 show
2 show that
that there
there areare three
three EUEU countries
countries (Luxembourg,
(Luxembourg, Malta,
Malta, and
and the Netherlands) which in 2018 have reporting 100% recovery rates.
the Netherlands) which in 2018 have reporting 100% recovery rates. In these countries, it In these coun-
tries,main
three it three mainencouraging
factors factors encouraging highoflevels
high levels C&Dof C&Drecycling
waste waste recycling can be found:
can be found: limited
limited availability of raw materials; difficulty finding places for landfill installation;
availability of raw materials; difficulty finding places for landfill installation; and economic and
economic and legal measures that promote recovery. In contrast, there are
and legal measures that promote recovery. In contrast, there are other countries where the other countries
recycling rate is below 70% (Cyprus, Slovak Republic, and Sweden) (Table 2). The average
recovery rate of C&D waste in EU was 88%. It is important to note that there are some
uncertainties around the reporting of C&D waste treatment by EU countries.
The low recovery rates of C&D waste in some EU countries can mainly be attributed
to the following reasons:
• Landfill prices are low and the penalties for contravention are generally small or
non-existent;
• Available raw materials offer sufficient quality at a moderate cost, and therefore, the
recycled C&D materials industry is not really established in the market (low-cost of
raw materials is a fierce competition with recycled materials);
• Inadequate C&D waste management models. Although some countries have in-
troduced preventive measures for the recovery of waste materials, several years
ago, the C&D waste generated in some EU countries was still dumped in legal or
illegal landfills.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 7 of 28

By contrast, countries with high recovery rates have high prices for waste disposal
and strong financial incentives when the construction firms separate the C&D waste in
different fractions before its disposal.

Table 2. Statistics of the quantities of non-hazardous C&D waste generated and recovery in the EU
(according to [33]).

Total Weight C&D Waste % Recovery (Recycled and

Country
Generated (Million Tonnes) Backfilling)
Austria 11.43 88
Belgium 22.28 84
Bulgaria 0.16 89
Croatia 0.64 75
Cyprus 0.33 57
Czech Republic 7.47 92
Denmark 4.61 89
Estonia 1.21 97
Finland 1.72 84
France 73.37 70
Germany 90.73 91
Greece 1.44 88
Hungary 3.50 99
Ireland 0.73 96
Italy 46.29 98
Latvia 0.39 98
Lithuania 0.82 97
Luxembourg 0.59 100
Malta 1.91 100
The Netherlands 22.22 100
Poland 7.37 91
Portugal 1.67 97
Romania 0.74 85
Slovak Republic 0.82 53
Slovenia 1.08 98
Spain 14.70 79
Sweden 3.40 60
United Kingdom * 71.29 96
EU 392.92 88
* The UK is currently outside the EU.

The Waste Framework Directive [25] targets backfilling as “a recovery operation

where suitable waste is used for reclamation purposes in excavated areas or for engineering
purposes in landscaping and where the waste is a substitute for non-waste materials”.
Backfilling is classified as recovery under the Waste Framework Directive [25], but the
definition of recycling excludes its use for backfilling operations. Backfilling can be regarded
as low-quality recovery, being lower in the waste hierarchy than recycling [33].
Nonetheless, some countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, and Portugal)
have achieved high recovery rates due to backfilling, while recycling rates in these countries
are low (Figure 3); for example, in Malta, in 2018, backfilling accounted for 100% of the
recovery, whereas 24% was recycled. Backfilling was a determining factor for some EU
countries to meet the EU 2020 target.
 be regarded as low-quality recovery, being lower in the waste hierarchy than recycling
[33].
Nonetheless, some countries (Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, and Portu-
gal) have achieved high recovery rates due to backfilling, while recycling rates in these
countries are low (Figure 3); for example, in Malta, in 2018, backfilling accounted for
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 8 of 28
100% of the recovery, whereas 24% was recycled. Backfilling was a determining factor for
some EU countries to meet the EU 2020 target.

Recovery rate including backfilling Recovery rate excluding backfilling

100

90

Recovery rate, other than energy recovery (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Figure 3.
Figure Recovery rates
3. Recovery rates from
from C&D
C&D waste
waste inin the
the EU
EU in
in 2018—including
2018—including and
and excluding backfilling
excluding backfilling
(data from [33]).* theUK
[33]).* the UKisiscurrently
currently outside
outside the the
EU. EU.

The amount
The amount ofof C&D
C&D waste
waste generation
generation and
and recycling
recycling varies
varies significantly
significantly from
from one
one
country to another. This difference has been discussed in several studies, which conclude
country to another. This difference has been discussed in several studies, which conclude
that the
that the great
great disparity
disparity of
of data
data is
is due
due to
to differences
differences in
in terms of the
terms of the constructive tradition
constructive tradition
of the country, lack of control and C&D waste data reporting, lack of common
of the country, lack of control and C&D waste data reporting, lack of common defini- definitions,
C&D waste
tions, categories,
C&D waste or even
categories, ordifferent management
even different alternatives
management [6]. [6].
alternatives
2.4. Use of C&D Waste towards a Circular Economy in the Construction Industry
2.4. Use of C&D Waste towards a Circular Economy in the Construction Industry
The circular economy represents a fundamental alternative to the linear economic
The circular economy represents a fundamental alternative to the linear economic
model (“take, make, consume, and dispose”) that still prevails. This linear model is based
model (“take, make,
on the supposition consume,
that natural and dispose”)
resources that still prevails.
are available, abundant,This
easylinear model
to obtain, is based
and cheap
on the supposition that natural resources are available, abundant, easy to
to dispose of. Nevertheless, the linear model is unsustainable, as the world is movingobtain, and
cheap to dispose of. Nevertheless, the linear model is
towards (and in some cases exceeding) environmental boundaries. unsustainable, as the world is
moving towards (and in some cases exceeding) environmental boundaries.
The circular economy is restorative by nature and aims to maintain the usefulness of
products, components, and materials for as long as possible while preserving their value.
Thus, it minimises the need for new inputs of energy and virgin materials, while reducing
environmental pressures related to emissions, resource extraction, and waste management.
This goes beyond just waste and requires efficient and sustainable management of natural
resources throughout their lifecycle [34].
The principal phases of a circular economy model are presented in Figure 4. Each of
these phases offers different opportunities to decrease costs and the dependence on natural
resources, to boost new business models, as well as to reduce the production of waste and
emissions for the environment. All of these phases shall be interlinked, aiming to reduce
the resources that escape the circle.
The key advantage of the circular economy systems is that the added value of the
products and services shall be maintained for as long as possible, and the production of
waste eliminated. The resources are kept within the economy when the product reaches the
end of its life, so that they can be reused more efficiently and therefore create more value.
The transition to a circular economy requires systematic and innovative changes in society,
technologies, policies, and financial methods.
 The key advantage of the circular economy systems is that the added value of the
products and services shall be maintained for as long as possible, and the production of
waste eliminated. The resources are kept within the economy when the product reaches
the end of its life, so that they can be reused more efficiently and therefore create more
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 value. The transition to a circular economy requires systematic and innovative changes in
9 of 28
society, technologies, policies, and financial methods.
According to Baldassarre et al. [35], the transition to a circular economy requires the
establishment
AccordingoftoaBaldassarre
frameworketsupported ontransition
al. [35], the three strategies: closing
to a circular the loops,
economy slowing
requires the
establishment of a framework supported on three strategies: closing the loops, slowing thea
the loops, and reducing/narrowing the loops. Closing the loops refers to generating
circular
loops, andflow of resources arising
reducing/narrowing from the
the loops. usage
Closing thephase
loops and
refersconsidered generally
to generating a circularas
waste. Slowing loops consists of extending the product’s lifetime and reusing
flow of resources arising from the usage phase and considered generally as waste. Slowing it through
operations
loops consistssuch as remanufacture,
of extending the product’s refurbishment, and repair.
lifetime and reusing Narrowing
it through operationsthesuch
loops
as
means reducingrefurbishment,
remanufacture, the need for resources
and repair. and simultaneously
Narrowing the loopsmaximizing the efficiency
means reducing the need of
the production processes.
for resources and simultaneously maximizing the efficiency of the production processes.

Figure 4. The
Figure 4. The main
main phases
phases of
of aa circular
circular economy
economy model
model (adapted
(adapted from
from[36]).
[36]).

Extending the product life use can be a very effective strategy to reduce the utilisation
Extending the product life use can be a very effective strategy to reduce the utilisa-
of resources. Long-life product design shall be sustained by design for trust and attachment
tion of resources. Long-life product design shall be sustained by design for trust and at-
(often referred to as emotional durability), physical durability, and reliability. Designing
tachment (often referred to as emotional durability), physical durability, and reliability.
or extending product life can be facilitated by designing for repair and maintenance;
Designing or extending product life can be facilitated by designing for repair and
upgrading and upgradability; compatibility and standardization; and disassembly and
reassembly [37].
One of the major design strategies used to slow resource loops is long-life product
design. During the design process, the use of the products for a long period should be
guaranteed, and durable materials should be selected.
In 2014, the EU published the Communication “Towards a circular economy: A zero
waste programme for Europe” (COM/2014/0398) [36], followed in 2015 by the Communica-
tion “Closing the loop. An EU action plan for the circular economy” (COM/2015/0614) [38].
These two documents are part of the “Circular Economy Package”, where several legislative
proposals and action plans highlighting each stage of the value chain (production, con-
sumption, waste management and secondary raw materials) are presented. Five important
sectors: critical raw materials, plastics, construction and demolition waste, food waste, and
biomass and bio-based products are also identified.
In the demolition and construction industry, the circular economy is a tool to pro-mote
more efficient C&D waste management and to reduce resource and emission leaks from
the loops.
Table 3 presents an overview of the most important strategies and initiatives developed
in the EU regarding C&D waste management and circular economy in demolition and
construction industries.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 10 of 28

Table 3. Overview of current EU circular economy initiatives in the C&D waste sector.

Circular Economy Initiatives Highlights/Goals

• C&D waste is a priority waste stream.

• The importance of improving the secondary materials market, to raise C&D
waste recycling rates.
• Establish a framework for assessing the environmental performance of
buildings as described in COM/2014/0445-Resource efficiency opportunities
Towards a circular economy: A zero waste in the building sector. In particular:
programme for Europe COM/2014/0398 [36] • Including actions aimed at pre-construction stage (specifically design) to
improve the management of C&D waste and increase the recyclability and
recycling content in construction materials.
• Definition of a series of measures such as the application of economic
mechanisms (for instance, higher landfill taxes) and additional separation
obligations at the construction site and end-of-life stages.

• C&D waste is considered a priority stream, with focus on pre-construction

stages.
• Three potential measures are established to secure resources for the recovery
and adequate management of C&D waste, and to facilitate environmental
Closing the loop: An EU action plan for the assessment of buildings:
circular economy COM/2015/0614 [38] • Guidelines for evaluation of pre-demolition/deconstruction;
• Formulation of a protocol for recycling;
• Design of a framework of key indicators for environmental assessment of
buildings and development of incentives for their use.

• Part of the actions of COM/2014/0398.

• Framed within the Circular Economy package.
• With the main objectives of increasing the user confidence in recycled
EU Construction & Demolition Waste materials and improve C&D waste management practices.
Management Protocol [28] • Provides a framework of guidelines to produce efficient management plans
of C&D waste before and during construction.
• Comprises measures and specifications to improve identification, segregation,
collection, site logistics and treatment practices of C&D waste.

• Part of the actions of COM/2015/0614.

• Describes the waste audit process and elements to be included in it.
EU Waste Audit Guideline [39] • The waste audit should result in an inventory of materials and components
arising from (future) demolition, deconstruction, or refurbishment projects,
and provides options for their management and recovery.

• Part of the actions of COM/2015/0614.

• A tool for designing and constructing sustainable buildings.
Level(s)-European framework for sustainable • It is a voluntary reporting framework to improve the sustainability of
buildings [40] buildings; it includes indicators reducing environmental impacts and for
creating healthier and more comfortable spaces for their occupants.

Reverse logistics has a strong relationship with the circular economy regarding techni-
cal cycle (restoration and circularity of materials), and both are associated with the concept
of sustainability [41].
Reverse logistics encompasses all of the logistic activities from used products which
are no longer required by the users for products again usable in a market. Within the
environmental context, reverse logistics has been successfully applied for the recovery,
recycling and reuse of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment [41]. Figure 5 presents
the basic activities or processes in the reverse logistics system.
 Reverse logistics should follow a systemic approach for the efficient management of
resources in the construction lifecycle. This involves the collection, separation, sorting,
treatment, and reuse of C&D waste in accordance with rules, construction standards,
laws, and an efficient waste management plan [42].
Reverse logistics can facilitate waste management, selective demolition, and the use
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 of recovered materials for construction, reinforcing responsible and sustainable behav-
11 of 28
iour [42,43].

Figure 5. Basic activities in a reverse logistics system (adapted from [41]).

Figure 5. Basic activities in a reverse logistics system (adapted from [41]).
Well-planned and well-executed reverse logistics in recycling and reuse are a useful
3. Applications
alternative and Relevant
to traditional Properties
construction of Recycled[42].
management C&DReverse
Materialslogistics can improve
3.1. Main
the Applications
environmental efficiency in the construction industries through the planning and
implementation
The use of of effective
recycled cost materials
C&D control, asin well as engineering
civil through ensuring an efficient
applications flow of the
represents so-
raw
cial, economic, and environmental benefits. Common recycled C&D materialsrequired
materials, inventory processing, finished products, and related information used in
for
civilrecapturing
engineering orapplications
creating value or proper
include wasteconcrete
recycled disposalaggregates
[43]. (RCA), recycled ma-
Reverse logistics should follow a systemic
sonry aggregates (RMA), mixed recycled aggregates (MRA), approach for the efficient management
and reclaimed of
asphalt
resources in
pavement (RAP). the construction lifecycle. This involves the collection, separation, sorting,
treatment, and reuseofofC&D
The recycling C&Dmaterials
waste in accordance
is recognized withasrules,
havingconstruction standards,
the potential laws,
to preserve
and an efficient waste management plan [42].
natural resources and to reduce the consumption of energy in the production processes.
Reverse logistics can facilitate waste management, selective demolition, and the use of re-
Replacing natural aggregates with recycled aggregates, partially or totally, has been
covered materials for construction, reinforcing responsible and sustainable behaviour [42,43].
studied in several research and application works. Studies can be found in the literature
related
3. to the use
Applications andof Relevant
recycled Properties
aggregates of in Recycled
structuralC&D and non-structural
Materials concretes [44–
46], in base and
3.1. Main Applications sub-base layers of transportation infrastructures as unbound materials
[47–49] or as stabilised alternative material [50,51], in geosynthetic-reinforced structures
The use of recycled C&D materials in civil engineering applications represents social,
[52–55], in pipe backfilling [15,16], or in seawall foundations [56].
economic, and environmental benefits. Common recycled C&D materials used in civil
In this study, the literature review was carried out using the content analysis
engineering applications include recycled concrete aggregates (RCA), recycled masonry ag-
method as presented by [57]. The literature review was carried out using five keywords
gregates (RMA), mixed recycled aggregates (MRA), and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).
(“environmental sustainability”, “construction and demolition waste”, “recycled aggre-
The recycling of C&D materials is recognized as having the potential to preserve
gates”, “long-term behaviour” and “unbound pavement applications”) in order to search
natural resources and to reduce the consumption of energy in the production processes.
in different databases. After defining the keywords, the next step was to search for arti-
Replacing natural aggregates with recycled aggregates, partially or totally, has been studied
cles and reviews in the following databases: Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science.
in several research and application works. Studies can be found in the literature related to
These databases are multidisciplinary, display a high citation index, and provide access
the use of recycled aggregates in structural and non-structural concretes [44–46], in base
to a vast number of publications provided by prestigious publishers such as Elsevier,
and sub-base layers of transportation infrastructures as unbound materials [47–49] or as
Springer, and other platforms such as Google Scholar. The exclusion criteria used were
stabilised alternative material [50,51], in geosynthetic-reinforced structures [52–55], in pipe
articles published
backfilling [15,16], in
orlanguages
in seawall other than English.
foundations [56].
In this study, the literature review was carriedC&D
In the following section, the use of recycled wastethe
out using in content
unbound base layers
analysis methodof
transportation
as presented byinfrastructures
[57]. The literaturewill be analysed,
review emphasizing
was carried out usingthe five
physical, mechanical,
keywords (“envi-
and geotechnical properties, the durability performance, and environmental
ronmental sustainability”, “construction and demolition waste”, “recycled aggregates”, behaviour.
“long-term behaviour” and “unbound pavement applications”) in order to search in dif-
ferent databases. After defining the keywords, the next step was to search for articles and
reviews in the following databases: Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. These
databases are multidisciplinary, display a high citation index, and provide access to a vast
number of publications provided by prestigious publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, and
other platforms such as Google Scholar. The exclusion criteria used were articles published
in languages other than English.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 12 of 28

In the following section, the use of recycled C&D waste in unbound base layers of
transportation infrastructures will be analysed, emphasizing the physical, mechanical, and
geotechnical properties, the durability performance, and environmental behaviour.

3.2. Physical, Mechanical, Chemical and Geotechnical Properties of Recycled C&D Materials
In this section, a compilation of the main physical, mechanical, chemical, and geotech-
nical properties reported in the literature and with relevance to unbound granular layers
of transportation infrastructures is presented and discussed. Table 4 summarizes the in-
formation collected, reporting the range of values for the specific gravity, flakiness index,
Los Angeles (LA) abrasion loss, Micro-Deval (MDE) abrasion loss, maximum dry unit
density, optimum water content, Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR), angle of internal friction,
cohesion, water-soluble sulphates, and hydraulic conductivity.

Table 4. Physical, mechanical, chemical and geotechnical properties of recycled and natural coarse
aggregates (data from [10,15,18,20–23,48,49,58–97]).

Properties RCA RMA MRA RAP Natural Aggregates

Specific gravity 2.05–2.85 1.67–3.08 1.92–2.62 1.90–2.47 2.42–3.11
Flakiness index (%) 6.0–21.0 10.0–28.5 5.90–40.0 5.0–23.0 8.0–18.0
LA abrasion loss (%) 18.0–42.0 30.4–43.0 27.0–51.5 34.1–43.1 13.1–30.1
Micro-Deval (%) 10.0–34.0 18.0–23.5 16.0–20.3 7.5–25.0 6.6–22.0
Maximum dry density
17.1–21.1 16.4–20.1 17.3–20.8 18.4–20.0 18.0–23.3
(kN/m3 )
Optimum water content (%) 8.6–15.8 10.7–15.4 8.7–21.5 2.1–8.1 5.2–7.1
CBR (%) 19–215 45–157 26–150 19–39 36–170
Cohesion (kPa) 0–155 0–88 10–20 0–60 -
Friction angle (◦ ) 40–66 42–58 42–52 33–60 30–60
Water-soluble sulphates (%) <0.38 < 0.93 <3.93 <0.20 <0.20
<10−8 —clay (impermeable)
Hydraulic conductivity 8.0 × 10−9 – 0.5 × 10−9 – 6.5 × 10−9 – 5.0 × 10−8 – − 8 − 7
10 –10 –silt (poor drainage)
(m/s) 2.0 × 10−6 6.5 × 10−6 2.0 × 10−5 7.0 × 10−6 10−7 –10−6 —silty sand (poor drainage)
>10−6 —fine sand (good drainage)

The recycled materials’ properties can be affected by the chemical composition of

the original materials and the recycling process [10]. The geotechnical, physical, and
mechanical characteristics of different types of recycled aggregates from the literature are
presented in this section [10,15,18,20–23,48,49,58–97].
Most of these characteristics can be used for the classification of recycled aggregates
which can contribute to the CE marking of the materials if European Standards are used
for the tests. As for the chemical characterization of these materials, most of the local
regulations require specific tests on the waste product in order to assess their potential
effects on the environment.
As shown in Table 4, the specific gravity of recycled aggregates ranges from 1.67 to 3.08.
The low specific gravity of recycled aggregates can be attributed to the existence of cement
paste of porous nature adherent to the aggregate particles, bituminous coating (with density
frequently lower than 1.10 kg/m3 in RAP [10]), or lightweight materials (particularly in
MRA). Due to the abovementioned factors, the specific gravity of the recycled aggregates is
lower to that of virgin aggregates.
The flakiness indexes of all types of recycled aggregates range from 6.0–40.0% (Table 4).
In general, recycled aggregates resulting from primary and secondary crushing processes
tend to have a low flakiness index [20]. As usual, they have a low flakiness index, with
the exception of the slate in nature. According to Look [98], the flakiness index of the
aggregates for use in sub-base layers should not exceed 40%. All the types of aggregates
characterized in Table 4 meet this basic requirement.
The resistance of an aggregate to fragmentation or mechanical breakage due to impact
and wearing can be evaluated through the Los Angeles (LA) abrasion test. Table 4 illustrates
that the LA abrasion values of MRA, RMA, and RAP are very similar and higher than those
of RCA. However, the LA abrasion values of recycled aggregates are generally higher than
those of virgin quarried materials. This suggests that recycled aggregates are less resistant
to abrasion (due to traffic loading) and degradation (due to compaction).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 13 of 28

The internal angle of friction of recycled aggregates is usually between 40◦ and 50◦ ;
the recycled aggregates cohesion generally does not exceed 100 kPa, and in some cases it is
non-cohesive.
The optimum moisture content of MRA, RCA, and RMA is generally above 10%, while
RAP exhibits a smaller optimum moisture content close to that of virgin aggregates.
Although the CBR of the recycled aggregates is lower than that of natural aggregates
(Table 4), the material still fulfils the requirements for use in base and sub-base layers. RCA
presents the highest CBR value among the recycled aggregates.
Table 4 also shows values of the hydraulic conductivity of recycled aggregates reported
by various researchers, as well as those of typical soil and drainage classification as provided
by [99]. It should be mentioned that most of the results refer to samples tested using a
falling head permeability apparatus, compacted to their optimum water content, and at
98% of maximum dry density.
Due to its interconnected voids which facilitate water drainage, poorly graded recycled
aggregates have higher hydraulic conductivity. Although the particle size distribution of the
tested samples of RCA, RMA, MRA, and RAP corresponds to a mixture of sand and gravel,
the hydraulic conductivity values exhibited by these materials were similar to those of silts
(poor drainage) and clay deposits (almost impermeable). According to [9], this may result
from the breakage of the adhered cement paste or bitumen residue during compaction,
producing smaller particles that fill the voids and makes the material less permeable.
C&D wastes are very heterogeneous and if a selective demolition is not carried out,
it is very hard to obtain recycled aggregates of good quality to be used, for instance, in
concrete production. Most of the recycled aggregates coming from C&D waste produced in
Portugal are mixed recycled aggregates, including concrete, ceramics, mortars, masonries,
and natural stones, since the selective demolition is not really implemented. In particular,
the fine grain portion of these mixed recycled aggregates is commonly not considered
suitable for concrete production or road construction applications, being landfilled instead
of reused.
Recently, some studies have been conducted to assess the suitability of replacing the
soils typically used in the construction of geosynthetic-reinforced structures (steep slopes
and retaining walls) by fine-grain recycled C&D materials [52,54,55,100–103]. Fine-grained
C&D waste, in addition to being able to be applied to geosynthetic reinforced structures,
can also be applied to capping layers of transport infrastructure [104].
The physical, mechanical, and geotechnical properties of the fine-grain C&D waste
from the different studies are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Properties of fine recycled mixed aggregates used in geotechnical applications (data
from [52,54,55,100–103]).

Properties Data Range

D10 (mm) 0.01–0.032
D50 (mm) 0.65–2.1
Particles density 2.58–2.72
Methylene blue value (g/kg) 1.0–3.2
Maximum dry density (kN/m3 ) 17.8–20.1
Optimum water content (%) 6.6–12.5
Friction angle (◦ ) 34.4–45.9
Cohesion (kPa) 6.0–29.7
pH 7.8–8.9
D10 , D50 are characteristic grain diameters.

The distribution of particles of fine recycled aggregates from C&D waste may be
different based on the source type and composition, on the procedure of demolition, and
on the planned application of the material. D50 is the corresponding particle size when the
cumulative percentage reaches 50%. Since the studied C&D wastes were fine grained, the
D50 value is low, between 0.65 mm and 2.1 mm.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 14 of 28

The specific gravity of natural materials commonly used in geotechnical and paving
applications can vary depending on the material type, and it ranges between 2.60 and 2.75
or more on average [104]. The specific gravity of fine C&D wastes is within the range 2.58
to 2.72.
Clay minerals can be found in microfine materials (<0.063 mm). The assessment of
fines is usually performed through methylene blue tests carried out on the 0/2 mm size
fraction. An increase in the amount of clay material increases the methylene blue value.
The value obtained of 3.2 g/kg of methylene blue for some fine mixed recycled aggregates
is directly related to the higher content of fine plastics resulting from the disintegration of
clay masonry units.
Some engineering properties of soil or other unbound paving materials, such as
shear strength, internal friction, and water drainage, improve by reducing the volumetric
ratio between the voids and the particles due to rearranging and repacking of grains
with mechanical compaction. Several types of assessments such as standard Proctor and
modified Proctor tests are used to evaluate the compactability of soils. The maximum dry
unit weight of the studied C&D waste is between 17.8 kN/m3 and 20.1 kN/m3 , and the
optimum water content value is between 6.6% and 12.5%. These values are within the
range of typical quarry and fine-grained recycled aggregates.
The recycled C&D wastes studied revealed a friction angle between 34.4◦ and 45.9◦
and cohesion between 6.0 kPa and 29.9 kPa. Soils with high levels of fines content have
cohesive strength. All of the fine recycled aggregates showed an alkaline pH.

3.3. Durability of Recycled Aggregates

Durability is the capacity to last a long time without significant deterioration and
requiring minimal maintenance. It is an important factor to assess the sustainability of a
material. A durable material has a lower impact on the environment, as it contributes to
resource conservation and waste reduction.
In pavements, recycled aggregates coming from C&D waste can be used as substitutes
for virgin quarried materials. In the case of structural layers, the recycled material should
present suitable shear strength and guarantee adequate drainage and anti-freeze character-
istics. A good hydraulic behaviour is also important to ensure appropriate durability.
The degradation of unbound pavement layers can occur due to the increase of pore wa-
ter pressure. When unbound pavement layers have low permeability, water retention tends
to occur, and the interstitial pore water pressures developed under repeated dynamic loads
reduce the shear strength and stiffness of the layer. Since the materials in pavement layers
are commonly coarse materials, they are not expected to expand upon wetting. However, if
the recycled material is not dense enough and becomes wet under load, it may collapse due
to breakage of the constituent material and rearrangement of its fragments [105]. Breakage
depends on the toughness of the particles; therefore, the properties of each particle are
important to understand its resistance.
Pavement performance can be adversely affected by the accumulated deformations
caused by freeze–thaw cycles. Therefore, an adequate permeability of the pavement layers
is important in order to guarantee that water does not accumulate, but suitable freeze–thaw
resistance of the aggregates is also relevant.
The chemical resistance (soundness) of the aggregates is also important in order
to ensure that the pavement has the necessary resistance to environmental or chemical
degradation agents. In the case of particle breakage caused by these effects, localized
deformation cannot be avoided, and the pavement performance is jeopardised.

3.3.1. Permeability
The permeability of the unbound layers is also a fundamental property for the preven-
tion of rigid pavements’ pumping. The permeability of aggregate mixtures with different
proportions of RCA and RAP has been studied by Bennert and Maher [106]. Table 6 sum-
marises the permeability and the quality of drainage (in accordance with AASHTO [107])
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 15 of 28

of sub-base layers prepared with natural and recycled aggregates. Bennert and Maher [106]
found that the use of RCA up to 75% resulted in permeability values similar to those of
natural aggregates. This result was expected, since similar particle size distribution was
embraced, and the dry unit weight derived from the laboratory testing was similar for both
types of aggregates.

Table 6. Permeability and quality of drainage of sub-base prepared with natural aggregates, RCA
and RAP (data from [64,106]).

Authors/
Material & Mixture Permeability (×10−3 cm/s) Quality of Drainage [107]
Reference
100% Coarse natural aggregate 27.0–60.0 Fair/Good
75% Coarse natural aggregate/25% RCA 27.0 Fair
50% Coarse natural aggregate/50% RCA 23.3 Fair
25% Coarse natural aggregate/75% RCA 23.0 Fair
Bennert and Maher [106] 100% RCA 0.1 Poor
75% RCA/25% RAP 0.4 Poor
50% RCA/50% RAP 1.8 Poor
25% RCA/75% RAP 0.2 Poor
100% RAP 6.0 Fair
100% Natural aggregate 229.0 Good
Poon et al. [64]
100% RCA 267.0 Good

Table 7 provides some details on the quality of drainage of pavement layers following
the guidance of AASHTO [107].

Table 7. Quality of drainage according to AASHTO [107].

Minimum Permeability
Quality of Drainage Time for Pavement to Drain
(×10−3 cm/s)
Excellent 352.8 2h
Good 30.0 1 day
Fair 3.9 1 week
Poor 0.2 1 month
Very Poor 0.007 Water will not drain

Table 6 shows that the permeability decreased when RAP aggregates were used, and
in these cases, the mixtures were classified as having poor- to fair-quality drainage. The
lower permeability can be explained by the presence of impermeable bituminous particles
and the potential linking effect of these soft particles during compaction.
Poon et al. [64] also compared the permeability of sub-base layers constructed with
natural aggregates and RCA. These authors concluded that RCA samples exhibited higher
permeability than that of natural aggregate samples. Furthermore, both materials demon-
strated good-quality drainage.
According to Seferoğlu et al. [108] the interlocking between the asphalt-coated ag-
gregates in RAP and the natural aggregate particles decreases the air voids and results in
the low permeability of the aggregates. As shown in Figure 6, the permeability of RAP
blends decreased as the percentage of RAP material in the blend increased. The reduction
of permeability might be due to the aggregation of RAP particles as a result of compaction,
since the asphalt in RAP could form a bond between particles.
 demonstrated good-quality drainage.
According to Seferoğlu et al. [108] the interlocking between the asphalt-coated ag-
gregates in RAP and the natural aggregate particles decreases the air voids and results in
the low permeability of the aggregates. As shown in Figure 6, the permeability of RAP
blends decreased as the percentage of RAP material in the blend increased. The reduction
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 16 of 28
of permeability might be due to the aggregation of RAP particles as a result of compac-
tion, since the asphalt in RAP could form a bond between particles.

45
40

Permeability ( ×10-3 cm/s)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RAP percentage in blends (%)

The permeability test results of RAP/natural

Figure 6. The RAP/naturalaggregate
aggregateblends
blends[108].
[108].

3.3.2. Soundness
3.3.2. Soundness
The durability of an aggregate is often evaluated using sulphate soundness tests. This
The durability of an aggregate is often evaluated using sulphate soundness tests.
laboratory test is carried out by the repeated immersion of the aggregate in a saturated
This laboratory test is carried out by the repeated immersion of the aggregate in a satu-
solution of sodium sulphate or magnesium sulphate followed by a drying phase to induce
rated solution of sodium sulphate or magnesium sulphate followed by a drying phase to
the dehydration of the salt precipitated in the pores.
induce the dehydration of the salt precipitated in the pores.
Data obtained by several authors [18,78,89–91,93] for the weight loss of recycled
Data obtained by several authors [18,78,89–91,93] for the weight loss of recycled
aggregates RCA, MRA, RPA, and natural aggregates are illustrated in Figure 7. The
aggregates RCA, MRA, RPA, and natural aggregates are illustrated in Figure 7. The
sulphate soundness value of natural aggregates is usually very low and not more than 3%,
sulphate soundness value of natural aggregates is usually very low and not more than
except in the case in which the magnesium sulphate soundness of limestone was 17% [78].
3%, except in the case in which the magnesium sulphate soundness of limestone was 17%
Alternatively, the sulphate soundness test result for RCA had a tendency to be higher than
[78]. Alternatively, the sulphate soundness test result for RCA had a tendency to be
that of natural aggregates due to the presence of weak and porous cement paste adhered to
the RCA. However, most of the samples from recycled aggregates had a sulphate soundness
value inferior to 20% (Figure 7), indicating that the material had good weathering action
resistance. Figure 7 also shows that MRA had the highest loss of mass values in the sulphate
soundness test. This is because the material consists of 25% to 50% crushed clay bricks and
has completely fragmented after testing [18]. The results of the laboratory tests in Figure 7
suggest that the recycled aggregate RCA is more suitable for use in unbound mixes for
road pavements; however, this will only be possible if the content of weak elements, such
as adhered cement paste, is relatively low.
The soundness of two recycled aggregates (RCA and RMA) was compared by
Bazaz et al. [109] after being subjected to 5 cycles of immersion in sodium sulphate solu-
tion followed by drying in an oven. In this study, the weight loss ranged between 65.9–38.5%
for RCA and from 10.9–4.9% for RMA. The results obtained by [109] suggested that the perfor-
mance of RCA regarding the soundness results is inferior to that of RMA, since sulphate has a
destructive effect on cementitious materials such as concrete and mortar.
 content of weak elements, such as adhered cement paste, is relatively low.
The soundness of two recycled aggregates (RCA and RMA) was compared by Bazaz
et al. [109] after being subjected to 5 cycles of immersion in sodium sulphate solution
followed by drying in an oven. In this study, the weight loss ranged between 65.9–38.5%
for RCA and from 10.9–4.9% for RMA. The results obtained by [109] suggested that the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 17 of 28
performance of RCA regarding the soundness results is inferior to that of RMA, since
sulphate has a destructive effect on cementitious materials such as concrete and mortar.

Figure 7. Sodium
Figure 7. Sodium sulphate
sulphate and
and magnesium
magnesium sulphate
sulphate soundness
soundness ofof natural
natural and
and recycled
recycled aggregates
aggregates
(RCA—recycled
(RCA—recycled concrete
concrete aggregate;
aggregate; MRA—mixed
MRA—mixed recycled
recycled aggregate;
aggregate; RAP—reclaimed
RAP—reclaimed asphalt
asphalt
pavement)
pavement)[18,78,89–91,93].
[18,78,89–91,93].

3.3.3.
3.3.3. Freeze–Thaw
Freeze–Thaw Resistance
Resistance
The simulation of the expansive freezing action of water in the pores of aggregates
The simulation of the expansive freezing action of water in the pores of aggregates
can be achieved by carrying out sulphate soundness tests; however, there are freeze–thaw
can be achieved by carrying out sulphate soundness tests; however, there are freeze–
tests to assess this physical deterioration.
thaw tests to assess this physical deterioration.
Freeze–thaw resistance is a relevant property for the good performance of pavements,
Freeze–thaw resistance is a relevant property for the good performance of pave-
particularly in places where the climate permits freeze–thaw cycles. The negative impacts
ments, particularly in places where the climate permits freeze–thaw cycles. The negative
caused by freeze–thaw cycles are important, regardless of the degree of saturation of the
impacts caused by freeze–thaw cycles are important, regardless of the degree of satura-
layer. The increase in the volume of water that invades the pores of the particles, due to
tion of the layer. The increase in the volume of water that invades the pores of the parti-
freezing, leads to the creation of considerable tensile stresses that can lead to fragmentation
cles, due to freezing, leads to the creation of considerable tensile stresses that can lead to
of the aggregated particles if they present low freeze–thaw resistance.
fragmentation of the aggregated particles if they present low freeze–thaw resistance.
The presence of salt reduces the surface tension of water and makes the penetration of
The presence of salt reduces the surface tension of water and makes the penetration
water into small pores easier. Parameters such as particle strength, the number of voids,
of water
and the sizeinto smallinside
of voids poresthe
easier. Parameters
particles interferesuch as particle
with the strength,
freeze–thaw the number
resistance. However,of
voids,
only and the size of pores
water-accessible voids are
inside the particles
involved interfereso
in this process, with the freeze–thaw
it should resistance.
not be assumed that
However, only water-accessible pores are involved
all porous materials have low freeze–thaw resistance. in this process, so it should not be
assumed
Tablethat all porous freeze–thaw
8 summarises materials havetestlow freeze–thaw
results resistance.
for recycled and natural aggregates from
various authors [63,70,79,92,110]. Results from Asthiani and Saeed [79] showed that the
freeze–thaw resistance of RAP is superior to that of RCA, due probably to the higher
porosity of RCA compared to RAP.
The results reported by Diagne et al. [110] showed that the reduction in constrained
modulus is higher when the content of porous clay brick in MRA increases. Thus, the
freeze–thaw resistance of MRA is lower than that of RCA. However, it should be noted that
the crushing of RCA during its processing can generate micro cracks which can in turn can
reduce its resistance to freeze–thaw attack [70].
The effect of the number of freeze–thaw (F-T) cycles on the resilient moduli of three
different RAP materials and one RCA was studied by Soleimanbeigi et al. [92]. Their results
showed that, while the RAP specimens exhibited a reduction of around 30% in the resilient
modulus after 20 F-T cycles, the reduction on the control specimen (natural aggregate)
was only 20%. Regarding the RCA specimens, although a similar reduction in the resilient
moduli to that of the control samples has been recorded after 5 F-T cycles, after 20 cycles,
the resilient moduli increased to between 28% and 36%, depending on the RCA source.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 18 of 28

The better performance of the RCA samples after 20 F-T cycles might be a result of the
self-cementing properties of unhydrated cement particles present in RCA.

Table 8. Freeze–thaw resistance data of recycled aggregates coming from C&D waste.

Authors/ Recycled % Loss of Mass and Other Mechanical

Procedures
Reference Aggregates Performances
Samples were cured for 7 days;
Blankenagel [63] RCA Standard: ASTM D560 [111]. RCA loses 35% of its stiffness.
Freeze-thaw cycles: 13.
RCA found a 10–15% reduction in ACV
RCA Standard: EN 1367-1 [112]; and AIV *;
Chidiroglou et al. [70]
RMA Freeze-thaw cycles: 10. RMA showed a decrease in ACV and
AIV by 11% and 8%, respectively *.
RCA experienced 22–25% weight loss;
Samples were immersed in 3% NaCl RAP experienced a weight loss of
Ashtiani and Saeed [79] RCARMA solution for 24 h prior to testing; 0.7–9.5%;
Freeze-thaw cycles: 5. Natural aggregates lose less than 1%
of weight.
RCA found a 7% reduction in
constrained modulus.
Standard: Modified ASTM D6035
RCA MRA showed a greater reduction in
Diagne et al. [110] [113].
MRA modulus than RCA and the reduction
Freeze-thaw cycles: 20.
increased with increasing clay
brick content.
RCA resilient modulus decreases after
5 cycles, beyond which it increases about
Samples were compacted to 95%
28–36% more than its original value.
RCA γd,max .
Soleimanbeigi et al. [92] Approximately 30% reduction in the
RAP Standard: ASTM D6035 [113].
resilient modulus of RAP
Freeze-thaw cycles: 20.
Approximately 18% reduction in the
resilient modulus of natural aggregates
* ACV: aggregate crushing value; AIV: aggregate impact value; γd,max .: maximum dry density.

The effects of the compaction process and freezing actions on the resilient modulus
of three MRA collected from different recycling plants were investigated by Bassani and
Tefa [114]. Partially saturated samples of MRA (Wopt and at Wopt ± 2%) were prepared in
a gyratory shear compactor with 30 and 100 gyrations. The samples were also subjected to
0, 4, and 8 freeze–thaw cycles. Each cycle lasted for 2 days with temperatures ranging from
−18 ◦ C to +20 ◦ C. Their study showed that the brittle/weak components of MRA (crushed
concrete bricks) generate fine particles in the first part of the compaction process (in the
first 30 gyrations). The MRA specimens compacted at Wopt and Wopt + 2% increased their
resilient modulus at the end of the freeze–thaw cycles. A similar trend was observed in
the resilient modulus of the natural aggregate under similar moisture conditions, while
both MRA and natural aggregate showed a slight reduction for some samples prepared at
wopt −2%.
Domitrović et al. [115] evaluated the effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the resilient
modulus and permanent deformation modulus of mixtures of natural aggregates and RAP,
for the construction of unbound base layers. Triaxial repeated load tests were performed on
mixtures of RAP and crushed limestone on standard samples and samples exposed to 14
freeze–thaw cycles. The percentages of replacement of crushed limestone by RAP studied
by [115] were 0%, 20%, 35%, and 50% of the dry mass.
Freeze–thaw conditioning resulted in a decrease in the resilient modulus and an
increase in permanent deformation. This trend was more pronounced in the crushed
limestone sample (0% RAP). Mixtures containing 35% RAP showed a stable resilient
behaviour and less change in permanent deformation accumulation after freeze–thaw
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 19 of 28

conditioning. As the RAP content increases, the sensitivity of the mixtures to freeze–thaw
cycling regarding the resilient and permanent deformation behaviour was reduced.

3.3.4. Other Studies Related with Long-Term Behaviour of Recycled Aggregates

The wetting and drying process, often occurring due to weather phenomena, is an
important process in aggregates’ dissolution and slacking.
Diagne et al. [110] presented a laboratory investigation of mixtures of RMA, coming
from C&D waste and RCA, as an unbound base course in roadway construction. The
hydraulic behaviour of mixtures with 100% RMA, 30% RMA, 15% RMA, 5% RMA, and
100% RCA was evaluated using a rigid-wall hydraulic conductivity test and multi-step
outflow. Results showed that the drainage was faster as the percentage of RMA increased
due to enlarged pores. The effects of weathering through wet–dry (W–D) and freeze–
thaw cycles and abrasion through Micro-Deval (MDE) and Los Angeles (LA) tests were
performed to determine the change in stiffness per number of cycles and the effects of
abrasion on particle degradation of the samples.
Their results revealed that MDE and LA coefficients increased with the percentage of
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW in the mixture due to the low particle density and high porosity compared to those
RMA of
21 of 30
natural aggregates (Figure 8). The durability of the aggregates was affected by the number
of W–D cycles and an increase in the percentage of fine content was observed.

Figure 8. Percent loss of the Micro-Deval coefficient of the natural and recycled aggregates submitted
Figure 8. Percent
to different numberloss
of of
W–Dthecycles
Micro-Deval
(adaptedcoefficient of the natural and recycled aggregates sub-
from [110]).
mitted to different number of W–D cycles (adapted from [110]).
Pereira et al. [116] studied the change to the physical, mechanical, and chemical
Pereiraofeta al.
properties [116]recycled
mixed studied aggregate
the change to thedue
(MRA) physical, mechanical,
to degradation andsimulated
agents chemical
properties of a mixed recycled aggregate (MRA) due to degradation agents
through 10 W-D cycles. In this study, each W–D cycle consists of placing the sample into an simulated
through 10 W-D
electric oven cycles.
under In this study,
a temperature 60 ◦ CW–D
of each for 7cycle
days,consists
and then of moving
placing the
it tosample into
a humidity
an electricatoven
chamber 20 C◦ under
and aarelative
temperature of 60close
humidity °C for
to 7100%
days,for
and then moving
another it to a humid-
7-day period.
ity chamber at 20showed
The results °C and that
a relative humidity
after 10 closeunder
W–D cycles to 100% for another
controlled 7-day period.
conditions, the amount
The results
of particles showed
smaller than 14 that
mmafter 10 W–D
increased duecycles
to the under controlled
disaggregation conditions,
of bigger the
particles.
amount
However, oftheparticles
changessmaller thanrange
in the size 14 mm increased
14–31.5 mm wereduenotto relevant
the disaggregation of bigger
(Figure 9). The effects
particles. However,
of W–D cycles on LAthe changesand
coefficient in the size range sulphate
water-soluble 14–31.5 mm were
content not almost
were relevant (Figure
negligible.
9). The effects of W–D cycles on LA coefficient and water-soluble sulphate content were
almost negligible.

100%

90% CDW before

C&D waste W-DW-D
before Cycles
Cycles

C&D waste
C&D waste after
afterW-D
W-DCycles
Cycles
80%

70%
sing
 an electric oven under a temperature of 60 °C for 7 days, and then moving it to a humid-
ity chamber at 20 °C and a relative humidity close to 100% for another 7-day period.
The results showed that after 10 W–D cycles under controlled conditions, the
amount of particles smaller than 14 mm increased due to the disaggregation of bigger
particles. However, the changes in the size range 14–31.5 mm were not relevant (Figure
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 20 of 28
9). The effects of W–D cycles on LA coefficient and water-soluble sulphate content were
almost negligible.

100%

90% CDW before

C&D waste W-DW-D
before Cycles
Cycles

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW C&D waste

C&D waste after
afterW-D
W-DCycles
Cycles 22 of 30
80%

70%

Percentage (by weight) Passing

struction
60% waste (35% recycled brick; 40% recycled concrete; 15% recycled mortar; 10%
others).
50%
The creep tests were performed for approximately 500 days on the prototype illus-
40%in Figure 10. The samples were placed in the steel sheath and then immersed by
trated
adding
30%
water to the steel sheath. After 48 h, the dial indicator was installed, and the load
was applied to the loading platform. To simulate the load at different subgrade depths, 5
load20%
levels were considered.
Li et al. [117] found that as the load increases, the breakage of particles and the in-
10%
stantaneous deformation also increase. The instantaneous strains were higher than 80%
0%
of the 0.001
total strain, so0.01 to reduce the 0.1 settlement of the 1 subgrade,10the compaction 100 during
Particle Size (mm)
construction should be closely monitored.
The9.9.percent
Figure
Figure Grainsize
Grain ofdistribution
size particles smaller
distribution for than
forrecycled
recycled 2 mm
C&D
C&D significantly
aggregate
aggregate increased
beforeand
before and afterW–D
after W–Dafter the(adapted
cycles
cycles creep
(adapted
fromand
tests,
from [116]).
the plastic deformation was around 95% of the total deformation. The main
[116]).
reason for the high deformations was attributed to the breakage of particles.
TheLietmeasurement
Li etal.
al.[117]
[117]carried
carried outlaboratory
out laboratory
of settlement creep
creep
in the field tests
tests
was and
and field
field
obtained subgrade
subgrade
by placing settlement
settlement onmeas-
sensorsmeasure-
the
urement
ment in in
order order
to studyto study
the the
long-termlong-term
deformationdeformation characteristics
characteristics
upper and lower surfaces of the subgrade in a road section. Settlements of the upper of of
recycled recycled con-
construction
waste (35% recycled brick; 40% recycled concrete; 15% recycled
surface of the subgrade and of the foundation were monitored separately; through these mortar; 10% others).
The creep tests
two components, were
it is performed
possible for approximately
to obtain the settlement 500ofdays
the on the prototype
subgrade layer. illustrated
The sub-
grade settlement at different measurement points was lower than 40 mm, and by
in Figure 10. The samples were placed in the steel sheath and then immersed theadding
max-
watervariation
imum to the steel sheath.
between After
them was 48around
h, the dial
6 mm. indicator was installed, and the load was
applied to the loading
The calculated platform.
subgrade To simulate
settlement basedthe onload at different
the creep subgrade
test was depths,higher
significantly 5 load
levels were considered.
than the measured settlement in situ.

Figure10.
Figure Creeploading
10.Creep loadingtests
testsapparatus
apparatusused
usedby
byLiLietetal.
al.(adapted
(adaptedfrom
from[117]).
[117]).

Li et al. [117] found that as the load increases, the breakage of particles and the
3.4. Environmental Risk
instantaneous deformation also increase. The instantaneous strains were higher than 80%
C&D
of the waste
total arises
strain, so tofrom thethe
reduce construction,
settlement ofrenovation, repair,
the subgrade, the and demolition
compaction of
during
structures,
constructionsuch as houses,
should buildings,
be closely roads, and bridges. As seen in Section 2.2, the
monitored.
composition of these
The percent wastes smaller
of particles is strongly
than 2dependent on the increased
mm significantly type of structure or infra-
after the creep tests,
structure that gives rise to the waste and the type of construction used. Due to
and the plastic deformation was around 95% of the total deformation. The main reason for this het-
erogeneity, C&D wasteswas
the high deformations canattributed
also contain hazardous
to the breakagematerials or components unsuitable
of particles.
for use in construction, such as organic compounds, plaster, and metals [80].
Chemical analyses on RCA, RMA, MRA, and RAP for the release of harmful ele-
ments such as Arsenic (AS), Barium (Ba), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Molybdenum
(Mo), Nickel (Ni), Antimony (Sb), Selenium (Se), and Zinc (Zn) have been conducted by
Barbudo et al. [77] and Galvin at al. [80] using laboratory leaching tests carried out in
accordance with EN 12457—3 [118]. The concentrations of all elements emitted from re-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 21 of 28

The measurement of settlement in the field was obtained by placing sensors on the
upper and lower surfaces of the subgrade in a road section. Settlements of the upper
surface of the subgrade and of the foundation were monitored separately; through these
two components, it is possible to obtain the settlement of the subgrade layer. The subgrade
settlement at different measurement points was lower than 40 mm, and the maximum
variation between them was around 6 mm.
The calculated subgrade settlement based on the creep test was significantly higher
than the measured settlement in situ.

3.4. Environmental Risk

C&D waste arises from the construction, renovation, repair, and demolition of struc-
tures, such as houses, buildings, roads, and bridges. As seen in Section 2.2, the composition
of these wastes is strongly dependent on the type of structure or infrastructure that gives
rise to the waste and the type of construction used. Due to this heterogeneity, C&D wastes
can also contain hazardous materials or components unsuitable for use in construction,
such as organic compounds, plaster, and metals [80].
Chemical analyses on RCA, RMA, MRA, and RAP for the release of harmful ele-
ments such as Arsenic (AS), Barium (Ba), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Molybdenum
(Mo), Nickel (Ni), Antimony (Sb), Selenium (Se), and Zinc (Zn) have been conducted by
Barbudo et al. [77] and Galvin at al. [80] using laboratory leaching tests carried out in ac-
cordance with EN 12457—3 [118]. The concentrations of all elements emitted from recycled
aggregates are well below waste acceptance criteria levels for inert waste in the EU, with
the exception of a few samples of RMA and MRA which had high Cr levels.
Vieira et al. [46] reported results of laboratory leaching tests carried out on MRA and
also concluded that the limits of the above-mentioned harmful elements were lower than
waste acceptance criteria limits for inert waste. However, the sulphate value and the total
dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded the levels stipulated by the EU legislation for inert wastes.

4. Field Studies of Unbound Pavement Applications

4.1. Case Studies
Table 9 compiles a series of studies on the suitability of introducing recycled aggregates
into unbound base and sub-base layers of transportation infrastructures, considering their
performance in the field [48,65,67,119–121]. Most of the recycled aggregates used in these
studies are high-quality RCA that meet the natural aggregates’ requirements for unbound
pavement applications. In general, the performance of the pavement layers was evaluated
through roughness and surface deflection.

Table 9. Studies on the suitability of using recycled aggregates into unbound base and sub-base
pavement layers.

Authors/Reference Most Relevant Conclusions

The FWD tests showed that the RCA sections demonstrated equivalent performance
Arm [119]
to the natural aggregates section.
Park [48] The deflection of the RCA section was similar to that of the natural aggregates section.
Section built with MRA showed an improvement in performance over time compared
Lancieri et al. [65]
to sections built with natural aggregates, due to their self-cementing properties.
The base course produced with RCA had lower deflection values than the base course
Ho et al. [67]
produced with natural aggregate.
The results of the IRI and deflection showed that the road sections made of RCA had
Lee et al. [122] & Lee et al. [120]
similar performance to the sections made of natural aggregates.
The deflection of the section built with RCA was slightly higher than that of the
Jiménez et al. [121]
section built with natural aggregates.
In situ loading tests revealed that recycled materials (MRA and RAP) behave
Neves et al. [21] differently than natural aggregates, but it could be admitted that, in general, all the
recycled materials showed acceptable performance.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 22 of 28

4.2. International Roughness Index

Roughness is a relevant measure of the condition of the road surface, because it
affects the quality of the course and the operating and maintenance costs. The value of
the International Roughness Index (IRI) is commonly used around the world to quantify
the roughness of a road surface. This index can be obtained from longitudinal profile
measurements (ASTM E1926-08 [123]) or by the static level method (ASTM E1364-95 [124]).
In the case study presented by Ho et al. [67] (Table 9), two 140 m-long road sections
were constructed using RCA as base course material, and another road section was built
using a natural aggregate. The IRI values of the two stretches were similar, varying between
1 m/km and 4 m/km, over the course of 3 months of monitoring. Other field measurements
suggested that, when compared with the base course produced with granite, the base course
produced with RCA exhibited similar rut depth but less deflection. The results reported
by Ho et al. [67] showed that RCA has a high potential to be considered as an alternative
material in base course construction.
In the same way, Lee et al. [122] also compared the IRI of pavements constructed with
RCA and natural aggregates. After five months of road service, the average IRI values
for the section with RCA as base course materialwas about 2.4 to 2.5 m/km, while for the
section with granite as base course material, the IRI values ranged from 4.1 to 4.5 m/km.
For the same traffic volume and pavement age, the base course produced with RCA showed
less deformation, leading to lower IRI values than the base course produced with granite.
Jiménez et al. [121] assessed the performance and the environmental impact of RCA
as a surface layer material for an unpaved road. Their results showed that the initial
values of IRI for superficial layers constructed with RCA were similar to those of superficial
layers built with natural aggregates (between 2.5 m/km and 6.0 m/km). over the course
of 2.5 years of monitoring, the IRI values for the surface layer of the natural aggregate
increased significantly, while those for the surface layer of RCA were augmented only
slightly. The results reported by Jiménez et al. [121] show that RCA can be considered as a
viable alternative to natural aggregate as a surface layer material for unpaved roads, and
that it can also improve their long-term performance.

4.3. Deflection
The falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test is non-destructive and used to evaluate
the subsurface properties, to assess load transfer efficiency, and to determine the presence of
voids under the pavement slabs. It consists of dropping a known weight on the pavement
surface, measuring the deflection by sensors (geophones or force-balance seismometers)
placed around the circular load plate.
The study developed by Lee et al. [122] (Table 9) showed that the base course section
constructed with RCA exhibited lower deflections than those of the base course section built
with natural aggregate. For the base course section constructed with RCA, the deflection
was approximately 0.2 mm (on average), while the average deflection was approximately
0.5 mm for the base course constructed with natural aggregate. This evidence results,
probably, from the greater roughness of the RCA, which allows high interparticle friction
and, therefore, a more uniform redistribution of loads. RCA are also more prone to breakage,
which can cause higher densification of the layers and, as a consequence, lower deflection.
The results obtained by several authors [48,65,92,119] in recent years have shown that
RCA and MRA can be considered suitable alternative aggregates for base and sub-base
layers without significantly modifying the pavement deflection.
The field study conducted by Lancieri et al. [65] showed, interestingly, that the deflec-
tion of pavement constructed with MRA was lower than expected. An improvement in the
elastic modulus of pavement after 8 years of service was recorded, being attributed to the
self-cementing properties of the recycled material.
Neves et al. [21] used MRA, RAP, and a natural limestone (as reference material) in a
300 mm thick granular base layer of distinct experimental roadway sections. FWD tests
carried out over these roadway sections showed that the stiffness of the layers built with
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 23 of 28

recycled materials (MRA and RAP) is equal to or only slightly lower than that of the layers
constructed with the natural aggregate.

5. Conclusions
The implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United
Nations is nowadays an imperative to the prosperity of the planet. The construction
industry can contribute to these goals in a variety of ways, among which is the use of
recycled aggregates (Goal 12—Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns).
The total or partial replacement of virgin quarried materials by recycled aggregates can
foster mitigation of the high environmental impacts caused by the construction industry,
and thus, make it more sustainable.
From the literature review on the relevant engineering properties of different types of
recycled aggregates and their long-term performance when used in unbound pavement
applications presented in this paper, the following main conclusions can be drawn:
• In general, recycled aggregates are suitable alternatives to natural aggregates in un-
bound pavement layers and other geotechnical applications.
• When RAP is used, the permeability tends to decrease, possibly due to the presence of
impermeable bituminous particles.
• RCA tends to show a lower resistance to freeze–thaw cycles than natural aggregates;
however, this resistance is strongly dependent on the quality of the RCA.
• The use of RCA in pavements may not be allowed where very low temperatures are
expected, as their performance (shear strength and stiffness) can be affected.
• The performance of RCA is commonly lower than that of natural aggregates regarding
the exposure to environments with high sulphate concentrations.
• The IRI deflectometer tests have shown that the performance of sub-base and base
layers built with RCA can be equal to or even better than that of the layers constructed
with natural aggregates. It was also found that, over time, natural aggregate surface
layers tend to show higher IRI increases than those of RCA surface layers, which
means that RCA may provide a longer pavement structural life.
As a general conclusion, it can be stated that studies developed over recent years have
shown the feasible use and appropriate performance of C&D waste as recycled aggregate.
The use of different types of C&D materials (RCA, RMA, MRA, and RAP) in the base
and sub-base layers of transportation infrastructures can be seen as a viable alternative to
natural aggregates without significant compromise on infrastructure performance. The
present literature review will allow recycled aggregates from C&D waste, traditionally
destined for landfills, to be used sustainably as a base/sub-base material for pavements,
which is important from an engineering, economic, and environmental point of view.
Finally, it is important to highlight that despite the increasing number of studies
carried out over recent decades, some of them presented herein, those regarding long-term
behaviour are still limited.

Author Contributions: P.M.P.: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, writing—original

draft preparation. C.S.V.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, project administra-
tion, supervision, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was financially supported by: Project PTDC/ECI-EGC/30452/2017—POCI-01-0145-
FEDER-030452—funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Compet-
itividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by national funds (PIDDAC) through FCT/MCTES. Base
Funding—UIDB/04708/2020 of the CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções—
funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). Paulo Miguel Pereira would also like to
thank Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal for his research grant: SFRH/BD/147838/2019
(grant supported by FCT/MCTES/NORTE 2020/FSE funding).
 Funding: This work was financially supported by: Project
PTDC/ECI-EGC/30452/2017—POCI-01-0145-FEDER-030452—funded by FEDER funds through
COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by
national funds (PIDDAC) through FCT/MCTES. Base Funding—UIDB/04708/2020 of the CON-
STRUCT—Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções—funded by national funds through the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). Paulo Miguel Pereira would also like to thank Fundação para a 24
Ciência
of 28 e
Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal for his research grant: SFRH/BD/147838/2019 (grant supported by
FCT/MCTES/NORTE 2020/FSE funding).

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
Data Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
Availability author.
corresponding
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the
Conflicts
design of
of Interest:
the study;The
in authors declareanalyses,
the collection, no conflictorofinterpretation
interest. The funders
of data;had no writing
in the role in the
of design
the man-
of the study;
uscript, orininthe
thecollection,
decision toanalyses,
publish or
theinterpretation
results. of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Eurostat. Material Flow Accounts and Resource Productivity. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Material_flow_accounts_and_resource_productivity (accessed on 15 September 2022).
2. Eurostat. Waste Statistics. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Waste_statistics
(accessed on 15 September 2022).
3. Luu, N.C.; Nguyen, L.H.; Tran, T.V.N.; Isobe, Y.; Kawasaki, M.; Kawamoto, K. Construction and Demolition Waste Illegal
Dumping: Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts Assessment for A Growing City. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2021, 9,
148–155. [CrossRef]
4. Da Paz, D.H.F.; Lafayette, K.P.V.; Holanda, M.J.D.O.; Sobral, M.D.C.M.; Costa, L.A.R.D.C. Assessment of environmental impact
risks arising from the illegal dumping of construction waste in Brazil. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 22, 2289–2304. [CrossRef]
5. Hansen, T.C. Recycling of Demolished Concrete and Masonry; CRC Press: London, UK, 1992.
6. European Comission (DG ENV). European Commission Directorate-General for Environment, Service Contract on Management of
Construction and Demolition Waste SR1 Final Report. Task 2-Study; EU Publications: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/2011_CDW_Report.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2022).
7. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Use of recycled construction and demolition materials in geotechnical applications: A review. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 103, 192–204. [CrossRef]
8. Dipanjan, B.; Aditi, M.; Puppala, A.J. Sustainability and geotechnical engineering: Perspectives and review. Can. Geotech. J. 2015,
52, 96–113.
9. Correia, A.G.; Winter, M.G.; Puppala, A.J. A review of sustainable approaches in transport infrastructure geotechnics. Transp.
Geotech. 2016, 7, 21–28. [CrossRef]
10. Dhir, R.K.; de Brito, J.; Silva, R.V.; Lye, C.Q. Sustainable Construction Materials: Recycled Aggregates, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing:
Cambridge, UK, 2019; p. 652.
11. Rao, A.; Jha, K.N.; Misra, S. Use of aggregates from recycled construction and demolition waste in concrete. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2007, 50, 71–81. [CrossRef]
12. Evangelista, L.; de Brito, J. Durability performance of concrete made with fine recycled concrete aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos.
2010, 32, 9–14. [CrossRef]
13. Barbudo, A.; de Brito, J.; Evangelista, L.; Bravo, M.; Agrela, F. Influence of water-reducing admixtures on the mechanical
performance of recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 93–98. [CrossRef]
14. Bravo, M.; de Brito, J.; Pontes, J.; Evangelista, L. Durability performance of concrete with recycled aggregates from construction
and demolition waste plants. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 77, 357–369. [CrossRef]
15. MRahman, A.; Imteaz, M.; Arulrajah, A.; Disfani, M.M. Suitability of recycled construction and demolition aggregates as
alternative pipe backfilling materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 75–84. [CrossRef]
16. Vieira, C.; Lopes, M.; Cristelo, N. Geotechnical characterization of recycled C&D wastes for use as trenches backfilling. In The 4th
Edition of the International Conference Wastes: Solutions, Treatments and Opportunities; CRC Press: Porto, Portugal, 2017; pp. 175–181.
17. Bennert, T.; Papp, W.J., Jr.; Maher, A.; Gucunski, N. Utilization of construction and demolition debris under traffic-type loading in
base and subbase applications. Transp. Res. Rec. 2000, 1714, 33–39. [CrossRef]
18. Poon, C.S.; Chan, D. Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates and crushed clay brick as unbound road sub-base. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2006, 20, 578–585. [CrossRef]
19. Vegas, I.; Ibañez, J.A.; José, J.T.S.; Urzelai, A. Construction demolition wastes, Waelz slag and MSWI bottom ash: A comparative
technical analysis as material for road construction. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 565–574. [CrossRef]
20. Barbudo, A.; Agrela, F.; Ayuso, J.; Jiménez, J.R.; Poon, C.S. Statistical analysis of recycled aggregates derived from different
sources for sub-base applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 129–138. [CrossRef]
21. Neves, J.; Freire, A.; Roque, A.; Martins, I.; Antunes, M.; Faria, G. Utilization of recycled materials in unbound granular layers
validated by experimental test sections. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads,
Railways and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, 25–27 June 2013; pp. 821–829.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 25 of 28

22. Arulrajah, A.; Piratheepan, J.; Disfani, M.M.; Bo, M.W. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Properties of Recycled Construction
and Demolition Materials in Pavement Subbase Applications. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1077–1088. [CrossRef]
23. Cristelo, N.; Vieira, C.S.; de Lurdes Lopes, M. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Assessment of Recycled Construction and
Demolition Waste for Road Embankments. Procedia Eng. 2016, 143, 51–58. [CrossRef]
24. Bassani, M.; Tefa, L.; Russo, A.; Palmero, P. Alkali-activation of recycled construction and demolition waste aggregate with no
added binder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 205, 398–413. [CrossRef]
25. Directive 2008/98/EC; 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 European Union L 312/3: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 19 November 2008.
26. Mália, M.; de Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Bravo, M. Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31,
241–255. [CrossRef]
27. Hjelmar, O.; Hansen, J.B.; Wahlström, M.; Wik, O. End-of-Waste Criteria for Construction & Demolition Waste; Nordic Council of
Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016.
28. European Comission. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol. 2016. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/
growth/content/eu-construction-and-demolition-waste-protocol-0_en (accessed on 15 September 2022).
29. Decision 2000/532/EC; Commission Decision 2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 Replacing Decision 94/3/EC
Establishing a List of Wastes Pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC
Establishing a List of Hazardous Waste Pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on Hazardous Waste. Official
Journal of the European Union L 226/3: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2000.
30. Decision 2014/955/EU; Commission Decision 2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 Amending Decision
2000/532/EC on the List of Waste Pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official
Journal of the European Union L 370/44: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2014.
31. Coelho, A.; de Brito, J. Economic analysis of conventional versus selective demolition—A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2011, 55, 382–392. [CrossRef]
32. Andersen, R.; Ravn, A.S.; Ryberg, M.W. Environmental benefits of applying selective demolition to buildings: A case study of the
reuse of façade steel cladding. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 184, 106430. [CrossRef]
33. European Environment Agency (EEA). ETC/WMGE Report 1/2020: Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and
Opportunities in a Circular Economy. European Environment Agency. 2020. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/construction-and-demolition-waste-challenges (accessed on 20 September 2022).
34. European Environment Agency (EEA). Circular economy in Europe-Developing the knowledge base Waste prevention in Europe,
EEA Report No 2/2016. European Environment Agency. 2016. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
circular-economy-in-europe (accessed on 20 September 2022).
35. Baldassarre, B.; Schepers, M.; Bocken, N.; Cuppen, E.; Korevaar, G.; Calabretta, G. Industrial Symbiosis: Towards a design process
for eco-industrial clusters by integrating Circular Economy and Industrial Ecology perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 216, 446–460.
[CrossRef]
36. European Comission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions-Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for Europe COM/2014/0398 Final;
EU Publications: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/circular-
economy-communication.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2022).
37. Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy.
J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [CrossRef]
38. European Comission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions-Closing the Loop-An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy COM/2015/0614 Final;
EU Publications: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:
52015DC0614 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
39. European Comission. Guidelines for the Waste Audits before Demolition and Renovation Works of Buildings. 2018. Available
online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/31521 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
40. European Comission. Level(s)-European Framework for Sustainable Buildings. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.
eu/topics/circular-economy/levels_en (accessed on 20 September 2022).
41. Uriarte-Miranda, M.-L.; Caballero-Morales, S.-O.; Martinez-Flores, J.-L.; Cano-Olivos, P.; Akulova, A.-A. Reverse Logistic Strategy
for the Management of Tire Waste in Mexico and Russia: Review and Conceptual Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3398. [CrossRef]
42. Correia, J.M.F.; Neto, G.C.D.O.; Leite, R.R.; da Silva, D. Plan to Overcome Barriers to Reverse Logistics in Construction and
Demolition Waste: Survey of the Construction Industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04020172. [CrossRef]
43. Neto, G.C.O.; Correia, J.M. Environmental and economic advantages of adopting reverse logistics for recycling construction
and demolition waste: A case study of Brazilian construction and recycling companies. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 176–185.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Bairagi, N.K.; Ravande, K.; Pareek, V.K. Behaviour of concrete with different proportions of natural and recycled aggregates.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1993, 9, 109–126. [CrossRef]
45. Brito, J.; Pereira, A.S.; Correia, J.R. Mechanical behaviour of non-structural concrete made with recycled ceramic aggregates. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 429–433. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 26 of 28

46. Martín-Morales, M.; Zamorano, M.; Ruiz-Moyano, A.; Valverde-Espinosa, I. Characterization of recycled aggregates construction
and demolition waste for concrete production following the Spanish Structural Concrete Code EHE-08. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011,
25, 742–748. [CrossRef]
47. Chini, A.R.; Kuo, S.S.; Armaghani, J.M.; Duxbury, J.P. Test of recycled concrete aggregate in accelerated test track. J. Transp. Eng.
2001, 127, 486–492. [CrossRef]
48. Park, T. Application of Construction and Building Debris as Base and Subbase Materials in Rigid Pavement. J. Transp. Eng. 2003,
129, 558–563. [CrossRef]
49. Arulrajah, A.; Piratheepan, J.; Disfani, M.M.; Bo, M.W. Resilient Moduli Response of Recycled Construction and Demolition
Materials in Pavement Subbase Applications. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1920–1928. [CrossRef]
50. Mohammadinia, A.; Arulrajah, A.; Sanjayan, J.; Mahdi, M.D.; Myint, W.B.; Darmawan, S. Laboratory Evaluation of the Use of
Cement-Treated Construction and Demolition Materials in Pavement Base and Subbase Applications. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015,
27, 04014186. [CrossRef]
51. Cristelo, N.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Vieira, C.; Miranda, T.; Palomo, Á. Stabilisation of construction and demolition waste with a
high fines content using alkali activated fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 170, 26–39. [CrossRef]
52. Santos, E.C.G.; Palmeira, E.M.; Bathurst, R.J. Behaviour of a geogrid reinforced wall built with recycled construction and
demolition waste backfill on a collapsible foundation. Geotext. Geomembr. 2013, 39, 9–19. [CrossRef]
53. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Damage induced by recycled Construction and Demolition Wastes on the short-term tensile behaviour
of two geosynthetics. Transp. Geotech. 2015, 4, 64–75. [CrossRef]
54. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M.; Lopes, M.D.L. Recycled Construction and Demolition Wastes as filling material for geosynthetic
reinforced structures. Interface properties. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 299–311. [CrossRef]
55. Vieira, C.S.; Ferreira, F.B.; Pereira, P.M.; Lopes, M.D.L. Pullout behaviour of geosynthetics in a recycled construction and
demolition material – Effects of cyclic loading. Transp. Geotech. 2020, 23, 100346. [CrossRef]
56. Yeung, A.T.; Mok, K.Y.; Tham, L.G.; Lee, P.K.K.; Pei, G. Use of inert C&D materials for seawall foundation: A field-scale pilot test.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 47, 375–393.
57. Cassia, A.R.; Costa, I.; da Silva, V.H.C.; de Oliveira Neto, G.C. Systematic literature review for the development of a conceptual
model on the relationship between knowledge sharing, information technology infrastructure and innovative capability. Technol.
Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 801–821. [CrossRef]
58. O’Mahony, M.M.; Milligan, G.W.E. Use of recycled materials in subbase layers. Transp. Res. Rec. 1991, 1310, 73–80.
59. Nataatmadja, A.; Tan, Y.L. Resilient Response of Recycled Concrete Road Aggregates. J. Transp. Eng. 2001, 127, 450–453. [CrossRef]
60. Touahamia, M.; Sivakumar, V.; McKelvey, D. Shear strength of reinforced-recycled material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2002, 16, 331–339.
[CrossRef]
61. Chen, H.-J.; Yen, T.; Chen, K.-H. Use of building rubbles as recycled aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 125–132. [CrossRef]
62. Aqil, U.; Tatsuoka, F.; Uchimura, T.; Lohani, T.N.; Tomita, Y.; Matsushima, K. Strength and deformation characteristics of recycled
concrete aggregate as a backfill material. Soils Found. 2005, 45, 53–72. [CrossRef]
63. Blankenagel, B.J. Characterization of Recycled Concrete for Use as Pavement Base Material. Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT, USA, 2005.
64. Poon, C.-S.; Qiao, X.C.; Chan, D. The cause and influence of self-cementing properties of fine recycled concrete aggregates on the
properties of unbound sub-base. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 1166–1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Lancieri, F.; Marradi, A.; Mannucci, S. C&D waste for road construction: Long time performance of roads constructed using
recycled aggregate for unbound pavement layers. In Waste Management and the Environment III; WIT Press: Southampton, UK,
2006; Volume 92, pp. 559–569.
66. Rathje, E.M.; Rauch, A.F.; Trejo, D.; Folliard, K.J.; Viyanant, C.; Esfellar, M.; Jain, A.; Ogalla, M. Evaluation of Crushed Concrete and
Recycled Asphalt Pavement as Backfill for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls; CTR Technical Report 0-4177-3; Center for Transportation
Research the University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 2006.
67. Ho, N.Y.; Lee, Y.P.K.; Tan, J.Y. Beneficial use of recycled concrete aggregate for road construction in Singapore. In Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Road and Airfield Pavement Technology (ICPT), Sapporo, Japan, 20–23 July 2008; p. 8.
68. Saeed, A.; Hammons, M.I. Use of Recycled Concrete as Unbound Base Aggregate in Airfield and Highway Pavements to Enhance
Sustainability. In Airfield and Highway Pavements 2008; ASCE Labrary: Reston, VA, USA, 2008; pp. 497–508.
69. Tam, V.W.Y.; Wang, K.; Tam, C.M. Assessing relationships among properties of demolished concrete, recycled aggregate and
recycled aggregate concrete using regression analysis. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 152, 703–714. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Chidiroglou, I.; Goodwin, A.; Laycock, L.; O’Flaherty, F. Physical properties of demolition waste material. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. J.
Constr. Mater. 2008, 16, 97–103. [CrossRef]
71. da Conceição Leite, F.; dos Santos Motta, R.; Vasconcelos, K.L.; Bernucci, L. Laboratory evaluation of recycled construction and
demolition waste for pavements. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2972–2979. [CrossRef]
72. Vegas, I.; Ibañez, J.A.; Lisbona, A.; de Cortazar, A.S.; Frías, M. Pre-normative research on the use of mixed recycled aggregates in
unbound road sections. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2674–2682. [CrossRef]
73. Jiménez, J.R.; Agrela, F.; Ayuso, J.; López, M. A comparative study of recycled aggregates from concrete and mixed debris as
material for unbound road sub-base. Mater. Construcción 2011, 61, 302.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 27 of 28

74. Arulrajah, A.; Piratheepan, J.; Aatheesan, T.; Bo, M.W. Geotechnical Properties of Recycled Crushed Brick in Pavement Applica-
tions. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011, 23, 1444–1452. [CrossRef]
75. Cameron, D.; Azam, A.; Rahman, M. Recycled Clay Masonry and Recycled Concrete Aggregate Blends in Pavement. Presented
at the GeoCongress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Oakland, California, United States. 2012.
Available online: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784412121.158 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
76. Arulrajah, A.; Jegatheesan, P.; Ali, M.M.Y.; Bo, M. Geotechnical Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Pavement Sub-Base
Applications. Geotech. Test. J. 2012, 35, 743–751. [CrossRef]
77. Barbudo, A.; Galvín, A.P.; Agrela, F.; Ayuso, J.; Jiménez, J.R. Correlation analysis between sulphate content and leaching of
sulphates in recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1229–1235. [CrossRef]
78. Cooley, L.A.; Hornsby, H. Evaluation of Crushed Concrete Base Strength. Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc., Mississippi, USA, Tech Report
FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-12-238. 2012. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/26281 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
79. Ashtiani, R.; Saeed, A. Laboratory Performance Characterization of Pavements Incorporating Recycled Materials. In Proceedings
of the GeoCongress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Oakland, CA, USA, 25–29 March 2012.
Available online: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784412121.163 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
80. Galvín, A.P.; Ayuso, J.; Agrela, F.; Barbudo, A.; Jiménez, J.R. Analysis of leaching procedures for environmental risk assessment of
recycled aggregate use in unpaved roads. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 1207–1214. [CrossRef]
81. Azam, A.M.; Cameron, D.A. Geotechnical Properties of Blends of Recycled Clay Masonry and Recycled Concrete Aggregates in
Unbound Pavement Construction. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 788–798. [CrossRef]
82. Azam, A.M.; Cameron, D.A.; Rahman, M.M. Model for prediction of resilient modulus incorporating matric suction for recycled
unbound granular materials. Can. Geotech. J. 2013, 50, 1143–1158. [CrossRef]
83. Rahman, M.A.; Arulrajah, A.; Piratheepan, J.; Bo, M.W.; Imteaz, M.A. Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation Responses
of Geogrid-Reinforced Construction and Demolition Materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 512–519. [CrossRef]
84. Arulrajah, A.; Disfani, M.M.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Suksiripattanapong, C.; Prongmanee, N. Physical properties and shear strength
responses of recycled construction and demolition materials in unbound pavement base/subbase applications. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2014, 58, 245–257. [CrossRef]
85. Arulrajah, A.; Piratheepan, J.; Disfani, M.M. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Recycled Concrete Aggregate Blends in Pavement
Subbases: Laboratory and Field Evaluation. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 349–357. [CrossRef]
86. Ayan, V.; Limbachiya, M.C.; Omer, J.R.; Azadani, S.M.N. Compaction assessment of recycled aggregates for use in unbound
subbase application. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 169–174. [CrossRef]
87. Soleimanbeigi, A.; Edil, T.B. Compressibility of Recycled Materials for Use As Highway Embankment Fill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron-
mental Eng. 2015, 141, 04015011. [CrossRef]
88. MRahman, A.; Imteaz, M.A.; Arulrajah, A.; Piratheepan, J.; Disfani, M.M. Recycled construction and demolition materials in
permeable pavement systems: Geotechnical and hydraulic characteristics. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 183–194. [CrossRef]
89. Aydilek, A.H.; Haider, I.; Cetin, A.; Kaya, Z.; Hatipoglu, M. Development of design guidelines for proper selection of graded
aggregate base in Maryland state highways. Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore MD, USA, Tech Report
MD-15-SP109B4G-1. 2015. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/28445 (accessed on 10 July 2022).
90. Taherkhani, H. Evaluation of the physical properties of unbound base layer containing recycled aggregates. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Dev. 2015, 6, 279–285. [CrossRef]
91. Taherkhani, H.; Valizadeh, M. An Investigation on the Effects of Aggregates Properties on the Performance of Unbound Aggregate
Base Layer. Int. J. Transp. Eng. 2015, 3, 151–164.
92. Soleimanbeigi, A.; Shedivy, R.F.; Tinjum, J.M.; Edil, T.B. Climatic effect on resilient modulus of recycled unbound aggregates.
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2015, 16, 836–853. [CrossRef]
93. Bestgen, J.O.; Hatipoglu, M.; Cetin, B.; Aydilek, A.H. Mechanical and Environmental Suitability of Recycled Concrete Aggregate
as a Highway Base Material. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 04016067. [CrossRef]
94. Freire, A.C.; das Neves, J.M.C.; Roque, A.J.; Martins, I.M.; Antunes, M.D.L. Feasibility study of milled and crushed reclaimed
asphalt pavement for application in unbound granular layers. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2019, 22, 1500–1520. [CrossRef]
95. Pereira, P.M.; Ferreira, F.B.; Vieira, C.S.; Lopes, M.L. Use of Recycled C&D Wastes in Unpaved Rural and Forest Roads -
feasibility Analysis.. presented at the WASTES: Solutions, Treatments and Opportunities-Selected Papers from the 5th Edition
of the International Conference on Wastes: Solutions, Treatments and Opportunities, 2019. Conference Paper. Available
online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84949796241&partnerID=40&md5=d7cfc476b9c145ec38004f5
47015a39f (accessed on 10 July 2022).
96. Soleimanbeigi, A.; Tanyu, B.F.; Aydilek, A.H.; Florio, P.; Abbaspour, A.; Dayioglu, A.Y.; Likos, W.J. Evaluation of recycled concrete
aggregate backfill for geosynthetic-reinforced MSE walls. Geosynth. Int. 2019, 26, 396–412. [CrossRef]
97. Głuchowski, A.; Sas, W.; Dzi˛ecioł, J.; Soból, E.; Szymański, A. Permeability and Leaching Properties of Recycled Concrete
Aggregate as an Emerging Material in Civil Engineering. Appl. Sci. 2018, 9, 81. [CrossRef]
98. Look, B.G. Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables; CRC Press: London, UK, 2014.
99. Barnes, G. Soil Mechanics: Principles and Practice; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2017.
100. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Interface shear properties of geosynthetics and construction and demolition waste from large-scale
direct shear tests. Geosynth. Int. 2016, 23, 62–70. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13918 28 of 28

101. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Use of Mixed Construction and Demolition Recycled Materials in Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankments.
Indian Geotech. J. 2017, 48, 279–292. [CrossRef]
102. Santos, E.C.G.; Palmeira, E.M.; Bathurst, R.J. Performance of two geosynthetic reinforced walls with recycled construction waste
backfill and constructed on collapsible ground. Geosynth. Int. 2014, 21, 256–269. [CrossRef]
103. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Influence of the Geosynthetic Type and Compaction Conditions on the Pullout Behaviour of Geosyn-
thetics Embedded in Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207. [CrossRef]
104. Pourkhorshidi, S.; Sangiorgi, C.; Torreggiani, D.; Tassinari, P. Using Recycled Aggregates from Construction and Demolition
Waste in Unbound Layers of Pavements. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9386. [CrossRef]
105. Oldecop, L.A.; Alonso, E.E. A model for rockfill compressibility. Geotechnique 2001, 51, 127–139. [CrossRef]
106. Bennert, T.; Maher, A. The Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in a Dense Graded Aggregate Base Course. U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey, USA, Tech Report. 2008.
Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/38119 (accessed on 10 July 2022).
107. AASHTO. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures; American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials: Washington,
DC, USA, 1993.
108. Seferoğlu, A.G.; Seferoğlu, M.T.; Akpınar, M.V. Investigation of the Effect of Recycled Asphalt Pavement Material on Permeability
and Bearing Capacity in the Base Layer. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 6. [CrossRef]
109. Bazaz, J.B.; Khayati, M.; Akrami, N. Performance of concrete produced with crushed bricks as the coarse and fine aggregate. In
The Geological Society of London; Citeseer: State College, PA, USA, 2006; Volume 10.
110. Diagne, M.; Tinjum, J.M.; Nokkaew, K. The effects of recycled clay brick content on the engineering properties, weathering
durability, and resilient modulus of recycled concrete aggregate. Transp. Geotech. 2015, 3, 15–23. [CrossRef]
111. ASTM D560/D560M-16; Standard Test Methods for Freezing and Thawing Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures. ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
112. EN 1367-1: 2007; Tests for Thermal and Weathering Properties of Aggregates. Determination of resistance to freezing and thawing.
CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
113. ASTM D6035/D6035M-19; Standard Test Methods for Determining the Effect of Freeze-Thaw on Hydraulic Conductivity of
Compacted or Intact Soil Specimens Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
114. Bassani, M.; Tefa, L. Compaction and freeze-thaw degradation assessment of recycled aggregates from unseparated construction
and demolition waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 160, 180–195. [CrossRef]
115. Domitrović, J.; Rukavina, T.; Lenart, S. Effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the resilient moduli and permanent deformation of
RAP/natural aggregate unbound base mixtures. Transp. Geotech. 2018, 18, 83–91. [CrossRef]
116. Pereira, P.M.; Vieira, C.; Lopes, M. Degradation assessment of recycled aggregates from Construction and Demolition Waste
through wet-dry cycles. In Proceedings of the XXVII European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
(XXVII ECSMGE), Reykjavik, Iceland, 1–6 September 2019.
117. Li, Z.; Yan, S.; Liu, L.; Dai, B.; Dong, W. Long-Term Deformation Analysis of Recycled Construction Waste Subgrade Filler. Adv.
Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5891759. [CrossRef]
118. EN 12457-3: 2002; Characterisation of Waste. Leaching. Compliance Test for Leaching of Granular Waste Materials and Sludges.
Two Stage Batch Test at a Liquid to Solid Ratio of 2 l/kg and 8 l/kg for Materials with a High Solid Content and with a Particle
Size Below 4 mm (without or with size reduction). CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
119. Arm, M. Mechanical Properties of Residues as Unbound Road Materials-Experimental Tests on MSWI Bottom Ash, Crushed
Concrete and Blast Furnace Slag in SGI Rapport. Stockholm03480755 (ISSN). 2003. Available online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?
urn=urn:nbn:se:swedgeo:diva-216 (accessed on 28 March 2019).
120. Lee, Y.P.K.; Ho, N.Y.; Tan, J.Y.; Lee, K.K.; Foo, S.Y.; Ang, S.S.M. Beneficial use of recycled concrete aggregate for utility trench
reinstatement. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Road and Airfield Pavement Technology (ICPT), Bangkok,
Thailand, 3–5 August 2011; p. 8.
121. Jiménez, J.R.; Ayuso, J.; Agrela, F.; López, M.; Galvín, A.P. Utilisation of unbound recycled aggregates from selected CDW in
unpaved rural roads. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 58, 88–97. [CrossRef]
122. Lee, K.; Ho, N.; Tan, J.; Yoong, C.; Lim, J.; Lee, K. Field study on the use of recycled concrete aggregate for road trenching works
in Singapore. In Proceedings of the 2nd World Roads Conference, Singapore, 26–28 October 2009; p. 8.
123. ASTM E1926-08; Standard Practice for Computing International Roughness Index of Roads from Longitudinal Profile Measure-
ments. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
124. ASTM E1364-95; Standard Test Method for Measuring Road Roughness by Static Level Method. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.