2018 Yearly Calendar

Final Report
Trials for the use of recycled

gypsum in cement manufacture
Report demonstrating the potential to use recycled gypsum in the

manufacture of cement partially or fully in place of natural gypsum.
Project code: PBD022-001 ISBN: 1-84405-404-7

Research date: September 2007 – March 2008 Date: November 2008
WRAP helps individuals, businesses and
local authorities to reduce waste and
recycle more, making better use of
resources and helping to tackle climate
change.
Written by: Faye Clamp, Jacobs Engineering UK Limited
Front cover photography: Lafarge Cement UK's Cement Mill Gypsum Feeder
WRAP and Jacobs Engineering UK Limited believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled
content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care
should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).
The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to
ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being
inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain
whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by
WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the
material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must
not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its
web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Executive summary
A small percentage of gypsum is incorporated into cement in order to modify its setting characteristics and
traditionally the gypsum additive was obtained by mining. There are however alternative sources of gypsum
which may be able to substitute for the mined variety. In particular large quantities of gypsum are used in
plasterboard production which results in large amounts of gypsum waste being generated from construction,
demolition or refurbishment with the resultant waste either being recycled or disposed of to landfill.
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) had identified through a Scoping Study that there are significant
actual and perceived barriers to the incorporation of recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste into cement
mixtures. This study was then undertaken for WRAP to determine how the barriers could be overcome and how
the cement industry could maximise the amount of gypsum waste utilised in its products and hence diverted from
landfill.
Each of the logistical, supply chain, process and environmental issues, previously identified as constraints were
examined and shown to be manageable. The constraints could be overcome by modifying procedures and
through a process of development of the industry which would be catalysed by the results of this study and
implemented mostly through market forces.
The study has demonstrated through desk studies and practical trials that recycled gypsum, of the quality
currently available, can substitute technically for mined gypsum in the production of bagged cements, but that it
remains to be proven acceptable to the ready mix market.
The laboratory trials which preceded the operational trials provided differing results on cement properties which
require further analysis to conclude the mechanisms involved and to ensure that cement performance standards
can be assessed during production runs.
The study and trials established further parameters associated with the use of plasterboard gypsum which were
not previously identified and remain to be clarified through further research before the economics of a
sustainable process can be established.
These parameters include:
Maintenance regimes required to maximise production rates using recycled gypsum and the comparison with
maintenance costs using mined gypsum
Ability of processors to deliver recycled gypsum with paper contents which minimise plant maintenance costs
Effects of air entraining agents, which are added during plasterboard manufacture, on the properties of
cement made from recycled plasterboard.
Combined effects of recycled gypsums and additives, used in the ready mix process, on concrete properties
Modelling of cement production trials within the laboratory.
Despite these outstanding issues, there are clear economic advantages to the cement industry for implementing a
switch to recycled gypsum. The analysis indicates that maximum utilisation of recycled gypsum supplies could
lead to UK cement manufacturers saving almost £2 million annually. The UK economy would also benefit from
reductions in cost of disposal to landfill and environmentally from reductions in landfill and virgin material use.
In recognition of the benefits of using recycled plasterboard gypsum, described in the study, the UK’s largest
cement manufacturer has committed to increasing sustainability of their production through the use of recycled
gypsum and also to assisting gypsum recycling organisations to provide the quantity and quality of material they
require.
Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 1

Glossary and acronyms
A. Cement Industry Shorthand for Al2O3
AOS. Area of Optimal Search
BSI BS EN 196. British Standards Institute British Standard Norme Européen 196. This suite of standards
details methods of testing cement.
BSI EN 197. British Standards Institute British Standard Norme Européen 197. This suite of standards details the
composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements.
BSI EN 12457. British Standards Institute British Standard Norme Européen 12457. This standard details the
characterisation of waste leaching compliance test for leaching of granular waste materials and sludges and the
stage batch test at a liquid to solid ratio of 10 l/kg for materials with particle size below 4 mm.
C. Cement industry shorthand for CaO
DEFRA. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DEFRA promotes sustainable development as
the way forward for Government.
EA. Environment Agency. Regulator responsible for environmental regulation (including waste) in England and
Wales.
F. Cement industry shorthand for Fe2O3
F.O.C. Free Organic Carbon
FGD. Flue Gas Desulphurisation Technology used to remove sulphur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust gases from
power stations
GIS. Geographical Information System. An information system capable of integrating, storing, editing, analyzing,
sharing, and displaying geographically referenced information
GWP. Global Warming Potential. A measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to
contribute to global warming, relative to the same mass of carbon dioxide.
HGV. Heavy Goods Vehicle
LCA. Life Cycle Analysis. A LCA models the interaction between a product and the environment from cradle to
grave.
LCI. Life Cycle Inventory. A LCI provides a cradle-to-grave accounting of the energy and material flows into and
out of the environment that are associated with producing a material.
LCUK. Lafarge Cement UK
Natural Gypsum. Natural gypsum is formed geologically from the evaporation of seawater. Hydration of
anhydrite near the surface results in deposits of nodular masses or beds of gypsum, which can be up to a few
metres thick.
Mined Gypsum. When natural gypsum has been extracted from the ground for commercial use.
PAS (Publicly Available Specification) consultative documents developed and produced based on the British
Standard Institutes’ (BSI) model
Photochemical Oxidisation. The impact category whereby gases contributing to smog are aggregated.

REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Chemicals; 2007) is a major new system for
chemical product regulation. REACH legislation includes the testing of a large range of chemicals and substances
for their effects on the environment and human health. One of these chemicals is cement.
S. Cement industry shorthand for SiO2
Silos. Silos are structures for storing bulk materials.
Sulphate. Common cement industry terminology for SO3, (rather than SO4, the actual chemical formula for
sulphate)
Synthetic Gypsum. Synthetic gypsum is produced as a by-product; principally from flue gas desulphurisation in
power generation and from the production of titanium oxide pigment used in white paint.
WRAP. Waste & Resources Action Programme. WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to
reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.

Contents
Glossary and acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................................6
1.2 Background to the Project......................................................................................................6
1.2.1 The Recycled Gypsum Opportunity.............................................................................6
1.2.2 The WRAP Plasterboard Programme ..........................................................................7
1.3 Report Structure....................................................................................................................7
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.1 Desktop Study.......................................................................................................................9
2.2 Laboratory Test Schedule.......................................................................................................9
2.3 Operational Trial Schedule ...................................................................................................10
2.4 Assessment and Analysis......................................................................................................10
2.5 Case Study.......................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 Desk-top Study....................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Industry Background ...........................................................................................................14
3.2.1 Cement Industry .....................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Plasterboard Industry..............................................................................................14
3.3 Gypsum and its role in Cement Manufacture ......................................................................... 15
3.4 Logistics and Supply Chain ...................................................................................................15
3.4.1 Current Markets for Recycled and Natural Gypsum.................................................... 15
3.4.2 Cement Industry Gypsum Requirement .................................................................... 16
3.4.3 Recycled Gypsum Availability ...................................................................................16
3.4.4 Location of cement works in relation to plasterboard recycling facilities ...................... 17
3.4.5 Transportation and storage of recycled gypsum ........................................................ 20
3.4.6 Reliability of supply .................................................................................................20
3.5 Quality and Processing.........................................................................................................21
3.5.1 Supply and Shelf life of recycled gypsum ..................................................................21
3.5.2 Varying and minimum paper content of the recycled gypsum .................................... 21
3.5.3 Type and quantity of foreign objects ........................................................................ 22
3.6 Economics........................................................................................................................... 23
3.6.1 Cost of recycled gypsum .........................................................................................23
3.6.2 Comparison of disposal of recycled plasterboard with processing costs....................... 24
3.6.3 Cement Sector Competitiveness ............................................................................... 25
3.6.4 Impact of the Cement Industry using Recycled Gypsum ............................................ 27
3.6.5 Impact on Existing Mined/Synthetic Gypsum Industries ............................................. 27
3.7 Environmental Issues...........................................................................................................28
3.7.1 Gypsum Source.......................................................................................................28
3.7.2 End-of-Life Options .................................................................................................28
3.8 Legislation Affecting the Industry .........................................................................................28
3.8.1 Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) ......................................................................29
3.8.2 Quality Protocol (QP) ..............................................................................................29
3.9 Summary of the Desk-top Study ...........................................................................................30
4.0 Laboratory Test Results ......................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Cement Manufacturing Process.............................................................................................31
4.2 Thermo-gravimetrical Analysis and Heat Soaking...................................................................32
4.3 Size Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 32
4.4 Chemical Analysis of Recycled Gypsum Material.....................................................................34
4.5 Estimation of Contaminants..................................................................................................36
4.6 Cement Grinds .................................................................................................................... 36
4.7 Chemical Analysis of Cement Mixes.......................................................................................37
4.8 Workability Tests ................................................................................................................. 41
4.9 Initial Setting Time .............................................................................................................. 41
4.10 Degree of False Set ............................................................................................................. 42
4.11 Strength Tests..................................................................................................................... 42
4.11.1 Strength Tests – Mortar ..........................................................................................43

4.11.2 Strength Tests - Concrete........................................................................................43
4.12 Surface area and particle density..........................................................................................44
5.0 Operational Scale Trial Results .............................................................................................. 45
5.1 Trial Process ....................................................................................................................... 45
5.2 Chemical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 47
5.3 Workability.......................................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Initial Setting Time .............................................................................................................. 47
5.5 Degree of False Set ............................................................................................................. 48
5.6 Strength ............................................................................................................................. 48
5.6.1 Strength Tests - Mortar ...........................................................................................48
5.6.2 Strength Tests – Concrete .......................................................................................49
5.7 Surface Area and Particle Density .........................................................................................49
5.8 Mill inspection ..................................................................................................................... 49
6.0 Assessment and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 50
6.1 Technical Assessment ..........................................................................................................50
6.1.1 Chemical Analysis ...................................................................................................50
6.1.2 Physical Properties ..................................................................................................50
6.1.3 Practical issues .......................................................................................................52
6.1.4 Summary of Technical Assessment........................................................................... 52
6.2 Market Assessment..............................................................................................................53
6.3 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 53
6.3.1 Background to NetWaste .........................................................................................53
6.3.2 Identification of Area of Search (AoS) for New Plasterboard Recycling Facilities .......... 54
6.3.3 Economic Analysis – Transportation Costs ................................................................ 56
6.3.4 Summary of Economic Analysis................................................................................57
6.4 Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................................58
6.4.1 Transport Carbon Emissions ....................................................................................58
6.4.2 Other Carbon Emissions ..........................................................................................58
6.4.3 Other Environmental Impacts .................................................................................. 58
6.4.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts......................................................................... 59
7.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 60
Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 62

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this report
The purpose of this document is to report the results of a desktop study, laboratory tests and small scale
operational trials for the use of recycled gypsum as a complete or partial substitute for virgin gypsum in
cement manufacture.
The report considers any remaining barriers, perceived or actual, to the use of recycled gypsum which
arose from the earlier Scoping Study 1. These barriers are analysed and where possible discounted
through desk study and the results of the laboratory and operational trials. The technical viability of the
use of recycled gypsum to replace natural gypsum as well as environmental and economic benefits from
the use of recycled gypsum are identified and quantified. A case study designed to inform the cement
industry is provided in a separate publication.
1.2 Background to the Project
1.2.1 The Recycled Gypsum Opportunity
The Landfill (England & Wales) Regulations 2002 set out strict operational and technical requirements
for landfill disposal designed to reduce the negative effects of landfill. Landfills may no longer accept
waste types such as tyres and liquid wastes and new Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) must be used for
material classifications. Landfills are classified as either Hazardous, Non-hazardous or Inert, and
historical co-disposal methods can no longer be used. From 16 July 2005, the Landfill Regulations
require specific WAC for gypsum and high-sulphate bearing wastes, gypsum waste includes that from
plasterboard production or use. Guidance on the WAC requirements of the Landfill Regulations 2 has
been published by the Environment Agency. Based on this guidance, waste containing more than 10%
sulphate must be disposed to a separate cell where there are no biodegradable wastes. However, if the
load contains 10% or less of high sulphate bearing wastes it may be deposited in a non-specific cell. 3
The Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
do not currently require high sulphate waste to be deposited in mono-cells.
Waste plasterboard can be processed to produce recycled gypsum. Recycled gypsum from plasterboard
is a granular powder with potential to be used in a variety of applications which currently use natural
(mined) gypsum or synthetic gypsum (by-products from industrial processes).
Naturally occurring gypsum is a critical additive in cement manufacture. UK production of cement has
remained generally constant for the last few years at around 12 million tonnes per annum, and the
British Cement Association do not anticipate a change in the UK cement market in the near future. The
potential for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture was identified in October 2006 and it
could supply a proportion of the estimated 400,000 – 600,000 tonnes per annum of gypsum required.
There is already evidence of beneficial use of recycled gypsum by at least one cement manufacturer in
the UK and in the US however, detailed results of these trials have not been published. Because it is
known that recycled gypsum can be used the aim of this project is to provide quantitative and
qualitative results to encourage further uptake of recycled gypsum in the industry.
The benefits associated with the use of recycled gypsum in cement are that:
the recycled content of cement will increase, which may assist cement manufacturers meeting their
sustainable development objectives;
it will support the diversion of waste plasterboard from landfill; and
the cement industries reliance upon natural materials will be reduced.
1
WRAP (2007) Scoping Study for the use of Recycled Gypsum in Cement Manufacture
2
Environment Agency (2006), Guidance for Waste Destined for Disposal in Landfill
3
The ‘10% rule’ will be removed in the first half of 2009

1.2.2 The WRAP Plasterboard Programme
Through its Construction Programme, WRAP is helping the construction industry cut costs and increase efficiency
through the better use of materials.
Plasterboard is used extensively in the construction and refurbishment of buildings as a lining for walls and
ceilings, and for forming structures such as partitions.
Plasterboard waste can arise on construction sites for a number of reasons, including wasteful design, offcuts
from its installation, damaged boards, and over-ordering. It is estimated that over 300,000 tonnes per year of
waste plasterboard is produced on construction sites. It can also arise from strip-out activities during
refurbishment and demolition projects; the waste arisings from this source are significantly higher. In total it is
estimated that over one million tonnes of waste plasterboard are produced each year from construction and
demolition activities.
Most of this waste is currently disposed to landfill, even though it can be easily recycled. The WRAP plasterboard
received funding from Defra through the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) programme to divert
plasterboard waste from landfill by working to overcome the barriers to plasterboard recycling. Additional funding
is also received from the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This funding was for
three years from April 2005, ending in March 2008.
WRAP worked to overcome these barriers through the following key areas:
plasterboard waste minimisation;

site waste management;
segregation and collection of plasterboard waste;
development of infrastructure, including waste logistics and recycling capacity;
market development for materials from plasterboard recycling – recycled gypsum and reclaimed paper;
education, awareness and behavioural change; and
informing and influencing legislation, regulations and policy.
More information on WRAP’s work can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/construction
1.3 Report Structure
Section 1 Introduction
Introduction and background to the report, with the remainder of this report
set out as follows:
Section 2 Methodology
A description of the methods used to undertake this project and the rationale
and the assumptions made that underlie the project stages.
Section 3 Desk-top Study

A summary of published literature and information available within the
cement industry to discount remaining perceived barriers to the use of
recycled gypsum in cement manufacture
Section 4 Laboratory Test Results

A technical summary and analysis of the results of laboratory scale tests on
cement ball mill grinds for different proportion of recycled gypsum in cement.
Effects of the recycled material use on concrete and mortar set times and
strengths.
Section 5 Results of Operational Scale Trial

A technical summary and analysis of the results of an operational scale trial
carried out on cement grinds using the most successful proportional mix of
natural to recycled gypsum ascertained from the laboratory trials.

Section 6 Assessment and Analysis
A qualitative analysis of the technical, economic and environmental concerns
of the cement industry arising from the use of recycled gypsum; including
identification of current and future market prices, carbon emissions per
kilometre of recycled gypsum and an assessment of market acceptance.
Section 7 Conclusions
This section will outline and summarise all of the previous sections, and
demonstrate the viability of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture. A case
study to summarise this report will be published separately.

2.0 Methodology
2.1 Desktop Study
A previous desktop study 4 (utilising the web as a research tool, Jacobs own knowledge and experience and
information provided by WRAP), was undertaken to identify the potential for, and perceived barriers to, the use
of recycled gypsum in the manufacture of cement. The study researched the benefits to the cement industry and
opportunities, in particular, for the plasterboard recycling sector.
Many of these barriers were removed following a Scoping Study 5 undertaken by Jacobs and LCUK on behalf of
WRAP, however a number remained. This desktop study addresses and discounts, where possible, these
remaining perceived barriers which particularly concerned the purchasing and processing costs in comparison to
virgin gypsum, manufacturing barriers and issues which may affect the logistics supply chain in the cement
industry
2.2 Laboratory Test Schedule
The methodology for conducting the laboratory trials has been split into five stages which are discussed below.
Stage 1 Review of materials present in plasterboard

As part of the desktop study, an investigation was made into the formulation of plasterboard including; sources of
gypsum, types of paper, glues and other organics used. This identified ingredients that could affect quality
parameters including strength and other physical properties of cements incorporating gypsum from this source.
Stage 2: Material characterisation of recycled gypsum

In order to quantify variability, a process was agreed with WRAP whereby representative samples of recycled
plasterboard gypsum were taken from production runs on different days, spread over a two week period. This
material was then sub sampled at Lafarge Cement UK’s Cauldon works to provide samples for characterisation of
the main chemical and physical properties of the recycled material. These properties and their variance were
obtained by conducting:
I. Comprehensive chemical analysis including trace metals and organics which was subcontracted to a third
party ISO17025 certified test house.
II. Leachability testing to BS EN 12457 also subcontracted to a third party ISO17025 certified test house.
This test is required to be undertaken on any material that may be stored on open stockpiles and
subject to the leaching effects of weather.
III. Thermo-gravimetric analysis. A thermo-gravimetric analysis of the gypsum samples was carried out to
determine the different mineralogical forms of calcium sulphate present in the material and their
properties which have an important bearing on the setting characteristics of cement.
IV. Heat soaking. Representative samples were subjected to different periods of heat soaking. This was
done both to optimise the period of heat soaking required prior to laboratory scale grinding and to try to
replicate the temperature regime which would be encountered by the gypsum in a full scale cement
milling operation. The temperature regime encountered in cement milling is one of the critical
parameters in determining the propensity for false setting in cements.
V. Size analysis for comparison with that of mined gypsum rock normally used within the process. These
analyses were carried out by LCUK
VI. Estimation of contaminants. The samples were analysed and the amount of contaminants such as paper
and plastics in the recycled gypsum was estimated. These analyses were carried out by LCUK.
These studies were undertaken to confirm the appropriateness of the material as a natural gypsum replacement
in cement manufacture, and also to evaluate safety and environmental issues in the storage and handling of the
material.
4
5
Ibid

Stage 3: Bench top evaluation of cements
Laboratory mixes of clinker, gypsum and recycled gypsum were ground together to provide samples of cement
for chemical and physical testing over set time periods
Two different clinkers from LCUK works of contrasting alkali and sulphate content were used with recycled
gypsum replacement rates of 0%, 25%, 50% and 100% of natural gypsum. The eight sets of samples were
subjected to a full suite of EN 197 tests to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of these laboratory
cement mortars, along with comparative concrete testing including slump. Cement mortar and concrete strength
were evaluated at standard intervals.
These results were used to gauge the optimum replacement rate of natural gypsum with recycled plasterboard
gypsum over the range of cement clinkers produced in the UK.
Stage 4: Material flow characteristics

Following a size analysis and a visual inspection of the recycled gypsum it was concluded that the mass flow and
storage characteristics could be best gauged by full scale trialling on the existing works gypsum storage and
handling system rather than through laboratory trials.
Stage 5: Project review/report

Project reviews have been carried out on completion of each of the above stages, and progress regularly relayed
to WRAP.
2.3 Operational Trial Schedule
Jacobs, together with LCUK, undertook production trials on the use of recycled gypsum allowing a comprehensive
review of the process to be made. Results from the trials address the remaining barriers, perceived or real, to
recycled gypsum use in cement suggested by stakeholders in the Scoping Study 6 as summarised in Error!
Reference source not found..
The trials were carried out at LCUK’s Cauldon Works site on an open circuit mill rated at some 25tph cement.
Recycled and natural gypsum was pre-blended by front end loader and grab crane before being fed through the
normal gypsum silos and weighfeeders to the mill itself.
The large scale production trials were successful in identifying issues which could not be identified through similar
research or lab trials as the whole production process, from collection of appropriate waste gypsum, through to
the completion of the final product, was taken into consideration.
2.4 Assessment and Analysis
The Assessment and Analysis stage of the project consists of the following:
Stage 1 - Economic Analysis

Stage 2 - Environmental Analysis
Stage 3 - Market Assessment
Stage 4 - Technical Assessment
Stage 5 involves conducting an overall Risk Assessment for the previous stages, and providing the data in a
concise format.
Stage 1 - Economic Analysis

The competitiveness of the cement industry in the global marketplace was investigated to provide a detailed
economic outlook for the UK industry as a whole. This information was gathered from market reports, other
relevant evidence identified in the desktop study, and during the review stages of the laboratory tests.
The analysis identified perceived business risks or benefits resulting from the trial, with particular emphasis on
any cost implications. In particular an analysis of the cost implications of the collection and transportation of
6

waste plasterboard for use in the cement industry was conducted. This involved the comparison of a number of
possible scenarios for the transportation of waste plasterboard for use in the cement industry as follows:
Scenario 1 All gypsum supplied by gypsum mines

Scenario 2 All gypsum supplied by existing plasterboard recycling facilities, with capacity gap supplied from
the closest gypsum mines.
Scenario 3 All gypsum supplied direct to cement works from future development sites
Scenario 4 Gypsum supplied by existing plasterboard recycling facilities, with the capacity gap supplied
from hubs identified by the “pull” of the cement works
from hubs identified by the “pull” of future development
Scenario 6 Gypsum supplied from just the hubs identified by the “pull” of the cement works
Scenario 7 Gypsum supplied from just hubs identified by the “pull” of future development
These scenarios allowed consideration of the suitability of different contractual arrangements for the collection
and delivery of recycled gypsum for use in the cement industry, for example;
Multiple contracts to collect and deliver waste plasterboard to regional hubs where the waste plasterboard will
be converted into recycled gypsum;
Single contracts where waste plasterboard is delivered direct to cement manufacturers where they have a
designated processing plant on site.
NetWaste, Jacobs’ in-house gravity/transport model, which has been developed specifically to optimise the
location of facilities in order to minimise the impacts of transportation, was used to identify optimal areas of
search for new plasterboard recycling facilities (hubs) and the relative transport impacts of the locations of
facilities within a catchment area. The NetWaste model is explained in more detail in 0.
The modelling was used to determine the actual mileage and therefore associated transport costs for the
transportation of natural and recycled gypsum under the seven scenarios.
The capital outlay for each scenario was not quantified but the possible capital costs were considered.
Stage 2 - Environmental Analysis

An environmental analysis was undertaken. The carbon emissions associated with the collection and
transportation of gypsum for use within the cement manufacturing industry were determined using the outputs
from the NetWaste modelling in conjunction with Defra carbon conversion factors.
Other environmental impacts not addressed in the desktop study were also assessed and where possible
quantified.
Stage 3 - Market Assessment

To complete the desktop study, acceptability of the product to customers in the bagged and ready-mix sectors
has been assessed.
Stage 4 - Technical Assessment

The detailed production trials produced the data required to enable a full technical assessment of the viability of
the process to be made, which includes:
Operational constraints; and

A technical assessment of the end products from the four trials, against the relevant UK and international
cement standards.
The outcome of this assessment is a best practice guide for the gypsum recycling industry, including methods of
storage, methods of comminution, handling processes, percentage of paper, quality control at source,
contaminants etc.
2.5 Case Study
Through the analysis of information and results from the desktop study, laboratory testing and small scale
operational trials Jacobs and LCUK have produced a case study clearly outlining the business case for the use of

recycled gypsum in the cement industry. The case study considers the technical, operational, economic and
environmental implications of the replacement of natural gypsum with recycled gypsum from plasterboard within
the cement manufacturing industry. The case study includes recommendations to ensure the success of
increased use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture.
3.0 Desktop Study
3.1 Introduction
The earlier Scoping Study Report 7 set out a number of perceived barriers to the use of recycled gypsum in the
manufacture of cement. However, the report did not address how all these barriers could be overcome, and this
desktop study aims, where possible, to conclude this process. The remaining barriers can be separated broadly
into logistical, process, economic and environmental concerns. Some of these concerns were addressed in the
Desk-top Study as listed in Table 1; others were addressed during the operational and lab trials and are reported
elsewhere. This particularly applies to some of the environmental and economic effects of using recycled gypsum
in place of natural gypsum in cement manufacture.
The barriers are listed below in Table 1, along with suggested options to resolve the issues.
7

Table 1 Issues that may be resolved through desk top study
Issue Method of Resolution

Logistics and Supply Chain
The perceived locations of plasterboard Analysis of the geographical distribution of
recyclers in relation to cement cement manufacturers in relation to
manufacturers. plasterboard recyclers and sources of
natural gypsum.
How recycled gypsum can be transported. Telephone interviews to identify current and
potential methods of transporting recycled
gypsum and the barriers/opportunities
associated with each method.
The reliability of supply and potential Contact with recycled gypsum suppliers to
quantities of recycled gypsum. investigate the quantities of recycled
gypsum available, and record any issues of
supply fluctuations.
Quality and Process
How recycled gypsum can be stored and It has already been determined that the
handled. handling of recycled gypsum should not
cause a problem providing that it was stored
in designated silos. Concerns over the
moisture content of recycled gypsum and
how this impacted upon it running through
silos were addressed during the trials. It
was also noted from stakeholder
consultations that receiving the recycled
gypsum in a powder form may improve the
receipt and handling of the material
compared to natural gypsum.
The varying and minimum paper content Conducting an investigation into the
of recycled gypsum. sourcing of waste gypsum for recycling
process and how this can link to quality
control of the recycled product.
The educational, training and awareness Investigating with the construction and
programmes that would be needed for demolition industry what awareness
construction/demolition sites to effectively programs or support is needed (including
segregate plasterboard whilst minimising use of Site Waste Management Plans) to
contaminants. minimise contamination in recycled gypsum.
This links into the current WRAP project for
good practice guides for plasterboard waste
minimisation and management.
Shelf life of recycled gypsum (reported as Researching the relevant legislation and
being indefinite). practical implications of storing recycled
gypsum, and cement manufactured with
recycled gypsum.
Economic
The cost of recycled gypsum. Identifying the range of the prices of
recycled gypsum by meeting and discussing
with suppliers.
The economical and social impacts Comparing the use of natural material with
associated with the utilisation of recycled recycled. Comparing the disposal of waste
gypsum in comparison to mined. gypsum to landfill with its recycling and
reuse.
The impact on UK gypsum mines if the Interviewing the gypsum mining industry to
cement industry significantly reduced its identify any detrimental or positive effects
purchase of natural gypsum. on UK mines.
Environmental
The environmental impacts associated Comparing the use of natural material with
with the utilisation of recycled gypsum in recycled with regard to estimated lifecycle
comparison to mined. carbon emissions.

The desktop study was conducted utilising the web as a research tool, consultation of relevant publications,
Jacobs own in house knowledge base and experience and information provided by WRAP.
3.2 Industry Background
3.2.1 Cement Industry

The cement industry contributes £775 million annually to the UK economy and produces around 12M tonnes of
Portland cement a year, which represents about 90% of the cement sold in the UK.
There are four major manufacturers:
Castle Cement
CEMEX UK Operations
Lafarge Cement UK; and
Tarmac Buxton Lime & Cement.
Current estimates by industry analysts predicts the UK cement market to hit £1,137 million by 2012 (2007 prices),
with an associated 13% rise in demand resulting from EU legislation and energy costs 8. This is reflected by
recent figures released by the British Cement Association 9, illustrating an increase in sales by 4.8% last year
(2007), with cement production in the UK rising by 3.6%. This increase in cement demand is not unique to the
UK. Indeed rising demand is being felt across the global construction sector.
3.2.2 Plasterboard Industry
The plasterboard industry is also regarded as a growing industry, with global demand set to rise by 33% to
almost 9 billion meters cubed by 2010. This increase equates to the UK market as a 5 - 6% growth per annum 10.
The growth of the plasterboard industry can be attributed to several factors;
Housing; The UK housing sector accounts for two thirds of plasterboard use, with 45,000 additional units
established per annum (FPDC ‘Diverting Plasterboard Waste from Landfill).
Construction; The construction sector accounts for one third of plasterboard use.
Plasterboard use; Plasterboard or dry installation has replaced a significant proportion of the wet plastering
business, due to;
Speed of build
Skill level
Reduced cost
8
http://mqr.info/index.php; April 2008
9
www.cementindustry.co.uk, 2008
10
www.investis.com

Figure 1 Growth in UK Plasterboard Sales
Source: ONS Product Sales and Trade PRA26620 – Plasterboard Products for Construction Purposes
Sales £
£450,000
£440,000
£430,000
£420,000
£
£410,000
£400,000
£390,000
£380,000
2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
3.3 Gypsum and its role in Cement Manufacture
The initial step in cement production is the firing at high temperatures of a controlled mixture of limestone and
clay/mudstone. This produces cement clinker comprising calcium silicates, aluminates and alumino ferrites. The
clinker is then inter-ground with around 5% gypsum to produce cement powder 11. The grinding takes place in a
ball mill consisting of multiple compartments with progressively smaller steel balls. Gypsum is added to act as a
retardation agent in the setting of cement thus allowing concrete to be placed and compacted.
The cement industry consumed around 600,000 tonnes of natural gypsum in 2004 12, natural gypsum is currently
favoured over its synthetic counterpart in the cement making process as the higher moisture content and
fineness of synthetic gypsum makes it harder to handle through conventional feed systems, and results in a
reduction in product volume 13. Natural gypsum also reacts more slowly, obviating possible problems with false
settings. Recycled gypsum use has been restricted due to fears of paper impurities having a detrimental effect
on the grinding process. However, there is scope for the use of recycled gypsum derived from waste plasterboard
in all or some cements, thus reducing the amount of natural gypsum used in the UK.
3.4 Logistics and Supply Chain
3.4.1 Current Markets for Recycled and Natural Gypsum
Currently, the majority of gypsum used in the cement and plasterboard industry is virgin gypsum, 90% of which
comes directly from UK mines. Natural gypsum reserves across England are in excess of 50Mt the largest
reserves are in East Sussex and Leicestershire, with sufficient for some 20 years (at the current increased rate of
production 14).
Currently, it has been reported that some UK cement manufacturers (Castle Cement) use up to a 50/50 mix of
recycled and natural gypsum 15, with the typical amount varying from 10 -15%. The plasterboard industry utilises
varying amounts of recycled gypsum input of between 2 and 98%. However, as demand for both cement and
plasterboard increases and British reserves of natural gypsum have started to dwindle, the amount of recycled
11
British Geological Survey (2006) Mineral Planning Fact Sheet – Gypsum
12
ibid
13
ibid
14
ibid
15
The Cement Industries Suppliers Forum, 2007

gypsum used in the UK cement industry could rise to 594,750 tonnes per annum (Section 3.2), and the UK
plasterboard industry could consume 401,800 tonnes per annum.
3.4.2 Cement Industry Gypsum Requirement
Cement works in the UK are currently located near to their supply of naturally occurring materials, and most are
situated in the countryside away from residential and commercial development. Generally the sites are therefore
removed from construction and demolition sites. Table 2 lists UK cement works locations and total production
capacity for each site.
Table 2 Cement Works and Site Capacity, UK
Company Plant Location Capacity (tpa)
Aberthaw South Glamorgan 550,000
Barnstone Nottinghamshire 100,000
Cauldon Staffordshire 930,000
Lafarge Cement UK Dunbar East Lothian 900,000
Hope Derbyshire 1,400,000
Northfleet Kent 1,200,000
Westbury Wiltshire 765,000
Ketton Rutland 1,400,000
Castle Cement Ribblesdale Lancashire 870,000
Padeswood Flintshire 840,000
Barrington Cambridgeshire 300,000
Cemex Rugby Cement Rugby Warwickshire 1,400,000
Coningsby Lincolnshire 765,000
Tarmac Buxton Lime and Cement Tunstead Derbyshire 895,000
Total manufacturing capacity 12,315,000
As detailed in section 3.3, cement contains up to 5% gypsum, hence the UK cement industry could use up to
615,750 tonnes of recycled gypsum per annum, if it is found by the laboratory and operational trials to be a
suitable replacement for natural gypsum.
3.4.3 Recycled Gypsum Availability
There are eight companies in the UK currently recycling waste plasterboard into recycled gypsum for use in both
the plasterboard and cement industry. These companies are listed in Table 3. The recyclers require waste
management licences to treat the material, and most hold waste carriers licences to enable them to collect
plasterboard, and deliver recycled gypsum materials.

Table 3 Plasterboard Recyclers, UK
Tonnage
Company Name Locations
Capacity (ktpa)
Avonmouth, Avon 60 (currently 36k)
New West Gypsum
Immingham 25 (est 20-30)
Gypsum Recycling International Halling, Kent 110
East Leake, Loughborough
16 Robertsbridge, Sussex
British Gypsum Total 100
Kirkby Thor, Cumbria
Sherburn-in-Elmet, Leeds
Roy Hatfield Ltd. Rotherham, South Yorkshire 50
Mid UK Recycling Grantham, Lincolnshire 50
Recyclet Brigg, Lincolnshire 65
Coast2Coast Tollerton, Yorkshire 25
PBR UK London 50
Total available plasterboard recycling capacity >535
Whilst the processing capacity of the five companies is at least some 535,000 tonnes per annum, the proportion
of waste plasterboard which is converted to usable recycled gypsum is dependent on the level of contamination,
and method of processing to remove paper content. Research 17 conducted with the plasterboard recycling
industry suggests that up to 10% of the plasterboard input into recycling facilities will not be processed into
recycled gypsum, resulting in some 481,500 tonnes of recycled gypsum being produced from this sector.
Therefore there is capacity within the UK to utilise all available recycled gypsum in the cement manufacturing
industry.
3.4.4 Location of cement works in relation to plasterboard recycling facilities

The current network of plasterboard recycling facilities is less well developed than sources of natural or synthetic
gypsum. The stakeholder group therefore perceived that recycled gypsum delivery costs may exceed those for
natural or synthetic gypsum. To examine this concern, mapping of the sites detailed in Table 2 and Table 3 was
undertaken. This showed that only three cement works were located more than 75 miles from a plasterboard
recycling facility, as shown in Figure 2. Industry sources suggest that travel distances for complete loads below
75 miles would not be a disincentive to distributors.
16
British Gypsum currently use recycled gypsum for processing back into their own plasterboard products.
17
WRAP (unpublished) Waste Plasterboard Market Scoping Study

Figure 2 Map of UK gypsum mines, plasterboard recyclers and cement works

Table 4 Kilometres between Cement Works and Plasterboard Re-processors, 2007.
Gypsum Roy Solvent

Recycling Hatfield Resource Coast2 PBR
New West Gypsum International British Gypsum Mid UK Ltd. Management Recyclet Coast UK
East Kirkby
Avonmouth Immingham Halling Robertsbridge Leake Sherburn Thore Grantham Rotherham Morecambe Brigg Tollerton London
Users of Gypsum
Aberthaw 78 386 317 344 263 374 466 314 329 399 363 414 261
Barnstone 238 111 239 290 25 113 263 35 85 227 89 152 203
Cauldon 218 173 285 325 64 135 221 108 71 154 151 166 235
Lafarge Dunbar 605 360 644 685 412 296 210 402 344 279 368 261 595
Hope 254 128 316 356 84 80 207 100 33 139 106 125 266
Northfleet* 235 298 17 72 226 341 500 220 295 432 277 380 38
Westbury 55 326 214 241 213 328 437 252 283 370 303 367 166
Ketton 229 133 190 241 59 153 302 50 127 269 111 192 146
Castle Cement Ribblesdale 314 184 414 454 176 95 117 187 107 70 162 93 364
Padeswood 216 227 357 397 153 160 202 205 140 134 205 189 307
Barrington 263 204 120 171 136 228 377 125 197 346 183 267 77
Cemex (Rugby)
Cement Rugby 161 172 188 228 59 175 327 98 129 260 150 214 138
Coningsby 284 73 249 300 97 132 282 38 101 260 68 164 206
Tarmac Buxton
Cement Tunstead 239 142 312 352 87 98 200 107 47 132 120 135 262
* Northfleet works will close in 2008.

3.4.5 Transportation and storage of recycled gypsum
Gypsum Recycling UK state that recycled gypsum can be transported as per natural gypsum. Should recycled
gypsum be supplied to cement manufacturers it is considered that the material will be transported in covered
tipper trucks or tankers to a designated hopper prior to being utilised in the cement manufacturing process.
The operational trials (See Section 5.0) examined constraints to recycled gypsum flow through cement works
handling systems and hoppers.
3.4.6 Reliability of supply
The proportion of waste plasterboard which may be converted to recycled gypsum of appropriate quality for use
in cement manufacture varies in practice but is for the purpose of this study assumed to be 90%. This allows for
the removal of the end facing paper and any contamination. Cement manufacturers currently require mixture of
clinker with up to 5% gypsum.
Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of this study demonstrate that there is capacity in the UK for the cement industry to use
all the recycled gypsum arising from the plasterboard recycling industry in the manufacture of cement. Currently,
the level of gypsum recoverable from plasterboard depends on input quality and recycling process. Table 5
illustrates the quantity of potential recycled gypsum material available with current capacity, and cement industry
requirements based on proportional use of recycled gypsum to natural gypsum in the cement manufacturing
process.
Table 5 Supply and demand for Recycled Gypsum
Amounts of recycled gypsum required for selected

clinker/natural gypsum : recycled gypsum ratios
95:05:00 96.25 : 3.75 97.5 : 2.5 98.75 : 1.25
Quality gypsum currently
reclaimed from waste Tonnes Required
plasterboard 615,750 461,813 307,875 153,938
% Tonnes Tonnes Available
90 554,175 61,575 -92,363 -246,300 -400,238
The area shaded blue shows where there would be a deficit in recycled gypsum to meet current demand from the
cement industry if all of the 5% gypsum required for cement manufacture was recycled gypsum. The areas
shaded green indicate where there potentially could be an over supply of recycled gypsum compared to the
maximum cement industry demand.
The table indicates that increased capacity for waste plasterboard recycling would be required to enable all UK
produced cement to contain the maximum proportion of gypsum for cements meeting UK quality standards.
However, the results of the operational trials need to be considered in establishing the maximum proportion of
recycled gypsum able to be used in cement.
Furthermore, there are other existing and emerging markets for recycled gypsum, such as unfired clay blocks,
road bases/sub bases and stabilised sub grades, slope stabilisation, moulding plaster for ceramic and metal
casting, mushroom compost, soil conditioner and granular absorbent, will utilise a proportion of the recycled
gypsum available from the plasterboard recycling industry.
Table 5 Supply and demand for Recycled Gypsum 5 indicates the potential requirement of additional facilities for
plasterboard recycling to meet potential future demand for recycled gypsum from the cement industry. This
requirement would be further augmented by the demands from other sectors for recycled gypsum.

A study of material flows in the plasterboard industry 18 suggests that approximately 1 million tonnes of
plasterboard waste from manufacturing, construction and demolition is being generated as waste. The existing
maximum capacity of plasterboard recyclers is sufficient to recycle new build waste offcuts; however it is
insufficient to cope with the maximum potential waste plasterboard arisings. Furthermore, with tighter
environmental regulation and the associated increasing costs of disposal to landfill, waste plasterboard from
refurbishments, smaller scale and demolition projects may, with suitable contamination controls, begin to be
recycled, increasing the quantity and availability of recycled gypsum, and creating a requirement for further
recycling capacity.
The optimal Areas of Search (AoS) for the location of additional plasterboard recycling facilities within the UK are
detailed in section 6.3.2.
3.5 Quality and Processing

The quality of the recycled gypsum and its characteristics were considered by stakeholders within the Scoping
Study to be barriers to its use in cement manufacture. The results of this desktop study will be augmented with
those derived from the laboratory and operational trials.
3.5.1 Supply and Shelf life of recycled gypsum
The Scoping Study 19 identified that there were no significant fluctuations in the supply of gypsum throughout the
year. December to February was reported as the quietest times of the year during which back logged materials
are processed. It was reported by stakeholders in the study that although the shelf life of recycled gypsum has
not been assessed, it is thought to be similar to that of natural gypsum, i.e. indefinite.
Further desk based research has not revealed any information to justify or dispute the statement that the shelf
life of recycled gypsum is similar to that of natural gypsum.
3.5.2 Varying and minimum paper content of the recycled gypsum

Typically, plasterboard comprises of 95% gypsum and between 5% paper facing (by weight), on each side of the
board. This paper facing can be problematic during the recovery process, as paper fibre contamination of greater
than 1% not only decreases the proportion of recycled material but a high paper content in recycled gypsum can
also result in other problems being encountered in its use within the cement industry;
The cellulose fibres of the paper may block the diaphragms in the cement ball milling process.
The paper content may affect the viscosity of the cement
As a result, decreasing the paper content of recycled gypsum arising from waste plasterboards to less than 1%
during the recovery process is regarded as key. Stakeholders involved in the WRAP Scoping Study 20 identified that
current paper content of recycled gypsum to be 1-2%. However, it was considered that achieving a paper
content of <1% was viable, and further reducing the paper content was feasible with investment in capital
equipment. The Scoping Study identified examples demonstrating the achievement of these low levels of
contamination. Gypsum Recycling International (GRI) claim they are able to reduce the amount of paper in
recycled gypsum to 0.5%, through the use of their patented mobile recycling unit, while Roy Hatfield Ltd. claim
their material to be virtually paper free. 21 The technology required to remove the paper content from waste
plasterboard to less than 1% is readily available, with examples across the globe, including New West Gypsum
Recycling in Canada. The cost impact on recycled gypsum powder product from reducing the paper content has
not been identified.
The paper content has been assessed during the laboratory and operational trials.
18
WRAP report, January 2006. Review of Plasterboard Material Flows and Barriers to Greater Use of
Recycled Plasterboard
19
WRAP (2007); Scoping Study for the use of Recycled Gypsum in Cement Manufacture
20
ibid
21
Pers Comm with Graham Worthington, Glacier, A LaFarge Company

3.5.3 Type and quantity of foreign objects
The Scoping Study 22 identified the main types of foreign objects encountered in the recycling of plasterboard as
being:
metal;
wooden studding; and
wire.
Wire presents the greatest risk to the plant as it can wrap around the moving parts of the machinery. Ferrous
metals are removed with electromagnets. Wood is generally segregated out during the sieving process with
other oversized articles.
By way of illustration, it was reported in a WRAP case study 23 that of the total waste plasterboard arriving at Roy
Hatfield Ltd. recycling facility, recycled gypsum constitutes approximately 89% of the output, whilst paper and
vinyl/foil linings (from specialist plasterboard such as vinyl or metal foil lined) constitute approximately 8%, and
contaminants approximately 3%. However, recent verbal discussions with Roy Hatfield have revealed that values
up to 95% of the plasterboard can be recycled in line with best practice figures.
Plasterboard from refurbishment and demolition is more often contaminated with wallpaper, nails, pieces of
timber, and paint 24. As a result plasterboard from demolition projects is not accepted at recycling facilities,
however, if the boards were stripped out before the building was demolished, their inclusion could be possible, as
long as fixings are removed and the boards are relatively uncontaminated.
3.5.4 Potential additives in plasterboard
During the production process, additives are incorporated into the gypsum plaster core to impart specific
properties. In addition, once the gypsum is converted to the hemihydrate state, this is then blended with various
additives in small quantities to control properties in the manufacturing process and performance in use as
plasterboard.
Different types of plasterboard are manufactured for specific uses and performance requirements, such as sound
insulation, moisture resistance and fire resistance, and these each have a designated identification code letter as
defined in BS EN 520:2004 25. For example, fire retardant plasterboards contain a small amount of fiberglass
which helps to hold the drywall together during a fire. Table 6 below illustrates some of the additives in
plasterboard, and the purpose they serve, which may find their way into the recycled gypsum process.
22
WRAP (2007); Scoping Study for the use of Recycled Gypsum in Cement Manufacture
23
WRAP (2004) Case Study- A partnership Approach to Plasterboard Waste Management and Recycling
24
Defra (2006)Market Transformation Programme BNPB2: Plasterboard- Waste Management version 1.5
25
WRAP (2008) Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard

Table 6 Plasterboard Additives
Additive Purpose Effect on Cement Product

26
Quality
Starch To prevent calcination and to aid in Acts as retarder
the bonding of the paper to the core.
Foaming Agent Introduce air into the board to lower Entrains air into the mortar
weight and decrease brittleness effectively lowering strength
Wetting Agent Maintain fluidity and reduce water Entrains air into the mortar
usage effectively lowering strength
Boric Acid To increase stiffness of the board and Boron in large quantities will affect
to complex with salts that destroy early strength and setting times
bond formation
Slurry Setting Modifiers To reduce mixer build-up, increase Entrains air into mortar effectively
the fluidity and wetting lowering strength
Accelerators To speed up middle to final set so as Decreases setting times

to reduce belt length
Pulp To decrease brittleness Unknown
Clay, Waxes, fibreglass, For use in specialty boards such as Unknown

vermiculite waterproof and fire resistant.
Source: Unwin (2002) 27
Knowledge of these additives and their potential impact on the cement product has been considered in the
interpretation of the results of the laboratory and operational trials.
3.6 Economics
Section 3.4.6 introduced the potential impacts of increasing costs of disposal of gypsum products. This section
considers this and other economic aspects of the substitution of natural gypsum with recycled gypsum highlighted
by the Scoping Study as barriers to use. While a more detailed consideration of the economics of the cement
industry is provided in the economic analysis in section 6.3, this section of the desktop study addresses the
economic barriers highlighted by the Scoping Study.
3.6.1 Cost of recycled gypsum

The cost of recycled gypsum in the UK is dependant on a number of factors:
the quantity being purchased;
the frequency of purchases;
the end use; and
the transportation distance
Jacobs’ Scoping Study 28 identified the following indicative costs for gypsum:
26
Effects on cement product provided by LCUK
27
Unwin (2002) ‘A Comparison of Plasterboard and FDG Gypsum in the Reclamation of Sodic Soils’
28

Table 7 Price of Natural Gypsum vs Recycled Gypsum from Plasterboard
Manufacturer Price Per Tonne Haulage

Recycled Gypsum from
Plasterboard £5 - £8 £1.50 per mile
Natural Gypsum £8 - £12
Source: WRAP (2007); Scoping Study for the use of Recycled Gypsum in Cement Manufacture
This information demonstrates that, per tonne, recycled gypsum is more economical than natural gypsum.
However, the report suggests that haulage costs could increase the cost of using recycled gypsum. Currently
cement mills are located adjacent to gypsum mines so haulage costs of natural gypsum to these sites are very
low however, as the proportion of imported gypsum rises, the economics will need revision. Conversely, while the
cost of collection of waste plasterboard is included in the product cost, the recycling of plasterboard requires
transport from the plasterboard recycler to the cement mill.
While the cost per mile of haulage has been assumed to be the same, the relatively low value of recycled gypsum
means that transportation costs impact heavily on the overall price per tonne.
By way of illustration, Plasterboard Recycling UK is one of three companies known to offer plasterboard recycling
in Scotland. Charges for the provision of a 40-yard skip and haulage in the Glasgow and Edinburgh area are
£110 per tonne. The high haulage charges are a result of the lack of plasterboard manufacturers in Scotland;
plasterboard is therefore transported to England for reprocessing. In this example the lack of recycling
infrastructure and the long transportation distances means that costs associated with transportation represent the
bulk of the cost 29.
Table 4 demonstrates that in all cases, there is a plasterboard recycler within 75 miles (120km) of a cement mill.
Stakeholders involved in the Scoping Study suggested that travel distances for complete loads below 75 miles
would not be a disincentive to distributors. It may therefore be considered that while transportation costs
associated with recycled gypsum use in cement manufacture may increase its cost, it is likely that recycled
gypsum will remain economically viable. A detailed analysis of the potential transportation costs associated with
the use of recycled gypsum in the cement industry has been undertaken in section 6.3.
3.6.2 Comparison of disposal of recycled plasterboard with processing costs
Up until July 2005, most plasterboard products in the UK were classified as non-hazardous inert waste which was
permitted into landfill for co-disposal with other wastes of the same classification. Following implementation of
the EU Landfill Directive in July 2005, high sulphate wastes were reclassified as non-hazardous, non-inert wastes.
This now means that concentrations of plasterboard waste over a certain level destined for landfill must be
segregated from other wastes and deposited in separated, engineered cells in non-hazardous landfills. This
change has increased the cost of landfilling waste plasterboard with a landfill tax on active wastes currently at
£32/tonne, compared to £2.50/tonne for inert wastes. The standard rate of landfill tax for active wastes will be
increased by £8 a tonne, each year, from 1st April 2008 until at least 2010/2011.
Table 8 Economic comparison of take-back against landfill disposal taken from the WRAP Good Practice Guidance
Report on Plasterboard Waste Minimisation and Management (unpublished) illustrates the cost differential
between disposal via landfilling compared to recycling resulting from the increased costs of plasterboard disposal.
29
Defra (2006) Market Transformation Programme ‘BNPB2: Plasterboard- waste management, Version 1.5

Table 8 Economic comparison of take-back against landfill disposal
Sent to plasterboard Landfill Landfill

Take-back scheme*
recycler (via 10% rule) (via monocell)
Waste 1 m³ bag (£19 each) Skip Skip Skip

container On average, a bag will take
type 0.25 tonnes of plasterboard
waste. With a chipper, this
can rise to 0.35 tonnes.
Landfill tax _ _ Included within skip Included within skip

(£/tonne)† costs. costs.
Total cost per £76 £25–55†† £50# £133##

tonne of With a chipper, the cost will The cleaner the
plasterboard be ~£57** plasterboard waste or the
waste greater the quantities, the
cheaper it will be per tonne
within the range.
* Figures based on the scheme provided by British Gypsum, which requires a minimum purchase of 10 bags and a minimum collection total of six
full bags.
† The annual rise in the landfill tax will be reflected in the increased cost of waste containers. With the take-back scheme, no landfill tax is paid as
the waste is not going to landfill but to be recycled.
** Based on trials by Wastecycle, a chipper can provide labour cost and time savings. Manual filling was found to cost £20.15/ m3. With the use of
the chipper, this reduced to £6.46/m³ (Source: WRAP, 2007. Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites;
www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=4740).
†† Does not include transport
# Figure sourced from Wastecycle and based on landfill costs in the East Midlands region.
## See Table 1 of the WRAP Good Practice Guide.
There is already a clear financial incentive to the construction industry to recycle plasterboard rather than dispose
of it to landfill, Landfill tax will increase by £8 annually for the next 3 years bringing it to £48/tonne by
2010/2011. Rising disposal costs will increase the cost differential between disposal and recycling providing a
clear driver for increased plasterboard recycling, and improved security of supply of recycled gypsum.
3.6.3 Cement Sector Competitiveness
The cost structure of the cement industry has been considered to determine the potential impact of the
replacement of natural gypsum with recycled gypsum on the industry. This assessment built up a profit and loss
account for the industry and was used to determine how susceptible the industry is to imports from overseas, and
thereby how susceptible to changes in costs that might arise as a result of a substitution of natural gypsum by
recycled.
The assessment identified that gypsum represents only a small element of the industry’s costs. Figure 3 illustrates
the estimated cost structure of the cement sector (2006). 30. Nonetheless, this represents an annual cost of
approximately £6.6m per annum 31.
30
If the total cost of purchases reported in ABI is not adjusted downwards, then the value of other (un-attributed) costs would
be correspondingly greater (as it is a balancing value) and gypsum’s share of total costs would be less than 1%.
31
British Geological Society (2006), Mineral planning fact sheet – Cement

Figure 3 Estimated cost structure of cement sector 2006 (Total production cost £622 million)
1.1% Labour
2.6%
1.1% Limestone &
26.4%
23.9% Chalk
Energy
Gypsum/
anhydrite
Clay & Shale
44.9%
Other
As illustrated, limestone and chalk is by far the largest cost element, accounting for around 45% of total
production costs. Energy and labour are the other two main cost components, each accounting for around a
quarter of total production costs. Gypsum accounts for a very small percentage of the total production cost of
cement. Consequently, any increase or decrease in the price of gypsum is likely to have an insignificant impact on
the total cost on cement production. Furthermore, the UK cement sector is relatively isolated from international
competition; with low values for both import and export intensities. 32 According to PRODCOM, the import
intensity of the sector in 2004 was 13% (on a value basis), while the export intensity was 5%. However, these
values include trade in cement clinker. For grey Portland cement, the import intensity was 9%, while the export
intensity was only 2%. The trade intensities for alumina cement are higher – at around 30% and 70%
respectively, but this accounts for only 4% of total sales value (1% of volume).
As can be seen in Figure 4, the cement sector is much less trade intensive than other “industrial” manufacturing
sectors. 33 The import intensity for the non-metallic minerals sector as a whole was 35%, while the export
intensity was 26%. For the chemicals, rubber and plastics, and basic metals sectors, import intensities ranged
between 39% and 57%, while export intensities ranged between 47% and 61%.
32
Import intensity is equal to total imports divided by UK net supply (equal to UK production plus imports, minus exports).
Export intensity is equal to total exports divided by UK production.
33
The trade intensities for the four sectors are calculated from information on outputs, imports and exports provided in the UK
Supply and Use Tables.

Figure 4 Trade Intensity – 2004 (Value basis)
3.6.4 Impact of the Cement Industry using Recycled Gypsum
The limited import/export of cement indicates that the UK cement industry is largely isolated from global markets
as the majority of the cement produced in the UK is used in the UK. This suggests that the competitiveness of
the UK cement manufacturing industry would not be compromised by an increase in cost related to the
substitution of natural gypsum with recycled gypsum. Nevertheless, it must be noted that cement is a globally
traded commodity and that the UK cement industry may be more susceptible to imports as production costs
change, particularly as the cement capacity in the EU is constrained by the need to comply with the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme quotas for CO2 emissions. Nonetheless, gypsum accounts for only a very small percentage of
the total production cost of cement, i.e. around 1%. Consequently any increase in the price of gypsum is likely to
have an insignificant impact on the total cost of cement production.
3.6.5 Impact on Existing Mined/Synthetic Gypsum Industries
The proposed substitution of natural gypsum by recycled material may have a significant impact on the gypsum
industry within the UK. A single company, British Gypsum, is responsible for the production of natural gypsum in
the UK; therefore all of the economic impacts associated with a reduced demand for natural gypsum from the
cement manufacturing industry would impact on this company.
If we assume a 50% replacement rate, British Gypsum would lose 300ktpa of its market to the recycled gypsum
market. Since they have approximately one sixth of the plasterboard recycling market, it can be assumed that
one sixth of the 300ktpa loss would come back to British Gypsum through their plasterboard recycling interests.
Therefore the total loss would be 250,000tpa –15% of their current market. If we assume 100% substitution is
achieved the loss would be 500,000tpa – 30% of their current market. However, British Gypsum may also
increase their share of the market supplying the plaster, plasterboard, and specialist use sectors to make up for
losses incurred as a result of the replacement of natural gypsum with recycled gypsum. The extent to which
British Gypsum would be able to offset these loses through increasing market share in other areas is not known,
however it is worth noting that the plaster and plasterboard industries tend to prefer the purer and finer
imported/synthetic gypsum. This would suggest that British Gypsum would be unable to recoup all of the losses
it incurs as a result of a switch to the use of recycled gypsum in the cement manufacturing industry. Therefore
negative economic and social impacts might be envisaged for some or all mining areas.

Furthermore, the majority of gypsum used in cement manufacturing is UK natural gypsum, 0.6Mt 34, which is low
grade gypsum for cement works (known as cement rock). This low grade gypsum has to be removed from
gypsum mines to allow mining of high grade gypsum for plasterboard. This low grade ‘cement rock’ gypsum
represents approximately 35% of British gypsum’s total output. Therefore if no outlet for this material is
established, the whole mining operation may be questioned.
3.7 Environmental Issues
3.7.1 Gypsum Source
The sourcing of gypsum through both conventional methods, i.e. mined and synthetic gypsum, and through
recycling, has environmental impacts.
Conventional gypsum is sourced through mining, either open cast or underground mining or synthetic generation
such as flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD). This method of gypsum production is a key contributor to physical
resource depletion, global warming potential resulting from energy use, ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation and
acidification 35. The majority of environmental impacts occur as a result of combustion of coal fired power stations
(and its allocation to the production of gypsum through oxidation of FGD residues). The principle environmental
impacts of mined gypsum arise from resource depletion and energy use in production.
The environmental impacts of recycled gypsum are principally attributed to the collection of waste plasterboard,
and the recycling stage. The collection of waste plasterboard from disperse locations and the associated
environmental impacts of road transportation, e.g. emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulates,
while the removal of paper and other contaminants during the recycling process requires energy and generates a
small percentage of waste 36.
Sourcing of gypsum through recycling carries greater environmental benefits than conventional methods.
3.7.2 End-of-Life Options
Comparing the end-of-life options for gypsum in plasterboard illustrates the greater potential impact of landfilling
plasterboard in a mono-cell landfill, as opposed to a mixed waste landfill. Table 9 shows the greater potential
impact of disposal to a mono-cell landfill when compared to mixed waste landfill for a number of categories. This
is due to increased fuel consumption and transportation burdens.
The WRAP (2007) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Plasterboard illustrates the four main end-of-life options for
waste plasterboard, the source of recycled gypsum. Recycling of waste gypsum with low associated
transportation needs is comparatively the better end-of-life option in terms of environmental impact.
The LCA illustrates the increased environmental impacts associated with the high transport scenario within the
lifecycle analysis. Plaster and plasterboard works are normally located close to mines, thereby minimising the
environmental impacts from transportation, while increased transportation is associated with the collection of
waste plasterboard for recycling into recycled gypsum. As such consideration of the optimal location of
plasterboard recycling facilities can assist in reducing environmental impacts associated with the process.
3.8 Legislation Affecting the Industry

The Cement manufacturing industry must comply with legislation regulating the impact of its activities on the
environment and regulations ensuring the quality of its products.
Cement produced with recycled gypsum (CEM I – Clinker content 95 -100%) must comply with the specifications
outlined in BSI EN 197, through the use of the testing methods provided in BSI BS EN 196. Mechanical and
physical requirements of cements are set out in Table 2 of BS EN 197-1:2000, the heat of hydration must
conform to condition 7.2.3 of BS EN 197-1:2000 and the chemical requirements for cements are given by Table 3
of BS EN 197-1:2000.
34
35
WRAP (2008), Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard
36
ibid

In addition to the regulation of the standard of cement, the industry’s impact on the environment is regulated
through the following environmental legislation:
Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999
Finance Act 2000 – Climate Change Levy and Climate Change Agreements
Town & Country Planning Act (Mineral) Regulations 1995
EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals) Regulation 2007
The REACH Regulation is a major new system for chemical product regulation. REACH legislation includes the
testing of a large range of chemicals and substances for their effects on the environment and human health. One
of these chemicals is cement.
Further information on the REACH Regulation can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm
3.8.1 Publicly Available Specifications (PAS)
PAS are consultative documents developed and produced based on the British Standard Institutes’ (BSI) model 37.
The main variation between a British Standard and a PAS is in the area of consensus. A British Standard must
reach full consensus between all stakeholders on its technical content, whilst a PAS invites comments from any
interested party but does not necessarily incorporate them. This means that the timescale for the development of
a PAS can be significantly shorter.
The use of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard is well established in a range of applications, and new end
markets are emerging.
This PAS sets minimum requirements for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard, covering:
the selection, receipt and handling of input materials;
the specifications of product grades; and
the storage, labelling, dispatch and traceability of the products.
It also specifies requirements for a quality management system to ensure the recycled gypsum being produced is
consistently fit for its intended uses.
Development of the PAS began during the consultation stage in late summer 2007, with the final document being
published in September 2008 38. The specification should assist in removing the majority of barriers associated
with the significant uptake of recycled gypsum.
3.8.2 Quality Protocol (QP)
Quality Protocols are being developed for a number of wastes and provide guidance to business that:
Define the point of full recovery from a waste to a product or material that can either be reused by the
business or industry or sold into other markets; or
Define when wastes are recovered to a state where the Environment Agency considers that their use is
acceptable in accordance with their Low Risk regulatory principles; and
Confirm to the business community what legal obligations remain to control the reuse of the treated waste
material.
Discussions at the WRAP Plasterboard Forum have demonstrated that the current situation of recycled gypsum
being defined as a waste is acting as a significant barrier to its reuse. A full QP for recycled gypsum would be
expected to overcome this barrier, raise the profile of recycled gypsum and lead to significant market growth.
A Quality Protocol for recycled gypsum is currently being developed with an anticipated publication in summer
2008. The quality protocol for recycled gypsum will result in waste gypsum recovered in line with the QP being
classified as a product rather than a waste.
37
www.bsi-global.com
38
PAS 109: Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard
http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/plasterboard/pas109.html

3.9 Summary of the Desk-top Study
The desktop study has revealed that an estimated 3,000,000 tonnes of plasterboard is utilised in the UK
construction industry annually, and that current projections suggest this figure will increase rapidly. The global
demand for plasterboard is set to rise to 9 billion m3 by 2010, equating to a growth of 5% to 6% per annum 39.
Annually, approximately 800,000 to 1,300,000 tonnes of waste plasterboard is generated in the UK with
approximately 1,000,000 tonnes currently disposed of to landfill, proving a significant environmental and
economical challenge for the industry. The plasterboard recycling industry currently has capacity to recycle
535,000 tonnes of waste plasterboard per annum and is currently approximately 70% utilised.
The UK cement industry produces approximately 12,000,000 tonnes of Portland cement each year, representing
90% of the UK market and contributing £775 million to the UK economy annually. Production is expected to
increase by 3.6% 40. The British cement industry utilises 600,000 tonnes of natural gypsum each year during
manufacture. This increasing demand, coupled with the dwindling supply of natural gypsum from UK mines
(section 3.2), suggests there is the potential to divert almost 600,000 tonnes of recycled gypsum derived from
waste plasterboard from landfill to the cement manufacturing industry.
This assessment indicates that there is scope for the full replacement of natural gypsum with recycled should the
technical assessment resulting from the laboratory and operational trials determine it is suitable.
The desktop study has identified that the perceived logistical and supply chain barriers to use of recycled gypsum
can be overcome. While there is not currently sufficient plasterboard recycling capacity to meet the maximum
cement industry demand, there is capacity to supply the industry at lower substitution rates, and there are a
number of strong drivers for an increase in the quantity of recycled gypsum. In addition the study has identified
that the special distribution of plasterboard recyclers and cement manufacturers is not likely to prevent its use.
The desktop study provides detail and background to the quality and processing concerns raised by stakeholders.
Removing the perceived barrier that recycled gypsum is unsuitable for cement manufacture due to its high paper
content, foreign object content and shelf life are crucial. The desktop study has revealed that the paper content
of recycled gypsum can create problems during cement manufacture. Nevertheless, it has been established that
the paper content in recycled gypsum can, and indeed has been reduced to acceptable levels of <1%. The
amount of contaminants (metal, wooden studding, wire), within recycled gypsum can be problematic. However,
through not accepting plasterboard from the demolition industry, carefully selecting the source of recycled
plasterboard, and increasing education and awareness of the construction industry, contaminates can be
removed. The shelf life of recycled gypsum is thought to be similar to that of natural gypsum.
Ensuring that the quality of recycled gypsum is suitable for the cement manufacture industry is vital to convincing
the cement industry to use recycled gypsum as a sustainable and viable alternative to natural gypsum. These
are addressed more fully in the operational trials.
The desktop study identifies that there are clear economic benefits associated with the use of recycled gypsum,
with reduced product costs to the cement industry and reduced disposal costs to the construction industry.
Substitution of natural gypsum with recycled, represents a business opportunity for the plasterboard recycling
industry. The assessment of the impact of a switch to recycled gypsum on both the cement and gypsum
recycling industry anticipates no significant negative impact to the competitiveness of the cement industry, but a
potential issue for the gypsum mining industry. British Gypsum as the sole gypsum mine operator may be
exposed to a loss of market.
The environmental barriers identified are concerned with the potential environmental impact from mined gypsum,
as opposed to recycled gypsum. The desktop study highlights the environmental impacts associated with the
sourcing and end-of-life management of both conventional (natural and FGD gypsum) and recycled gypsum. The
study reveals that there are lower environmental impacts associated with recycled gypsum than natural gypsum.
The recycling of waste gypsum associated with low transportation necessities incurs less of an environmental
impact than landfilling (mixed and mono-cell), and therefore overall it is considered that the use of recycled
gypsum results in environmental benefits, where transportation logistics are carefully considered and the
associated impacts minimised.
39
www.investis.com
40
www.cementindustry.co.uk

4.0 Laboratory Test Results
4.1 Cement Manufacturing Process
The chemical and physical properties of gypsum and individual clinkers, how they react together and the cement
milling conditions during manufacture affects some of the most fundamental properties of Portland cement. For
example, its workability and the water/cement ratio (W C), i.e. the amount of water required to achieve a
workable concrete. Changes in W C alter the strength achieved by the concrete and hence bulk cement users
rate cement performance, quality and price at constant W C.
Cement clinker itself is a complex mixture of calcium silicates, aluminates and alumino ferrites and the nature of
the raw materials give rise to differing percentages of these in the glassy clinker matrix. These differing
percentages and differing amounts of alkaline earths and sulphur in the raw materials affect how the clinker
reacts with gypsum. As the ratio and amount of sulphur to alkali increase the form in which alkalis are held in
the clinker matrix changes from alkali sulphates to the double salt containing calcium and potassium ions and
(rarely) at high sulphur to alkali ratios as calcium sulphate which is relatively inactive from a set retardation
viewpoint compared to the more soluble (more active) single and double salts.
Essentially if ground clinker without gypsum was added to water any calcium aluminate present would react
rapidly with water with great heat evolution and the mixture would irreversibly stiffen - this is quick or ‘flash set’.
It is to prevent this and control the rate of reaction that gypsum is ground with clinker in producing cement.
When cement (i.e. milled clinker and gypsum) is mixed with water two main reactions occur:
The water dissolves calcium sulphate and lime to form an alkaline calcium sulphate solution.
The calcium aluminate begins its rapid reaction with water to form calcium aluminate hydrate.
There immediately follows a reaction between the calcium sulphate and calcium aluminate hydrate and water to
form the complex compound ‘ettringite’ which is very insoluble in the alkaline calcium sulphate solution. The
ettringite deposits on the surface of the calcium aluminate forming a barrier against further hydration, the rate of
reaction is determined by the diffusion rate of water through the ettringite layer. In this way flash set is avoided
and the reaction controlled.
These reactions progressively take up the free water present and the mixture stiffens forming a rigid framework
against which further hydration of the silicate phases takes place, it is the hydration of these silicate phases, not
aluminates, that give cement its progressive strength development.
The rate of the initial reactions to form the stiff paste, essentially ‘workability’, is affected by the individual
chemistry of the clinker’s tricalcium aluminate (C2A) content, the silicate content (C2S and C3S) and the chemistry
of the alkalis and sulphur within the clinker matrix. Hence where we are investigating the replacement of natural
gypsum with recycled gypsum it is important to trial with more than one clinker.
Laboratory and full scale milling trials differ fundamentally with respect to the temperature regime the gypsum is
subjected to. In the manufacture of cement, gypsum is added in a process carried out in large ball milling
systems. Essentially all the grinding energy is dissipated as heat adding to the initial heat contained in hot clinker
– depending on the process used clinker fed to the mills can vary in temperature up to and in excess of 100°C.
This can mean that cement produced in the milling system can be up to 150°C with hot clinkers and open circuit
milling systems. With closed circuit, highly airswept milling systems with high efficiency separators much lower
temperatures (less than 100°C) are achieved. It should be noted that bench scale grinding tests are undertaken
with cold clinker and gypsum in small ball mills which cannot duplicate the heat environment achieved in the
industrial process.
The high process temperatures result in any calcium sulphate added to the cement, being in a more or less
dehydrated form. In the most favourable case it will be present as a mixture of gypsum (the dihydrate
CaSO4.2H2O) and Calcium sulphate hemihydrate (CaSO4. ½H2O) but increasing temperatures, mean that it is
more likely to be present wholly as hemihydrate and the fully dehydrated so called soluble anhydrite. The
relatively higher solubility of hemihydrate and anhydrite can cause cement pastes to false set. Hemihydrate and
soluble anhydrite have a relatively higher solubility in water than gypsum itself and thus when mixed with water
form solutions which are supersaturated in relation to gypsum. The breakdown of this state of supersaturation
results in very rapid deposition of gypsum from solution. If this occurs in a hydrating cement paste marked
stiffening occurs known as false set or plaster set. In such a case remixing restores plasticity.

Cement grinding conditions, cement milling type, the form and amount of added gypsum, and the amount of C3A
present in cement (the rapid formation of ettringite, because of the presence of a high C3A, can reduce the
sulphate concentration in solution sufficiently to minimise false set potential) can all effect the tendency to false
set.
Overall individual clinker chemistry must be studied and a balance struck between the use of too little gypsum (in
the right form) which would cause C3A hydration to be uncontrolled – flash set and too much gypsum (in the
right form) so that the potential for false set is high.
The clinker for the laboratory test samples was from two sources, Westbury which has a wet kiln operation, using
chalk as the carbonate mix, and Cauldon which is a dry kiln operation and uses limestone as the carbonate mix.
These clinkers were specifically chosen to give a range of alkali and sulphate contents representative of the range
of clinkers produced in the UK
4.2 Thermo-gravimetrical Analysis and Heat Soaking
Thermo-gravimetrical analysis and heat soaking tests were carried out between 25 and 29 October 2007 over a
period of up to two days.
In order to attempt to simulate dehydration behaviour of the gypsum in different full scale cement plant milling
systems, the recycled gypsum was heat soaked prior to grinding. The heat soaking regimes used for these tests
resulted from some preliminary research undertaken by Lafarge to determine the maximum and optimum
temperatures required. The research used temperatures between 80˚C to 150˚C and concluded that the
optimum temperature was 1200C and that degradation of the material occurred at temperatures over 150˚C.
The sample was heated for 6 hours, as a standard overnight heat soaking time, at 120˚C. This resulted in only
partial dehydration. Further samples were therefore heated for up to two full days. Samples soaked for a
minimum of 16 hours produced the full dehydration to hemihydrate, the point at which the molecular ratio of
water to calcium sulphate is 1:2.
4.3 Size Analysis
As can be seen from Figure 5 below, it is visually obvious that the samples of recycled gypsum are much more
powdery than the crystalline virgin gypsum shown in Figure 6.
Figure 5 Recycled gypsum sample

Figure 6 Virgin gypsum sample
The fundamental method for determining particle size is a sieve analysis. This method involves passing the
material being sized through openings of a particular set of standard size screens. The particle-size distribution is
then reported as the weight percentage retained on the sieves, and the percentage passed of the finest size.
To establish the effects that sizing of gypsum material may have on the manufacturing process, specifically to
diaphragms in the cement ball milling process, sieve analysis was carried out on a 500g sample of the recycled
gypsum material, and on a 500g sample of natural rock gypsum. The results are shown in Table 9. The sieve
sample was taken as a visually representative sample from the delivered load, and then ‘riffled’, which separates
the sample into two separate randomly selected parts for sieving. The sieve size for the sample analysis ranged
from 20 millimetres, to 75 micrometers.
Table 9 Sieve Analysis
% Retained Recycled % Retained Natural

Sieve Size
Gypsum Material Rock Gypsum
>20mm 0 41.9
% Passing Recycled % Passing Natural
Gypsum Material Rock Gypsum
20mm 100 58.1
14mm 97.2 48.3
9.5mm 90.6 41.0
5mm 70.9 31.2
2.8mm 57.8 26.6
1.18mm 44.9 21.2
850 µm 41.0 19.9
600 µm 35.8 18.5
300µm 23.6 16.2
150 µm 12.0 10.9

75 µm 6.9 5.3
The photographs demonstrate a clear visual difference between the natural gypsum and the recycled gypsum, as
does the data in Table 9; the natural rock gypsum being substantially larger in particle size prior to grinding in the
milling process.
Particle size distribution affects storage, as well as parts of the mechanised process, although the fact that
natural rock gypsum is brittle by nature, and grinds down easily during milling suggests that particle size of the
gypsum itself may not have a significant impact on the mechanised process. These effects have been studied as
part of the operational scale trials.
4.4 Chemical Analysis of Recycled Gypsum Material
A representative sample weighing 1kg, from the delivered load of recycled gypsum was tested between 15
November and 10 December 2007 by a third party test house. A comprehensive chemical analysis was carried out
including trace metals and organics with the results shown in Table 10.

Table 10 Chemical analysis
Test Unit Result

Moisture at 35ºC % 10.3
Chlorine (Bomb Wash) mg/kg 308
Fluorine (Bomb Wash) mg/kg 50
LOI (loss on ignition)
% 13.0
at 950C
Al2O3 % 0.7
CaO % 34.4
Fe2O3 % 0.3
K2O % 0.2
MgO % 0.4
Mn2O3 % <0.1
Na2O % 0.1
P2O5 % <0.1
SiO2 % 2.8
SO3 % 48.23 41
TiO2 % <0.1
BaO % <0.1
SrO % 0.1
PAH by MS.WID22 mg/kg Req
PCB (AROCLORS) mg/kg <0.06
Sulphide (Calc) as S mg/kg 24.29
pH 0.8
Mercury (Tot.MS) mg/kg 0.09
Antimony (Tot.MS) mg/kg <1
Arsenic (Tot.MS) mg/kg <1.1
Cadmium (Tot.MS) mg/kg <0.1
Chromium (Tot.MS) mg/kg 24
Cobalt (Tot.MS) mg/kg <1.1
Copper (Tot.MS) mg/kg 13.5
Lead (Tot.MS) mg/kg 6.7
Manganese (Tot.MS) mg/kg 59
Nickel (Tot.MS) mg/kg 10.1
Selenium (Tot.MS) mg/kg <1.1
Thallium (Tot.MS) mg/kg <1.1
Vanadium (Tot.MS) mg/kg 7.8
Zinc (Tot.MS) mg/kg 16.8
Beryllium (Tot.MS) mg/kg <1
Total Carbon % 1.8
Total Sulphur % 33.3
Vol. Organic Carbon % 1.21
F.O.C % mm 0.3
The tests have established the chemical composition of the recycled gypsum sample and indicate levels of trace
metals and organics which may affect the ability of the recycled material to successfully replace natural gypsum
in cement manufacture.
The alkali and chloride content of cements is limited in cement standards and manufacturers undertakings to
users as they can affect concrete durability. The analyses in Table 11 show the chloride and alkali content of the
41
Third Party Results considered by LCUK to be in error. Therefore LCUK carried out their own analysis and arrived at figure
detailed.

recycled gypsum are less than is found in mined gypsum, and this would be perceived as beneficial by the
cement manufactures. These routine analyses are not as comprehensive as the full results in
Table 10 Chemical analysis
10, but they do cover several important chemical characteristics to enable comparison with the recycled material.
Table 11 Comparison of chemical and physical properties of recycled and natural gypsum
Test Recycled Gypsum Natural: 07/01/08 Natural 14/01/08

Sulphates SO3 (%) 48.23 42 48.38 42.09
Silica SiO2 (%) 2.8 4.10 6.50
Sodium oxide Na2O (%) 0.1 0.37 0.65
SO3 is the key variable in gypsum analysis, as this determines the proportion of gypsum to be used throughput
the cement mill.
Further chemical analysis was carried out on the mixed cement samples, and is detailed in section 4.7.
4.5 Estimation of Contaminants
The paper fraction of a 500g sample of ‘as received’ recycled gypsum was separated by being fired to burn off
the paper content of the sample, and then weighed. Paper comprised some 1.5% of the sample. It is unclear
however whether the same method of sampling and analysis of moisture content was used by the producer.
4.6 Cement Grinds
Further tests were to be carried out on grind samples with clinker from two sources, used to represent the typical
and extreme ranges of alkali sulphate content found in UK cements.
Clinker made up 95% of the total grind material, and variable proportions of natural and recycled gypsum made
up the remaining 5%, as shown in Table 12. A photograph of the ball grind is shown in Figure 7
Table 12 Grind Material
Percentage Percentage
Source of Clinker Sample Reference
Natural Gypsum Recycled Gypsum
Cauldon Cauld1 5 0
Cauldon Cauld2 3.75 1.25
Cauldon Cauld3 2.5 2.5
Cauldon Cauld4 0 5
Westbury West1 5 0
Westbury West2 3.75 1.25
Westbury West3 2.5 2.5
Westbury West4 0 5
Samples of ground material were then taken either for chemical analysis or for mixing into concrete or mortar for
chemical analysis, slump tests, ‘prism’ tests, strength, density and surface areas tests.
42
Figure obtained by LCUK’s own analysis of gypsum sample sent to third party testing house, in light of an incongruous result
of 22.5% from the testing house.

Figure 7 Ball mill grinding samples
4.7 Chemical Analysis of Cement Mixes
The full chemical analysis of the mixed cement samples are detailed in Table 13. The analysis results of mixed
samples in Table 14 for both natural rock gypsum samples and recycled gypsum samples are considered by
Cauldon laboratories to be within normal range.
A comparison of the unmixed materials shows that the differences between natural rock gypsum and the recycled
gypsum are only notable for major oxides Fe2O3, AL2O3 and SiO2, which appear naturally in rock, as contaminants
principally in the form of clay minerals. The plasterboard manufacturing process uses high purity gypsum as a
feedstock, uncontaminated by clay.
The mined natural gypsum supplied by British Gypsum is a mixture of calcium sulphate dihydrate and anhydrite
gypsum which contains no chemically bound water. Plasterboard gypsum is essentially pure calcium sulphate
dihydrate but heat soaking of the plasterboard samples to simulate real milling conditions causes the gypsum to
dehydrate to the hemihydrate form. The result of heat soaking can be seen in the thermal analysis and X-Ray
Diffraction (XRD) results of the produced cements. As recycled gypsum percentage increases the amount of
hemihydrate in the cement increases and the amount of anhydrite decreases.
The sulphate balance in the laboratory test cement samples is shown in

Table 12 Grind Material
12. The highlighted lines in the X-ray diffraction section of the table, demonstrate that the percentage of
anhydrite decreases as the percentage of recycled gypsum in the samples increases, reflecting the fact that the
mined gypsum contains anhydrite whilst the recycled gypsum does not and that the heat soaking of the samples
has not fully dehydrated the recycled gypsum dehydrate to the anhydrite form.
This conclusion is in the thermal analysis section of the table, the highlighted lines indicating that the percentage
hemihydrate in the samples increases as the proportion of recycled gypsum in the sample increases. Overall, the
heat soaking regime appears to have simulated the heat environment that would be encountered in the full scale
milling process.
The sum of the amount of sulphate from hemihydrate and from soluble anhydrite (DSO3 value) for cements has
been shown experimentally to be a useful predictor of the flash and false setting behaviour of cements:
For DSO3 values below 0.7 flash set of the cement is predicted.

For DSO3 values above 1.3 there is an increasing likelihood of false set.
Applying this rule to the laboratory ground cements all the Westbury cements including recycled plasterboard
gypsum have a tendency to false set, but this is particularly pronounced in the cements containing 50% or more
plasterboard gypsum in the gypsum mix. This tendency is exacerbated because the clinker sulphate level is
naturally low and a larger proportion of the final cement sulphate has to be provided by added gypsum.
In the laboratory ground Cauldon cements the predicted tendency to false set is less but still apparent at high
recycled gypsum replacement levels. Hence the use of recycled plasterboard gypsum may be more viable for
clinkers with inherently high sulphate contents.
All other sulphate balance data varies less, and is considered by Cauldon laboratories to be within normal ranges.

Table 13 Chemical analysis results of laboratory gypsum and cement samples
Virgin Recycled
Sample Cauld1 Cauld2 Cauld3 Cauld4 West1 West2 West3 West4
Gypsum Gypsum
Soluble Sulphate % 45.77 42.73 3.14 3.07 3.11 3.07 3.44 3.20 3.12 3.09
XRF Results (%)

Al2O3 2.20 0.74 5.06 5.11 5.08 5.05 5.26 5.30 5.40 5.40
CaO 33.37 32.34 63.54 64.25 64.17 64.30 64.37 64.95 64.95 65.01
Fe2O3 0.93 0.34 3.35 3.47 3.46 3.43 2.89 2.87 2.90 2.87
K2O 0.60 0.17 0.74 0.72 0.75 0.74 0.81 0.80 0.84 0.80
Loss on Ignition 6.96 21.02 1.70 0.88 0.86 0.83 1.40 0.95 0.92 0.88
MgO 3.68 1.31 1.31 1.19 1.17 1.14 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.96
Mn2O3 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06
P2O5 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14
SiO2 7.81 2.33 20.40 20.78 20.65 20.57 20.05 20.06 20.02 20.06
SrO 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
TiO2 0.11 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.26
Total SO3 55.91 58.44 96.60 96.92 96.64 96.58 96.27 96.44 96.61 95.54

Table 14 Sulphate balance, laboratory test cement samples
Sample Cauld1 Cauld2 Cauld3 Cauld4 West1 West2 West3 West4
Thermal Analysis (%)
% H2O ex gypsum 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% H2O ex hemihydrates 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.15
% H2O ex syngenite 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% H2O ex early hydration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% Gypsum 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% SO3 ex gypsum 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% Hemihydrate 1.39 1.59 2.03 3.10 1.56 1.41 1.81 2.35
% SO3 ex hemihydrates 0.77 0.88 1.12 1.71 0.86 0.78 1.00 1.30
% Syngenite 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% SO3 ex syngenite 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
X-Ray Diffraction
% natural anhydrite 2.11 1.74 1.44 0.49 2.38 2.00 1.60 1.00
% SO3 ex natural anhydrite 1.24 1.02 0.85 0.29 1.40 1.18 0.94 0.59
Clinker
% SO3 ex clinker 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Gypsum Addition
% SO3 in gypsum raw 45.8 45.0 44.3 42.7 45.8 45.0 44.3 42.7
% gypsum added 5.25 5.19 5.37 5.47 6.35 5.92 5.84 5.98
Sulphate Balance
Total SO3 (by gravimetry) 3.14 3.07 3.11 3.07 3.44 3.20 3.12 3.09
% SO3 ex clinker (1) 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54
% SO3 ex gypsum 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% SO3 ex hemihydrates 0.77 0.88 1.12 1.71 0.86 0.78 1.00 1.30
%SO3 ex syngenite 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
%SO3 ex natural anhydrite 1.24 1.02 0.85 0.29 1.40 1.18 0.94 0.59
%SO3 ex natural anhydrite (2) 0.32 0.43 0.39 0.34 0.65 0.71 0.65 0.67
DSO3 (3) 1.09 1.31 1.51 2.05 1.51 1.49 1.65 1.96
Notes
(1) Average data determined by chemical gravimetry
(2) SO3 ex soluble anhydrite = total SO3 = SO3 ex clinker – SO3 ex gypsum – SO3 ex hemihydrite
(3) DSO3 = SO3 ex hemihydrite + SO3 ex soluble anhydrite

4.8 Workability Tests
In order to establish the ‘workability’ of the concrete, a slumping cone test was carried out on each sample.
Average slump of mixed concrete with Cauldon clinker, is between 80 and 90 mm, with a result of 100 mm
considered too wet for ideal use. The average slump of mixed concrete with Westbury clinker is between 60 and
90. The results are given to the nearest 5mm. Results for the four Cauldron clinker samples are shown in Table
15, and results for Westbury clinker in Table 16.
Table 15 Slump test results, Cauldon Cement
Sample Reference Cauld1 Cauld2 Cauld3 Cauld4
Slump (mm) 80 80 75 80
Table 16 Slump test results, Westbury Cement
Sample Reference West1 West2 West3 West4
Slump (mm) 125 95 55 65
These results demonstrate that all of the Cauldon samples are within average slump values. Cauld3, which has
50% natural gypsum and 50% recycled gypsum, was slightly stiffer than the others, however the difference is
not considered significant. This contrasts with the Westbury samples, which fall outside the average range with
one sample considered too wet for ideal use and two samples considered stiffer than average. The difference in
results is a measure of how the two differing clinker tricalcium aluminate and alkali sulphate levels have reacted
with the recycled gypsum to give in one case no change in workability, but in the other severely affected
workability. The implications were assessed during the operational trials.
Whether this result is significant will be established by the test analysis.
4.9 Initial Setting Time
Initial setting times of the concrete samples are shown in Table 17 and Table 18.
Table 17 Initial setting time, Cauldon Cement (mins)
Setting Time (Min) 178 172 178 187
Table 18 Initial setting time, Westbury Cement (mins)
Setting Time (Min) 141 147 146 164
Records from 2007 laboratory results show that for Cauldon clinker samples, the average setting time is 172
minutes, with a range from 160 – 180 minutes. One of the samples is therefore outside of this initial setting time
average, with a setting time of 187 minutes. The significance of these results was assessed during the
operational trials.
Westbury clinker samples during 2007 had an average setting time of 157 minutes, with a range from 143 – 170
minutes. All of the Westbury samples in our laboratory trials are within the average range of initial setting times.
However, the recorded difference in setting time for the West4 sample (100% recycled gypsum replacement) is
considered significant.

4.10 Degree of False Set
False set is the significant loss of plasticity and a rapid development of rigidity in freshly mixed cement paste,
mortar or concrete, shortly after mixing and without the generation of much heat. This rigidity is caused by the
crystallisation of calcium sulphate dehydrate, i.e. the effective content of gypsum available in the cement to act
as a retarder, as explained in section 4.1. In many cases, workability can be restored, and plasticity regained, by
further mixing without the addition of water before it is cast. False set in practice is rare, and can be avoided by
paying attention to cement milling temperatures and the composition of gypsum employed. The degree of false
set in the samples is detailed in Table 19 and Table 20.
These test results suffer from the fact that they are a subjective test and other cement evaluators may rate the
cements differently. For the Westbury cements, with a naturally low clinker sulphate, the practical handling tests
confirm the DSO3 prediction that false set is to be expected from these cements. However, for the Cauldon
cements, the false set tests do not bear out the DSO3 prediction that false set is only to be expected at higher
recycled gypsum substitution rates; indeed these results appear to be the reverse of the expected results. In this
case the full scale milling trials should provide conclusive evidence whether false set is a problem with higher
clinker sulphate clinkers. Nonetheless the difference between the two clinkers is as expected and a function of
their different sulphur content.
Table 19 Degree of false set, Cauldon Cement
Degree of False Set Moderate Severe Severe Slight
Table 20 Degree of false set, Westbury Cement
Degree of False Set Severe Severe Very Severe Very Severe
The implications of these results have been examined further during the operational trials
4.11 Strength Tests
Concrete and mortar mixes are required to provide a specified tensile strength. Cube tests for compressive
strength have been carried out on the eight different samples to establish the effects that recycled gypsum in
cement may have on the resultant strength of concrete. Prism tests have been carried out on the eight samples
to establish the effect that recycled gypsum in cement may have on the resultant strength of mortar.
Strength tests for the samples in this project were carried out at 2 day, 7 day and 28 day intervals. Results are
shown in Table 21 and Table 22.

Table 21 Strength test results, Cauldon clinker samples (MPa)
2 day mortar 31.0 23.7 23.5 22.1
7 day mortar 47.3 40.5 38.0 35.2
28 day mortar 60.3 52.6 53.2 48.3
2 day concrete 21.3 19.9 20.0 19.3
7 day concrete 34.9 34.4 34.1 32.3
28 day concrete 46.2 47.9 48.7 46.6
Table 22 Strength test results, Westbury clinker samples (MPa)
2 day mortar 32.7 31.5 29.4 26.2
7 day mortar 51.1 48.0 46.2 44.2
28 day mortar 61.2 57.6 52.5 50.6
2 day concrete 24.6 23.0 23.2 21.4
7 day concrete 39.9 39.1 38.5 37.7
28 day concrete 51.5 50.6 49.7 50.3
4.11.1 Strength Tests - Mortar
For both Westbury and Cauldon cement the results of the mortar testing show significant reductions in strengths,
compared to controls, as the percentage of recycled gypsum increases. As part of the standard testing procedure
employed on strength testing to BSEN 196, weights of prisms are recorded both in air and water. These prism
weights show a reduction as the proportion of recycled gypsum increases. This indicates that the air content of
the mortar is increasing with increasing recycled gypsum.
Increased air content of mortars indicates that the recycled plasterboard contains chemicals that are acting as air
entraining agents.
4.11.2 Strength Tests - Concrete
Average strength results for concrete do not show the drop off in strengths associated with BSEN 196 mortar
testing of the cement. This confirms the conclusion that the drop off in strength is merely an artefact of the
increased air entrainment found in the mortar samples.
Concrete samples contain much less cement than the equivalent mortar prism and also contain a much wider
particle size distribution, due to aggregate content of the mix. For both these reasons, air entraining agents
within the cement itself have a much more limited effect on concrete strength testing results. These results
again indicate that it is air entraining agents within the recycled gypsum that are causing the apparent drop off in
strengths.
It should be noted that additional air entrainment in cement mortars is not necessarily a drawback, so long as the
effect is reproducible and can be allowed for within the BS EN196 compliance testing regime. Indeed some
packed cements are manufactured with the addition of air entrainers to enhance specific properties in use such
as frost resistance. For this market, cement that was inherently air entraining, would be an advantage.

For bulk cements where the main customers are ready mix concrete producers who use a sophisticated blend of
additives into their concrete formulation, test work would be needed to show that the air entraining agents from
the recycled gypsum did not participate in adverse reactions with the concrete additive mixture.
4.12 Surface area and particle density
In general, the higher the surface area of a cement sample, the higher the strength of the cement. The longer a
sample is milled, the higher the surface area will be. The particle density data is required to calculate the specific
surface area, but analysis is carried out against specific surface area only. The results are shown in Table 23 and
Table 24.
It must be noted that cements are normally produced with surface areas in the range of 350 – 450m²/kg.
Table 23 Surface area and particle density, Cauldon samples

Specific Surface
386 411 416 399
Area (m²/kg)
Particle Density
3176 3195 3193 3188
(kg/m³)
Table 24 Surface area and particle density, Westbury samples

Specific Surface
474 438 441 432
Area (m²/kg)
Particle Density
3146 3163 3162 3161
(kg/m³)
All the cements produced have similar surface areas allowing comparison of cement properties. The Westbury
control grind is of slightly higher than the other Westbury cements and this should be allowed for when
comparing cement strengths.

5.0 Operational Scale Trial Results
5.1 Trial Process

The results of the laboratory scale grinding trials had shown very poor mortar strength development compared to
control grinds, due to the presence of air entraining substances within the recycled gypsum.
A risk assessment carried out by Cauldon works on the proposed full scale milling of cement containing recycled
gypsum concluded that the production of large quantities of cement in products destined for the ready-mix
concrete market was not acceptable. This was because of both low strength in development and the potential
adverse reaction of customers’ additives with the air entraining agents present in the recycled gypsum. However,
the assessment also concluded that risk of using recycled gypsum in the less technically demanding bagged
product would be accepted.
The circuit configuration at Cauldon works determined that products from the closed circuit mills can only be
pumped to bulk cement storage; hence following the risk assessment referred to above, closed circuit mills could
not be used for the trial. Open circuit mill 3 rated at 25tph product was chosen for the trial, producing normal
42.5 grade bag cement into cement silo number 1.
A control sample, representative of normal production, was taken from the mill during a routine bag cement
production run on 21 January 2008 for comparison with the samples arising from the operational trial. The
gypsum hopper feeding number 3 mill was then emptied and the mill stopped. One of the two gypsum intake
stores was also emptied and no further loads were added. On the 22 January 2008 a mixture of 50% recycled
and 50% natural gypsum was blended by front end loader and added to the gypsum intake hopper. The mill was
started and the Number 3 mill gypsum feed hopper was filled with the blend material via the crane handling
system. The mill was then run for 7.5 hours from 09.20 to 16.50 using the mixed gypsum feed. Gypsum
addition rates were controlled as per the standard operating procedures of the central control room. A sample of
cement was taken every hour during the trial and a composite sample produced for physical and chemical testing.
Figure 8 Feed belt to mill showing 50/50 gypsum mix

Figure 9 Main feed belt to mill after clinker fed onto gypsum
On the 23 January the procedure was repeated using 100% recycled gypsum, in this instance the trial ran from
0720 hours to 1910 hours, with 11 hours of samples forming the composite sample for testing.
A total of 463 tonnes of cement was produced during the operational trial, equivalent to 18,520 25kg bags. This
was blended into bag cement produced on other mills and sold as normal bagged product.
As no bulk cements were being produced no samples were collected for customer evaluation. Once the blended
gypsum had run empty the intake store was filled with 100% recycled material and fed into the mill as above. A
further sample was taken after 2 hours of milling with the 100% replacement.
As with the laboratory trials, a suite of tests were carried out on samples from the operational trials.
Samples are referenced as detailed in Table 25.
Table 25 Operational trial sample percentages
Sample Reference % Natural Gypsum % Recycled Gypsum
Ops 1 5 0
Ops 2 2.5 2.5
Ops 3 0 5

5.2 Chemical Analysis
A chemical analysis was carried out on the three different mixed samples from the operational trial in the same
way as was undertaken in the laboratory trials. The results are shown below in Table 26.
Table 26 Chemical analysis, trial samples
Ops 1 Ops 2 Ops 3

Sample Reference
(0% recycled gypsum) (50% recycled gypsum) (100% recycled gypsum)
XRF Results
Al2O3 4.87 4.84 4.70
CaO 61.78 61.71 61.48
Fe2O3 2.91 2.88 2.94
K2O 0.71 0.72 0.69
Loss on Ignition 6.51 6.43 6.91
MgO 1.24 1.22 1.18
Mn2O3 0.07 0.07 0.07
P 2O 5 0.09 0.11 0.08
SiO2 18.68 18.73 18.35
SrO 0.05 0.05 0.05
TiO2 0.26 0.27 0.25
Total excluding SO3 97.17 97.03 96.70
Chemistry Results
Average sulphate 2.69 2.71 2.96
In terms of chemistry, all grinds are chemically similar, allowing objective comparisons between cement
properties to be made.
5.3 Workability
In order to establish the ‘workability’ of the concrete, a slumping cone test was carried out on each sample. The
results are given to the nearest 5mm and are shown in
Table 27 Slump test results, trial samples
27.
Table 27 Slump test results, trial samples
Sample Reference Ops 1 Ops 2 Ops 3
Slump (mm) 50 40 55
All the measured slumps are comparable, suggesting that concrete slump has not been affected by the addition
of recycled gypsum.
5.4 Initial Setting Time
Initial setting times of the concrete samples are shown in Table 28.

Table 28 Initial setting time (mins)
Setting Time (Min) 170 155 148
Records from 2007 results show that for Cauldon clinker samples, the average setting time is 172 minutes, with a
range from 160 – 180 minutes. Both of the samples containing recycled gypsum material have shorter setting
times than average results, indicating that hydration of the cement paste occurred more rapidly in three cements.
However, the measured setting times are within the normal range of setting times and would be acceptable to
customers.
5.5 Degree of False Set
False set is the significant loss of plasticity and a rapid development of rigidity in freshly mixed cement paste,
mortar or concrete, shortly after mixing and without the generation of much heat. This rigidity is caused by the
crystallisation of calcium sulphate dehydrate within the mortar as previously explained. In many cases,
workability can be restored, and plasticity regained, by further mixing without the addition of water before it is
cast. False set in practice is rare, and can be avoided by paying attention to cement milling temperatures and the
composition of gypsum employed. The degree of false set in the samples is detailed in Table 29.
Table 29 Degree of false set
Degree of False Set None None None
No false set was detected in these samples as predicted since the DSO3 level was reduced below 1.3.
In the laboratory trials, false set was a possibility in samples with 50% gypsum replacement and expected at
100% replacement. However the total sulphate content of the trial grinds averaged 3.1% whereas none of the
full scale production cements were above 3.0% sulphate and the resulting DSO3 levels all were in the range
where no false set was to be expected. Hence a strategy for controlling false set potential in cements containing
high levels of recycled gypsum could be to reduce sulphate target level to keep DSO3 levels targeted at 1.0 –
1.3%.
5.6 Strength
Strength tests for the samples in this project were carried out at 2 day, 7 day and 28 day intervals. Results are
shown in Table 30.
Table 30 Strength Test Results (MPa)
2 day mortar 21.6 21.1 21.0
7 day mortar 35.2 32.4 32.3
28 day mortar 43.8 42.3 40.4
2 day concrete 16.8 15.8 15.7
7 day concrete 27.4 26.0 25.3
28 day concrete 35.3 33.8 32.7
5.6.1 Strength Tests - Mortar

The strength test results show a reduction in strength compared to control, although the overall drop in mortar
strengths is within the range of expected experimental error. They do not show the significant difference in 28
day strengths found in the laboratory grinds.
As with the laboratory, the prism weights content were recorded. Results are shown in Table 31.
Table 31 Mortar weight and air content
2 day prism weight (g) 587.0 583.5 579.0
Mortar Air Content (%) 5.3 5.8 5.7
In this case mortar air contents were also tested which confirmed the suspected increased air contents found in
samples containing recycled gypsum (Ops 2 and 3). One possible explanation for much higher depression in
strengths found in the laboratory grinds is that the air entraining agents are being volatilised and partially
removed from the grinding system by the air venting of the full scale mill, the laboratory grinding mill being
totally sealed so that no components can escape from the system.
However it is clear that there is still some slight increase in air entrainment occurring in the full scale trials.
5.6.2 Strength Tests – Concrete
Concrete test results mirrored those found in mortar testing with small drop in strength compared to control
samples in both cases.
5.7 Surface Area and Particle Density
The results of surface area tests for the trial samples are shown in Table 32.
Table 32 Surface area and particle density, Cauldon samples

Specific Surface
399 377 403
Area (m²/kg)
Particle Density
3098 3101 3077
(kg/m³)
As shown in Table 32, all of the trial samples have comparable surface area results within the average for this
class of Cauldon cement.
5.8 Mill inspection
During the trial the external mill screens were inspected to determine whether there was any paper build up.
None was identified. Following the completion of the operational trial, the internal parts of the mill were
inspected. The mill diaphragms were found to be significantly blinded with paper after just less than 20 hours of
operation using some 18.5 tonnes of recycled gypsum, containing between 180 and 280 kgs of paper (assuming
1.0% - 1.5 % paper content in the recycled gypsum). Normally cement mill diaphragms are inspected and
cleaned at weekly intervals. It is clear from this analysis that the quantity of paper in the recycled gypsum will be
the major obstacle to utilising it fully in cement.

6.0 Assessment and Analysis
6.1 Technical Assessment
The results of the laboratory and operational trials detailed in sections 4.0 and 5.0 enable a technical assessment
of the feasibility of substituting natural gypsum use in cement manufacture by recycled gypsum from waste
plasterboard.
6.1.1 Chemical Analysis
One of the principal issues for consideration in this trial has been the comparability of recycled and natural
gypsum, such that the chemical reactions on which the cement manufacturing process is based are not
detrimentally affected by the use of recycled gypsum. The key variable in this analysis was the sulphate content
of the gypsum and the extent to which calcium sulphate is dehydrated as this impacts on the eventual strength of
the cement.
The laboratory analysis identified that the sulphate content of recycled gypsum was equivalent to that of natural
gypsum, however the extent of dehydration of the calcium sulphate within the laboratory cement grinds
demonstrated that as recycled gypsum percentage increases the amount of hemihydrate in the cement increases
and the amount of anhydrite decreases. The DSO3 values are used as an indicator of the propensity for false
setting, and the laboratory tests indicated that clinkers with a low sulphur content, such as those from Westbury,
result in a likelihood of false set, while those with a higher sulphur content, as in the case of Cauldon clinker,
result in a likelihood of false set above a 50% substitution rate. However, the operational trials demonstrated
that even at 100% substitution no false set was detected as the DSO3 level was reduced below 1.3. It is
speculated that the air entraining agents responsible for the false set results in the lab trial, were volatilised in the
mill, and therefore did not reach the final cement, thus reducing the degree of false set. As such the calcium
sulphate chemistry of recycled gypsum was not found to impede use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture.
In addition to the calcium sulphate analysis a comparison of the unmixed materials shows that the differences
between natural rock gypsum and the recycled gypsum are only notable for major oxides Fe2O3, AL2O3 and SiO2,
which appear naturally in rock, as contaminants principally in the form of clay minerals. The plasterboard
manufacturing process uses high purity gypsum as a feedstock, uncontaminated by clay. The clay contaminants
essentially act as a filler within the gypsum/cement. These are not present in the purer (recycled) gypsum,
therefore the physical quantity of gypsum required to generate the required chemical reaction is reduced and
would result in a reduction in the quantity of the final cement product for the equivalent quantity of clinker input,
with potential economic impacts for manufacturers.
The analyses show the chloride and alkali content of the recycled gypsum were less than is found in mined
gypsum and this would be perceived as beneficial by the cement manufactures.
The chemical analysis of natural and recycled gypsum does not indicate any significant barriers to the use of up
to 100% recycled gypsum in cement manufacture. However, the analysis indicates that higher substitution rates
can be best achieved with clinkers with higher sulphur content; the key parameter being the maintenance of a
DSO3 value of between 1.0 and 1.3.
6.1.2 Physical Properties
The analysis of laboratory grinds using Cauldon clinkers indicate there was no significant difference from control
samples in recorded setting times. In the case of Westbury clinkers, only the sample containing 100% recycled
gypsum showed any significant changes in setting behaviour. It is considered that retardation of set may be
occurring as a result of the inclusion of known retarders in the cement. This effect was not, however, replicated
during the operational trials and setting times were within normal acceptable ranges
The chemical analysis indicated lower levels of dehydration of the CaSO4 within recycled gypsum. This can result
in false sets within cement pastes which in turn can impact on the plasticity and workability of the cement, and its
eventual strength. While false set is rare in practise and can be avoided, the assessment of the degree of false
set is an important indicator of the viability of using recycled gypsum within cement manufacture. False set was
anticipated in samples containing >50% recycled gypsum from the chemical analysis, and the laboratory trials
appeared to substantiate this. Further the DSO3 values of the lab samples indicated that the tendency to false
set is exacerbated in clinkers with naturally low sulphur content, as is the case in the Westbury samples.

However, the operational trials demonstrated that in practice there was no false set of any of the mortar samples.
In the laboratory trials, false set was a possibility in samples with 50% gypsum replacement and expected at
100% replacement. However the total sulphate content of the trial grinds averaged 3.1% whereas none of the
full scale production cements were above 3.0% sulphate and the resulting DSO3 levels were all found to be in the
range where no false set was to be expected. Hence a strategy for controlling false set potential in cements
containing high levels of recycled gypsum could be to reduce sulphate target level to keep DSO3 levels targeted
at 1.0 – 1.3%.
All mortar and concrete mixes are required to achieve specified tensile strengths since the strength of the mortar
or concrete is influenced by the water to cement ratio, which is related to workability and the setting
characteristics of cements and ultimately a function of the degree of hydration of the CaSO4 within the gypsum.
It was noted that the amount of anhydrite within the cement decreases as the percentage of recycled gypsum
increases, and theoretically this might be expected to result in lower strengths for cements containing recycled
gypsum. Both the laboratory and operational trials confirm this expectation with reduced strengths recoded in
mortar samples. However the mortar prism tests show reduced weights indicating air content of the cement is
increased as the proportion of recycled gypsum is increased. Thus the only effect on strengths in mortars
appears to be linked to increased air entrainment caused by use of the recycled gypsum
Average strength results for concrete do not show the drop off in strengths associated with BSEN 196 mortar
testing of the cement. While the concrete strength tests also showed reductions in strength in both laboratory
and operational trials, the margin of error for these tests is +/- 10%. Thus the 7-8% drop in strength identified
through the tests is not considered significant. Since concrete samples contain much less cement than the
equivalent mortar prism and also contain a much wider particle size distribution, due to the aggregate content of
the mix, air entrainment effects in concretes are much less than those found in standard mortar tests. This
supports the conclusion that the drop off in strength is merely and artefact of the increased air entrainment found
in the mortar samples. For both these reasons, air entraining agents within the cement itself have a much more
limited effect on concrete strength. These results again indicate that it is air entraining agents within the recycled
gypsum that are causing the drop off in strengths.
In addition to the above, surface area and particle density tests were carried out. The results of these tests
indicate that samples containing recycled gypsum are within average ranges.
Together the tests undertaken to investigate the impact of inclusion of recycled gypsum on concrete strength
indicate that strengths are not significantly affected by the inclusion of recycled gypsum in the cement. The
challenge however is achieving the BSEN 196 required mortar strengths when air entraining agents are present in
the gypsum. Cement manufacturers are well versed in controlling air entrainment in packed cements. Therefore,
as long as the air entraining effect of the recycled gypsum is reasonably consistent, as indicated by the
operational trials, the normal statistical controls used to ensure compliance should be adequate to cope with the
effects of recycled gypsum on strengths.
The air entrainment in cement mortars is not necessarily a drawback; indeed some packed cements are
manufactured with the addition of air entrainers to enhance specific properties in use such as frost resistance.
For this market cement that was inherently air entraining, would be an advantage.
For bulk cements where the main customers are ready mix concrete producers who use a sophisticated blend of
additives into their concrete, formulation testing would be needed to show that the air entraining agents from the
recycled gypsum did not participate in adverse reactions with the concrete additive mixture
Slump tests determined that the workability of the concrete product was not affected by the inclusion of recycled
gypsum.
The increased air content of samples containing recycled gypsum is attributed to air entraining agents within the
waste plasterboard, (see section 5.0). Air entraining agents are found to influence the mortar strength tests. Air
entraining agents are added to bagged cement to improve flow and usability, thus these agents within cement
containing recycled gypsum are not considered to present a problem to the industry, indeed they present an
opportunity, in that additives would not need to be added to bagged cement, and some cost savings may be
achieved. Sophisticated blends of additives are also introduced to ready mix cement, however these are a
sophisticated blend of additives and tests would be needed to show that the air entraining agents from the
recycled gypsum did not participate in adverse reactions with the concrete additive mixture. Better knowledge of
these additives and the possible reactions and impacts on the product need to be determined to ensure that no
adverse effects on concrete strength and workability are encountered. LCUK propose a collaboration between

cement manufacturers, plasterboard manufacturers, plasterboard recyclers and cement users to investigate this
matter further.
The substitution of natural gypsum by recycled gypsum in cement manufacturing has been shown through the
laboratory and operational tests to have minimal impact on usability of the resultant cement. It is therefore
considered that the substitution of natural gypsum with recycled gypsum is technologically viable up to the
maximum 5%, particularly in bagged cement. Due to the increased propensity for false set in cements containing
>50% recycled gypsum, cement users should be made aware of the need to ensure the correct plasticity of the
cement is achieved prior to pouring.
6.1.3 Practical issues
In addition to consideration of the viability of the use of recycled gypsum in cement in terms of the final product,
consideration was also given to the impacts on the process itself.
Particle size distribution affects storage, as well as handling into the cement process parts of the mechanical
process. The laboratory and operational trials, and visual inspection of the recycled gypsum have determined
that the recycled gypsum is commensurate with control samples.
In light of the above, it is considered that no additional storage or feeding facilities would be required to enable
the use of recycled gypsum. However, if both natural and recycled gypsum were used, an additional system for
feeding the appropriate ratios into the mill would be required, as the labour intensive mixing using front end
loaders utilised in the trial is not sustainable and is unlikely to be approved by the environmental regulator in the
long term due to the increased dust and noise impacts associated with this approach. The trials identified no
technical issues for the use of recycled gypsum in bagged cement, and therefore 100% substitution could be
implemented for this market, with limited capital investment.
Lab results indicated that paper comprised some 1.5% of the sample, which was different from the figure
provided by the recycled gypsum supplier, although it is not known if comparable sampling and analysis
procedures were used. Following the completion of the operational trial, the mill was inspected. The mill
diaphragms were found to be significantly blinded with paper, increasing residence time in the mill and hence
cement fineness. This presents a problem to this 24 hour industry as managing this degree of paper content
would require additional maintenance and downtime for the mills. Mills are stopped for 12 hours per week for
maintenance, which includes cleaning of the diaphragms. Additional stoppages for removal of paper from the
diaphragms would require stops of a similar duration as much of the downtime is a function of the need to cool
the steel media within the mill before entry. While the situation varies from works to works, it is considered that
there is minimal excess milling capacity available to accommodate this additional downtime. This issue was
highlighted by stakeholders as crucial to the viability of the use of recycled gypsum in cement. In order for the
cement industry to have confidence in the long term use of recycled gypsum, it would be advantageous for
plasterboard recyclers to provide the cement industry with an assurance of <1% paper content. Furthermore, it
is considered that there is value in conducting trials of longer duration at 25% and 50% substitution to further
investigate this problem and determine the true implications.
6.1.4 Summary of Technical Assessment
The laboratory and operational trial grinds using recycled gypsum indicated that recycled gypsum can be used to
replace mined gypsum in cement formulations. In particular, no technical issues for the use of recycled gypsum
in bagged cement were identified.
However, the replacement of mined gypsum with recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard will require the
following issues to be addressed:
Where blends of mined and recycled gypsum are to be used, extra facilities will be required at cement works
to blend materials together. Depending on location this could be capital intensive.
The cement sulphate target would need to be controlled in low sulphur clinker cement to keep DSO3 levels
between 1.0 and 1.3, thereby resolving the increased tendency for false setting in these cements.
The potential for adverse reactions between the air entraining additives in recycled gypsum with those
included in sophisticated concretes produced by the ready mix industry need to be resolved through
collaboration and research.
The paper content of the recycled gypsum will need to be reduced to <1%, and confidence in this
established.

The major obstacle foreseen in utilising recycled gypsum is its paper content. However, it is recognised that the
cement industry in both the UK and USA has evidence of the use of recycled gypsum.
6.2 Market Assessment
The operational trials, and in particular the strength, setting time and false set tests, indicate that substitution of
natural gypsum for recycled within bagged cement could be achieved without technical difficulty, and substitution
for ready mix cement can be achieved subject to confirmation of no negative interaction between air entraining
agents within the recycled gypsum and those added by customers own additives.
LCUK consider that any minor differences in bagged cement would not impact on this market’s customer base.
The introduction of recycled gypsum to the ready mix market requires further testing to resolve the potential
issues surrounding the air entrainment identified in the trials. The laboratory trials indicated that cements with a
higher recycled gypsum content had a higher propensity for false set. While this was not borne out in the
operational trials, any potential for false set could be avoided with user attention to the workability and plasticity
of the cement prior to pouring. Engagement with the ready mix cement will therefore also provide the
opportunity to address the education and awareness issues surrounding the generation of demand for increased
recycled content from the ready mix cement producers, and any revision to the handling of the cement as a
result of the recycled gypsum content.
6.3 Economic Analysis
The desktop study considered the economic concerns of stakeholders identified during the Scoping Study and
identified that the annual demand for gypsum from the cement industry is 0.6mt. Section 3.6.1 identified the
cost per tonne for natural gypsum and recycled gypsum as between £8-12 and £5-8 respectively. The annual
cost of gypsum product to the cement industry could potentially reach £7,200,000 where natural gypsum is
sourced, and could potentially be as low as £3,000,000 where recycled gypsum is sourced, indicating a clear
economic benefit in favour of recycled gypsum. However, as a low value commodity, transportation costs
represent a significant portion of the overall costs of gypsum, although these were not considered in detail in the
desktop study. Furthermore, section 3.4 identified that there is insufficient capacity at present within the
plasterboard recycling industry to meet the maximum demand from the cement industry.
In order to assess the potential economic impacts of a 100% substitution of natural gypsum for recycled gypsum
arising from transportation, the optimal locations for new plasterboard recycling facilities are required to enable
transport modelling to run comparative scenarios for analysis. Jacobs has used its in-house NetWaste model to
undertake this assessment; this is explained below.
6.3.1 Background to NetWaste
NetWaste is a gravity/transport model that has been developed specifically to optimise the location of waste
facilities for one or more new facilities in order to minimise the transport impacts of transporting the waste.
NetWaste identifies the relative transport impacts of different numbers and locations of facilities within a
catchment area. The NetWaste analysis uses GIS-based modelling analysis which builds on waste arisings and
transport infrastructure data to determine the optimal spatial distribution of new facilities. The NetWaste concept
is explained in more detail in 0.
NetWaste requires a large quantity of data derived from the logistical operation of recycled gypsum
transportation. This data used is based on UK averages and is not specific to the cement or plasterboard
industries. The NetWaste process also requires a number of assumptions to be made before modelling can take
place. The assumptions required for this assessment are as follows:
Annual gypsum requirement of each cement works
Annual capacity of each plasterboard recycler
Location of the gypsum mines that supply each cement works
Location of the plasterboard recyclers that supply each cement works
Average road speeds for HGVs
Average transport costs
CO2 conversion factors for HGVs
Full details of the assumptions used within the gravity and transport modelling are detailed in 0.

6.3.2 Identification of Area of Search (AoS) for New Plasterboard Recycling Facilities
Given the sensitivity of gypsum costs to the level of transport, three catchment areas were identified based on
the location of current cement works. The catchment areas cover the same geographical areas for both cement
works and development sites for new recycling facilities:
South England and Wales
East England and East Midlands
West England, North Wales and North of England
The optimal area of search within each catchment area can be driven by either:
Demand for recycled gypsum from cement works
Supply of plasterboard for recycling from future development sites
Future development sites were identified from UK housing development figures which are used as a proxy for all
development. While housing figures were available for Wales and Scotland, locations for future development
were not available.
The differing capacity of cement works, and the predicted amounts and location of future development (to 2016)
in the catchment areas exert gravitational “pull” on the location of the optimal area of search in catchment area.
Using data derived from the assumptions outlined above, and detailed in section 6.3.1, seven optimal areas of
search were identified as illustrated in section 6.3.3

Figure 10 Optimal areas of search for gypsum recycling hubs
The capacity gap in each catchment area is detailed in Table 33 below.

Table 33 Recycled gypsum catchment area capacity gap
Catchment Area Capacity Gap (tonnes)

South England and Wales 0 (-94,750 excess)
East England and East Midlands 148,250
West England, North Wales and North of England 98,250
It is assumed that the capacity gap would be eliminated by additional plasterboard recycling facilities located at
one of the hubs identified in Figure 10. Table 33 indicates that South England and Wales has an excess capacity,
therefore at present, based on the modelling undertaken and data available, there is no requirement for
additional facilities in this area. However, should the gypsum requirement increase or plasterboard recycling
capacity increase for other purposes e.g. generating new plasterboard, the locations identified in Figure 10 would
be the optimal locations under the methodology described above.
6.3.3 Economic Analysis – Transportation Costs
To enable a comparison of the transportation costs for recycled and natural gypsum an evaluation of seven
scenarios for the supply of gypsum to cement works were run through the NetWaste model:
Scenario 1 All gypsum supplied by gypsum mines.

Scenario 2 All gypsum supplied by existing plasterboard recycling facilities, with capacity gap supplied from
the closest gypsum mines.
Scenario 3 All gypsum supplied direct to cement works from future development sites.
from the recycling hubs identified by the “pull” of the cement works.
from the recycling hubs identified by the “pull” of future development.
Scenario 6 Gypsum supplied from just the recycling hubs identified by the “pull” of the cement works.
Scenario 7 Gypsum supplied from just the recycling hubs identified by the “pull” of future development.
NetWaste has been used to calculate the distance and time to transport the required quantity of gypsum under
each of the scenarios using the quickest route. Table 34 summarises the results. The assumptions made in
relation to the mines and recyclers supplying each cement works, together with assumptions on road speeds and
costs are detailed in Table 34.
Table 34 Distance and costs for NetWaste scenarios
Scenario Distance Costs

travelled (km) (£)
Scenario 1 7,008,000 4,851,000
Scenario 2 5,081,000 3,788,000
Scenario 3 6,975,000 4,829,000
Scenario 4 6,017,000 4,111,000
Scenario 5 8,268,000 5,638,000
Scenario 6 5,587,000 3,824,000
Scenario 7 7,143,000 4,867,000
Scenario 2, which involves the transportation of recycled gypsum from the closest plasterboard recycler to the
cement manufacturer, with the deficit sourced from the closest gypsum mine results in the lowest distance
travelled and therefore the lowest transportation costs. This indicates that it is in fact more economical in terms
of transportation costs for the cement industry to source the majority of their gypsum from plasterboard recycling
facilities. Indeed, this option is more than £1 million cheaper than the current sourcing option, from gypsum
mines. However, it should be noted that this is indicative as assumptions have been made regarding the mines
supplying each of the cement works.
It is not unexpected that the next two least costly options are driven by the demand of the cement works. The
“pull” of the cement works is strong due to the high quantities required by relatively few locations. In addition,
the low cost of the scenario in which all recycled gypsum is supplied by the hub based on the gravitational pull of
the cement works (scenario 6) illustrates the effectiveness of NetWaste in identifying the optimal area of search
to minimise transport impacts. However scenarios 2 and 4 represent more realistic approaches to the
implementation of a substitution of natural for recycled gypsum. These scenarios involve the provision of
recycled gypsum from the existing plasterboard recyclers with the gap in capacity to be provided by mines in the
case of scenario 2 and new facilities located within the optimal areas of search determined by the “pull” of the

cement works in scenario 4. In practise both these would allow for a progressive substitution of natural gypsum
by recycled. Initially the cement industry’s demand could be met by the use of unutilised capacity at plasterboard
recyclers, identified as approximately 30% of total capacity by stakeholders in the scoping study. As substitution
rates increase, investment would be required in new recycling facilities, providing recyclers with time to raise
capital and construct new facilities.
Substituting natural gypsum with recycled gypsum using transportation scenario 2 offers the cement industry a
potential cost saving of a million pounds, while scenario 4 offers the cement industry a potential cost saving of
approximately three quarters of a million pounds.
Conversely, the scenarios based on the “pull” of the development sites are identified as the least economic due to
their disparate location and significantly lower arisings.
A recent study of markets for waste plasterboard 43 identified cement manufacture as one of the top three using
the recycled gypsum. It may therefore be concluded that while the cement industry offers a significant market
for recycled gypsum, it is not the only market for waste plasterboard.
6.3.4 Summary of Economic Analysis
If we combine the cost of gypsum with the transportation costs identified in Table 35, the total estimated costs
associated with each of the scenarios run through NetWaste are as follows:
Table 35 Summary of costs
Scenario Product Product Transport Total Costs Total Costs

Costs Costs Costs
(£) Low (£) High (£) (£) Low (£) High
Scenario 1 4925600 7388400 £4,851,000 £9,776,600 £12,239,400
Scenario 2 4433400 6650100 £3,788,000 £8,221,400 £10,438,100
Scenario 3 4741025 7142300 £4,829,000 £9,570,025 £11,971,300
Scenario 4 4741025 7142300 £4,111,000 £8,852,025 £11,253,300
Scenario 5 3078500 4925600 £5,638,000 £8,716,500 £10,563,600
Scenario 6 3078500 4925600 £3,824,000 £6,902,500 £8,749,600
Scenario 7 3078500 4925600 £4,867,000 £7,945,500 £9,792,600
Table 35 identifies the two lowest cost options to be scenario 6 and 7. This is due to the reduced product costs
associated with the use of recycled gypsum. However, this scenario does not reflect reality, in that it is highly
unlikely that all plasterboard recycling capacity would relocate to the areas identified by the NetWaste modelling.
Therefore scenario 2, utilisation of existing recycling capacity with the deficit being supplied by UK gypsum mines,
represents the least costly, and most practical of the scenarios.
These costs do not take account of capital investment requirements for the scenarios. They are based on the
assumptions detailed in 0 and therefore can only be used to provide indications of an appropriate approach.
The economic analysis demonstrates that utilising recycled gypsum within the cement manufacturing industry
makes economic sense. The current location of the plasterboard recyclers is not a barrier to use, as suggest by
stakeholders during the initial scoping study. 44
43
WRAP (2006) Review of Plasterboard Material Flows and Barriers to Greater Use of Recycled Gypsum
44

6.4 Environmental Analysis
In addition, to the generic assessment of the environmental impacts of a substitution of natural gypsum by
recycled gypsum arising from waste plasterboard detailed in section 3.7, the NetWaste modelling allows a more
specific consideration of the environmental impacts of the use of recycled gypsum in cement.
6.4.1 Transport Carbon Emissions
A carbon factor 45 can be applied to the distances travelled to supply cement works with gypsum to determine the
carbon emissions associated with journeys between cement works and existing plasterboard recyclers, as well as
the locations identified through the gravitational modelling as optimal for new recycling facilities. Applying the
carbon factor as per the Defra guidance 46 to the scenarios modelled in NetWaste, provides the CO2 emissions
associated with the supply of gypsum to cement works based on the assumptions within the model. Since these
CO2 emissions are those associated with transportation rather than the source process, the CO2 emissions are a
reflection of the distance travelled. Table 36 summarises the different scenarios.
Table 36 CO2 emissions for NetWaste scenarios
Scenario Distance CO2 emitted

travelled (km) (kg)
Scenario 1 7,008,000 5,308,000
Scenario 2 5,497,000 4,164,000
Scenario 3 6,975,000 5,283,000
Scenario 4 6,017,000 4,557,000
Scenario 5 8,268,000 6,262,000
Scenario 6 5,587,000 4,231,000
Scenario 7 7,143,000 5,410,000
This analysis indicates that scenario 2 results in the lowest CO2 emissions from transport.
6.4.2 Other Carbon Emissions
Another key source of CO2 emissions is the energy used in the manufacture of the gypsum. Mined gypsum
supplied for cement manufacturer is screened to remove fines and crushed and finely ground. The processing of
waste plasterboard required energy for the operation of the electromagnet, the conveyer belts, hoppers, paper
removal activity and any compression of the final product. A comparison of the energy use of natural and
recycled gypsum production has not been undertaken. However the LCA 47 of plasterboard identifies a significant
reduction in emissions associated with increased use of recycled gypsum compared with the production of
conventional gypsum.
6.4.3 Other Environmental Impacts
Another key environmental impact associated with a substitution of mined gypsum with recycled gypsum is the
potential for reduced resource depletion. The UK cement industry consumes 0.6mt of natural gypsum per
annum 48, with the vast majority of gypsum used originating from UK gypsum mines.
If for the purposes of quantification, we assume that 100% of the cement industry’s gypsum comes from UK
mines, and the maximum substitution is achieved, the UK British Gypsum mining industry could extend its
production life by 23.9%, with production extending from 20 years to over 26 years (based on the current rate of
consumption);
45
Defra (2005) Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
46
ibid
47
WRAP (2008), Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard
48

Current gypsum consumption by the UK cement industry = 0.6mt (per annum)
Amount of natural gypsum reserves remaining = 50mt (20 years at current
rate of consumption,
2,500,000 per year)
Amount of gypsum consumed minus cement industry = 1.9mt (per annum)
50mt / 1.9mt = 26.3 years of production (given current rates of consumption)
Error! Reference source not found. identified the environmental impacts of four disposal options identified by
WRAP 49. This demonstrates that a reduction in environmental impact associated with the disposal of waste
plasterboard is possible through recycling where a low transportation model is followed. The results of the LCA
reiterate the findings of section 3.7 that minimising transportation is key to minimising both cost and
environmental impacts of the cement and plasterboard industries.
6.4.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts
The analysis of environmental impacts of a substitution of recycled gypsum for mined gypsum has identified that
over 1000 tonnes of CO2 emissions can by avoided by sourcing the majority of the industry’s gypsum from
existing plasterboard recyclers, with the deficit provided by existing mines. The LCA report also indicates reduced
CO2 emissions from the use of recycled gypsum rather than mined gypsum, though these have not been
confirmed. Finally there are potential benefits from the minimisation of the rate of resource depletion from
gypsum mines. This is however, a complex issue as the rock gypsum is almost a by-product of the mining of
higher grade gypsum, which would not be eliminated by the use of recycled gypsum in cement.
49
WRAP (2008), Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard,

7.0 Conclusions
The aim of this report has been to research and where possible discount the actual and perceived barriers to the
use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture which arose from the Scoping Study. 50 These barriers were
categorised as logistical and supply chain barriers, quality and process barriers, economic barriers and
environmental barriers. The analysis of the desktop study, laboratory and operational trials has enabled each of
the barriers to be addressed, and for the viability of the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture to be
assessed.
The desktop study identified that the cement industry utilises 615,000 tonnes of natural gypsum each year and
the plasterboard recycling industry has the capacity to recycle 535,000 tonnes of waste plasterboard annually.
These represent maximum figures and are dependant on the cement industry sourcing 100% of its gypsum from
recycled plasterboard, and the plasterboard recycling industry being able to recover 98% of the waste
plasterboard in the form of recycled gypsum. While, the plasterboard recycling industry does not have the
capacity to provide 100% of the cement industry’s gypsum demand at present, the degree of substitution of
natural gypsum with recycled may vary between 0 and 100%.
The laboratory and operational trials investigated the properties of cement mortars and concrete and concluded
that the use of recycled gypsum was more successful with clinkers with a high sulphur content. However, a
reduced target sulphur content could be employed to maintain the DSO3 levels within the required range to
enable use of recycled gypsum with these clinkers. The laboratory trials identified that as the percentage
recycled gypsum increases, the amount of anhydrite decreases. This indicated an increasing propensity for false
set in samples with high substitution rates, which was exacerbated in low sulphur content clinkers. However, in
the operational trials the anticipated false sets did not occur, indicating that the calcium sulphate chemistry of
recycled gypsum did not impede its use in cement manufacture. Indeed, it was identified that false set is rare in
practise and can be managed by remixing prior to pouring. Any concerns regarding false set can be eliminated
by providing customers with detailed methods of utilising cements containing recycled gypsum.
The trials linked reduced mortar strengths with increased proportions of recycled gypsum content. There is some
evidence that these effects were due to an increase in entrained air within the sample, a consequence of
additives within the waste plasterboard. Concrete samples contain much less cement and a wider particle size
distribution due to the aggregate content of the mix. As such the air entraining agents within the cement were
found to have a much more limited effect on concrete strength. Here only a small drop in strength was noted
and this was within the margin of error for testing. Cement manufacturers are well versed in controlling air
entrainment in packed cements. The normal statistical controls used to ensure compliance should control the
effects of recycled gypsum on strengths. Therefore the inclusion of recycled gypsum content in cement is not
considered problematic. Indeed in packed cements, air entraining products are added to some products, and
therefore this attribute would be advantageous. The operational trial produced a total of 463 tonnes of cement,
equivalent to 18,520 25kg bags. This was blended into bag cement produced on other mills and sold as normal
bagged product, highlighting the viability of recycled gypsum content for this market.
Ready mix cements, which constitute 70% of the market, use a sophisticated blend of additives in their cement
formulations. Further testing would be required to ensure that the air entraining agents within the recycled
gypsum do not result in adverse reactions with the concrete additive mixture. A collaboration between the
cement manufacturing industry, plasterboard manufacturers, and concrete producers will be required to
investigate additives and any synergistic effects they may have when used in conjunction with concrete producers
additives in order to maximise the use of recycled gypsum in cement.
Concerns regarding the storage and use of the finer recycled gypsum in the milling process were discounted
through this research. However, the degree of natural gypsum replacement will impact on requirements for
investment in additional storage, mixing and feeding equipment.
The only technical issue that remains outstanding on conclusion of this research is the paper content of the
recycled gypsum. The desktop study identified that claims of plasterboard recyclers to provide recycled gypsum
with a paper content of <1%. The recycled gypsum supplied for this trial was stated as <1% paper content,
however there was some evidence that it was higher and that there was blinding of the mill diaphragms. This
remains an issue, as in the 24 hour cement industry additional maintenance and mill downtime represent a
reduction in productivity and additional costs. It is considered that further trials of week long mill runs are
50

required to demonstrate the linkage between process economics and paper content. Furthermore, while the
successful use of recycled gypsum has been demonstrated though these trials and examples in the market, LCUK
consider that work with plasterboard recyclers is required to reduce paper content further, consistently achieving
below 0.5%, particularly as the percentage of recycled gypsum increases towards 100%.
Despite these outstanding issues, there are clear economic advantages to the cement industry for implementing a
switch to recycled gypsum. The analysis indicates that maximum utilisation of recycled gypsum supplies could
achieve almost £2 million annual savings in the UK. Furthermore the analysis demonstrates that the spatial
distribution of plasterboard recyclers is not a barrier to the use of recycled gypsum in cement, as this is the most
cost effective option.
The opportunity to minimise transportation identified by the conversion to recycled gypsum also results in
environmental benefits. The use of recycled gypsum offers the opportunity to minimise the environmental
impacts of the cement industry, through the reduction of CO2 emissions from transportation of the gypsum. The
analysis identifies a potential 1000 tonnes CO2 reduction. In addition, the LCA identifies a significant reduction in
CO2 emissions from the use of recycled gypsum as well as lower environmental impacts from the disposal of
plasterboard waste. There are therefore also strong incentives for an industry with a reputation as having
significant negative environmental impact for reducing these through the use of recycled gypsum.
Overall there are significant technical, economic and environmental benefits associated with the implementation
of a switch to the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture. In order to proceed with the substitution of
natural gypsum by recycled gypsum, further testing is required to clarify the impact of air entraining agents in
ready mix cements, and quality checks are required in the plasterboard recycling industry to ensure paper
content does not exceed 1%. This may require investment in new technology, process changes, and education
of the construction industry such that source segregation maximises the value of the recycled gypsum.
Furthermore a phased introduction of the use of recycled gypsum in cement may assist in eradicating concerns
regarding paper content relating to impacts on mill diaphragms and product quality.
In recognition of these benefits and the opportunity recycled gypsum represents in increasing the sustainability of
their business, Lafarge intend to establish ongoing communications between their cement manufacturing,
gypsum plasterboard and concrete producer divisions to identify synergies between the divisions which can be
exploited to increase sustainability for all parts of the business. Separately Lafarge intend to open dialogue with
recyclers to work together to reduce paper content of recycled gypsum. These commitments demonstrate not
only the viability of the use of recycled gypsum in cement, but the industry’s determination to resolve the
outstanding issues, and realise this sustainability improvement.

Appendix 1
Background to the NetWaste Model
Transport modelling is a specialist field and few ‘all-in-one’ software packages have been developed specifically to
optimise the location of specific facilities such as those for recycling or waste management. As such, this gravity
modelling exercise utilises a number of different tools including:
Standard GIS transport network model (Network Analyst) to identify routes and journey
distances/times/costs;
Data modelling of waste arisings in order to establish demand for different types of facility;
Excel models to compare different scenarios of facility locations; and,
GIS maps placing the cement and plasterboard recycling industry needs in a geographical context.
The combination of software utilised by Jacobs is known as ‘NetWaste’, and has been developed in-house by
Jacobs. The NetWaste model brings together the geographical spread of potential recycled gypsum
requirements, and the local road network, in order to calculate the optimum location for plasterboard recycling
facilities within given regional catchment areas. The model can be calibrated to represent transport impacts in
terms of driving time, driving cost or driving distance. However, it is considered that driving distance is the most
relevant consideration with regard to plasterboard recycling and delivery to cement works. Therefore the driving
distances between recycling facilities, and grid reference points are used in the model.
Although the assessment of travel distance provides an assessment of the cost of moving recycled gypsum per
tonne, it is also considered that the calculation of cost provides an indication of the environmental suitability of
the AoS modelled. The costs of transporting recycled gypsum will be broadly commensurate with the
environmental impacts associated with the transportation of material, including vehicle emissions, congestion and
amenity impacts. Generally, in order to minimise travel cost and distance, scenarios which use faster roads will
perform best and, in turn, the use of these routes can be expected to minimise vehicle emissions, congestion and
transportation through settlements.
Gravity Modelling
‘Gravity’ modelling assesses the optimum facility location through the concept of the ‘pull’ of cement works sites.
For example, if gypsum requirements from two sources are equal then the optimum location would be equidistant
from both sources. However, if requirements were greater at one source then the model would ‘pull’ the location
closer to that source to minimise the total tonne-miles transported i.e. the number of miles each tonne of gypsum
has to travel before it reaches its final destination. This concept is illustrated in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11 Concept of gravity modelling
10t 10t
The yellow star represents the

optimum facility location, which is
equidistant from both sources of
equal arisings
10t
30t
The higher arisings ‘pull’ the optimum facility

location (yellow star) closer in order to reduce
total tonne-miles transported
One additional factor to consider in gravity modelling is the local road infrastructure (the network) and the nature
of individual road types. In reality, transport costs tend to be more influenced by the hourly pay-rates of vehicle
crews than by the fuel costs incurred to travel the physical distance. Therefore, travel time has a greater effect
on operating costs than distance. This is illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure 12 Comparison of travel time versus distance
20 mins 10 mins
10t
10t
20 mins 20 mins
The pink star represents the location equidistant between the two sources of
equal arisings. The optimal facility location (represented by the yellow star)
is, however, actually a longer journey in terms of distance, but it is along
quicker roads. The total cost of the journey is therefore minimised.

NetWaste requires a large quantity of data derived from the logistical operation of recycled gypsum
transportation. This data used is based on UK averages and is not specific to the cement or plasterboard
industries.
Assumptions
The NetWaste process requires several assumptions to be made before modelling can take place. The
assumptions required for this assessment are as follows:
Annual gypsum requirement of each cement works
Annual capacity of each plasterboard recyclers
The plasterboard recyclers that supply each cement works
The gypsum mines that supply each cement works
Average road speeds for HGVs
Average transport costs
CO2 conversion factors
Facility capacities
The gypsum requirements of each cement works are described in Table 37 below.
Table 37 Cement works capacities and gypsum requirements
Plant Location Capacity (tpa) Gypsum

Requirement
(tpa)
Aberthaw South Glamorgan 550,000 27,500
Barnstone Nottinghamshire 100,000 5,000
Cauldon Staffordshire 930,000 46,500
Dunbar East Lothian 900,000 45,000
Hope Derbyshire 1,400,000 70,000
Northfleet/Medway Kent 1,200,000 60,000
Westbury Wiltshire 765,000 38,250
Ketton Rutland 1,400,000 70,000
Ribblesdale Lancashire 870,000 43,500
Padeswood Flintshire 840,000 42,000
Barrington Cambridgeshire 300,000 15,000
Rugby Warwickshire 1,400,000 70,000
Coningsby Lincolnshire 765,000 38,250
Tunstead Derbyshire 895,000 44,750
Total Manufacturing
Capacity 12,315,000 615,750
The capacities of existing plasterboard recyclers are shown in Table 38. Assumed capacities have been used
where provided capacities are ambiguous.

Table 38 Plasterboard recyclers’ capacities and assumed capacities for modelling
Company Name Locations Tonnage Assumed

Capacity (ktpa) Capacity (t)
60 (currently
New West Gypsum Avonmouth, Avon 36k) 60,000
Immingham 20-30 25,000
Gypsum Recycling
International Halling, Kent 110 110,000
British Gypsum East Leake, Loughborough 25,000
Robertsbridge, Sussex 25,000
Kirkby Thor, Cumbria 25,000
Sherburn-in-Elmet, Leeds Total 100 25,000
Rotherham, South
Roy Hatfield Ltd. Yorkshire 50 50,000
Mid UK Recycling Grantham, Lincolnshire Not public (<100) 50,000
Sustainable Resource
Management (SRM) Morecambe, Lancashire X 0
Recyclet Brigg, Lincolnshire 65 65,000
Coast2Coast Tollerton, Yorkshire 25 25,000
PBR UK London 50 50,000
Total 535,000
Gypsum movements
In the NetWaste modelling, gypsum movements were modelled under two scenarios; to cement works from the
closest gypsum mine in the catchment area and to cement works from plasterboard recyclers in the catchment
area. These movements are described in Table 39 and Table 40 below.
Table 39 Gypsum mines supplying each cement works by catchment area.
Cement works Gypsum Mines

Northfleet/Medway Brightling
Westbury Brightling
Aberthaw Brightling

Coningsby Bantycock Quarry
Barnstone Kilvington Quarry
Ketton Kilvington Quarry
Rugby Marblaegis Mine
Barrington Kilvington Quarry

Dunbar Newbiggin
Ribblesdale Birkshead
Hope Faul Mine
Cauldon Faul Mine
Padeswood Faul Mine
Tunstead Faul Mine

Table 40 Plasterboard recyclers supplying each cement works by catchment area
Cement works Plasterboard Recyclers

Northfleet/Medway Gypsum Recycling International
Westbury Gypsum Recycling International
New West Gypsum
Aberthaw New West Gypsum

Coningsby Mid UK Recycling
Barnstone British Gypsum East Leake
Ketton Mid UK Recycling
Rugby N/A
Barrington N/A

Dunbar British Gypsum Kirby Thor
Ribblesdale British Gypsum Leeds
Coast2Coast
Hope Recyclet
Immingham
Cauldon N/A
Padeswood Roy Hatfield Ltd.
Immingham
Tunstead Roy Hatfield Ltd.
British Gypsum Leeds
Immingham
Road speeds
Average road speeds are required in the NetWaste modelling so that travel times can be calculated in order to
find the ‘quickest route’. Average HGV speeds by road type are shown in Table 41 below.
Table 41 Road speeds used in NetWaste modelling
Lorry Road HGV HGV

Road Type
Speed Limits Average Average
kmph mph kmph mph
Motorway 97 60 77.2 48
A - Road 64 40 51 32
A - Trunk Road 80 50 64 40
B - Road 48 30 39 24
Other road 48 30 39 24
Cost assumptions
The cost assumptions described in Table 42 are used in the modelling process to determine vehicle related
transport costs, based on distance, and the costs of transport staff, based on time. The vehicle type used in the
modelling was a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV).

Table 42 Cost used in NetWaste modelling
Running
Vehicle Type: Payload Cost/km STAFF COST
(tonnes) per hour per min
Refuse Collection
Vehicle (RCV) RCV 8.5 £0.91 £47.39 £0.79
Roll on - Roll off Vehicle Ro-Ro 12 £0.43 £16.82 £0.28
ISO
ISO Container vehicle Container 14 £0.43 £16.82 £0.28
Heavy Goods Vehicle
(HGV) / Bulker HGV 18 £0.43 £16.82 £0.28
Rail Rail 120
Canal Canal 60
CO2 conversion factors
To calculate CO2 emissions for different transport scenarios, assumptions of fuel consumption and CO2 factors are
required. The figures used in the NetWaste modelling are described in Table 43.
Table 43 Conversion factors for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
Weight Laden Litres Fuel per CO2

km Conversion
Factor
50% 51 0.288 2.63
51 Vehicle loads of 50% of full capacity are assumed for unknown payloads. As per Defra Guidance

References:
BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2006, Mineral Planning Factsheet – Gypsum, Natural Environment
Research Council, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2008, Mineral Planning Factsheet – Cement, Natural Environment
BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2006, Mineral Planning Factsheet – Limestone, Natural Environment
BRITISH GYPSUM, 2001, Gyproc Plasterboard Data Sheet, Leicestershire: British Gypsum Limited.
CEMENT INDUSTRIES SUPPLIER FORUM, 2007, Review of the British Cement Industry, Surrey: British
Cement Association.
COMPETITION COMMISION., 1990, Plasterboard: A report on the supply of plasterboard in the United
Kingdom, London: Competition Commission.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM (DBERR), 2007, Quarterly Energy
Prices: December 2007, ONS http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43302.pdf [accessed on 06 May 2008]
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM (DBERR), 2007, Energy

Consumption in the UK, ONS
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/publications/ecuk/page17658.html [accessed on 06 May 2008]
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM (DBERR), 2007, Digest of United
Kingdom Energy Statistics, ONS
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/publications/dukes/page39771.html[accessed on 06 May 2008]
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA), 2006, Guidelines for Company
Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/envrpgas-annexes.pdf [accessed on 01 March
2008]
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA), 2006, Market Transformation
Programme – BNPB1: Plasterboard – industry, product and market overview Version 1.5, London:
DEFRA.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA), 2006, Market Transformation
Programme – BNPB2: Plasterboard – waste management Version 1.5, London: DEFRA.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA), 2007 Climate Change
Agreements: Results of the Third Target Period Assessment,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/climatechange/uk/business/ccl/pdf/cca-jul07.pdf [accessed on 06
May 2008]
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY., 2006, Guidance for waste destined for disposal in landfills Version 2, available
from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/wacv2_1006008.pdf [accessed on 02 April
2007].
GYPSUM RECYCLING INTERNATIONAL., http://www.gypsumrecycling.biz/ [accessed on 02 April 2007].
NEW WEST GYPSUM RECYCLING LTD., http://www.nwgypsum.com/english/rp_01.htm [accessed on 02

April 2007].
OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, 2006, PRODCOM PRA 14120 Quarrying of Limestone, Gypsum and
Chalk (except Uranium and Thorium Ores), London: ONS

OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, 2006, PRODCOM PRA 26510 Cement, London: ONS
UNWIN (2002) ‘A Comparison of Plasterboard and FDG Gypsum in the Reclamation of Sodic Soils’
unpublished
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME, Opportunities to use Recycled Materials in Building. A
Reference Guide (2004), Oxon.
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME, Case Study- A partnership Approach to Plasterboard
Waste Management and Recycling (2004), Oxon.
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME, Review of Plasterboard Material Flows and Barriers to
Greater Use of Recycled Plasterboard (2006), Oxon.
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME, Scoping Study for the use of Recycled Gypsum in Cement
Manufacture (2007), Oxon.
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME, Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard (2008), Oxon.
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME, Waste Plasterboard Market Scoping Study (2007)”, Oxon.
WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME Case Study- A partnership Approach to Plasterboard Waste
Management and Recycling (2004) Oxon

www.wrap.org.uk/construction

2018 Yearly Calendar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 Yearly Calendar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Trials for the use of recycled

Report demonstrating the potential to use recycled gypsum in the

Project code: PBD022-001 ISBN: 1-84405-404-7

Written by: Faye Clamp, Jacobs Engineering UK Limited

These parameters include:

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 1

A. Cement Industry Shorthand for Al2O3

AOS. Area of Optimal Search

C. Cement industry shorthand for CaO

F. Cement industry shorthand for Fe2O3

F.O.C. Free Organic Carbon

HGV. Heavy Goods Vehicle

LCUK. Lafarge Cement UK

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 2

S. Cement industry shorthand for SiO2

Silos. Silos are structures for storing bulk materials.

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 3

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 4

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 5

1.1 Purpose of this report

1.2 Background to the Project

1.2.1 The Recycled Gypsum Opportunity

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 6

 plasterboard waste minimisation;

More information on WRAP’s work can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/construction

1.3 Report Structure

Section 3 Desk-top Study

Section 4 Laboratory Test Results

Section 5 Results of Operational Scale Trial

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 7

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 8

2.1 Desktop Study

2.2 Laboratory Test Schedule

Stage 1 Review of materials present in plasterboard

Stage 2: Material characterisation of recycled gypsum

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 9

Stage 4: Material flow characteristics

Stage 5: Project review/report

2.3 Operational Trial Schedule

2.4 Assessment and Analysis

 Stage 1 - Economic Analysis

Stage 1 - Economic Analysis

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 10

Scenario 1 All gypsum supplied by gypsum mines

Stage 2 - Environmental Analysis

Stage 3 - Market Assessment

Stage 4 - Technical Assessment

 Operational constraints; and

2.5 Case Study

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 11

3.0 Desktop Study

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 12

Issue Method of Resolution

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 13

3.2 Industry Background

3.2.1 Cement Industry

3.2.2 Plasterboard Industry

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 14

3.3 Gypsum and its role in Cement Manufacture

3.4 Logistics and Supply Chain

3.4.1 Current Markets for Recycled and Natural Gypsum

Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in cement manufacture 15

plasterboard waste minimisation;

Stage 1 - Economic Analysis

Operational constraints; and