buildings

Article
Experimental Study of Self-Compacting Mortar
Incorporating Recycled Glass Aggregate
Awetehagn Tuaum 1,2, * ID
, Stanley Shitote 3 and Walter Oyawa 4
1 Department of Civil Engineering, PAN AFRICAN UNIVERSITY Institute for Basic Sciences, Technology and
Innovation (PAUSTI), 62000 00200 Nairobi, Kenya
2 School of Civil Engineering, Ethiopian Institute of Technology-Mekelle (EiT-M), Mekelle University,
231 Mekelle, Ethiopia
3 Rongo University, 103-40404 Rongo, Kenya; sshitote@rongovarsity.ac.ke
4 Commission for University Education, 54999-00200 Nairobi, Kenya; oyawaw@yahoo.com
* Correspondence: awetehagn12@gmail.com; Tel.: +251-912-791-584

Received: 20 December 2017; Accepted: 24 January 2018; Published: 26 January 2018

Abstract: This experimental research is focused on the development of self-compacting mortar

incorporating recycled glass aggregate (SCM-RGA) as partial substitution of fine aggregate (wt 0%,
10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%). The fresh and hardened mechanical properties as well as durability of
SCM-RGA mixes were investigated. Limestone powder (LP) was used as filler that constitutes 20% of
the powder volume to reduce the amount of cement. The SCM-RGA mixtures were designed based on
Japanese mix design method. The experimental test results showed that the slump flow of SCM-RGA
mixes decreased and V-funnel flow time increased when the content of recycled glass aggregate
(RGA) increased. The bulk density, compressive strength, flexural strength, water absorption and
sorptivity of SCM-RGA mixes were decreased as RGA content increased. Moreover, the accelerated
mortar bar test results showed that the expansion due to alkali–silica reaction (ASR) of SCM-RGA
mixes increased as the content of RGA increased although the expansion of all mixes were within
acceptable limit and potentially innocuous. In conclusion, up to 30% of RGA can be successfully
integrated in SCM mixes that offers comparable strength performance, sorptivity enhancement and
without long term detrimental ASR effect, and thus, contributes towards sustainable solid waste
management, conservation of natural resources and environmental protection.

Keywords: recycled glass aggregate; self-compacting concrete; solid waste management; sorptivity;
alkali–silica-reaction; self-compacting mortar; strength; flow time; slump flow

1. Introduction
Sustainable waste management especially for non-degradable solid wastes such as glass is one of
the major challenges that faces developing countries. Due to rapid population growth, urbanization
and paramount economic growth, the rate of waste generation in aforementioned countries is
increasing rapidly and consequently poses serious health and environmental problems. Fortunately,
there are mitigation measures commonly employed in solid waste disposal; recycling, landfilling
and incinerating. However, recycling of solid wastes for new material manufacturing in developing
countries is not viable solution because it is capital intensive. Landfilling and incinerating are not
eco-friendly solutions. Therefore, there is a need for reliable and cost-effective method to curb this
menace. Recycling of solid wastes in concrete production is then a prevailing and feasible option
towards sustainable solid waste management and infrastructure development [1].
The construction industry is growing rapidly, leading to high consumption of concrete. More than
70% of concrete volume is occupied by aggregates. In developing countries, particularly Africa, the
aggregates are acquired by extensive extraction of natural rocks and rivers which adversely affects the

Buildings 2018, 8, 15; doi:10.3390/buildings8020015 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2018, 8, 15 2 of 18

ecology of riparian habitats, forested areas, riverbeds and land use [2]. Hence, utilization of wastes
and industrial by-products as substitution of aggregates in concrete or mortar is a fascinating and
viable option to secure natural resources and environmental conservation [3].
Worldwide, discarded and post-consumer waste glass are becoming a substantial burden in
stockpiles and landfills [4]. According to Chandak [5] report, globally 2% of solid waste composition is
waste glass in low-income and middle-income countries, and 7% in high income countries. In Nairobi
city, it has been estimated that about 22,630 tons of waste glass is generated each year [6]. Even though,
glass is recyclable, that can be reused for new glass production, high cost of recycling and limited
number of glass industries in Africa impede the recycling of waste glass. These are also the driving
forces promoting the recycling of waste glass as components in production of mortar or concrete [7].
Self-compacting mortar (SCM) is an integral part of self-compacting concrete (SCC) and is
principally used in structural retrofitting, rehabilitation and repair of structures, grouting and
production of light transmitting concrete. According to EFNARC [8] self-compacting concrete
(SCC) is “concrete that is able to flow under its own weight and completely fill the formwork,
even in the presence of dense reinforcement, without the need of any vibration, whilst maintaining
homogeneity”. SCC is an emerging advanced concrete technology that offers overall technical, health
and environmental advantages over conventional concrete. SCC was first developed at the University
of Tokyo by Prof. Okamura in 1988 to enhance concrete durability and avoid workmanship defects
during concreting operation [9]. Moreover, the first SCC mix design method was advocated by
Japanese [10] and it is also known as Japanese mix design method. The mix design of SCC is highly
dependent on the applied material properties, and extensive researches has been carried out in different
countries considering various circumstances [11]. In Africa, particularly East Africa the practice of
SCC is in infant stage at this time, and this might be due to the absence of guidelines or standards that
support the design, production and application of SCC in the region. The present study aims to develop
SCM mixes based on local available materials to boost and support the design and manufacturing of
SCC in East Africa.
The workability of fresh SCC basically depends on the fundamental engineering properties of
fresh SCM [12]. In fact, the design of SCC is trial and error that requires plenty of time and effort.
However, design of SCM requires relatively less time and cost, and helps to achieve a target SCC easily.
It is then prominent to study and proportion SCM to minimize SCC phase trials [13]. Generally, SCC or
SCM requires higher cement content than conventional concrete to achieve self-consolidation. Mineral
admixtures such as limestone powder (LP) are introduced as fillers to reduce the amount of cement
and heat of hydration, enhance flowability and durability, and retard time of setting. In addition,
superplasticiser (SP) is used to lower yield stress and increase segregation resistance of SCM or
SCC [14,15].
Several previous studies [16–19], revealed that incorporating recycled glass as fine aggregate in
concrete decreased slump flow due to the harsh texture and geometry of glass. On the contrary, other
authors [20–22], reported that concrete with recycled glass tends to have increased workability and this
attribute was explained as the contribution of the smooth surface of glass grains, while others [23,24]
deduced that the slump flow remained comparable in both concrete with and without glass aggregate.
Extensive experimental research conducted on concrete containing recycled glass aggregate (RGA)
has consistently reported that its compressive and flexural strength are lower compared to concrete
containing natural aggregate [16,18–20,23–25]. The findings from [17,19,24,25], showed that the bulk
density of hardened concrete slightly decreased as the RGA amount increased. Some authors [20,26,27],
deduced a remarkable reduction in sorptivity and water absorption as the content of RGA increased,
and concluded that incorporating waste glass enhances durability of concrete.
The potential effects of utilizing glass aggregates in concrete reported by previous research [4,28–30],
were an alkali–silica reaction (ASR) between the amorphous silicate glass grains and alkali of cement in
the presence of water that might results in volumetric expansion and spalling. However, experimental
evidence proved that the potential problem of ASR decreased with reduced glass aggregate particle
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 3 of 18

size. Du and Tan [31], revealed that glass aggregate less than 2.36 mm would effectively mitigated ASR
expansion and assured pozzolanic activity.
This research aims at exploring the possibility and viability of using recycled glass aggregate
as fine aggregate in self-compacting mortar/concrete for application in the construction industry of
Africa particularly East Africa.

2. Experimental Program

2.1. Materials
All materials used to prepare SCM mixtures were locally available. An ordinary Portland cement
Type I (CEM I 42.5N) conforming to the requirements of EN 197-1 [32] was used as a binding agent.
The mineral admixture used as filler was limestone powder (LP) with CaCO3 content of 85.5% by mass.
The fineness of the limestone powder passing 185 µm, 75 µm and 45 µm was 100%, 90.85% and 75.77%
respectively. Figure 1 shows gradation of limestone powder. Fine aggregate (FA) used was natural
river sand that passes through #8 sieve (2.36 mm). Particle size distribution of the fine aggregate
was conforming to the requirements of ASTM C33 [33]. Soda-lime silicate glass were collected from
local landfills, then cleaned and crushed manually to produce graded finely crushed recycled glass
aggregate (RGA) that met the requirements of ASTM C33 [33]. The unit weight, specific gravity and
fineness modulus of the RGA was 1545 kg/m3 , 2.32 and 2.70 respectively. Sieve analysis test results of
FA and RGA are also given in Figure 2. The chemical composition of cement, LP, RGA and FA analyzed
using X-ray diffraction (XRD) are detailed in Table 1. Sika ViscoCrete 3088, polycarboxylate based high
range water reducer (superplasticiser) was used as chemical admixture to improve workability and
rheology of SCM mixtures. The properties of the superplasticiser are presented in Table 2. The physical
properties of cement, LP, RGA and FA are reported in Table 3.

Table 1. Chemical composition of cement, limestone powder (LP), recycled glass aggregate (RGA) and
fine aggregate.

Chemical Composition (%) Cement LP RGA Fine Aggregate

CaO 63.37 47.86 10.67 4.17
SiO2 20.61 12.20 81.98 79.96
Al2 O3 5.05 0.60 0.86 8.65
Fe2 O3 3.24 0.30 0.23 1.53
MgO 0.81 0.90 5.63 0.00
SO3 2.75 0.00 0.19 1.27
K2 O 0.52 — 0.23 2.82
Na2 O 0.15 — — —
P2 O5 — 0.15 0.12 0.79
C3 A 7.91 — — —
Insoluble residue (I.R.) 1.00 0.20 — —
Loss on ignition (LOI) 2.90 37.65 — —

Table 2. Properties of the superplasticiser (Sika ViscoCrete 3088).

Description Property
Appearance/color Yellowish liquid
Density (kg/L) 1.06 (at +20 ◦ C)
pH value 5.5 ± 0.5
Chemical base Aqueous solution of modified polycarboxylate
Dosage 0.2–2% by weight of cement
 Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 4 of 18
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Table 3. Physical properties of cement, LP, RGA and fine aggregate.
Table 3.
Properties
Table 3. Physical
Physical properties
properties of
of cement,
Cement
cement, LP,
LP,RGA
RGAand fine
andLPfineaggregate.
RGA
aggregate. Fine Aggregate
Specific gravity 3.15 2.80 2.32 2.37
Properties
Properties Cement
Cement LP LP
RGA RGA Fine Aggregate
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1433 1365 1545Fine Aggregate
1610
Specific modulus
Fineness gravity 3.15 2.80 2.32 2.37
Specific gravity 3.15— 2.80 —2.32 2.70 2.37 2.35
Bulk density
Bulksurface
Specific (kg/m
density(cm (kg/m
2
3)
/g) )3 14331433
3197 1365 1365
1545
1029 1545
— 1610 —1610
Fineness
Soundness modulus
Fineness modulus
(mm) —
—0.30 — ——2.70 2.70— 2.35 2.35
—
Specific surface
Specific surface(cm
Normal consistency (%)
2/g)2
(cm /g) 31973197
25.65 1029 1029
— — —— — — —
Soundness
Soundness (mm) (mm)
Initial 0.30
0.30160 — ——— —— — — —
Setting time
Normal (min)
Normalconsistency
consistency (%) (%) 25.65
25.65 — — — — — —
Final 252 — — —
Initial 160160 — — — —
Setting
Setting timetime
Compressive (min)
(min) AtInitial
2 days 19.30 —— —— —
FinalFinal 252252 — — — — — —
strength (N/mm
Compressive
2) At 28 days 48.94 — — —
Compressive 2
At 2Atdays2 days 19.30
19.30 — —— — — —
strength (N/mm ) At 28 days 48.94 — — —
strength (N/mm2) 100 At 28 days 48.94 — — —

100
80

80
60
% Passing

60
% Passing

40

40
20

200
1000.0 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1
0
Particle diameter (μm)
1000.0 100.0 10.0 1.0 0.1

Figure1.1. Particle
Particle size Particle diameter
sizedistribution
distribution (μm) powder (LP).
oflimestone
limestone
Figure of powder (LP).
Figure 1. Particle size distribution of limestone powder (LP).
Fine Aggregate Recycled Glass Aggregate
100
Fine Aggregate Recycled Glass Aggregate
100
80

80
% Passing

60
% Passing

60
40

40
20

200
10.0 1.0 0.1
0 Particle diameter (mm)
10.0 1.0 0.1
Particle diameter (mm)
Figure 2. Particle
Figure2. Particle size
size distribution
distributionof
offine
fineaggregate
aggregateand
andRGA.
RGA.

Figure 2. Particle size distribution of fine aggregate and RGA.

2.2.
2.2. Mixture
Mixture Proportioning
Proportioning
The
TheSCM
SCM
2.2. Mixture mixtures
mixtureswere
Proportioning weredesigned
designedbased
basedononOkamura’s
Okamura’smethod
method[10]. [10]. AA total
total of
of66SCM
SCMmixtures
mixtures
were
wereproportioned
proportionedandandtheir
theirdetails
detailsare
areas
aspresented
presentedin inTable
Table4.4.In
Inall
allSCM
SCMmixtures,
mixtures,sand
sandtotomortar
mortar
The SCM mixtures were designed based on Okamura’s method [10]. A total of 6 SCM mixtures
volume
volumeratio
ratio(S/M)
(S/M) was kept 0.5 and limestone powder powder was was used
used asas filler
filler that
that constitutes
constitutes 20%
20%ofofthe
the
were proportioned and their details are as presented in Table 4. In all SCM mixtures, sand to mortar
powder
powdervolume.
volume.Fine
Fineaggregates
aggregates were replaced
were with
replaced RGA
with by weight
RGA at varying
by weight percentage
at varying of 0%,of10%,
percentage 0%,
volume ratio (S/M) was kept 0.5 and limestone powder was used as filler that constitutes 20% of the
20%,
10%,30%,
20%,40%
30%,and
40%50%.
andWater to powder
50%. Water ratio and
to powder superplasticiser
ratio (SP) dosage
and superplasticiser were varying
(SP) dosage until a
were varying
powder volume. Fine aggregates were replaced with RGA by weight at varying percentage of 0%,
desired mixturemixture
until a desired that fulfills
thatthe requirements
fulfills of SCM of
the requirements was obtained.
SCM was obtained.
10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%. Water to powder ratio and superplasticiser (SP) dosage were varying
until a desired mixture that fulfills the requirements of SCM was obtained.
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 5 of 18
Table 4. Self-compacting mortar incorporating recycled glass aggregate (SCM-RGA) mix
proportioning.
Table 4. Self-compacting mortar incorporating recycled glass aggregate (SCM-RGA) mix proportioning.
Limestone Fine
Mix Cement Limestone
Water Fine
RGA SP
Mix W/P W/C Cement3 Powder Water 3) Aggregate RGA3) SP3)
Designation W/P W/C (kg/m ) Powder (kg/m Aggregate (kg/m (kg/m
Designation 3 (kg/m ) (kg/m3) 3
(kg/m ) (kg/m33) 3
(kg/m ) 3
(kg/m )
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m )
RGA0% 0.33 0.40 623.76 138.61 252.48 1185.00 — 5.95
RGA0% 0.33 0.40 623.76 138.61 252.48 1185.00 — 5.95
RGA10% 0.33 0.40 623.76 138.61 252.48 1066.50 118.50 6.02
RGA10% 0.33 0.40 623.76 138.61 252.48 1066.50 118.50 6.02
RGA20%
RGA20% 0.33
0.33 0.40
0.40 623.76
623.76 138.61
138.61 252.48
252.48 948.00
948.00 237.00
237.00 6.02
6.02
RGA30%
RGA30% 0.33
0.33 0.40
0.40 623.76
623.76 138.61
138.61 252.48
252.48 829.50
829.50 355.50
355.50 6.10
6.10
RGA40%
RGA40% 0.33
0.33 0.40
0.40 623.76
623.76 138.61
138.61 252.48
252.48 711.00
711.00 474.00
474.00 6.18
6.18
RGA50%
RGA50% 0.33
0.33 0.40
0.40 623.76
623.76 138.61
138.61 252.48
252.48 592.50
592.50 592.50
592.50 6.25
6.25

2.3. Test
Test Program
Program
The test program of SCM
SCM consisted
consisted of two
two phases.
phases. The first phase dealt with assessment of the
rheological
rheological properties
properties (deformability
(deformabilityandandviscosity)
viscosity)of
of fresh
fresh SCM
SCM mixtures.
mixtures. The second phase focused
on investigation of the bulk density,
density, compressive
compressive and
and flexural
flexural strength,
strength, water absorption, sorptivity
and expansion due
due to
to alkali–silica-reaction
alkali–silica-reaction (ASR)
(ASR) of
of hardened
hardened SCMs.
SCMs.

2.4.
2.4. Mixing
Mixing Procedure
Procedure
The
The constituent
constituent materials
materials were
were weighed
weighed properly,
properly, based
based onon the
the mix
mix design.
design. The
The powder,
powder, fine
fine
aggregate
aggregate or/and recycled glass were first placed in a mortar mixer, and mixed thoroughly in
or/and recycled glass were first placed in a mortar mixer, and mixed thoroughly in dry
dry
state. After mixing for 1 min, 80% of the required water added to the mixer and continue
state. After mixing for 1 min, 80% of the required water added to the mixer and continue mixing for mixing
for 1 min
1 min moremore under
under normal
normal speedofofthe
speed themixer.
mixer.Then
Thenthetherequired
required superplasticiser
superplasticiser and
and 20%
20% ofof
remaining water were introduced and the mixing continued further for 5 min.
remaining water were introduced and the mixing continued further for 5 min. For dispersibility For dispersibility
between
between superplasticiser
superplasticiserandandthe matrix,
the matrix,thethe
mixmix
waswas
keptkept
resting for 2 for
resting min.2 Finally, the mixture
min. Finally, mixed
the mixture
for 1 min before being discharged. The mixing procedure followed in this experimental
mixed for 1 min before being discharged. The mixing procedure followed in this experimental program is
shown
program in is
Figure
shown3. in Figure 3.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Mixing
Mixing procedure.
procedure.

2.5. Test
2.5. Test Methods
Methods

2.5.1. Tests
2.5.1. Tests on
on Fresh
Fresh SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA Mixtures
Mixtures
The rheological
The rheologicalproperties of fresh
properties SCM
of fresh mixtures
SCM were were
mixtures assessed by conducting
assessed mini slump
by conducting miniflow and
slump
V-funnel
flow and flow time tests.
V-funnel flow All SCM
time mixtures
tests. All SCMwere designed
mixtures to satisfy
were the flow
designed properties
to satisfy requirement
the flow properties set
by EFNARC (European Federation of National Associations Representing for Concrete)
requirement set by EFNARC (European Federation of National Associations Representing for [8].
Concrete) [8].
Slump Flow Test
Slump Flow Test
The deformability of SCM mixtures were evaluated by slump flow test using mini slump cone.
The slump flow test wasofperformed
The deformability SCM mixturesaccording
were to EFNARCby[8]slump
evaluated and the spread
flow diameter
test using mini(dslump
m) of all the
cone.
mixtures
The slumpkept
flowwithin theperformed
test was range of 250 ± 10 mm.
according toThe flow of[8]
EFNARC the mixtures
and wasdiameter
the spread also visually
(dm ) observed
of all the
for bleeding,
mixtures keptsegregation
within the range of 250 ± 10 mm.
and inconsistency. TheThe
deformability of SCM mixtures
flow of the mixtures was expressed
was also visually observed in
terms of relative flow area (Гm) using:
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 6 of 18

for bleeding, segregation and inconsistency. The deformability of SCM mixtures was expressed in
terms of relative flow area (Гm ) using:
 
dm
Γm = −1 (1)
do

where do is the diameter of the base of truncated mini slump cone (do = 100 mm), and dm is the mean
value of the two perpendicular measured spread diameters of d1 and d2 , dm = (d1 + d2 )/2.

V-funnel Flow Time Test

The viscosity and passing ability of SCM mixtures were examined by conducting V-funnel flow
time test according to the procedures outlined in EFNARC [8]. This test is feasible and simple method
to select suitable water to powder ratio of the mixtures and the permissible value of the flow time (t) is
9 ± 2 s [8]. The passing ability of SCM mixtures can be expressed in terms of relative flow velocity (Rm ):

t
Rm = (2)
10

2.5.2. Tests on Hardened SCM-RGA

Compressive and Flexural Strength

The flexural and compressive strength of hardened SCMs were determined at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days
according to ASTM C348 [34] and ASTM C349 [35]. After a desired SCM mixture was obtained, it was
poured into 40 × 40 × 160 mm3 prism moulds without applying any compaction. Then 24 h after
casting, the specimens were demoulded and cured in water at a temperature of 20 ± 1 ◦ C until the age
of testing.

Water Absorption by Immersion

Water absorption by immersion was determined according to ASTM C642 [36] in three 40 × 40 ×
160 mm3 SCM specimens of each mixtures after 28 days of curing. The specimens were dried in an oven
for 24 h with the temperature kept at 105 ± 5 ◦ C. The mass of oven-dried specimens was recorded after
cooling to room temperature. Then the specimens were immersed in water at temperature of 21 ◦ C
for about 72 h until a constant saturated surface-dried mass was achieved. The ratio of the amount of
water absorbed by the oven-dried specimen to the mass of oven-dried specimen was considered as the
rate of water absorption.

Sorptivity (Capillary Water Absorption)

Sorptivity coefficient of specimens was obtained by capillary water absorption test carried out
according to ASTM C1585 [37]. For each SCM mixtures three 50 × 50 × 50 mm3 moulds were prepared
and the test was carried out after 28 days of curing. The specimens were dried in an oven at 110 ± 5 ◦ C
temperature for 24 h. Then after the specimens cooled to room temperature, the four lateral faces of
the specimens were sealed properly using box sealing tape to hinder entrance of moisture while the
opposite faces left open. The initial weight of the specimens was recorded after sealing and submerged
in water about 5 ± 1 mm above the bottom face. The weight gain due to sorption was determined
by weighting the submerged specimen at a definite interval of time 5, 10, 30 min, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 h.
Sorptivity coefficient can be defined by the following relationship:

∆W
 

A × ρw
k= √ (3)
t
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 7 of 18

where k is sorptivity coefficient (mm/h1/2 ), ∆W is the amount of adsorbed water (g), A is the wetted
area (mm2 ), ρw is the density of water (10−3 g/mm3 ), and t is the time (h) at which the submerged
weight was determined. The value of k was obtained from the slope of the linear relationship between
√
cumulative water absorption (∆W/A) in (g/mm2 ) and time t in (h1/2 ) by using regression analysis
in MS excel.

Expansion due to Alkali–Silica-Reaction (ASR)

The alkali–silica reactivity and expansion development of SCM-RGA mixes were evaluated by
using accelerated mortar bar method based on ASTM C1260 [38]. For each mixture three 25 × 25 ×
285 mm3 specimen were prepared in accordance to ASTM C490 [39]. After 24 ± 2 h, the specimens were
demoulded and placed in a metal container with tap water in an oven maintained at a temperature of
80 ± 2 ◦ C for about 24 h. Initial length of the specimens was recorded after curing in water and then
transferred to a container with 1 N NaOH solution at 80 ± 2 ◦ C. The change in length of the mortar
bars were subsequently measured after 3, 7, 10 and 14 days of curing in 1N NaOH solution.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Fresh Properties of SCM-RGA Mixes

Test results of the fresh properties (slump flow and V-funnel flow time) of SCM mixtures
incorporating RGA are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Fresh properties of SCM-RGA mixes.

Mix Designation EFNARC [8]

Fresh Properties
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20% RGA30% RGA40% RGA50% Criteria
Slump flow (mm) 250 255 249 242 248 252 250 ± 10
V-funnel flow time (s) 8.7 8.9 9.3 10.3 10.6 10.9 9±2

3.1.1. Slump Flow

The SCM mixtures were designed to deform 250 ± 10 mm conforming to EFNARC [8] criteria,
which was achieved by adjusting the dosage of superplasticiser (SP). The relative slump flow of
SCM-RGA mixes is given in Figure 4, and as it can be seen, the values of relative slump of all mixes are
in the reference range. The experimental test results showed that as the content of RGA increased, the
slump flow slightly decreased. This finding is consistent with the research outcomes, Limbachiya [18]
reported reduction in slump flow as washed glass sand (WGS) percentage exceeded 30%. A research
conducted by Ismail and AL-Hashmi [17] reported similar results that as the content of recycled
glass increased, slump flow decreased. Similar observations were also reported by Afshinnia and
Rangaraju [16]. The grain shape (sharp and angular edge) and higher aspect ratio of RGA attributed to
the slight reduction of flowability of SCM mixtures [19]. Consequently, Figure 5 clearly indicates that
to maintain the slump flow of mixtures containing glass aggregate within the range of 250 ± 10 mm,
superplasticiser dosage was increased as the content of RGA increased (R2 = 0.96). The use of
superplasticiser (SP) ensures deflocculating and reduces water demand of SCM mixtures and intensify
intermolecular interaction of particles [40]. The dosage of superplasticiser for each mixture was
determined based on the slump flow test to obtain desired flowability that met self-compactability
requirements [41]. The dosage of superplasticiser of all mixes was between 0.78% and 0.82% by weight
of powder.
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 8 of 18
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

6.0
6.0

mm))
EFNARC 2002, limit: 4.76 -

flow(Г(Г
5.5 EFNARC 2002, limit: 4.76 -
5.5

slumpflow
5.0

Relativeslump
5.0

4.5
Relative
4.5

4.0
4.0
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20% RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20% RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Relative
Relative slump
slump flow
flow of
of SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.
Figure 4. Relative slump flow of SCM-RGA mixes.
0.84
0.84
dosage
Superplasticiserdosage

0.82 y = 0.0008x + 0.779

0.82 y = 0.0008x + 0.779
R² = 0.9613
Superplasticiser

R² = 0.9613
(%)

0.80
(%)

0.80

0.78
0.78

0.76
0.76
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
RGA content (wt %)
RGA content (wt %)
Figure 5. Relationship between RGA content and superplasticiser dosage of SCM-RGA mixes.
Figure5.
Figure Relationshipbetween
5.Relationship betweenRGA
RGAcontent
contentand
andsuperplasticiser
superplasticiser dosage
dosage of
of SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.

3.1.2. V-funnel Flow Time

3.1.2.
3.1.2. V-funnel
V-funnel Flow Flow Time
Time
Figure 6 presents the relative flow velocity of all mixes prepared in this study. The flow time of all
Figure
Figure 66 presents
presents the the relative
relative flow
flow velocity
velocityof ofall
allmixes
mixesprepared
preparedin inthis
thisstudy.
study. The
The flow
flow time
time ofof all
all
SCM mixtures was in ranges of 8.7–10.9 s. Incorporation of RGA slightly slows down the flow time of
SCM
SCM mixtures
mixtureswas wasin inranges
rangesofof8.7–10.9
8.7–10.9s.s.Incorporation
Incorporation of of
RGARGA slightly
slightlyslows
slowsdowndown thethe
flow time
flow of
time
SCM mixtures due to the geometrical shape of glass particles that hinders the movement of the paste
SCM mixtures due to the geometrical shape of glass particles that
of SCM mixtures due to the geometrical shape of glass particles that hinders the movement of the hinders the movement of the paste
matrix. It was observed that the flow time of SCM mixtures was affected by water to powder ratio [11,42].
matrix. It was observed
paste matrix. that the flow
It was observed that time of SCM
the flow time mixtures
of SCMwas affected
mixtures by affected
was water to powder
by waterratio [11,42].
to powder
To reduce the amount of cement, limestone powder was introduced in all mixtures as filler that constitutes
To reduce
ratio the amount
[11,42]. To reduce of cement, limestone
the amount powder was
of cement, introduced
limestone powderin allwas
mixtures as filler in
introduced that allconstitutes
mixtures
20% of powder volume. Limestone powder increases packing density of particles, lowers void ratio and
20% of powder
as filler volume. Limestone
that constitutes 20% of powder powdervolume.
increases Limestone
packing densitypowder of particles,
increases lowers
packing voiddensity
ratio and of
improves durability [43]. Furthermore, it lowers setting time and improves fluidity [44]. In this
improves durability
particles, lowers void [43].
ratioFurthermore,
and improves it lowers
durability setting
[43].time and improves
Furthermore, fluidity
it lowers [44].time
setting In this
and
experimental study, the first charge of water to powder volume ratio (VW/VP) was considered the same
experimental
improves fluidity study,[44].
the first charge
In this of water tostudy,
experimental powder thevolume ratio of
first charge (Vwater
W/VP) was considered
to powder volume the same
ratio
value of βp (retained water ratio) based on recommendation of the Japanese mix design method. The value
value of β (retained water ratio) based on recommendation of the Japanese
(VW /VP ) was considered the same value of βp (retained water ratio) based on recommendation of
p mix design method. The value
of retained water ratio (βp = 1.14) was obtained from the paste flow test given in Figure 7. However, after
of retained
the Japanese water
mixratio
design(βp =method.
1.14) wasThe obtained
valuefrom the paste
of retained flow ratio
water test given
(βp =in1.14)
Figurewas7. However,
obtained from after
several trial mixes the suitable water to powder volume ratio (VW/VP) was fixed at 1.02 (equivalent to water
several trial mixes the suitable water to powder volume ratio (V /V ) was fixed
the paste flow test given in Figure 7. However, after several trial mixes the suitable water to powder
W P at 1.02 (equivalent to water
to powder weight ratio, W/P = 0.33) for all mixtures. The flow time of the reference mixture and SCM
to powder
volume weight
ratio (V /V ratio, W/Pfixed
P ) was = 0.33) for all
at 1.02 mixtures. to
(equivalent The flowto
water time of theweight
powder reference mixture
ratio, W/P =and 0.33)SCMfor
containing 50% W of waste glass content was 8.7 and 10.9 s respectively. As illustrated in Figure 8, it was
containing
all mixtures. 50%Theof flow
wastetime glassofcontent
the referencewas 8.7mixture
and 10.9 s respectively.
and SCM containing As illustrated
50% of waste in Figure
glass8,content
it was
observed that utilization of recycled glass aggregates increased the flow time of fresh SCM-RGA mixtures.
observed
was 8.7 and that10.9
utilization of recycled
s respectively. Asglass aggregates
illustrated increased
in Figure 8, it the
wasflow time ofthat
observed fresh SCM-RGAofmixtures.
utilization recycled
This was attributed to higher internal friction and high surface tension of glass particles [45]. Keeping
This
glasswas attributed
aggregates to higherthe
increased internal
flow time friction and SCM-RGA
of fresh high surfacemixtures.
tension ofThis glass wasparticles
attributed[45]. toKeeping
higher
water to cement ratio constant, as the content of glass aggregates increased excess water in the mixes
water to cement ratio constant, as the content of glass aggregates increased
internal friction and high surface tension of glass particles [45]. Keeping water to cement ratio constant, excess water in the mixes
increased due to the fact that water absorption of glass is lower than that of fine aggregate and this
increased due to the fact that water absorption of glass is lower than
as the content of glass aggregates increased excess water in the mixes increased due to the fact that that of fine aggregate and this
phenomenon could result in bleeding and segregation of the matrix [3]. In this study, it was visually
phenomenon
water absorption couldofresult
glassin is bleeding
lower than andthat
segregation of the matrix
of fine aggregate [3]. phenomenon
and this In this study, it was result
could visually in
observed during execution of slump flow test that the slump flow spread of all mixes was very consistent
observed during execution of slump flow test that the slump flow spread
bleeding and segregation the matrix [3]. In this study, it was visually observed during execution of of all mixes was very consistent
and stable (see Figure 9).
and stable
slump flow (see
testFigure
that the9). slump flow spread of all mixes was very consistent and stable (see Figure 9).
 Buildings 2018, 8, 15 9 of 18
Buildings 2018,
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW 999of
of 18
18
Buildings 2018,8,8,xxFOR
FOR PEERREVIEW
REVIEW of 18

1.2
1.2
1.2
EFNARC 2002,
2002, limit: 0.7
0.7 - 1.1

velocity
EFNARC
EFNARC 2002,limit:
limit: 0.7- -1.1

velocity
1.1

flowvelocity
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0

)
flow
m
)
Relativeflow
(Rmmm)
0.9
(R
0.9
(R
Relative
Relative 0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
RGA0% RGA10%
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20% RGA30%
RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%
RGA50%
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20%
RGA20% RGA30% RGA40%
RGA40% RGA50%
Relativeflow
Figure6.6.Relative
Figure flowvelocity
velocityof
ofSCM-RGA
SCM-RGAmixes.
mixes.
Figure
Figure6.6.Relative
Relativeflow
flowvelocity
velocityof
ofSCM-RGA
SCM-RGAmixes.
mixes.
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8 yyy===0.0887x
0.0887x ++ 1.1415
1.1415
0.0887x + 1.1415
R² == 0.9723
R² 0.9723
1.6
1.6 R² = 0.9723
1.6
PPP
W /V
/V
/V P

1.4
WW
W

1.4
1.4 βββpp=1.141
=1.141
V
VV

p=1.141

1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
000 222 444 66 888
Relative slump
Relative slump (Γ ) 6
flow (Γ
Relative slumpflow
flow (Γmmm))
Figure7.
Figure
Figure Pastedesign
7.Paste design(Determination
(Determinationof
of retained
retained water
waterratio,
ratio, ββpp).).
ratio,
Figure7.7.Paste
Pastedesign
design(Determination
(Determinationof
ofretained
retainedwater
water ratio,ββpp).).
12
12
12
(s)
(s)
time(s)
time

11
11 yyy===0.0489x
0.0489x ++ 8.5619
8.5619
flowtime

11 0.0489x + 8.5619
R² == 0.9563
R² 0.9563
R² = 0.9563
flow
V-funnelflow

10
10
10
V-funnel
V-funnel

999

888
000 10
10
10
20
20 30
30
20content (wt
30 %)
40
40
40
50
50
50
RGA
RGA
RGAcontent
content(wt
(wt%)
%)
Relationshipbetween
Figure8.8.Relationship
Figure
Figure betweenRGA
RGAcontent
contentand
andflow
flowtime
timeof
ofSCM-RGA
SCM-RGAmixes.
mixes.
Figure8.8.Relationship
Relationshipbetween
betweenRGA
RGAcontent
contentand
andflow
flowtime
timeof
ofSCM-RGA
SCM-RGAmixes.
mixes.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Typicalslump
Typical slumpflow
flow of SCM-RGA0%
SCM-RGA0% and SCM-RGA50%;
SCM-RGA50%; (a) SCM-RGA0%;
SCM-RGA0%; (b) SCM-
SCM-
Figure 9. Typical slump
9. Typical slump flow
flow of
of SCM-RGA0%
of SCM-RGA0% and
and SCM-RGA50%; (a)
(a) SCM-RGA0%;
and SCM-RGA50%; (b)
(b) SCM-RGA50%.
(a) SCM-RGA0%; (b) SCM-
RGA50%.
RGA50%.
RGA50%.
Buildings 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 10 of 18
3.2. Hardened Properties of SCM-RGA
The physical,
3.2. Hardened strength
Properties and durability properties of SCM-RGA mixes are presented in Tables 6 and 7.
of SCM-RGA
The physical, strength
Table and durability properties
6. Compressive and flexuralofstrength
SCM-RGA mixes aremixes.
of SCM-RGA presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Compressiveand
Table 6. Compressive Strength Flexural
flexural strength of SCM-RGA Strength
mixes.
Mix Designation (MPa) (MPa)
3 Days Compressive
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 3 Days 7 Days
Strength 14Strength
Flexural Days 28 Days
RGA0%
Mix Designation 47.59 52.70(MPa) 53.21 57.05 7.85 8.91 (MPa)
9.38 10.22
RGA10% 46.98 7 Days
3 Days 51.61 1452.70
Days 2856.04
Days 37.97
Days 8.70
7 Days 9.23 14 Days 10.08
28 Days
RGA20%
RGA0% 45.54
47.59 51.01
52.70 52.21
53.21 55.62
57.05 7.89
7.85 8.67
8.91 9.149.38 9.9610.22
RGA30%
RGA10% 44.65
46.98 47.92
51.61 49.92
52.70 53.30
56.04 7.66
7.97 8.55
8.70 9.069.23 9.6110.08
RGA20%
RGA40% 45.54
42.43 51.01
45.42 52.21
47.61 55.62
50.85 7.89
7.45 8.67
8.39 8.989.14 9.269.96
RGA30%
RGA50% 44.65
39.24 47.92
41.79 49.92
43.13 53.30
48.33 7.66
7.13 8.55
7.91 8.739.06 9.029.61
RGA40% 42.43 45.42 47.61 50.85 7.45 8.39 8.98 9.26
RGA50% 39.24 41.79 43.13 48.33 7.13 7.91 8.73 9.02
Table 7. Bulk density, water absorption and sorptivity of SCM-RGA mixes.
7. Bulk density,
Table Mix water
Bulk absorption and sorptivity
Density Water of SCM-RGA mixes.
Sorptivity
Designation (kg/m3) Absorption (%) (mm/h1/2)
Mix Designation Bulk Density (kg/m3 ) Water Absorption (%) Sorptivity (mm/h1/2 )
RGA0% 2385.25 7.11 2.83
RGA0% RGA10% 2385.25
2382.43 7.11
7.07 2.02 2.83
RGA10% 2382.43 7.07 2.02
RGA20%
RGA20% 2379.68
2379.68
6.88
6.88
1.79 1.79
RGA30% RGA30% 2372.11
2372.11 6.61
6.61 1.55 1.55
RGA40% RGA40% 2359.31
2359.31 6.52
6.52 1.40 1.40
RGA50% RGA50% 2347.25
2347.25 6.29
6.29 1.35 1.35

3.2.1. Bulk
3.2.1. BulkDensity
Density
The hardened
The hardened bulk
bulkdensity
densityofofallall
SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA specimens
specimensprepared in thisinstudy
prepared measured
this study at 28 days
measured at
aredays
28 tabulated and graphically
are tabulated presented
and graphically in Figurein
presented 10.Figure
Specimens containing
10. Specimens RGA exhibits
containing RGArelatively
exhibits
lower hardened
relatively density when
lower hardened compared
density when to specimens
compared to with naturalwith
specimens fine natural
aggregate.fineThis reduction
aggregate. in
This
density could be due to the fact that particle density of RGA used in this research
reduction in density could be due to the fact that particle density of RGA used in this research were were 1.3% lower
than lower
1.3% that ofthan
natural
thatfine aggregate
of natural fine[17,19,24,25,46]. The densityThe
aggregate [17,19,24,25,46]. for all specimens
density for allwere in the range
specimens were inof
the kg/mof3 to
2347range 2386
2347 kg/m
kg/m 3 to3 .2386
Moreover,
kg/m3.the hardened
Moreover, specimens
the hardenedincorporating 50% RGA showed
specimens incorporating 50% RGA1.6%
reduction
showed of bulk
1.6% density
reduction of relative to thatrelative
bulk density of the reference
to that of specimens.
the reference specimens.

2400
Bulk density (kg/m3)

2380

2360

2340

2320

2300
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20% RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%

Figure
Figure10.
10.Bulk
Bulkdensity
densityof
ofhardened
hardenedSCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.

3.2.2. Compressive Strength

Experimental test results that show the development of compressive strength of SCM mixes
at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days are presented in Figure 11. It is evident from the experimental results that
incorporation of RGA as replacement of fine aggregate in SCM remarkably decreased compressive
Buildings 2018,
Buildings 2018, 8,
8, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 11 of
11 of 18
18

3.2.2. Compressive
3.2.2. Compressive Strength
Strength
Experimental test
Experimental test results
results that
that show
show thethe development
development of of compressive
compressive strength
strength of of SCM
SCM mixes mixes at at
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 11 of 18
3, 7, 14 and 28 days are presented in Figure 11. It is evident from the
3, 7, 14 and 28 days are presented in Figure 11. It is evident from the experimental results that experimental results that
incorporation of
incorporation of RGA
RGA as as replacement
replacement of of fine
fine aggregate
aggregate in in SCM
SCM remarkably
remarkably decreased
decreased compressive
compressive
strength relative
strength relative
strength relative toto control
to control
control mixmix regardless
mix regardless of the percentage of replacement
regardless of the percentage of replacement and age. This and age. This reduction
This reduction
reduction
could
could be
be attributed
attributed to
to lower
lower toughness
toughness strength
strength against
against fracture,
fracture, smooth
smooth
could be attributed to lower toughness strength against fracture, smooth grain surface and weak grain
grain surface
surface and
and weak
weak
interfacial adhesion
interfacial adhesion
interfacial between
adhesion between
between the the cement
the cement paste
cement paste matrix
paste matrix and
matrix and glass
and glass particle
glass particle [19,22,24,47].
particle [19,22,24,47]. This
[19,22,24,47]. This finding
This finding
finding is is
is
in
in concurrence
in concurrence
concurrencewith with those
withthose of previous
thoseofofprevious studies
previousstudies [16,18,20,23,25].
studies[16,18,20,23,25]. It
[16,18,20,23,25].It Itwas
waswasalso observed
also
also observed
observed that
that
that up
upup to 30%
to 30%
to 30% of
of
RGA
of RGA
RGA content,
content,
content, compressive
compressive
compressive strength
strength
strength was
waswas not significantly
notsignificantly
not affected.
significantlyaffected.
affected.AtAtAt28
2828days,
days, the
days,the reduction
the reduction
reduction in in
in
compressive strength
compressive strength
compressive strength in in comparison
in comparison
comparison to to control
to control mix
control mix
mix waswas 1.78%,
was 1.78%, 2.52%
1.78%, 2.52% and
2.52% and 6.57%
and 6.57% for
6.57% for 10%,
for 10%,
10%, 20% 20%
20% and and
and
30%
30% replacement
30% replacement
replacementof ofofRGA
RGA respectively.
RGArespectively. Similar
respectively.Similar
Similarresults were
results
results were
were also reported
also
also reported
reported by Sharifi
by Sharifi et al.
by Sharifi
et al.et[21]
[21] and
al. and Tan
[21] Tan
and
and
Tan and
and Du [19].
Du [19]. On On
Du [19].
On the the
the other
other
other hand,
hand,hand,reduction
reduction
reduction in in
in compressive strength
compressivestrength
compressive was
strengthwas apparent
wasapparent
apparentwith with further
with further
further
increase
increase in
increase ininRGA RGA
RGA content
content
content especially
especially
especiallybeyond beyond 30%
30% replacement.
beyond replacement.
The maximum
30% replacement. The maximum reduction
reduction ofreduction
The maximum compressive of
of
compressive
compressive strength
strength wasstrength
15.29% was was
noted 15.29%
for 50%
15.29% noted
RGA
noted forcontent.
for 50% RGA
50% RGAThe content. The relationship
relationship
content. The relationship between
between between
RGA content RGA and
RGA content
contentthe
and the
28 days
and 28 days
compressive
the 28 compressive
days compressive strength
strengthstrength given
given ingiven in Figure
Figurein12Figure
showed 12 showed a strong
a strong acorrelation
12 showed correlation
2
(R = 0.99).
strong correlation (R
(R An
2 = 0.99). An
2 average
= 0.99). An
average
of six prism
average of six
of six prism specimens
specimens
prism specimens represented
representedrepresented in the
in the data points
in thewasdata points
fitted
data was
withwas
points secondfitted
order
fitted with second order
polynomial
with second order
trend
polynomial
line regression
polynomial trend line regression
function
trend line regression function curve.
curve. function curve.

33 days
days 77 days
days 14 days
14 days 28 days
28 days
60
60
(MPa)
strength(MPa)

50
50
Compressivestrength

40
40
30
30
Compressive

20
20
10
10

00
RGA0% RGA10%
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20%
RGA20% RGA30%
RGA30% RGA40%
RGA40% RGA50%
RGA50%

Figure 11.
Figure 11.
Figure Compressive strength
Compressive strength
11. Compressive development
strength development of
development of SCM-RGA
of SCM-RGA mixes.
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.

58
58
strength
compressivestrength

56
56
54
54
dayscompressive
(MPa)
(MPa)

52
52 -0.0028x22 -- 0.0358x
y == -0.0028x 0.0358x ++ 56.991
56.991
y
R² = 0.9931
50
50 R² = 0.9931

48
28days

48
46
46
28

00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
RGA content (wt %)
RGA content (wt %)

Figure 12.
Figure 12.
Figure Relationship between
Relationshipbetween
12. Relationship RGA
betweenRGA content
RGA content and
content and corresponding
and corresponding 28
corresponding 28 days
28 days compressive
days compressive strength.
compressive strength.
strength.

3.2.3.
3.2.3. Flexural
3.2.3. Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength
Strength
Figure
Figure
Figure13 13 presents
13presents
presentsthethe
theevolution
evolution
evolution of flexural
of flexural strength
strength
of flexural at 3,
at
strength 3,at
7, 14
7, 14 7,
3, and
and 28
1428 days
days
and and
28and
days experimental
experimental results
results
and experimental
show
show aa trend
results trend that
showthat resembles
resembles
a trend the compressive
the compressive
that resembles strength results.
strength
the compressive results. However,
However,
strength the influence
the
results. influence
However,of ofthe
RGA
RGA was not
was not as
influence as
of
pronounced
pronounced
RGA was not on flexural
on as
flexural strength
strengthon
pronounced as seen for
as flexural compressive
seen for compressive strength.
strength.
strength as seen According to experimental
According to strength.
for compressive experimental results, 28
results, 28
According to
days
days flexural strength
flexural
experimental strength tends
results, tends
28 days to flexural
to decreasestrength
decrease by 1.38%,
by 1.38%, 2.52%,
2.52%,
tends 5.97%, 9.40%
to 5.97%,
decrease 9.40% and 11.70%
and
by 1.38%, 11.70% for
2.52%,for RGA 9.40%
RGA
5.97%, contentand
content of
of
10%,
10%, 20%,
20%,
11.70% 30%,
for30%,
RGA 40%
40% and 50%
and
content 50% respectively.
respectively.
of 10%, 20%, 30%, The40%
The results
results obtained
andobtained in this
in this research
50% respectively. research are
Theare consistent
consistent
results withinother
with
obtained other
this
research are consistent with other authors [19,23,25,47] who reported that the flexural strength of
mixes containing RGA decreased with respect to increases in replacement level. The average of three
measurements plotted in Figure 14 indicates a correlation between RGA replacement level and 28 days
Buildings
Buildings2018,
Buildings 2018,8,
2018, 8,xxxFOR
8, FORPEER
FOR PEERREVIEW
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12
12of
12 of18
of 18
18

authors
authors [19,23,25,47]
authors [19,23,25,47] who
[19,23,25,47] who reported
who reported that
reported that the
that the flexural
the flexural strength
flexural strength of
strength of mixes
of mixes containing
mixes containing RGA
containing RGA decreased
RGA decreased with
decreased with
with
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 12 of 18
respect
respectto
respect toincreases
to increasesin
increases inreplacement
in replacementlevel.
replacement level.The
level. Theaverage
The averageof
average ofthree
of threemeasurements
three measurementsplotted
measurements plottedin
plotted inFigure
in Figure14
Figure 14indicates
14 indicates
indicates
aaa correlation
correlation between
correlation between RGA
between RGA replacement
RGA replacement level
replacement level and
level and 28
and 28 days
28 days of
days of flexural
of flexural strength
flexural strength with
strength with high
with high reliability
high reliability
reliability
(R
(R 222≈ 0.99). Moreover, as shown graphically in2Figure 15, the relationship between the 28 days compressive
≈≈ 0.99).
0.99). Moreover,
of flexural
(R strength with
Moreover, as
as shown
high graphically
shown graphically(Rin
reliability ≈ 0.99).
in Figure
Figure 15, the
the relationship
15,Moreover, as shown
relationship between
between the
the 28
28 days
graphically days compressive
in Figure 15, the
compressive
and
and flexural
flexuralstrength
flexural
relationship
and betweenfor
strength
strength theSCM
for
for SCM mixes
mixes
28 days
SCM mixes incorporating
incorporating
compressive
incorporating andRGA
RGA
RGA showed
showed
flexural
showed strong
strong
strength
strongforcorrelation
correlation
SCM mixes
correlation in
inaincorporating
in aapower
powerregression
power regressionRGA
regression
function
function
showed strong
function (R
(R222 = 0.99). It is evident that as compressive strength
(R == 0.99). It
It is
is evident
correlation
0.99). that
that as
in a power
evident compressive
regression
as function
compressive strength
strength 2
(R =of of SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA
of0.99).
SCM-RGA mixes
mixes
It is evident
mixesthatincreased,
increased, flexural
flexural
as compressive
increased, flexural
strength
strengthalso
strength
strength also increased.
increased. Limbachiya
increased.
of SCM-RGA
also Limbachiya
mixes [18],
increased,
Limbachiya [18], reported
[18], reported
flexural aaa similar
similar
reportedstrength trend
trend
similaralsotrend with
with aaa correlation
with
increased. correlation
Limbachiya
correlation factor
factor of
of (R
of
[18],
factor (R22 === 0.92)
(R 2
reported 0.92)
0.92)a
for
for washed
washed
similar trendglass
glass sand
sand
with
for washed glass sand mixes. a mixes.
mixes.
correlation factor of (R 2 = 0.92) for washed glass sand mixes.

333days
days
days 777days
days
days 14
14days
14 days
days 28
28days
28 days
days
12
12
12
(MPa)
strength(MPa)

10
10
10
888
Flexuralstrength

666

444
Flexural

222

000
RGA0%
RGA0% RGA10%
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20%
RGA10% RGA20% RGA30%
RGA20% RGA30% RGA40%
RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%
RGA40% RGA50%
RGA50%
Figure
Figure13.
Figure
Figure 13.Flexural
13.
13. Flexuralstrength
Flexural
Flexural strengthdevelopment
strength
strength developmentof
development
development ofSCM-RGA
of
of SCM-RGAmixes.
SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.
mixes.

11.0
11.0
11.0
strength
flexuralstrength

yyy===-0.0003x 2
10.5
10.5 -0.0003x22---0.0126x
-0.0003x 0.0126x+++10.236
0.0126x 10.236
10.236
10.5 R²
R²===0.9877
R² 0.9877
0.9877
10.0
10.0
10.0
(MPa)
daysflexural
(MPa)

9.5
9.5
9.5

9.0
9.0
9.0
28days

8.5
8.5
8.5
28

000 10
10
10 20
20
20 30
30
30 40
40
40 50
50
50
RGA
RGA content (wt%)
RGA content
content (wt
(wt %)
%)

Figure
Figure14.
Figure
Figure 14.Relationship
14.
14. Relationshipbetween
Relationship
Relationship betweenRGA
between
between RGAcontent
RGA
RGA contentand
content
content andcorresponding
and
and corresponding28
corresponding
corresponding 28days
28
28 daysflexural
days
days flexuralstrength.
flexural
flexural strength.
strength.
strength.

10.4
10.4
10.4
strength

10.2
flexuralstrength

10.2
10.2
10.0
10.0
10.0 yyy===0.4561x 0.768
0.4561x0.768
0.4561x 0.768

9.8 R²R²===0.9876
R² 0.9876
0.9876
9.8
9.8
(MPa)
daysflexural
(MPa)

9.6
9.6
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.4
28days

9.2
9.2
9.2
9.0
9.0
9.0
28

8.8
8.8
8.8
48
48
48 50
50
50 52
52
52 54
54
54 56
56
56 58
58
58
28
28 days
28 days compressive
days compressive strength
compressive strength (MPa)
strength (MPa)
(MPa)

Figure
Figure15.
Figure
Figure 15.Relationship
15.
15. Relationshipbetween
Relationship
Relationship between28
between
between 28days
28
28 dayscompressive
days
days compressiveand
compressive
compressive andflexural
and flexuralstrength
flexural strengthof
strength ofSCM-RGA
of SCM-RGAmixes.
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.

3.2.4.
3.2.4. Water Absorption
3.2.4. Water
3.2.4. Water Absorption
Water Absorption
Absorption
The
The water absorption by immersion test results of all SCM-RGA mixes are given graphically in
The water
The water absorption
water absorption by
absorption by immersion
by immersion test
immersion test results
test results of
results of all
of all SCM-RGA
all SCM-RGA mixes
SCM-RGA mixes are
mixes are given
are given graphically
given graphically in
graphically in
in
Figure
Figure 16. It is found that inclusion of RGA slightly decreased water absorption. This reduction was
Figure 16.
Figure 16. It
16. It is
It is found
is found that
found that inclusion
that inclusion of
inclusion of RGA
of RGA slightly
RGA slightly decreased
slightly decreased water
decreased water absorption.
water absorption. This
absorption. This reduction
This reduction was
reduction was
was
due to the fact that glass does not absorb water. This result is in line with other authors [26,48,49].
Buildings
Buildings2018,
2018,8,8,x15
FOR PEER REVIEW 13
13of
of18
18

due to the fact that glass does not absorb water. This result is in line with other authors [26,48,49].
Themaximum
The maximumwaterwaterabsorption
absorptionobtained
obtained after
after ± 2±h 2immersion
7272 h immersionwaswas
7.11%7.11% forcontrol
for the the control mix
mix and
and the lowest was 6.29%, belonging to a mix with 50% RGA content. It is generally believed
the lowest was 6.29%, belonging to a mix with 50% RGA content. It is generally believed that good that
good quality
quality concrete
concrete has water
has water absorption
absorption of less
of less thanthan
10%10% [50].
[50]. AllAll
thethe SCM
SCM mixesproduced
mixes producedininthis
this
research met the requirements and can be regard as a good quality concrete.
research met the requirements and can be regard as a good quality concrete.

Water absorption (%) 7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20% RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%

Figure
Figure16.
16.Water
Waterabsorption
absorptionof
ofSCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.

3.2.5.
3.2.5.Sorptivity
Sorptivity
When
When the the surface
surfaceofofhardened
hardened concrete
concrete is submerged
is submerged in water
in water or exposed
or exposed to moisture,to moisture, the
the concrete
concrete
pores absorbporeswater
absorbbywater
action byofaction of capillary
capillary suctionsuction
and theand ratethe
at rate
which at which
water is water is absorbed
absorbed is calledis
called sorptivity. Durability, deterioration under wet-dry cycle and service
sorptivity. Durability, deterioration under wet-dry cycle and service life time of concrete can be related life time of concrete can
be related
with its ratewith its rate of sorptivity.
of sorptivity. The resultsThe results ofwater
of capillary capillary water absorption
absorption at 28 daysat of28 days are
curing of curing are
presented
presented
graphically graphically
in Figure in 17.Figure 17. Theshowed
The results results showed that sorptivity
that sorptivity values values significantly
significantly decreased decreased
as the
as the content of RGA increased due lower moisture intake nature
content of RGA increased due lower moisture intake nature of glass particles compared to natural of glass particles compared to
natural fine aggregates. Similar findings were reported by some other
fine aggregates. Similar findings were reported by some other authors [20,22,26,27]. The sorptivity authors [20,22,26,27]. The
sorptivity
value of the value of theand
reference reference
50% RGA andspecimens
50% RGA was specimens
2.83 mm/h was1/2 2.83 mm/h
and 1.35
1/2 and 1.35 mm/h1/2
mm/h 1/2 respectively.
respectively. The sorptivity value of a mix containing 50% RGA decreased
The sorptivity value of a mix containing 50% RGA decreased by 52.3%. Figure 18 shows cumulative by 52.3%. Figure 18 shows
cumulative
water absorbed waterper absorbed
unit area per(g/mm
unit area (g/mm
2 ) versus 2 ) versus
square rootsquare
of timeroot of ).time
(h1/2 The(hsorptivity
1/2). The sorptivity
value for
value for each mix was determined from the gradient of linear
each mix was determined from the gradient of linear trend line graph given in Figure trend line graph given in Figure
18 by 18usingby
using regression analysis. Furthermore, there exist a relationship between
regression analysis. Furthermore, there exist a relationship between sorptivity coefficient and both sorptivity coefficient and
both 28 of
28 days days of compressive
compressive and flexural
and flexural strengthstrength
plotted in plotted
Figurein19Figure
and has 19shownand has good shown good
correlation.
correlation. The experimental result clearly reveals for mixes containing
The experimental result clearly reveals for mixes containing RGA both strength and sorptivity values RGA both strength and
sorptivity values decreased as the content of RGA increased. This could
decreased as the content of RGA increased. This could be explained as the strength of SCM specimens be explained as the strength
of SCM specimens
decreased due to weak decreased
interfacialdue to weak
adhesion interfacial
between glassadhesion
particle andbetween glass particle
paste matrix, whereasand paste
sorptivity
matrix, whereas sorptivity decreased due to impermeable nature of
decreased due to impermeable nature of glass. Finally, according to Menéndez et al. [51], a concrete glass. Finally, according to
Menéndez
with less than et al. [51], a 1/2
3 mm/h concrete with less
of sorptivity than
value 3 mm/h asofdurable
is regarded
1/2 sorptivity value The
concrete. is regarded
specifiedassorptivity
durable
concrete. The specified sorptivity value ensures the minimum concrete
value ensures the minimum concrete cover of 15 mm for reinforcement steel bars in reinforced concrete cover of 15 mm for
reinforcement
to prevent corrosion. The value of sorptivity that is 3 mm/h1/2 , defined as water could penetrate to3a
steel bars in reinforced concrete to prevent corrosion. The value of sorptivity that is
mm/h
depth of, defined
1/2
15 mm in as24water
h rain could
that penetrate
guarantee to a depth concrete
minimum of 15 mmcover.in 24 On
h rain
the that
groundguarantee minimum
of this suggestion,
concrete cover. On the ground of this suggestion, the SCM-RGA
the SCM-RGA mixes prepared in this research could be considered as durable since they exhibitedmixes prepared in this research
could be considered as durable since
sorptivity coefficient of lower than 3 mm/h1/2 . they exhibited sorptivity coefficient of lower than 3 mm/h 1/2.
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 14 of 18
Buildings 2018,
Buildings 2018, 8,
8, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 14 of
14 of 18
18

3.0
3.0

2.5
2.5

1/2 )
1/2
(mm/h1/2
Sorptivity (mm/h )
2.0
2.0

1.5
1.5
Sorptivity
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0
0.0
RGA0% RGA10%
RGA0% RGA10% RGA20%
RGA20% RGA30%
RGA30% RGA40%
RGA40% RGA50%
RGA50%

Figure
Figure 17.
Figure17. Sorptivity
17.Sorptivity coefficient
Sorptivitycoefficient of
coefficientof SCM-RGA
ofSCM-RGA mixes.
SCM-RGAmixes.
mixes.

RGA0%
RGA0% RGA10%
RGA10% RGA20%
RGA20% RGA30%
RGA30% RGA40%
RGA40% RGA50%
RGA50%
88
absorption
water absorption

66
Cumulative water

44
Cumulative

22

00
0.25
0.25 0.50
0.50 0.75
0.75 1.00 1.25
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.75
1.75 2.00
2.00 2.25
2.25
Time (h 1/2
(h1/2 ),√t
Time 1/2),√t

Figure
Figure 18.
Figure18. Evolution
18.Evolution of
Evolutionof capillary
ofcapillary surface
capillarysurface water
surfacewater absorption
waterabsorption of
absorptionof SCM-RGA
ofSCM-RGA mixes.
SCM-RGA mixes.

Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength Flexural Strength
Flexural Strength
60
60 10.5
10.5
strength
compressive strength

28 days flexural strength

58
58
10.0
10.0
56
56
days compressive

(MPa)
(MPa)

(MPa)

54
54 R² == 0.92
R² 0.92 9.5
9.5
52
52
9.0
9.0
50
50 R² == 0.87
R² 0.87
28 days

48
48 8.5
8.5
28

1.0
1.0 1.5
1.5 2.0
2.0 2.5
2.5 3.0
3.0
Sorptivity (mm/h 1/2
(mm/h1/2
1/2))
Sorptivity

Figure19.
Figure
Figure 19.Relationship
19. Relationship between
Relationship between the
between the sorptivity
thesorptivity value,
sorptivityvalue, and
value,and the
andthe 2828
28
the days
days compressive
compressive
days and
and
compressive flexural
flexural
and strength.
strength.
flexural strength.

3.2.6.
3.2.6. Expansion
3.2.6. Expansion
ExpansionDue Due
due toto Alkali–Silica
to Alkali–Silica Reaction
Alkali–Silica Reaction (ASR)
Reaction (ASR)
(ASR)
The
The mechanism
Themechanism
mechanismof ofofASR
ASR
ASR is the
is the chemical
chemical
is the process
process
chemical between
between
process siliceous
siliceous
between aggregate
aggregate
siliceous and hydroxyl
and
aggregate hydroxyl ion in
ion
and hydroxyl in
hardened
hardened concrete
concrete
ion in hardened that leads
that leads
concrete to evolution
to evolution
that leads of viscous
of viscous
to evolution of viscous alkali–silicate
alkali–silicate gel [52].
gel [52].
alkali–silicate The
The The
gel [52]. formation
formation
formation of
of
alkali–silicate
alkali–silicate gel
gel increases
increases the
the volume
volume of
of concrete
concrete i.e.,
i.e., exerts
exerts expansion
expansion
of alkali–silicate gel increases the volume of concrete i.e., exerts expansion pressure inside and pressure
pressure inside
inside and
and causes
causes
potential
potential cracks and
cracks
causes potential and disruption
cracks disruption
and disruption [4,28,31].
[4,28,31]. The accelerated
The
[4,28,31]. accelerated
The accelerated mortarmortar
mortar bar test
bar test results
bar results showed
showed
test results showedthe
the
expansion
expansion
the expansionof specimens
of specimens
of specimens due due
due to ASR
to ASR measured
measured
to ASR measuredat 3,
at 3,at7,
7,3,10
10 and
7,and 14 days
14
10 and days andand
and
14 days areare
are graphically
graphically
graphicallygiven
given in
in
given
Figures
Figures 20
20 and
and 21.
21. It
It was
was clearly
clearly noted
noted that
that as
as the
the content
content of
of RGA
RGA increased,
increased,
in Figures 20 and 21. It was clearly noted that as the content of RGA increased, ASR expansion also ASR
ASR expansion
expansion also
also
increased.
increased. Thisresult
This
increased. This resultis in
result is concurrence
is in concurrence
in concurrence with studies
with with
other other studies
other studies [18,24,48,53,54].
[18,24,48,53,54].
[18,24,48,53,54]. Although Although
Although the ASR
the
the ASR expansionASR
expansion
expansion
in mortar barsin mortar
in mortar bars incorporating
bars
incorporating incorporating
RGA increased RGAsubstantially
RGA increased substantially
increased substantially with age,
with
with age, expansion age,ofexpansion
expansion of all
of
all specimens all
at
specimens at
specimens at 14
14 days
days were
were below
below 0.1%,
0.1%, which
which could
could be be considered
considered as as innocuous
innocuous according
according to to ASTM
ASTM
C1260 [38].
C1260 [38]. Based
Based on on visual
visual observations,
observations, specimens
specimens containing
containing 40% 40% andand 50%
50% RGARGA showed
showed slight
slight
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 15 of 18

14 days2018,
Buildings
Buildings were8,
2018, 8, below
xx FOR 0.1%,
FOR PEER
PEER which could be considered as innocuous according to ASTM C1260
REVIEW
REVIEW 15 [38].
15 of 18
of 18
Based on visual observations, specimens containing 40% and 50% RGA showed slight mapping
mapping micro-cracks
micro-cracks
mapping micro-cracks on the
on the surface
on the surface
after after
14 days
surface 14
of14
after daysin
curing
days of1N
of curing
NaOH
curing in 1N
in 1N NaOHwhile
solution,
NaOH solution, while
all other
solution, all other
other
specimens
while all
specimens
were were sound.
sound.were
specimens sound.

RGA0%
RGA0% RGA10%
RGA10% RGA20%
RGA20%
RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%
0.10
0.10
RGA30% RGA40% RGA50%

0.08
0.08
(%)
Expansion(%)

0.06
0.06
Expansion

0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
00 22 44 66 88 10
10 12
12 14
14
Time (days)
Time (days)

Figure 20.
Figure 20. Alkali–silica
Alkali–silica reaction
reaction (ASR)
(ASR) expansion
expansion of
of SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes.
mixes.

33 days
days 77 days
days 10 days
10 days 14 days
14 days
0.10
0.10

0.08
0.08
(%)
Expansion(%)

0.06
0.06
Expansion

0.04
0.04

0.02
0.02

0.00
0.00
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50
RGA content (wt %)
RGA content (wt %)

Figure 21.
Figure 21. ASR
ASR expansion
expansion as
as aa function
function of
of RGA
RGA content.
content.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
Based on
Based on the
the outcomes
outcomes of of this
this experimental
experimental research,
research, the the following
following conclusions
conclusions can can be
be drawn:
drawn:
Based on the outcomes of this experimental research, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The slump
slump flow
flow ofof SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes mixes decreased
decreased and and V-funnel
V-funnel flow flow time
time increased
increased as thethe content
content
•• The
The slump flow of SCM-RGA mixes decreased and V-funnel flow time increased as as the content of
of glass
of glass aggregate
aggregate increased.
increased. At At aa given
given water
water to to powder
powder ratio,
ratio, superplasticiser
superplasticiser dosage
dosage should
should
glass aggregate increased. At a given water to powder ratio, superplasticiser dosage should be
be increased
be increased as as the content
content ofof glass
glass aggregate
aggregate increased
increased to to ensure
ensure andand maintain
maintain slump
slump flow and and
increased as the the
content of glass aggregate increased to ensure and maintain slump flow flow and flow
flow time
flow within within
time within the acceptable
the acceptable range.
time the acceptable range.range.
•• The density, compressive strength
The density, compressive strength and and flexural
flexural strength
strength ofof SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA mixes mixes decreased
decreased with with an
an
• The density,
increase in compressive
glass aggregate strengthHowever,
content. and flexural up strength
to 30% RGA of SCM-RGA
replacement mixes
ratio, decreased
the with
compressive
increase in glass aggregate content. However, up to 30% RGA replacement ratio, the compressive
an
andincrease in glassshowed
flexural strength
strength aggregate
6.57% content.
and 5.97%
5.97%However,
of reduction
reduction upcompared
to 30% RGA replacement
to reference
reference ratio, the
SCM respectively.
respectively.
and flexural showed 6.57% and of compared to SCM
compressive and flexural strength showed 6.57% and 5.97% of reduction
absorptioncompared to reference
•• SCM mixes
SCM mixes containing
containing glass
glass aggregate
aggregate exhibited
exhibited lower
lower water
water absorption and sorptivity
and sorptivity value
value
SCM
when respectively.
compared to the control SCM. Sorptivity and water absorption decreased when the glass
when compared to the control SCM. Sorptivity and water absorption decreased when the glass
• SCM mixes containing
aggregate content glass
content increased.
increased. Ataggregate
At 50%
50% RGA exhibited
RGA replacement lower
replacement ratio,water absorption
ratio, sorptivity
sorptivity of and sorptivity
of SCM-RGA
SCM-RGA is value
is 52.3%
52.3%
aggregate
when
lower compared
than the to the control
reference SCM. SCM.
This Sorptivity
clearly and water
indicates that absorption
concrete decreased
containing glasswhen the glass
aggregates is
lower than the reference SCM. This clearly indicates that concrete containing glass aggregates is
aggregate
more content
durable than increased.
conventional At concrete.
50% RGA replacement ratio, sorptivity of SCM-RGA is 52.3%
more durable than conventional concrete.
•• lower
A strong
strongthan the reference
correlation wasSCM. Thisbetween
observed clearly indicates that concrete
the compressive
compressive containing
and flexural
flexural glass of
strength aggregates
SCM-RGA is
A correlation was observed between the and strength of SCM-RGA
more durable
mixes, that
that is than
is as conventional
as compressive
compressive strengthconcrete.
strength increased,
increased, flexural
flexural strength
strength also
also increased
increased in in aa power
power
mixes,
function trend
function trend line.line.
•• For SCM
For SCM containing
containing RGA,RGA, good
good correlation
correlation between
between sorptivity
sorptivity and and strength
strength (compressive
(compressive and and
flexural values) was observed. The strength of SCM-RGA decreased
flexural values) was observed. The strength of SCM-RGA decreased due to week interfacial due to week interfacial
bondage between
bondage between the the binding
binding pastepaste matrix
matrix and and glass
glass aggregate,
aggregate, and and thethe sorptivity
sorptivity also
also
significantly decreased due to relatively lower water permeability
significantly decreased due to relatively lower water permeability nature of glass. nature of glass.
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 16 of 18

• A strong correlation was observed between the compressive and flexural strength of SCM-RGA
mixes, that is as compressive strength increased, flexural strength also increased in a power
function trend line.
• For SCM containing RGA, good correlation between sorptivity and strength (compressive and
flexural values) was observed. The strength of SCM-RGA decreased due to week interfacial
bondage between the binding paste matrix and glass aggregate, and the sorptivity also
significantly decreased due to relatively lower water permeability nature of glass.
• It was observed that as the content of glass aggregate increased, ASR expansion also increased.
Nevertheless, all mixes prepared in this study were potentially innocuous in regard to
ASR expansion.
• The experimental evidences showed that glass aggregate can be successfully incorporated in
SCM as replacement of fine aggregate without a remarkable effect on workability and strength
properties especially up to 30% of glass aggregate content. Thus, contributes towards sustainable
solid waste management, saving landfills, conservation of natural resources and environmental
protection. The SCM-RGA mixes developed in this study are apt for SCC making, grouting,
rehabilitation of structures and production of light transmitting concrete.

Acknowledgments: The authors are greatly indebted to African Union Commission (AUC) and Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for funding this research through Africa-ai-Japan Project (African
Union-African Innovation-JKUAT and PAUSTI Network Project) under the Africa-ai-Japan Innovation Research
Grant 2017/18 (JKU/ADM/10B).
Author Contributions: Stanley Shitote, Walter Oyawa and Awetehagn Tuaum conceived and designed the
experiments; Awetehagn Tuaum performed the experiments; Stanley Shitote and Awetehagn Tuaum analyzed
the data; Walter Oyawa contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Awetehagn Tuaum, Satanley Shitote and
Walter Oyawa wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Topçu, İ.B.; Canbaz, M. Properties of concrete containing waste glass. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 267–274.
[CrossRef]
2. Langer, W.; Drew, L.; Sachs, J. Aggregate and the Environment; American Geological Institute (AGI): Alexandria,
VA, USA, 2004; pp. 1–68, ISBN 0-922152-71-3.
3. Sharifi, Y.; Afshoon, I.; Firoozjaie, Z. Fresh properties of self-compacting concrete containing ground waste
glass microparticles as cementing material. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2015, 13, 50–66. [CrossRef]
4. Corinaldesi, V.; Nardinocchi, A.; Donnini, J. Reuse of recycled glass in mortar manufacturing. Eur. J. Environ.
Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 140–151. [CrossRef]
5. Chandak, S.P. Trends in solid waste management: Issues, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of
the International Consultative Meeting on Expanding Waste Management Services in Developing Countries,
Tokyo, Japan, 18–19 March 2010.
6. Kasozi, A.; Harro, B.V. Solid Waste Management in Nairobi: A Situation Analysis; Environmental & Process
Systems Engineering Group-University of Cape Town, the City Council of Nairobi and the United Nations
Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.
7. Nunes, S.; Matos, A.M.; Duarte, T.; Figueiras, H.; Sousa-Coutinho, J. Mixture design of self-compacting glass
mortar. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 43, 1–11. [CrossRef]
8. European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems (EFNARC). Specification
and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete; European Federation for Specialist Construction Chemicals and
Concrete Systems: Norfolk, UK, 2002; pp. 1–32, ISBN 0953973344.
9. Okamura, H.; Ozawa, K. Self-compacting high performance concrete. Struct. Eng. Int. 1996, 6, 269–270.
[CrossRef]
10. Okamura, H.; Ozawa, K. Mix design of self compacting concrete. Concr. Libr. JSCE 1995, 25, 107–120.
11. Midorikawa, T.; Pelova, G.I.I.; Walraven, J.C. Application of ‘The water layer model’ to self-compacting
mortar with different size distributions of fine aggregate. Heron 2009, 54, 73–100.
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 17 of 18

12. Karataş, M.; Benli, A.; Ergin, A. Influence of ground pumice powder on the mechanical properties and
durability of self-compacting mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 150, 467–479. [CrossRef]
13. Mohseni, E.; Miyandehi, B.M.; Yang, J.; Yazdi, M.A. Single and combined effects of nano-SiO2 , nano-Al2 O3
and nano-TiO2 on the mechanical, rheological and durability properties of self-compacting mortar containing
fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 331–340. [CrossRef]
14. Okamura, H.; Ouchi, M. Self-compacting concrete. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2003, 1, 5–15. [CrossRef]
15. Rizwan, S.A.; Bier, T.A. Blends of limestone powder and fly-ash enhance the response of self-compacting
mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 398–403. [CrossRef]
16. Afshinnia, K.; Rangaraju, P.R. Impact of combined use of ground glass powder and crushed glass aggregate
on selected properties of portland cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 117, 263–272. [CrossRef]
17. Ismail, Z.Z.; AL-Hashmi, E.A. Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in concrete.
Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 655–659. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Limbachiya, M.C. Bulk engineering and durability properties of washed glass sand concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1078–1083. [CrossRef]
19. Tan, K.H.; Du, H. Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part I—Fresh, mechanical and durability properties.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 35, 109–117. [CrossRef]
20. Ling, T.C.; Poon, C.S.; Kou, S.C. Influence of recycled glass content and curing conditions on the properties
of self-compacting concrete after exposure to elevated temperatures. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 265–272.
[CrossRef]
21. Sharifi, Y.; Houshiar, M.; Aghebati, B. Recycled glass replacement as fine aggregate in self-compacting
concrete. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7, 419–428. [CrossRef]
22. Wright, J.R.; Cartwright, C.; Fura, D.; Rajabipour, F. Fresh and hardened properties of concrete incorporating
recycled glass as 100% sand replacement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26. [CrossRef]
23. Ali, E.E.; Al-Tersawy, S.H. Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in self compacting
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 785–791. [CrossRef]
24. Kou, S.C.; Poon, C.S. Properties of self-compacting concrete prepared with recycled glass aggregate.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 107–113. [CrossRef]
25. Almesfer, N.; Ingham, J. Effect of Waste Glass on the Properties of Concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26.
[CrossRef]
26. De Castro, S.; De Brito, J. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates.
J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41, 7–14. [CrossRef]
27. Sikora, P.; Horszczaruk, E.; Skoczylas, K.; Rucinska, T. Thermal properties of cement mortars containing
waste glass aggregate and nanosilica. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 159–166. [CrossRef]
28. Maraghechi, H.; Shafaatian, S.M.H.; Fischer, G.; Rajabipour, F. The role of residual cracks on alkali silica
reactivity of recycled glass aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 41–47. [CrossRef]
29. Sharifi, Y.; Afshoon, I.; Firoozjaei, Z.; Momeni, A. Utilization of waste glass micro-particles in producing
self-consolidating concrete mixtures. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2016, 10, 337–353. [CrossRef]
30. Siad, H.; Lachemi, M.; Sahmaran, M.; Mesbah, H.A.; Hossain, K.M.A.; Ozsunar, A. Potential for using
recycled glass sand in engineered cementitious composites. Mag. Concr. Res. 2017, 69, 905–918. [CrossRef]
31. Du, H.; Tan, K.H. Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part II—Alkali-silica reaction and mitigation methods.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 35, 118–126. [CrossRef]
32. European Committee for Standardization. Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common
Cements; EN 197-1; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
33. ASTM International. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates; ASTM C33-11; ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
34. ASTM International. Flexural Strength of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars; ASTM C348-02; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002.
35. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars (Using Portions
of Prisms Broken in Flexure); ASTM C349-02; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002.
36. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete; ASTM C
642-06; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006.
37. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Rate of Absorption of Water by Hydraulic-Cement
Concretes; ASTM C 1585-04; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
Buildings 2018, 8, 15 18 of 18

38. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate Combinations
(Mortar-Bar Method); ASTM C1260-07; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
39. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Use of Apparatus for the Determination of Length Change of Hardened
Cement Paste, Mortar, and Concrete; ASTM C490-07; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
40. Georgiadis, A.S.; Sideris, K.K.; Anagnostopoulos, N.S. Properties of SCC produced with limestone filler or
viscosity modifying admixture. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2009, 22, 352–360. [CrossRef]
41. Khaleel, O.R.; Abdul Razak, H. The effect of powder type on the setting time and self compactability of
mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 20–26. [CrossRef]
42. Okamura, H.; Ozawa, K.; Ouchi, M. Self-Compacting Concrete. Struct. Concr. 2000, 1, 5–15. [CrossRef]
43. Tironi, A.; Scian, A.N.; Irassar, E.F. Blended cements with limestone filler and kaolinitic calcined clay: Filler
and pozzolanic effects. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29. [CrossRef]
44. Bentz, D.P.; Ferraris, C.F.; Jones, S.Z.; Lootens, D.; Zunino, F. Limestone and silica powder replacements for
cement: Early-age performance. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 78, 43–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Rahma, A.; El Naber, N.; Issa Ismail, S. Effect of glass powder on the compression strength and the workability
of concrete. Cogent Eng. 2017, 4. [CrossRef]
46. Penacho, P.; De Brito, J.; Rosário Veiga, M. Physico-mechanical and performance characterization of mortars
incorporating fine glass waste aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 50, 47–59. [CrossRef]
47. Choi, S.Y.; Choi, Y.S.; Yang, E.I. Effects of heavy weight waste glass recycled as fine aggregate on the
mechanical properties of mortar specimens. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2016, 99, 372–382. [CrossRef]
48. Ling, T.C.; Poon, C.S. A comparative study on the feasible use of recycled beverage and CRT funnel glass as
fine aggregate in cement mortar. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 46–52. [CrossRef]
49. Ling, T.C.; Poon, C.S. Utilization of recycled glass derived from cathode ray tube glass as fine aggregate in
cement mortar. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 192, 451–456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Medina, C.; Zhu, W.; Howind, T.; Sanchez De Rojas, M.I.; Frias, M. Influence of mixed recycled aggregate on
the physical-mechanical properties of recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 68, 216–225. [CrossRef]
51. Menéndez, G.; Bonavetti, V.L.; Irassar, E.F. Ternary blend cement concrete. Part II: Transport mechanisms.
Mater. Constr. 2007, 57, 31–43. [CrossRef]
52. Rajabipour, F.; Maraghechi, H.; Fischer, G. Investigating the alkali-silica reaction of recycled glass aggregates
in concrete materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2010, 22, 1201–1208. [CrossRef]
53. Saccani, A.; Bignozzi, M.C. ASR expansion behavior of recycled glass fine aggregates in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res.
2010, 40, 531–536. [CrossRef]
54. Yuksel, C.; Ahari, R.S.; Ahari, B.A.; Ramyar, K. Evaluation of three test methods for determining the
alkali-silica reactivity of glass aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 38, 57–64. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).