Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Recycled glass fiber reinforced polymer additions to Portland cement

concrete
Alireza Dehghan a, Karl Peterson a,, Asia Shvarzman b
a
Univ. of Toronto, Dept. of Civil Eng., 35 St. George St., Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada
b
Antex Western, 1340 Church Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3C 2L4, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

 Recycled glass fiber polymers did not cause expansive alkali silica reactions.
 Recycled glass fiber polymers exhibited pozzolanic behavior.
 An absorption test for recycled glass fiber polymer additions is presented.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With recent developments in grinding and sorting technology it is possible to recover glass fibers from
Received 24 October 2016 waste glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRPs). The recycled fibers still retain some of the polymer and
Received in revised form 2 April 2017 filler materials, but have the potential to provide some of the same benefits achieved by conventional
Accepted 3 April 2017
fiber additions. The research program explored the influence of recycled GFRP on compressive strength,
splitting tensile strength, and drying shrinkage in concrete, and alkali silica reaction (ASR) expansion in
accelerated mortar beam and concrete prism tests. Compressive strength and drying shrinkage were not
Keywords:
improved by recycled GFRP additions at a substitution level of 5 wt% of the coarse aggregate, but splitting
Recycled glass fiber reinforced polymer
Alkali silica reaction
tensile strengths were improved in most cases. Negligible expansion was observed from the ASR testing.
Drying shrinkage A scanning electron microscope investigation of the concrete prisms indicated a pozzolanic reaction of
Concrete microscopy the glass fibers.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction production is estimated at 8 million metric tons annually, with

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is a composite material which is
usually made with glass (GFRP), carbon (CFRP), or aramid (AFRP)
fibers dispersed in a thermoset polyester resin and has a wide
range of applications in the construction industry. Among GFRPs,
E-glass is the most common reinforcement, and represents approx-
imately 99% of the commercial market [1]. The E in E-glass is a
carryover from its initial application, as used in electrical standoff
insulators [2]. The compositional ranges for E-glass used in general
applications (such as GFRP) are outlined in ASTM D578 [3]
(Table 1).
At the end of the life cycle of FRPs, fibers cannot be easily sep-
arated from the resin and the resin itself cannot be easily decom-
posed or recycled. Hence, landfill and incineration are the most
common methods for FRP waste management [4,5]. Globally, GFRP
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: karl.peterson@utoronto.ca (K. Peterson).
GFRP waste production at 1.5 million metric tons [6]. Given the
potential negative environmental impacts of waste FRP, the mate-
rial has gained the attention of other industries to develop tech-
niques and methods to recycle FRPs. Thankfully, recent advances
in grinding and sorting technologies allow for the partial recovery
of fibers from FRP and has made their utilization in Portland
cement concrete an option. Considering that grinding and sorting
equipment are readily available, and that the process produces
negligible atmospheric pollution in terms of volatile organic com-
pound emissions, size reduction by mechanical recycling is pre-
ferred over other recycling processes [7].
The topic of recycled GFRP in concrete necessarily overlaps with
a number of different areas of research, including: glass fiber rein-
forced concrete (GFRC), waste glass powder concrete, and concrete
made using waste plastic fine and coarse aggregate. As such, recy-
cled GFRP combines some of the beneficial aspects of fibers and
powdered waste glass, as well as some of the shortcomings of
waste plastic aggregates.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.011
0950-0618/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250
Table 1
Certified chemical composition for glass fiber products used in general applications
[3].
Chemical % by Weight
B2O3 010
CaO 1625
Al2O3 1216
SiO2 5262
MgO 05
Na2O + K2O 02
TiO2 01.5
Fe2O3 0.050.8
Fluoride 01
ACI 544.R-96 [8] constitutes a state-of-the-art report on fiber
reinforced concrete, with an entire chapter dedicated to GFRC.
Fibers in concrete are used to control cracking and to improve ten-
sile and flexural strength. Early formulations of GFRC utilized E-
glass fibers, but their use declined after the development of alkali
resistant (AR) glass fibers, which performed much better over the
long-term in the high-pH environment of concrete pore water.
More recently, basalt fibers, made from melting basaltic rock, have
been used to produce basalt fiber reinforced concrete (BFRC) [9
11]. In this research, fibers recovered from recycled GFRP are uti-
lized, but the fibers tend to occur in grouped masses bound by
residual resin, as opposed to individual clean fibers.
Waste glass is increasingly being utilized in concrete, both as an
aggregate and as a powdered pozzolanic addition to concrete. Shi
and Zheng [12] provide a thorough review of the topic, and it
remains a very active area of research today. However, the majority
of the research to date focuses on waste soda lime glass sources
from containers or float/plate glass, with relatively few studies
on the pozzolanic aspects of recycled GFRP. Xu et al. [13] investi-
gated incinerated waste GFRP from the automotive industry, and
used the ash as a pozzolanic additive. Chen et al. [14] investigated
the use of ground waste E-glass fibers left over from circuit board
manufacture that had never been used in FRP. They documented
improvements in compressive strength, chloride and sulfate resis-
tance. Similarly Mastali et al. [15] reported improvements in com-
pressive and flexural strength for recycled glass fibers recovered
from woven fiber sheets that had never been used in FRP. However,
ground recycled GFRP, a combination of E-glass fibers, resins, and
filler materials, is more problematic, as the resins and fillers pro-
vide no pozzolanic benefit.
Gu and Ozbakkaloglu [16] conducted an extensive review of the
utilization of recycled plastics in concrete from the standpoint of
plastic fine aggregate, plastic coarse aggregate, and plastic fibers.
While recycled plastic fibers tended to improve mechanical prop-
erties of concrete, recycled plastic aggregates led to reductions in
compressive and tensile strength, and in most cases increased dry-
ing shrinkage.
A common concern with the usage of recycled GFRP in cemen-
titious binders is the potential for interference with the mechanical
performance, particularly reductions in compressive strength. The
Table 2
GFRP types, content, and abbreviations used in this study.
Type Resin
Structural sheet molding composite Bisphenol-A epoxy vinyl ester
Structural sheet molding composite Novolac-based epoxy vinyl ester
Structural sheet molding composite Flame retardant epoxy vinyl ester
Light resin transfer mold Unsaturated polyester
E-glass fiber None
239
feasibility of recycled GFRP concrete has been explored by a num-
ber of researchers worldwide, with a comprehensive review
recently provided by Yazdanbakhsh and Bank [17]. Asokan et al.
[18] reported reduced compressive strengths with increasing recy-
cled GFRP powder substitution when cured in water at 20 C, but
found increased compressive strengths compared to the control
when oven cured at 50 C. Tittarelli and Moriconi [19] and Tittarelli
and Shah [20] reported reductions in compressive strength with
recycled GFRP powder additions, but some improvements in terms
of reduced drying shrinkage, and lower values for capillary water
absorption. Correia et al. [21] explored the use of fines produced
during the cutting of pultruded GFRP, and found similar reductions
on compressive strength. Osmani [22] also reported reductions in
compressive strength for concrete produced with recycled GFRP
powder. Alam et al. [23] and Yazdanbakhsh et al. [24] both
explored the substitution of larger aggregate sized FRP scrap parti-
cles, and reported reductions in both compressive and flexural
strength. Alternatively, Garca et al. [25] explored the use of fibers
recovered from recycled FRP, termed glass fiber fluff, and
reported improvements in compressive and flexural strength when
grinding and sieving is optimized.
Expansive ASR is still cited as a concern for concrete as E-glass
fibers are not stable in the high-alkali environment of the pore
water [26,27]. Meanwhile the potential for powdered waste glass
to mitigate ASR has been extensively documented, but not neces-
sarily from the standpoint of waste E-glass [2841]. Chen et al.
[14] found negligible expansion due to alkali silica reaction (ASR)
for concrete made with powdered recycled E-glass fibers that
had never been used in GFRP. Garca et al. [25] reported expansions
of <0.04% for concrete beams produced with glass fiber fluff recov-
ered from recycled GFRP. Tittarelli and Moriconi [19] tested recy-
cled GFRP powder using the recently withdrawn standard ASTM
C289 [42], and found it to be innocuous. However, it is widely rec-
ognized that ASTM C289 is not a reliable test for predicting the
reactivity of carbonate aggregates [43], and calcium carbonate is
a common filler material in FRP.
2. Materials and methods
Descriptions of the commercially produced GFRPs that were investigated in this
study are presented in Table 2, and images of the fibers recovered from recycled
GFRP are provided in Fig. 1. The recycled GFRP was produced using a model GM-
2411-50 ECO GrinderTM [44] single stage hammer mill grinding system with a
19 mm (3/4 in.) screen coupled to a pneumatically fed hopper with a dust collection
bag and an enclosed auger feed to a series of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) and 4.75 mm
(3/16 in.) perforated opening trommel (rotary) screens. The GFRP feed consisted
of sheets with a maximum thickness of 25.4 mm (1 in.) and nominal dimensions
of 150  914 mm (6  36 in.). Table 3 provides a summary of the wt% glass fiber
fluff retained by the screens. Materials separated by both screens were recombined
for the purposes of this study. The bottom fines were not included. The results of
sieve analyses performed on the combined materials are provided in Fig. 2.
2.1. Water absorption, density, loss on ignition, and fiber cluster length
From each recycled GFRP source three representative samples, each with an
approximate mass of 100 g, were produced by the ASTM C702 [45] quartering
method for a determination of water absorption. Samples were completely
immersed in tap water for 72 2 h and stirred at least once every 24 h for one
Glass content (vol.%) Abbreviation
as manufactured
40 EVE1
40 EVE2
40 EVE3
25 UP
100 Virgin
240 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250

Fig. 1. Overall appearance of the recycled GFRP materials (ad), and virgin E-glass fibers (e).

Table 3
Size-separated materials expressed as wt% of initial GFRP feed.

Type wt%
9.5 mm screen 4.75 mm screen Bottom fines Loss to dust collection
EVE1 24 18 55 3
EVE2 27 7 63 3
EVE3 27 8 58 7
UP 26 4 71 Negligible
 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250 241

Fig. 2. Size distribution of recycled GFRP materials.

Table 4
Density, water absorption, glass fiber content, and length of recycled FRPs.

Source Density (g/cm3) Absorption (%) E-glass content (wt%) Max. fiber cluster length (mm) Avg. fiber cluster length (mm)
UP 1.63 0.02 63.1 3.4 54.3 1.2 36.4 21.7 6.3
EVE1 1.66 0.02 30.1 4.9 43.1 1.0 26.8 17.2 5.7
EVE2 1.56 0.02 25.5 4.5 41.1 0.8 33.5 21.2 6.3
EVE3 1.60 0.02 28.8 6.4 42.0 0.5 31.3 19.5 7.5
Virgin 2.60 0.04 0.4 0.05 98.1 0.0 25.6 25.4 0.4

minute to ensure complete submersion. After soaking, the excess water was dec-
anted over a 75 mm sieve to avoid loss of material, and the samples placed in indi-
vidual open containers. A saturated surface dry (SSD) condition was gradually
achieved through exposure over a period of hours in an environmental chamber
at 35 2 C and 15 2% relative humidity (RH) with frequent stirring to ensure
homogenous drying. To determine if surface moisture was still present, the contain-
ers were inverted onto an absorbent sheet of unbleached paper towel to check
whether or not the recycled GFRP material would dampen the paper. If any mois-
ture was observed on the paper, the specimen was returned to the environmental
chamber and re-tested in the same manner until it reached a SSD condition. After
achieving an SSD condition, the samples were weighed, and then dried in a vented
oven at 100 2 C. Earlier experiments conducted at a drying temperature
105 5 C resulted in a strong odour and color change of the recycled GFRP, so
the alternative drying approach at 100 2 C was employed.
A helium pycnometer was used to measure the densities of the recycled GFRP.
Three representative dry samples with an approximate mass of 45 g were used
and the volume of each sample was measured three times. The averages of nine
readings are provided in Table 4. UN1046 compressed helium as recommended
by the manufacturer at a pressure of 1.2 kg/cm2 was used in this study. Water
absorption values for the recycled GFRPs are also listed in Table 4.
Loss on ignition was measured with three representative test specimens, each
with an approximate mass of 5 g and conditioned at 23 2 C and 50 10% RH to
meet the requirements of ASTM D2584 [46]. The samples were heated in a muffle
furnace at 300 C for 2 h, then cooled to room temperature in a desiccator, and
weighed. Next, the samples were placed back into the muffle furnace, heated at
560 C for 2 h, cooled, and reweighed at room temperature. Preliminary investiga-
tions found that heating at 560 C for 2 h was sufficient to remove all organic mate-
rial. Finally, the samples were heated to 960 C for 2 h, cooled, and the mass of the
residues measured at room temperature. Negligible mass loss was found between
560 C and 960 C, and indicated minimal inclusion of carbonate-based fillers. The
difference between initial mass and the loss on ignition at 560 C was used as an
approximation of glass content. Mass losses are presented in Fig. 3. The glass con-
tents reported for the crushed and sieved GFRP by ignition were slightly higher than
the as-manufactured GFRP. The enrichment may partly be attributed to the loss of
resin fines during the crushing and sieving operations.
To characterize fiber lengths, representative 5 g samples were obtained, and
fiber clusters manually plucked from the fluff, and images recorded with a flatbed
scanner (Fig. 4). Digital image processing was used to obtain the fiber cluster
lengths reported in Table 4.
2.2. ASR testing
2.2.1. Accelerated mortar bar test
Susceptibility to ASR was tested in accordance with CSA A23.2-25A [47] on four
25  25  285 mm mortar bars, but with 5 wt% replacement of the coarse aggregate
(an inert crushed dolostone) with recycled GFRP. CSA A23.2-25A was followed,

Fig. 3. Mass loss of recycled GFRPs and virgin E-glass fibers at different temperatures.
242 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250

Fig. 4. Fiber clusters manually plucked from glass fiber fluff (ad), and virgin E-glass (e).

Table 5
Mix designs of mortar mixtures for the accelerated mortar bar test.

Source Recycled GFRP (kg/m3) Crushed agg. (kg/m3) GU cement (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3)
Control 0.0 1327.1 589.8 294.9
UP 65.7 1247.9 583.8 291.9
EVE1 65.7 1248.3 583.9 292.0
EVE2 65.6 1247.1 583.4 291.7
EVE3 65.7 1247.6 583.6 291.8
 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250 243

Table 6
Fresh properties of the mortar mixtures.

Source Temp (C) Gravimetric air content (%) Mix yield (kg/m3) Flow (%)
Control 25.7 2.3 2243.9 83
UP 23.3 12.3 2032.5 36
EVE1 23.9 4.4 2192.0 67
EVE2 22.8 9.2 2108.9 51
EVE3 23.3 4.4 2191.9 68

Table 7
Mix designs for concrete prism test.

Source Recycled GFRP, Cement (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) Coarse aggr. Fine aggr. dry NaOH Moisture held by the SSD
dry mass (kg/m3) dry mass (kg/m3) mass (kg/m3) pellets (kg/m3) GFRP (kg/m3)
Control 415.0 186.7 1079.5 714.4 1.28
UP 19.5 415.0 186.7 1060.0 701.4 1.28 12.3
EVE1 19.9 415.0 186.7 1060.0 701.4 1.28 6.0
EVE2 18.7 415.0 186.7 1060.0 701.4 1.28 4.7
EVE3 19.2 415.0 186.7 1060.0 701.4 1.28 5.4
Virgin 31.2 415.0 186.7 1060.2 701.6 1.28 0.1

Table 8
Fresh properties of concrete mixtures for concrete prism test.

Source Temp (C) Slump (mm) Pressure meter air Unit weight
content (vol%) (kg/m3)
Control 21.3 145 2.5 2411.1
UP 21.1 75 4.0 2361.8
EVE1 21.3 140 2.9 2408.3
EVE2 21.1 170 3.1 2397.4
EVE3 20.7 170 2.9 2405.3
Virgin 27.1 30 4.6 2344.3

Table 9
Fresh properties of concrete mixtures.

Source Temp (C) Slump (mm) Pressure meter Air content (%) Unit weight (kg/m3)
Control 21.5 125 2.6 2417.1
UP 20.7 80 3.9 2365.7
EVE1 22.0 165 2.9 2417.1
EVE2 22.0 165 2.7 2407.9
EVE3 20.3 175 2.9 2412.9
Virgin 27.7 50 4.3 2372.1

except that the exposure time was extended from 14 d to 28 d. The mix designs of
the mortars are presented in Table 5, and fresh properties of the mortar mixtures
are presented in Table 6.
CSA A23.2-25A specifies that the aggregate used for mixing be in an oven dry
state. Since the recycled GFRP was being treated on the basis of a wt% replacement
of aggregate, it was also brought to an oven dry state prior to mixing. CSA A23.2-
25A prescribes a fixed w/cm (water to cementitious ratio) of 0.50 for mixtures con-
taining crushed aggregate, and a mass ratio of cement to aggregate of 1:2.25, but
makes no definitive statement regarding corrections to the water content based
on aggregate absorption. As such, no corrections to the water content were made
to account for water absorption by the aggregate or recycled GFRP. As shown in
Table 5, utilization of recycled GFRP increased the air content. Given the morphol-
ogy, air is necessarily entrapped within the glass fiber fluff when added in a dry
state. From Table 5, recycled GFRP additions also decreased the flowability of the
mixtures. Absorption of mix water by the dry glass fiber fluff likely contributed
to the reduction in workability. As such, a vibration table was selected as the

Fig. 5. 7 and 28 d compressive strengths for non-air entrained concrete cylinders

made with recycled GFRP, without any GFRP (control), and with virgin E-glass Fig. 6. 7 and 28 d tensile strengths for non-air entrained concrete cylinders made
fibers. with recycled GFRP, without any GFRP (control), and with virgin E-glass fibers.
244 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250

Fig. 7. Relationship between water retained in the SSD recycled GFRP materials and virgin fibers and the 7 and 28 d compressive strengths.

Fig. 8. Length changes due to drying shrinkage of concrete prisms made with recycled GFRP, without any FRP (control), and with virgin E-glass fibers.

method of compaction. The reported flow results were obtained after 10 drops of an
ASTM C230 [48] flow table, and all of the mortar mixtures were workable enough to
be cast into the molds.
2.2.2. Concrete prism test
The risk of expansive ASR was assessed in accordance with CSA A23.2-14A [49]
on three 75  75  285 mm prisms per recycled GFRP source, but with one signif-
icant modification: the recommended temperature of 38 C was elevated to
50 3 C. The change in temperature was made to accelerate the rate of ASR, and
thereby shorten the duration of testing. As with the accelerated mortar bar test,
the inert coarse aggregate was substituted by 5 wt% with recycled GFRP. CSA
A23.2-14A specifies that concrete be mixed according to CSA A23.2-2C [50], so
aggregate moisture corrections must be accounted for. Prior to mixing, the recycled
GFRP materials were prepared in SSD condition using the same procedure used to
measure absorption. After achieving a SSD condition, the recycled GFRP materials
were sealed in air-tight containers and allowed to equilibrate to room temperature.
Coarse aggregate for mixing was immersed for 24 h prior to use, with excess water
decanted prior to mixing. Water clinging to the coarse aggregate was accounted for
as a contribution to the mix water. Similarly, fine aggregate of a known moisture
condition was used for mixing, and water clinging to the fine aggregate was
accounted for as a contribution to the mix water. Mix designs are shown in Table 7.
Results for fresh properties of the concrete mixtures are presented in Table 8.
2.3. Mechanical properties
A second batch of concrete without the addition of sodium hydroxide was cast
for each source of recycled GFRP using the same mixing procedure as described in
Section 2.2. Twelve 100  200 mm concrete cylinders and three 75  75  285 mm
concrete prisms were cast to measure compressive strength, tensile strength, and
length changes due to drying shrinkage at 23 2 C and 50 4% RH. Samples were
cured in lime-saturated water for the periods specified by the corresponding stan-
dards. Fresh concrete test results are provided in Table 9.

Fig. 9. Relationship between the water retained in the SSD recycled GFRP materials and virgin fibers and drying shrinkage.
 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250 245

Fig. 10. Expansions during accelerated mortar bar test for samples made with recycled GFRP, and without GFRP (control).

Fig. 11. Expansions for concrete prisms made with recycled GFRP, without any GFRP (control), and with virgin E-glass fibers.

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Concrete strength
CSA A23.2-9C [51] compressive strength results for the concrete
samples made with recycled GFRP, virgin E-glass fibers, and with-
out any fiber additions are presented in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 presents the
results of CSA A23.2-13C [52] tensile splitting tests, where the
sample is failed through indirect tension by applying a compres-
sive load to the diametral plane of a cylinder. Fig. 7 plots the water
retention of the SSD recycled GFRP materials versus compressive
strength. Compressive strength decreased as recycled GFRP water
retention increased, which suggests that the water contained
within the SSD recycled GFRP glass fiber fluff may have been
released during concrete mixing, locally increasing the water to
cementitious ratio (w/cm). Alternatively, in the case of ultra high
performance concrete (UHPC) with very low w/cm levels, such
sources of internal curing water has proved beneficial in terms of

Fig. 12. Mass changes for concrete prisms made with recycled GFRP, without any GFRP (control), and with virgin E-glass fibers.
246 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250

Fig. 13. A porous cluster of glass fibers in thin section from sample UP concrete as observed in fluorescent mode (a), back scattered electron image (b), and close-up (c) with
black arrows showing locations of characteristic X-ray spectra from interior of glass fiber (d) and exterior (reacted) glass fiber (e).

strength gain [53,54]. Tensile strength in most cases increased with
recycled GFRP as compared to the control, with the exception of
the EVE2 mixture.
3.2. Drying shrinkage
Length changes in concrete prisms due to drying at 23 2 C
and a relative humidity of 50 4% were tested according to CSA
A23.2-21C [55] with the results shown in Fig. 8.
During the first week of testing, the mixture containing virgin E-
glass fibers experienced the least amount of drying shrinkage.
However, in the subsequent weeks and months, the virgin mixture
performed similarly to the EVE1 and UP mixtures, with shrinkage
values exceeding the control by 17%. The mixtures with the high-
est values for water retention (EVE1 and UP) experienced the most
drying shrinkage of all the recycled GFRP mixtures (Fig. 9). This
result was unexpected, as the purposeful addition of saturated
light weight aggregate (LWA) to help reduce autogenous shrinkage
is now a widely adopted strategy to counteract shrinkage
[53,54,5658]. However, at the w/cm level of 0.45 explored in this
study, autogenous shrinkage is not an issue. Wang et al. [59]
reported similar shrinkage issues for concrete made with
polypropylene fiber mesh, as well as recycled fibers from tires or
waste carpet. They attributed the increase in shrinkage to porosity
contributed by the fiber masses. An alternative explanation for the
slightly higher levels of drying shrinkage could be that the inher-
 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250 247

ently lower stiffness of the recycled GFRP provided less resistance
to shrinkage [16].
3.3. Alkali silica reaction
Results of the accelerated mortar bar test are presented in Fig. 10.
The expansion values for all of the mortar mixes made with recycled
GFRP in this study were below the recommended 0.1% limit. Further-
more, results of the concrete prism test for the five types of the recy-
cled GFRP are provided in Fig. 11, and the expansion values are all
below the recommended 0.4% expansion limit. Changes in mass
were recorded, and are shown in Fig. 12. The concrete prisms made
with recycled GFRP (except EVE1) experienced mass losses between
the initial reading (measured after demolding) and up to 14 d of
exposure at 50 C. This unusual reduction in mass could possibly
be attributed to water from the SSD mats of the recycled glass fibers
migrating to the exterior of the prisms at the elevated temperature
of 50 C. Drying of the prisms due to the escape of water from the
sealed pails was ruled out, since the level of water ponded at the
base of the pails appeared constant during testing. Furthermore,
the absorbent sheets lining the inside walls of the pails remained
fully saturated throughout the duration of the test.
3.4. Microstructure of concrete prisms
Figs. 1316 show images of recycled GFRP and virgin glass
fibers in polished thin sections prepared from the concrete
prisms after four months of ASR testing. Prior to sectioning, a
fluorescent-dyed low viscosity epoxy resin was used to fill the
capillary pores and air voids present in the concrete. In the flu-
orescent images darker regions (less fluorescence) represent
areas with low porosity, and brighter regions (more fluores-
cence) represent areas with high porosity [60]. ASR-related
cracking was not observed in any of the samples. Typically, con-
crete that has undergone expansive ASR will exhibit deposits of
alkali silica gel lining air-voids or within cracks. Alkali-silica gel
deposits were not directly observed in the samples, although in
some cases it appeared that the capillary pores of the hardened
cement paste immediately surrounding some recycled GFRP
fragments may have been filled/densified through the uptake
of alkali-silica gel (Fig. 13a). Concrete containing recycled GFRP
from the higher absorption UP material more frequently
exhibited porous mats of glass fibers (Fig. 13) as compared to
concrete made with the relatively lower-absorption recycled
GFRP sources (Figs. 14 and 15). Fig. 16 shows virgin E-glass
fibers.

Fig. 14. A fragment of flame retardant (brominated) epoxy vinyl ester resin with embedded glass fibers in thin section from sample EVE1 as observed in fluorescent mode (a),
backscattered electron image (b), and close-up (d), showing location (black arrow) of characteristic X-ray spectrum collected from the FRP resin.
248 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250

Fig. 15. A fragment of bisphenol-A epoxy vinyl ester in thin section with embedded glass fibers from sample EVE3 as observed in fluorescent mode (a), back scattered
electron image (b), and close-up (c) with black arrows showing locations of characteristic X-ray spectra from interior of glass fiber (d) and exterior (reacted) glass fiber (e).

4. Conclusions the capillary porosity of the adjacent cement paste

Reductions in workability have been previously reported for
concrete with fibers recovered from recycled GFRP and attributed
to increased water demand due to the irregular geometry and
the high specific surface of the fibers [25]. In the research pre-
sented here, the reduction in workability was overcome by precon-
ditioning the recycled GFRP to a SSD condition. However, the
relatively large amounts of water retained in the SSD condition
may have had a negative contribution in terms of compressive
strength; the water retained by the SSD recycled GFRP in many
cases appears to have had a local influence on w/cm, increasing
(Figs. 14a and 15a). Furthermore, rather than being dispersed as
individual fibers, in most cases the recovered fibers from recycled
GFRP and from the virgin E-glass fibers occurred in the concrete as
porous clumps, and these would also be expected to have a nega-
tive impact on compressive strength. On the other hand, the fibers
from recycled GFRP and the virgin E-glass fibers did contribute to
improvements in splitting tensile strength.
Drying shrinkage was not improved by the addition of recycled
GFRP or virgin E-glass fibers as compared to the control concrete, a
finding that contrasts with Garca et al. [25] who reported a mod-
est improvement. But, the overall values for drying shrinkage
 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250
Fig. 16. Virgin E-glass fibers in concrete thin section, backscattered electron image (a), and close-up (b) with black arrows showing locations of characteristic X-ray spectra
from interior of glass fiber (c) and exterior (reacted) glass fiber (d).
reported here remain within a narrow range similar to the control.
Although a fixed replacement level of 5 wt% of recycled GFRP for
aggregate was used throughout this study, the replacement level
could be revisited and refined in an effort to minimize shrinkage,
and to maximize improvements to tensile strength.
Accelerated mortar bar and concrete prism ASR testing showed
expansion values well below the recommended expansion limits.
Comparisons of X-ray energy dispersive spectra (EDS) collected
from points at the perimeters of the glass fibers to points further
within the glass fibers show an enrichment and calcium
(Figs. 13d & e, 15d & e, 16d & e), which suggests the pozzolanic
reaction of the fibers to form hydration products. Given the slender
profile of the exposed glass fibers, on the order of 10 mm, the glass
fibers perform as a pozzolanic addition similar to expansive ASR-
mitigating coal combustion fly ash or ground granulated blast fur-
nace slag as opposed to performing as an ASR expansion-inducing
aggregate particle.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the NSERC Engage Grants Program,
Canada, EGP #468708-14.
References
[1] F.T. Wallenberger, Commercial and experimental glass fibers, in: F.T.
Wallenberger, P.A. Bingham (Eds.), Fiberglass and Glass Technology: Energy-
Friendly Compositions and Applications, Springer, New York, New York, USA,
2010, p. 474.
249
[2] J. MacDougald, C. McDougald, Insulators: A History and Guide to North
American Glass Pintype Insulators, vol. 1, National Insulator Association Inc, St.
Charles, Illinois, USA, 1990, p. 197.
[3] ASTM D578, Standard Specification for Glass Fiber Strands, American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2011, p. 19.
[4] S.J. Pickering, Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials
current status, Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37 (2006) 12061215.
[5] M.C.S. Ribeiro, A.C. Meira-Castro, F.G. Silva, J. Santos, J.P. Meixedo, A. Fiza, M.L.
Dinis, M.R. Alvim, Re-use assessment of thermoset composite wastes as
aggregate and filler replacement for concrete-polymer composite materials: a
case study regarding GFRP pultrusion wastes, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104
(2015) 417426.
[6] Y.C. Feng, F.Q. Zhao, H. Xu, Recycling and utilization of waste glass fiber
reinforced plastics, IN: MATEC Web of Conferences, 67(07012), International
Symposium on Materials Application and Engineering, May 2728, Hangzhou,
China, 2016. p. 5.
[7] C.A. Castro, M.C.S. Ribeiro, J. Santos, J.P. Meixedo, F.J.G. Silva, A. Fiuza, M.L.
Dinis, M.R. Alvim, Sustainable waste recycling solution for glass fiber
reinforced polymer composite materials industry, Constr. Build. Mater. 45
(2013) 8794.
[8] ACI 544.1R-96, Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA, 1996, p. 66.
[9] B. Ahmet, A.B. Kizilkanat, N. Kabay, V. Akync, S. Chowdhury, A.H. Aka,
Mechanical properties and fracture behavior of basalt and glass fiber
reinforced concrete: an experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater. 100 (2015)
218224.
[10] Y.V. Lipatov, S.I. Gutnikov, M.S. Manylov, E.S. EZhukovskaya, B.I. Lazoryak, High
alkali-resistant basalt fiber for reinforcing concrete, Mater. Des. (2015) 6066.
[11] M.E. Arslan, Effects of basalt and glass chopped fibers addition on fracture
energy and mechanical properties of ordinary concrete: CMOD measurement,
Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 383391.
[12] C. Shi, K. Zheng, A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of
cement and concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (2) (2007) 234247.
[13] G.J. Xu, D.F. Watt, P.P. Hudec, K.A. MacDonald, D.O. Northwood, Recycling
automotive related wastes in concrete, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 48 (14)
(1995) 385390.
[14] C.H. Chen, R. Huang, J.K. Wu, C.C. Yang, Waste E-glass particles used in
cementitious mixtures, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (3) (2006) 449456.
250 A. Dehghan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 146 (2017) 238250
[15] M. Mastali, A. Dalvand, A.R. Sattarifard, The impact resistance and mechanical
properties of reinforced self-compacting concrete with recycled glass fiber
reinforced polymers, J. Clean. Prod. 124 (2016) 312324.
[16] L. Gu, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Use of recycled plastics in concrete: a critical review,
Waste Manage. 51 (2016) 1942.
[17] A. Yazdanbakhsh, L.C. Bank, A critical review of research on reuse of
mechanically recycled FRP production and end-of-life waste for
construction, Polymers 6 (2014) 18101826.
[18] P. Asokan, M. Osmani, A.D.F. Price, Assessing the recycling potential of glass
fiber reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites, J. Clean.
Prod. 17 (2009) 821829.
[19] F. Tittarelli, G. Moriconi, Use of GRP industrial by-products in cement based
composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 32 (2010) 219225.
[20] F. Tittarelli, S.P. Shah, Effect of low dosages of waste GRP dust on fresh and
hardened properties of mortars: Part 1, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1532
1538.
[21] J.R. Correia, N.M. Almeida, J.R. Figueira, Recycling of FRP composites: reusing
fine GFRP waste in concrete mixtures, J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2011) 17451753.
[22] M. Osmani, Innovation in cleaner production through waste recycling in
composites, Manage. Environ. Qual. 24 (1) (2013) 19.
[23] M.S. Alam, E. Slater, A.H.M. Muntasir Billah, Green concrete made with RCA
and FRP scrap aggregate: fresh and hardened properties, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25
(2013) 17831794.
[24] A. Yazdanbakhsh, L.C. Bank, C. Chen, Use of recycled FRP reinforcing bar in
concrete as coarse aggregate and its impact on the mechanical properties of
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 121 (2016) 278284.
[25] D. Garca, I. Vegas, I. Cacho, Mechanical recycling of GFRP waste as short-fiber
reinforcements in microconcrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 64 (2014) 293300.
[26] A. Bentur, S. Mindess, Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites, second ed.,
Taylor & Francis, New York, New York, USA, 2006, p. 601.
[27] H. Estrada, L.S. Lee, FRP composite constituent materials, in: M. Zoghi (Ed.),
International Handbook of FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Francis and
Taylor, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2014, pp. 3150.
[28] G.J.Z. Xu, D.F. Watt, P.P. Hudec, Effectiveness of mineral admixtures in
reducing ASR expansion, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (6) (1995) 12251236.
[29] C. Shi, Y. Wu, C. Riefler, H. Wang, Characteristics and pozzolanic reactivity of
glass powders, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (5) (2005) 987993.
[30] A. Shayan, A. Xu, Performance of glass powder as a pozzolanic material in
concrete: a field trial on concrete slabs, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (3) (2006) 457
468.
[31] N. Schwarz, H. Cam, N. Neithalath, Influence of a fine glass powder on the
durability characteristics of concrete and its comparison to fly ash, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 30 (6) (2008) 486496.
[32] B. Taha, G. Nounu, Using lithium nitrate and pozzolanic glass powder in
concrete as ASR suppressors, Cem. Concr. Compos., 30(6) 497505.
[33] L.M. Federico, S.E. Chidiac, Waste glass as a supplementary cementitious
material in concrete critical review of treatment methods, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 31 (8) (2009) 606610.
[34] Z.Z. Ismail, E.A. AL-Hashmi, Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement
for fine aggregate in concrete, Waste Manage. 29 (2) (2009) 655659.
[35] H. Du, K.H. Tan, Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part II alkalisilica
reaction and mitigation methods, Cem. Concr. Compos. 35 (1) (2013) 118126.
[36] F. Rajabipour, H. Maraghechi, G. Fischer, Investigating the alkali-silica reaction
of recycled glass aggregates in concrete materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (12)
(2010) 12011208.
[37] I.R. Rachida, M. Cyr, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Use of fine glass as ASR inhibitor in glass
aggregate mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (7) (2010) 13091312.
[38] K. Afshinnia, P. Rangaraju, Effectiveness of ground glass powder from recycled
glass in mitigating alkali-silica reaction in concrete, J. Transp. Res. Board 2508
(2015) 10.
[39] K. Afshinnia, P.R. Rangaraju, Influence of fineness of ground recycled glass on
mitigation of alkalisilica reaction in mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 81 (2016)
257267.
[40] K. Zheng, Pozzolanic reaction of glass powder and its role in controlling alkali
silica reaction, Cem. Concr. Compos. 67 (2016) 3038.
[41] K. Afshinnia, P.R. Rangaraju, Impact of combined use of ground glass powder
and crushed glass aggregate on selected properties of Portland cement
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 117 (2016) 263272.
[42] ASTM C289, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of
Aggregates (Chemical Method) West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2007,
p. 7.
[43] D. Stark, Alkali-silica reactions in concrete, in: J.F. Lamond, J. Pielert (Eds.),
Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete Making
Materials, ASTM STP 1679C, ASTM International, Bridgeport, New Jersey,
USA, 2006, pp. 401409.
[44] R.J. Wolf, Method of recycling Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics, U.S. Patent
8,361,358, 2013.
[45] ASTM C702, Standard Practice for Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing
Size West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2011, p. 5.
[46] ASTM D2584, Standard Test Method for Ignition Loss of Cured Reinforced
Resins West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2011, p. 6.
[47] CSA A23.2-25A, Test Method for detection of alkali-silica reactive aggregate by
accelerated expansion of mortar bars, in: CSA A23.1/A23.2 Concrete Materials
and Methods of Concrete Construction/Methods of Test and Standard Practices
for Concrete, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada,
2015, pp. 425433.
[48] ASTM C230, Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic
Cement West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2014, p. 6.
[49] CSA A23.2-14A, Potential expansivity of aggregates (procedure for length
change due to alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete prisms at 38 C), in: CSA
A23.1/A23.2 Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction/
Methods of Test and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2015, pp. 350362.
[50] CSA A23.2-2C, Making concrete mixes in the laboratory, in: CSA A23.1/A23.2
Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction/Methods of Test
and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian Standards Association,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2015, pp. 552564.
[51] CSA A23.2-9C, Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, in:
CSA A23.1/A23.2 Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction/
Methods of Test and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2015, pp. 552564.
[52] CSA A23.2-13C, Splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens,
in: CSA A23.1/A23.2 Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete
Construction/Methods of Test and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2015, pp. 582589.
[53] R. Henkensiefken, J. Castro, D. Bentz, T. Nantung, J. Weiss, Water absorption in
internally cured mortar made with water-filled lightweight aggregate, Cem.
Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 883892.
[54] M. Golias, J. Castro, J. Weiss, The influence of the initial moisture content of
lightweight aggregate on internal curing, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 52
62.
[55] CSA A23.2-21C, Test Method for length change of hardened concrete, in: CSA
A23.1/A23.2 Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction/
Methods of Test and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2015, pp. 629635.
[56] L.E. Rendon, M. Rendon, N. Ramirez, LWA as Internal Curing Agent to Control
Availability of Internal Curing Water in Concrete, MRS Proceedings, vol. 1612,
2013.
[57] P. Lura, M. Wyrzykowski, C. Tang, E. Lehmann, Internal curing with lightweight
aggregate produced from biomass-derived waste, Cem. Concr. Res. 59 (2014)
2433.
[58] T. Ji, B.B. Zhang, Y.Z. Zhuang, H.C. Wu, Effect of lightweight aggregate on early-
age autogenous shrinkage of concrete, ACI Mater. J. 112 (3) (2015) 355364.
[59] Y. Wang, H.C. Wu, V.C. Li, Concrete reinforcement with recycled fibers, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 12 (4) (2000) 314319.
[60] H.N. Walker, S.D. Lane, P.E. Stutzman, Petrographic Methods of Examining
Hardened Concrete: A Petrographic Manual, Revised 2004 FHWA-HRT-04-150,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Research
and Development, Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center, McLean,
Virginia, USA, 2006, p. 351.