See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7000105

Closed-loop recycling of construction and

demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter
environmental threshold values

Article in Waste Management & Research · July 2006

Impact Factor: 1.3 · DOI: 10.1177/0734242X06063686 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

20 226

3 authors, including:

Marcel Weil Liselotte Schebek

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Technical University Darmstadt
69 PUBLICATIONS 284 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 788 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Marcel Weil

Retrieved on: 11 June 2016
 Waste Management & Research
http://wmr.sagepub.com

Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter

environmental threshold values
Marcel Weil, Udo Jeske and Liselotte Schebek
Waste Manag Res 2006; 24; 197
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X06063686

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/197

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Solid Waste Association

Additional services and information for Waste Management & Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/24/3/197

Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010

Waste Manage Res 2006: 24: 197–206
Printed in UK – all right reserved
Closed-loop recycling of construction and
demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter
environmental threshold values
Recycling of construction and demolition waste contributes
decisively to the saving of natural mineral resources. In Ger-
many, processed mineral construction and demolition waste
from structural engineering is used nearly exclusively in civil
engineering (earthwork and road construction sector) as
open-loop recycling. Due to the planned stricter limit values
for the protection of soil and water, however, this recycling
path in civil engineering may no longer be applicable in the
future. According to some new guidelines and standards
adopted recently, recycled aggregates may also be used for
concrete production in the structural engineering sector
(closed-loop recycling). Wastes from the structural engineer-
ing sector can thus be kept in a closed cycle, and their dis-
posal on a landfill can be avoided. The present report focuses
on the determination of maximum waste volumes that may
be handled by this new recycling option. Potential adverse
effects on the saving of resources and climate protection have
been analysed. For this purpose, materials flow analysis and
ecobalancing methods have been used.
Motivation and scope of the study
In Germany, a large fraction of construction and demolition
waste is recycled. Processed construction and demolition
waste (recycled aggregates) from structural engineering is used
nearly exclusively as loose bed material in civil engineering
(open-loop recycling).
The use of construction and demolition waste is subject to
the regulations of the State Association on Waste (LAGA
1997, 2003). Herein, limit values are specified for solid and
eluate analyses. The LAGA regulations are being revised at
the moment. Regulations defined by the State Association
on Water for soil and groundwater protection (LAWA 2000)
will be incorporated. Due to this revision, it is expected that
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
Copyright © ISWA 2006
Waste Management & Research
ISSN 0734–242X
Marcel Weil
Udo Jeske
Liselotte Schebek
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, ITC-ZTS,
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
Keywords: Concrete, recycled aggregates, MFA, LCA,
ecobalancing, open loop, closed loop, wmr 870–6
Corresponding author: Dr. Marcel Weil,
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, ITC-ZTS, D-76344
Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany.
Tel: +49 7247 82 6718; fax: +49 7247 82 6715;
e-mail: marcel.weil@itc-zts.fzk.de
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X06063686
Received 20 May 2005; accepted in revised form 9 January 2006
Figures 1–3 appear in color online: http://wmr.sagepub.com
the recycling paths in civil engineering that are available
today will no longer be fully usable in the future.
If no alternative recycling paths exist or can be estab-
lished, the disposal of construction and demolition waste on
landfills will increase again and, as a consequence, the con-
sumption of natural mineral resources will also increase.
An alternative may be a new closed-loop recycling option
in civil engineering with recycled aggregates from construction
and demolition waste being used for concrete production.
This option has been developed by pioneer companies (Deisl
1996) and conceived in particular under a national research
project (BIM-project, e.g. Grübl & Rühl 1998) on the recycling
Waste Management & Research 197
M. Weil, U. Jeske, L. Schebek

of mineral building materials, which was funded by the Ger-
man Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Within
the framework of this BIM-project, the technical feasibility of
the use of recycled aggregates for concrete production in
structural engineering was studied and demonstrated in prac-
tice. Particular attention was paid to the fact that both the
technical as well as ecological properties (eluate) of concrete
both with and without recycled aggregates remained the same
in the fields of use envisaged. The findings obtained have
resulted in new standards and regulations, according to which
recycled aggregates may be used for concrete production in
the construction sector (DIN 4226-100, DIN 1045-2).
In view of the situation described above, the present report
will answer the following questions.
• Which volumes of construction and demolition waste
may be subjected to closed-loop recycling in the structural
engineering sector?
• Which volumes of mineral resources (gravel and sand
as aggregates for concrete, limestone and gypsum as raw
materials for cement) may be finally saved and what is
their share in the primary resources for structural engi-
neering?
• Is there an adverse effect of increased energy consump-
tion, and, if yes, can optimization strategies be developed?
To answer these questions, production and waste statistics
were evaluated. The technical options for closed-loop recycling
were studied and incorporated in a materials flow model for
the construction sector.
To identify potential adverse effects, production processes
of concrete both with and without recycled aggregates were
compared using ecobalancing methods.
Boundary conditions of the recycling of
construction and demolition waste
In the LAGA regulations (LAGA 1997, 2003), categories and
limit values are specified for the use of recycled aggregates.
Depending on the pollutants contained, recycled aggregates
are divided into the categories Z0 (unlimited use), Z1 (open
use; Z1.1 for unfavourable hydrological conditions, Z1.2 for
polluted areas with values larger than Z.1.1), and Z2 (limited
use with technical safeguarding measures) (Table 1). In cases
in which the pollutant concentrations exceed the limit val-
ues given for Z2, the recycled aggregates must not be recycled
and have to be subjected to either further processing to reduce
the pollutant contents or disposal on landfills.
Adaptation of the LAGA regulations to the soil and
groundwater protection regulations (Bertram 2003) has led
to a decrease of some limit values for heavy metals, in partic-
ular of sulphate. The changes are obvious from Table 1, in
which the existing limits (LAGA 1997, 2003) are compared
with the new limit values specified by the Soil Protection
Ordinance (LAGA TR Boden 2003).
In addition, the limit values of the aggregates for concrete
(DIN 4226-100) are indicated. They correspond to the Z2 val-
ues of LAGA (1997), as hydraulic fixation of the recycled
aggregates in concrete represents a technical safeguarding
measure in the sense of LAGA.

Table 1: Limit values for recycled aggregates given in LAGA (1997, 2003), LAGA TR Boden (2003), and DIN 4226-100 (2002).

Limit values referring to the eluate Draft limit values for the eluate
Aggregate for concrete
(LAGA 1997) (LAGA TR Boden 2003)
Parameter Unit (DIN 4226-100 2002)
maximum values
Z0 Z 1.1 Z 1.2 Z2 Z0 Z 1.1 Z 1.2 Z2

pH 7–12.5 7–12.5 7–12.5 7–12.5 6.5–9.5 6.5–9.5 6–12 5.5–12 12.5a

Conductivity mS cm–1 500 1500 2500 3000 250 250 1500 2000 3000a
Chloride mg L–1 10 20 40 150 30 30 40 50 150
Sulphate mg L–1 50 150 300 600 20 20 40 100 600
Arsenic µg L –1
10 10 40 50 10 10 30 50 50
Lead µg L –1
20 40 100 100 10 10 100 150 100
Cadmium µg L–1 2 2 5 5 1 1 2 5 5
Chromium total µg L –1
15 30 75 100 10 10 30 50 100
Copper µg L –1
50 50 150 200 20 20 40 100 200
Nickel µg L–1 40 50 100 100 10 10 15 50 100
Mercury µg L –1
0.2 0.2 1 2 < 0.5 < 0.5 1 2 2
Zinc µg L –1
100 100 300 400 200 200 300 1000 400
Phenol index µg L–1 < 10 10 50 100 100
a
Orientation values, no exclusion criterion.

198 Waste Management & Research

Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010

Table 2: Assignment of various aggregates to the categories of use, based on the test certificates (according to Weber 2001).
Categories Use
Recycled construction Unlimited use
material Z0
Recycled construction Limited open use
material Z1.1
Recycled construction Limited open use
material Z1.2
Recycled construction Limited use with defined technical
material Z2 safeguarding measures (e.g. hydraulic
fixation))
Disposal class I and II No use as construction material possible
To estimate the impacts of these stricter limit values on
present recycling, studies performed by the Bavarian Recy-
cling Association were analysed (Weber 2001). A total of
156 test certificates of recycled aggregates from 40 quality-
controlled processing plants were evaluated and assigned to
the categories of use depending on their pollutant contents
(Table 2).
Based on the existing limit values (LAGA 1997, 2003),
both the mixed and the sorted aggregates were assigned largely
to category Z1.2 (54–91%). Use of aggregates of this category
in earthwork and road construction in an open and unfixed
manner is subject to certain limitations. A smaller portion
(6–23%) of the aggregates studied was assigned to category
Z2. Assignment to the categories of use was determined above
all by the heavy metal contents (e.g. Cr, Cu, Hg) and in par-
ticular by the sulphate content. Hereinafter, the results obtained
by the Bavarian Recycling Association (Weber 2001) will be
extrapolated for Germany.
If the draft LAGA values (LAGA TR Boden 2003) are
adopted the changes of the sulphate limits in particular will
significantly affect recycling. This is especially true for con-
struction waste from structural engineering, as sulphate may
be washed out of various old construction materials (e.g. plas-
ters, mortars, floor screeds, concrete). A modification of the
limit value will result in recycled aggregates that were previ-
ously classified Z2 and Z1.2 (sulphate, 300–600 mg L–1) (in
total 86, 77 and 97% of the recycled aggregates studied; cf.
Table 2) having to be reassigned to a category higher than Z2
(sulphate > 100 mg L–1). Thus, their reuse would be excluded
and this might lead to the end of recycling in the construc-
tion sector (Schulz 2004). For this reason, this case is consid-
ered improbable and, hence, will not be dealt with in the
present report.
The other proposals made are based on existing concentra-
tions measured on excavated natural soils. In the investigated
soils the sulphate values ranged between 5 and 300 mg L–1
(Doetsch & Leuchs 2004). The limit values proposed (Doet-
sch & Leuchs 2004) are between the limit values given in
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany
Recycled aggregates, Recycled aggregates, Recycled aggregates,
unsorted fine-grained unsorted concrete
0% 0% 0%
0% 23% 0%
64% 54% 91%
22% 23% 6%
14% 0% 3%
LAGA (1997, 2003) and the values proposed for soil protec-
tion, cf. Table 1 (LAGA TR Boden 2003).
The following discussion will be based on the scenario
that all aggregates previously classified Z1.2 will be assigned
to category Z2, which means that safeguarding measures will
have to be taken if these aggregates are to be used. It will also
be assumed that all recycled aggregates previously classified
Z2 (Table 2, columns ‘unsorted’ and ‘concrete’) will continue
to be used with technical safeguarding measures. This means
that in spite of the stricter limit values, the volume of usable
recycled aggregates will remain the same.
Recyclable aggregates in structural
engineering
Material flows in the construction sector
To analyse mineral material flows in structural and civil engi-
neering, input flows (gravel, sand, lime, gypsum, etc.) and
output flows (mixed mineral construction wastes) were deter-
mined. The input flows were derived from statistical produc-
tion data (BBSE 2000). The output flows were taken from the
construction waste data for the year 1998 given by the Fed-
eral Statistical Office (2002). These data were complemented
by information supplied by institutions and associations (Weil
2004). In the meantime, data on construction and demoli-
tion waste have been published for the year 2000. Due to a
new waste recording method (EAK 1996), however, these data
can no longer be assigned clearly to the sectors of structural
and civil engineering, which is why they are not used in the
present study. As both the total waste volume and its struc-
tural engineering and civil engineering shares have hardly
changed, the quantitative results presented here can still be
regarded as valid. The mineral material flows in the construc-
tion sector are obvious from Figure 1.
Mineral input flows into the structural engineering sector
total 263 million t year–1. Of these, 144 million t are gravel and
sand (including 22 million t crushed natural aggregates) for
concrete and concrete products that might be substituted by
Waste Management & Research 199
M. Weil, U. Jeske, L. Schebek
Fig. 1: Mineral materials flows in the construction sector, Germany 1998.
recycled aggregates. Furthermore, the total input includes
34.5 million t limestone and 1 million t gypsum used for
cement production (BBSE 2000).
Another material flow in structural engineering is about
0.5 million t recycled aggregates from construction and dem-
olition waste that substitute gravel and sand in the produc-
tion of building products (Weil 2004).
Input flows into civil engineering total 474.8 million t. Of
these, 269 million t gravel and sand are used for road bases
and upper ballast layers in road construction and 63 million t
for concrete and concrete products. In total, 67.7 million t
recycled aggregates are applied in earthwork and road con-
struction.
Analysis of the output flows in the construction sector
reveals that the main source of recycled construction materi-
als consists of processed demolition waste from structural
engineering. From the 49.7 million t of demolition waste aris-
ing in structural engineering, 32.7 million t are recycled as con-
struction material and used practically exclusively in earthwork
and road construction (civil engineering). The remaining
17 million t of the demolition waste are disposed of in con-
struction materials sinks (e.g. domestic waste landfill, construc-
tion and demolition waste dumps, recultivation of mining sites)
for reasons of quality or costs.
In civil engineering, 18.5 million t of a total of 30.6 million t
of construction waste are recycled directly for use in civil
engineering (closed loop). A further 10 million t are proc-
essed together with demolition waste from structural engi-
neering and used in the civil engineering sector again.
Excavated earth resulting from both structural and civil engi-
neering activities largely ends up in the construction mate-
rials sinks (121 million t). Only 7 million t of excavated
200 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
earth are processed and used as construction material for civil
engineering.
Figure 1 shows that a total of 67.7 million t (32.2 million t +
10 million t + 18.5 million t + 7 million t) of recycled aggre-
gates are used in civil engineering.
Closed-loop recycling in structural engineering
The volume of aggregates that may be recycled in structural
engineering may now be estimated from the materials flows
that will be described in detail below.
For closed-loop recycling in structural engineering, con-
struction and demolition waste from civil engineering must
not be mixed with construction and demolition waste from
structural engineering (10 million t; Figure 1). This means that
these types of wastes have to be processed separately and
used in civil engineering exclusively. This is done to ensure
that no recycled aggregates from civil engineering, which could
possibly contain chloride, enter the structural engineering
sector and endanger the durability of the recycled concrete
(rc-concrete).
In addition, it is assumed that no aggregates for concrete
may be produced from the construction and demolition waste
that arises in the structural engineering sector and is disposed
of in the construction materials sinks (17 million t; Figure 1).
A major reason is the high heterogeneity of these mineral
wastes. Consequently, 32.7 million t of recyclable construction
and demolition waste from structural engineering may be sub-
jected to closed-loop recycling in this sector. For rc-concrete
production, it is only the old concrete, brick fractions and, to
a lesser extent, the lime sand brick that are of interest.
With regard to the composition, the 32.7 million t of dem-
olition waste contain a maximum of 22 million t of old con-
 Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany

Table 3: Concrete production with recycled aggregates (raw density of recycled concrete material: 2.32 kg dm–3, recycled brick material:
1.83 kg dm–3, gravel: 2.65 kg dm–3, and 0.72 m3 aggregate m–3 concrete.

Proportion of Concrete
Recycled Consumption Substitution
Type Type Limit for use recycled production
aggregates Limited of recycled of natural
Type composition composition in concrete aggregates with recycled
available element aggregates aggregates
(wt.%) (kg m–3) (vol.%) (kg m–3 aggregate
(million t) (million t) (million t)
concrete) (million m3)

Scenario 1
Type 1
Concrete 90 2033 45 658.7 15.0 Concrete 15.0
Bricks 10 226 73.2 4.8 1.7
Total, variant 1 19.8 16.7 22.8 19.6
Scenario 2
Type 2
Concrete 70 1503 35 378.8 15 11.2
Bricks 30 644 162.3 4.8 Bricks 4.8
19.8 16 29.6 19.8
and in addition
Type 1
Concrete 100 2320 45 751.7 3.8 Concrete 3.8 5.1 4.4
Bricks 0 0 0 0 0
3.8 3.8 5.1 4.4
Total, variant 2 19.8 34.7 24.2

crete and 7 million t brick (Weil 2004). It is assumed that
these concrete and brick fractions may be extracted from the
construction and demolition waste and separated from each
other. Regionally varying concrete/brick ratios are not taken
into account.
In fact the use of this total amount of 29 million t is sub-
ject to further limitations.
• For the production of rc-concrete, two types of aggregates
defined in DIN 4226-100 (2002) may be applied in the
future. The recycled aggregate type 1 must contain a min-
imum proportion of 90 wt.% concrete grittings and not
more than 10 wt.% brick grittings. Type 2 has to contain at
least 70 wt.% concrete grittings and a maximum of 30 wt.%
brick grittings. Other components, such as lightweight
mineral materials or ceramics, are limited to less than
1 wt.%
• According to the regulations (DAfStb, 6.E. 2002), the
maximum proportion of recycled material in the aggregate
for use in structural engineering is limited to 45% for type 1
(standardized and approved) and to 35% for type 2 (stand-
ardized, but not yet approved).
Mechanical crushing of the construction and demolition waste
not only give rise to the aggregates desired, but also creates
about 32 wt.% crushed stone fines (Weil 2004). However, as
it is of insufficient quality, this material may not be used in
concrete production and as a result the usable proportion of
old concrete decreases from 22 million to 15 million t. The
usable brick proportion drops from 7 million to 4.8 million t.
Hence, a total amount of 19.8 million t can be recycled
(Table 3). If no other recycling options exist for the crushed
stone fines of concrete and bricks (9.2 million t), these must
be disposed of properly (Figure 2).
Taking into account the limitations mentioned above, the
possible use of recycled aggregates or the possible substitu-
tion of gravel in concrete production was calculated for two
scenarios (Table 3).
Using type 1 in scenario 1, a total of 16.7 million t
(15 million t concrete and 1.7 million t bricks) from the con-
struction and demolition waste that otherwise would have
been applied in civil engineering can now be transferred to
reuse in structural engineering. Due to the smaller density of
recycled aggregates, 19.6 million t of gravel can thus be substi-
tuted in the structural engineering sector (scenario 1, Table 3).
The remaining 3.1 million t of bricks cannot be used for con-
crete production.
In scenario 2, the use of type 2 would allow for the use of
16 million t of recycled aggregates for concrete production
(11.2 million t concrete and 4.8 million t bricks). As a result,
19.8 million t of gravel can be substituted. Contrary to sce-
nario 1, an excess of 3.8 million t concrete remains and this
may be used as type 1 for concrete production. This would
allow another 4.4 million t of gravel to be substituted (sce-

Waste Management & Research 201

Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
M. Weil, U. Jeske, L. Schebek
Fig. 2: Changed mineral materials flows in the construction sector, Germany 1998.
nario 2, Table 3). Hence, the total amount of gravel substi-
tuted is 24.2 million t (Figure 2). This corresponds to 9.2%
of the total consumption of primary mineral resources in struc-
tural engineering.
In view of the advantages of scenario 2, it is recommended
to first use the brick-enriched type 2 for concrete production
under the given boundary conditions and, thus, to make use
of the complete closed-loop recycling potential. Doing this, a
maximum amount of primary aggregates can be substituted
in concrete production. As a prerequisite, however, type 2
still remains to be approved (DAfStb, 6.E. 2002).
Adverse effects of the use of recycled
aggregates
Scope of the system
Due to differences in the process chains of concrete produc-
tion both with and without recycled aggregates it cannot be
excluded that the production of rc-concrete will require an
additional material or energy expenditure that brings about
adverse effects as regards the saving of resources (mineral) and
higher energy-induced emissions.
To reveal such effects and propose optimization strategies,
if necessary, the different processes of concrete production
were compared. A LCA was drawn up (according to the LCA
standards in DIN 14040 ff.) and indicators were employed to
determine the relevant effects (Weil 2004).
The system boundaries of concrete production with a frac-
tion of recycled aggregates are obvious from Figure 3. The
system comprises the production of natural aggregates (V1.1
and V1.2), the production of concrete plasticizers and super-
plasticizers (V3), the supply of fly ash (V4), the production
202 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
of cement (V5), the transportation of concrete components
to the concrete production plant, the mixing of the concrete
components, and the production of recycled aggregates (V2).
These main processes are preceded by other processes: the
extraction of raw materials (e.g. limestone); the supply of elec-
tric energy or fuels; the production of intermediate products
(e.g. melamin for concrete plasticizers); and the production of
auxiliary and operation materials (e.g. lubricating oil, steel,
polyurethane foam). These are not shown in Figure 3. The pro-
duction of recycled aggregates additionally gives rise to small
amounts of iron scrap, which may be neglected (Weil 2004).
The systems for comparison, namely concrete with and
without recycled aggregates, only differ by the pre-chains of
the aggregates used; for example, the pre-chain of recycled
aggregates (V2) (Figure 3) is missing for concrete with natural
aggregates. The transportation distances of the natural and
recycled aggregates are assumed to be identical for simplifica-
tion. Nevertheless, the transport of aggregates is a sensitive
parameter that remains to be dealt with elsewhere.
To quantify the potential effects, the following indicators
for primary mineral resources and energy consumption as well
as for climatic effects were employed.
Primary mineral resources
• Indicator: consumption of primary mineral resources
(CMR) (kg). The indicator CMR does not only cover nat-
ural aggregates, but also the mineral raw materials needed
for cement production.
Energy
• Indicator: cumulated energy demand (CED) (MJ). The CED
accounts for the total primary energy expenditures (VDI
4600 (1995)). In addition, the CED is considered a lead
 Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany

Fig. 3: System boundaries of concrete production with a fraction of recycled aggregates.

indicator for energy-related impacts such as acidification,
eutrophication, and greenhouse effect.
Climate
• Indicator: global warming potential (GWP) (kg CO2 equiv.).
The GWP indicator comprises all air emissions which
contribute to the greenhouse effect. The GWP indicator
is also employed, because in cement production green-
house gas emissions result from energy consumption and
the deacidification reaction of limestone (CaCO3 → CaO +
CO2). The latter is not covered by the CED.
The comparison of the processes is based on identical sys-
tem functions. The functional unit used as a basis is ‘1 m3 of
fresh concrete for the construction sector’ with the following
parameters: strength class: B25 (nominal strength 25 N mm–2,
to be measured on a cube), consistency: KR (soft, flowing
capacity: 42 to 48 cm), use as indoor component.
Production of natural and recycled aggregates
To determine the data necessary for materials balancing, ear-
lier studies were performed by the first author (Weil 2004).
The data for gravel and sand (V1.1) were transmitted by a
plant for the wet extraction of gravel by means of a grab
The data for recycled aggregates (V2) originate from a
plant, in which impurities and adherent substances are removed
by wet cleaning from the processed construction and demoli-
tion waste after crushing. The aggregates are generated by
screening. The plant continuously produces recycled aggre-
gates that meet the high requirements for use in concrete pro-
duction.
Table 4 shows the indicator values for the different types
of aggregates. In comparison with gravel and sand, recycled
aggregates have a CED value that is higher by a factor of 1.6.
This is due to the higher energy expenditure for crushing and
intensive cleaning. The energy needed for the excavation of
gravel and sand is smaller. This is also reflected by the GWP
value that is higher by a factor of 1.7. The differences of CED
and GWP are due to varying ratios of use of electric energy
and diesel in the plants.
The CED and GWP values of the natural, but crushed
aggregates are moderate. This is plausible, as these aggregates
are crushed, but do not have to be cleaned.
Table 4: Indicator values of the different aggregates.
V1.1 V1.2 V2

dredger, a conventional extraction technology applied in Ger- 1t 1t 1t

many. Gravel and sand are subjected to slight cleaning only Gravel/sand Crushed natural Recycled
aggregates aggregates
and to classification by screening. The data for natural, crushed
CED (MJ) 34.5 44.6 55.0
aggregates (V1.2) were obtained from a plant that produces
GWP (kg) 2.2 3.1 3.7
the aggregates for concrete applications by crushing solid rock
CMR (kg) 1001 1000 0
and screening without cleaning.

Waste Management & Research 203

Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
M. Weil, U. Jeske, L. Schebek
Concrete production with natural and
recycled aggregates
In contrast to gravel, recycled aggregates among others pos-
sess an angular grain shape and a rough surface that adversely
affects the process-ability of the fresh concrete. This may be
compensated by an increased amount of matrix material (bind-
ing agent) and/or by reducing the shear resistance of the matrix
during processing. A suitable process-ability can be achieved
by an increased use of cement or fly ash (with cementing
agent properties) and a corresponding amount of water and/
or increased use of concrete plasticizers.
Consequently, concrete with natural aggregates and con-
crete with recycled aggregates usually have different cement-
ing agent compositions. This may lead to additional adverse
effects related to concrete with recycled aggregates, which
have to be analysed by balancing.
For balancing, three rc-concrete compositions and two
compositions with natural aggregates (gravel, crushed stones)
that have already been applied in the construction sector
were selected. For gravel concrete (concrete 4), the composi-
tion selected contains the minimum amount of cement
required for this concrete class of 240 kg (DIN 1045-2) at a
fly ash content of 70 kg. The compositions of the rc-concretes
differ by the cement content (RC1: 270 kg, RC2: 340 kg,
RC3: 240 kg), the fly ash fraction (RC1: 60 kg, RC2: 60 kg,
RC3: 80 kg), and the fraction of recycled aggregates (RC1
and 2: 35 vol.%, RC3: 50 vol.%). The increased cement con-
tent of the rc-concretes 1 and 2 and the increased fly ash
content of the rc-concrete 3 in comparison with the gravel
concrete are due to the technical reasons described.
Balancing also covers a crushed stone concrete (con-
crete 5), the cement content of which is 30 kg above the
Fig. 4: Comparison of the ecobalancing results obtained for concretes with and without recycled aggregates (per m³ concrete).
204 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
minimum cement amount required for this concrete class.
For all concretes analysed, a Portland cement (CEM 1) was
used and 1 to 1.2 kg of plasticizers were applied.
The two rc-concretes 1 and 2 contain 35 vol.% recycled
aggregates. In contrast to this, the rc-concrete 3 contains
50 vol.% recycled aggregates, which explains the small con-
sumption of mineral resources (1296 kg). Moreover, the rc-
concretes 1 and 2 need more cement than the concrete with-
out recycled aggregates (concrete 4). The production of rc-
concrete with an increased use of cement is associated with
an accordingly increased consumption of raw materials, mainly
limestone (raw material/average cement = 1.57). However,
as an adverse effect this higher raw material need is compara-
bly small when considering the amount of raw material saved
due to the use of recycled aggregates. Thus, rc-concretes are
characterized by a smaller consumption of primary mineral
raw materials (CMR) than concretes with natural aggregates.
The saving of primary mineral resources varies depending on
the fractions of aggregates and the cement content of the rc-
concretes and amounts to 24–44 wt.% of the result obtained
for gravel concrete (Figure 4)
The CED and GWP values of rc-concrete are slightly to
significantly higher in comparison with gravel concrete.
The shares of the individual processes for rc-concrete 3 (Fig-
ure 4) are exemplified by the greenhouse gas emissions
(GWP). They are 94% by cement production, 2% by the gen-
eration of the recycled aggregate, 1% by the generation of
gravel/sand, and 1% each or less by concrete plasticizers and
the transportation of recycled aggregate (20 km), gravel/sand
(20 km), and fly ash.
Due to the strong influence of the cement content on the
GWP (and CED) values, it is recommended to substitute

cement by the increased or additional use of fly ash and con-
crete plasticizers.
Conclusions and discussion
Due to the adoption of new legal regulations for soil and
groundwater protection in Germany, limit values for the reuse
of construction and demolition waste may be reduced in the
future, such that recycled aggregates from structural engi-
neering may only be used for civil engineering with strong
limitations. As it might no longer be possible to use this
recycling path, in the worst case this waste will have to be
disposed of on a landfill. This Germany-specific situation may
also be encountered in other EU member states in the fore-
seeable future, if the concept of preventive soil and ground-
water protection is incorporated in the EU legislation – a sit-
uation that is favoured by the German federal government
[UBA 2004].
To compensate for the possible limited use of processed
construction and demolition waste in civil engineering, a new
closed-loop recycling path in structural engineering may be
used. Recycled aggregates can be employed for concrete pro-
duction in the construction sector.
Analysis of the materials flows associated with this new
recycling path and a comparison of scenarios revealed that a
prior use of brick-enriched recycled aggregates is advanta-
geous for the production of rc-concrete. The theoretically
possible saving of mineral resources of 24.2 million t in struc-
tural engineering can only be reached by using this strategy.
However, the brick-enriched aggregate (type 2) defined in
DIN 4226-100 will have to be incorporated in the new regu-
lations for the production of concrete with recycled aggre-
gates (DAfStb, 6.E.2002).
The saving of resources by the use of recycled aggregates
in concrete production is based on the assumption that the
usable concrete and brick fractions can be extracted from
the construction and demolition waste and separated from
each other. Existing processing plants have been designed
for the removal of non-mineral impurities only and not for
the separation of the individual mineral construction mate-
rials. In the case in which processed construction and demo-
lition waste is to be reused in structural engineering to a
greater extent in the future, the various old mineral con-
struction materials will have to be sorted at the construction
site more often than is currently done. This can only be
achieved by a selective demolition of the building or con-
struction, but is necessary as processing plants can only sepa-
rate the different mineral fractions by their small density dif-
ferences and this can be an expensive process. However,
selective demolition is subject to limitations. Apart from the
technical limitations, time and cost aspects determine the
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany
degree of selective demolition and, hence, the purity of the
waste sorts.
If the concrete and brick fractions of the construction
and demolition waste can be reused in structural engineer-
ing, the processing will give rise to 9.2 million t of crushed
stone fines that cannot be subjected to closed-loop recy-
cling according to the existing regulations. If no new uses
can be found for these crushed stone fines, they will have to
be disposed of. The RECDEMO research project focuses
on whether the quality of the crushed stone fines can be
improved by a special processing technology to such an
extent that they can be used for the production of concrete
products.
For the case in which disposal of not only the crushed
stone fines, but also of the other mineral components of the
construction and demolition waste (e.g. mortars, plasters, floor
screeds, lightweight mineral materials) occurs by a closed-
loop recycling in structural engineering, the total amount of
resources saved (both in structural and civil engineering)
would not reach the amount saved by the currently practised
open-loop recycling.
Comparison of the ecobalancing results for concrete both
with and without recycled aggregates shows that the use of
recycled aggregates in concrete production reduces the con-
sumption of primary mineral resources (CMR) by up to 44%.
The higher material balancing values (CED, GWP) of the
recycled aggregate in comparison with the natural one do
not affect the final balancing results for rc-concretes. They
only amount to about 2 and 1% of the total CED and GWP
values of concrete, respectively.
For the case in which the cement amounts used for the
production of concrete with recycled aggregates are higher
than in a comparable concrete with natural aggregates, the
CED and GWP results exceed those of concrete with natural
aggregates by 36 and 39%, respectively. If fly ash and concrete
plasticizers are used in addition or instead of an increased
amount of cement to improve process-ability, the results nearly
correspond with those of gravel concrete.
When evaluating the CMR ecobalancing results and cal-
culating the saving of resources by materials flow analysis, it
is found that the maximum possible saving of resources of
24.2 million t would be decreased by a few percent only, if the
cement contents of the rc-concretes were increased (in com-
parison with fly ash).
Due to the strong influence of the cement volume on the
CED and GWP values, future research for the development
of construction materials should concentrate on equalizing
the cement contents of rc-concretes with those of compara-
ble gravel concretes. This may help avoid conflicts between
the saving of mineral resources, on the one hand, and the sav-
ing of energy resources and climate protection, on the other.
Waste Management & Research 205
M. Weil, U. Jeske, L. Schebek
References
Bundesverband Baustoffe – Steine und Erden -BBSE- (2000) Der Bedarf an
mineralischen Baustoffen – Gutachten über den künftigen Bedarf an
mineralischen Rohstoffen unter der Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes
von Recycling-Baustoffen.
Bertram, H.-U. (2003) Anforderungen an die Verwertung von mineralischen
Abfällen. Vortrag beim ‘Sprechtag Baggergut der HTG’. Bremen, 20.
Mai 2003.
Deisl, M. (1996) Recycling von Baureststoffen, Herstellung hochwertiger
Baustoffe aus Baurestmassen. Dissertation, Technische Universität Inns-
bruck und Technische Universität Wien.
Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton – DAfStb – Richtlinie (1998) Beton mit
rezykliertem Zuschlag. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (Hrsg.),
Beuth, Berlin, August 1998.
Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton – DAfStb – 6. Entwurf Richtlinie
(2002) Beton nach DIN EN 206-1 und DIN 1045-2 mit rezyklierten
Gesteinskörnungen nach 4226-100. Teil 1: Anforderungen an die
Betonzusammensetzung für die Bemessung nach DIN 1045-1. Deut-
sches Institut für Normung e.V. (Hrsg.), Beuth, Berlin, Oktober 2002.
Deutsches Institut für Normung -DIN- 1045-2 (2001) Tragwerke aus Beton,
Stahlbeton und Spannbeton – Teil 2: Beton –Festlegung, Eigenschaften,
Herstellung und Konformität – Anwendungsregeln zu DIN EN 2006-1.
Deutsches Institut für Normung -DIN- 4226-1 (2001) Gesteinskörnungen für
Beton und Mörtel – Teil 1: Normale und schwere Gesteinskörnungen.
Deutsches Institut für Normung -DIN- 4226-100 (2002) Gesteinskörnun-
gen für Beton und Mörtel – Teil 100: Rezyklierte Gesteinskörnungen.
Deutsches Institut für Normung -DIN- EN ISO 14040ff (1997) Ökobilanz –
Prinzipien und allgemeine Anforderungen.
Doetsch, P. and Leuchs, W. (2004) LAGA Mitteilung 20, Überarbeitung der
Zuordnungswerte Eluat im Rahmen der UAG ‘Bodenwerte’. Ergebnis-
vermerk im Dezember 2003 und Januar 2004.
Europäischer Abfallkatalog -EAK- (1996) Verordnung zur Einführung des
Europäischen Abfallkatalogs. September 1996.
Federal Statistical Office (2002) Erhebung über die Aufbereitung und
Verwendung von Bauschutt, Baustellenabfälle, Bodenaushub und
Straßenaufbruch 1998. Statistisches Bundesamt, April 2002.
206 Waste Management & Research
Downloaded from http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010
Grübl, P., Rühl, M. (1998) Der Einfluß von Recyclingzuschlägen aus Baus-
chutt auf die Frisch- und Festbetoneigenschaften und die Bewertung
hinsichtlich der Eignung für Baustellen- und Transportbeton nach
DIN 1045. Baustoffkreislauf im Massivbau (BIM), Teilprojekt E/03,
http://www.b-i-m.de.
Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall -LAGA- (1997, 2003) Anforderungen an
die Stoffliche Verwertung von mineralischen Reststoffen /Abfällen.
Technische Regeln, Stand November 2003.
Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall, Technische Regeln Boden – LAGA TR
Boden – (2003) Zuordnungswerte LAGA TR Boden (Entwurf vom
9.07.03), cit. in Doetsch und Leuchs (2004).
Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser -LAWA- (2002) Grundsätze des Grund-
wasserschutzes bei der Abfallverwertung und Produkteinsatz (GAP-
Papier), Entwurffassung.
Krass, K., Jungfeld, I., Trogisch, H. (2002) Anfall, Aufbereitung und Verw-
ertung von Recycling-Baustoffen und industriellen Nebenprodukten
im Wirtschaftsjahr 1999. Strasse und Autobahn, Januar/Februar 2002.
Kreislaufwirtschaftsträger Bau -KWTB- (2001) Monitoring-Bericht Bauabfälle
– Erhebung: 1998.
RECDEMO: Vollständige Verwertung der Sandfraktion aus dem Bau-
schuttrecycling. EU-Life Projekt, http://www.recdemo.bam.de/.
Schulz, I. (2004) Vortrag ‘Probleme der Recyclingindustrie mit Grenzwerten’.
3. Kolloquium Rohstoffgewinnung und Umwelt. RWTH Aachen, April
2004. In: Baustoffrecycling und Deponietechnik, Nr. 5/2004.
Umweltbundesamt -UBA- (2004) Hintergrundinformation: Bodenschutz in
der Europäischen Union (EU) voranbringen, Berlin, November 2004.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) 4600 (1995) Kumulierter Ener-
gieaufwand Begriffe, Definitionen, Berechnungsmethoden.
Weber, J. (2001) Bestandsaufnahme zur Umweltverträglichkeit von RC-
Baustoffen – Ein Beitrag zur Produktdefinition. In Tagungsdokumenta-
tion der Recycling-Baustoff-Tage in Berlin, November 2001.
Weil, M. (2004) Ressourcenschonung und Umweltentlastung bei der Beton-
herstellung durch Nutzung von Bau- und Abbruchabfällen. WAR-Pub-
likation 160, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Dissertation.