Recycled Aggregates-An

environmentally friendly management

for the Athens urban area
Tsakalakis K.G., Assistant Professor NTUA,
kostsakg@metal.ntua.gr

Co-Authors:

Frangiskos A.Z., Emeritus Professor NTUA

Karka H., Researcher NTUA
Presented at IX Balkan Mineral Processing Congress
"New Developments in Mineral Processing", Istanbul 2001

Recycled Aggregates-An environmentally friendly management for the Athens urban area
Tsakalakis K.G.
National Technical University of Athens, Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering
Frangiskos, A.Z.
Emeritus Professor, National Technical University of Athens
Karka H.
Dr. Architect, Researcher National Technical University of Athens

ABSTRACT: In the present work we investigate the possibility to recover aggregates from the obsolete
asphalt pavement or derived from construction and demolition debris in order to be reused in other
construction applications.
Aggregates recycling from recovered asphalt pavement and demolished concrete debris conserves
resources and landfill space, while also generating certain profits for the recyclers. Recycling can be
performed either at a permanent facility or at the demolition site, using mobile equipment.
A sustainable recycling industry requires numerous factors, including sufficient concrete and asphalt
decay and demolition to supply the recycling facilities with raw materials, demand for new infrastructure,
favorable transportation distances, product acceptance by the users, and limited landfill place.
In Athens area much of the infrastructure, particularly residential buildings in the city center, has been
constructed after the second world war and almost sixty years later has become or is going to become
during the next years obsolete. That is the reason that they, before long, would be in need of replacement
or repair. The todays practice for the demolished infrastructure in Greece is to be disposed in landfills.
But due to strict environmental regulations and the relative legislation (opening new quarries, limited
disposal areas) applied for the Attica area, the demolition debris might be recycled and reused in road or
other construction applications. The above common practice is applied to a case study referred to the
management of the demolition debris generated by the earthquake, occurred in Athens two years ago.
INTRODUCTION
Europe went ahead in developing and applying
recycling techniques from construction debris
after the end of 2nd World War when massive
amounts of war-ravaged infrastructure required
replacement.
But in Europe today, the construction and
demolition waste constitutes a highly significant
proportion of all wastes. It is well known that
those wastes have a very high recovery potential,
as shown by the pilot projects carried out and the
action taken in some Member States, which have
achieved recycling levels of more than 80%.
However, the fact is that only a small
proportion (about 25-30%) of this waste is
actually recovered in the European Union (DG
ENV.E.3, 2000) as a whole (Table 1). At more
than 180 million tones per year the construction
and demolition debris constitutes the third largest
in quantitative terms waste stream in the

European Union, following the mining and farm

wastes.
Table 1. Recycling Aggregates in the E-U
Member
State

(m
tonnes,
rounded),

% ReUsed or
Recycled

%
Incinerated
or
Landfilled

Germany

59

17

83

UK

30

45

55

France
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
Greece
Sweden
Finland
Ireland
Luxembourg
EU-15

24
20
13
11
7
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
180

15
9
<5
90
87
41
<5
81
<5
21
45
<5
n/a
28

85
91
>95
10
13
59
>95
19
>95
79
55
>95
n/a
72

Roughly 75% of the waste is landfilled and

25% of this waste is recycled. It has been proven
from technical point of view and by economic
feasibility, that recycling aggregates is not only
attainable but profitable as well. The above fact
enabled certain Member States (and particular
Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium) to
achieve recycling rates of more than 80%. The
South European countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal
and Greece) recycle very little proportion (lower
than 10%) of this waste.
Presently the recycling rate for asphalt
pavement is approximately 85 percent. Recycled
aggregates are, however, increasingly being used
to supplement natural aggregates in road
construction in a variety of applications.
In the U.S.A the majority of the States allow
their use in road base applications in other cases
for backfill, 8 States for portland cement mix, and
7 States for top-course asphalt and selected other
applications. Recycled aggregates are commonly
used in lower quality product applications such as
road base, where recycled aggregates meet or
exceed the specifications. This product is
presently often not considered acceptable for
higher quality product applications such as highstrength concrete because of performance
considerations and perception of some decision
makers.
Currently, more than 50 percent of all cement
concrete debris and about 20 percent of all asphalt
pavement debris end up in landfills. An estimated
85 percent of all cement concrete debris, which is
recycled is used as road base material, with minor
amounts used in asphaltic concrete and fill
material.
About 90 percent of asphalt pavement debris that
is recycled is reused to make asphaltic concrete
mixtures.
Recycled aggregates currently account for less
than 1 percent of the total demand for construction
aggregates, but the amount recycled is thought to
be increasing.
Aggregate recycling rates are greatest in urban
areas where replacement of infrastructure is
occurring, natural aggregate resources are limited,
disposal costs are high, or strict environmental
regulations prevent disposal.
In Figure 1 are shown the Construction aggregates
sources, distribution and life cycle (after Wilburn
and Goonan, U.S.G.S, 1998)

Recycled
Aggregates
Natural
Aggregates
(Quarrying)

Construction
(Residential,
Commercial)

Landfill

Infrastructure
construction (Roads,
bridges, tunnels)

Recycle

Losses to the
environment (Air,
water, soils)

Figure 1. Construction aggregates sources,

distribution and life cycle (after Wilburn and
Goonan, U.S.G.S, 1998)
The construction materials sector is a vital sector
in the Greek economy (Tsakalakis, 2001).
THE AGGREGATES RECYCLING INDUSTRY
Factors influencing the aggregates recycling
industry
Urbanization and large scale construction projects
for the preparation of Olympic Games 2004 has
generated a high demand for construction
(natural) and low-cost aggregates (road base
material). Additionally the increased quantities of
construction debris may provide other sources of
aggregates. The factors, which must be taken into
2

account for the elaboration of an aggregatesrecycling industry are:

1. The high demand for construction
aggregates due to urbanization
2. The quantities of the construction debris
generated
3. The impact by local and regional
conditions
4. The market specifications for the products
5. The transportation distances and the costs
for construction and demolition
6. The competition from the natural
aggregates producers
7. The availability of local landfills
8. The plant characteristics (location, design,
capacity) have a significant impact on
economic performance
9. The characteristics of the feed material
(quantities supplied, consistency and
quality) affect plant efficiency
10. The availability of skilled labor
11. The cost of the equipment, labor and
overhead
12. The expected revenues based on product
pricing and tipping fees are also a very
factor affecting undertaking success

4. Receiving government subsidies or

recycling mandates
Incentives
aggregates

1. Increasing tipping fees

2. Charging higher product prices
3. Locating their plants in such an area in
order to gain transportation cost
advantages over competitors

for

recycling

1. Incentives

The production cost plays a significant role on the

viability of an aggregates recycling industry, but
this cost depends on many factors, which are
summarized in:

But it has been proved from various case

studies that, even small capacity recyclers
can achieve economic viability by:

deterrents

The success of aggregates industry varies by State

and municipality and depends highly on the
support offered by the public opinion and the
relative legislation.
There are not only incentives, but deterrents as
well for the aggregates recycling industry
(Wilburn and Goonan, 1998).

Production cost and viability of the recycling

aggregates industry

1. The annual capacity of the plant (Low

annual
capacity
causes
increased
production cost because of the economics
of scale
2. Tipping charges or fees
3. Product price
4. Transportation cost, which is closely
associated with the feed stock acquisition

and

Recycling may reduce the amount

of construction debris sent and
disposed of in landfills
May reduce the rate of depletion of
natural resources and extend the
life of natural resources by
supplementing resource supply
Recycling
reduces
the
environmental disturbance from the
open-pit mining operation for the
aggregates production
Enhance sustainable development
of our natural resources
Causes energy and cost savings by
reducing
construction
and
maintenance cost
An abundant supply makes the
venture attractive not only for the
supplier but for the construction
contractor as well

2. Deterrents

If large quantities of natural

aggregates are available
The
limited
control
over
production and demand
The high capital requirements
The inadequate public support

There are also other critical factors making a

recycling aggregates industry non-profitable
and insecure.

The improper site design and process

layout
3

The improper equipment and operator

efficiency

RECYCLING AGGREGATES IN GREECE

As it was mentioned above, there is only a small
activity towards aggregates recycling in Greece.
This is, first of all, due to the great availability of
natural-aggregate resources. The major area of
Greece consists of carbonaceous rocks suitable for
natural aggregates production.
But, the increase of urbanization, the strict
environmental regulations in opening and
operating new quarries close to urban areas and
the great seismicity of Greece indirectly
generating concrete debris, offered an evident
warrant for this work.
This warrant was given from the strong
earthquake, which struck the Athens area
generating a high volume of concrete debris and
the need to be effectively managed. These debris
possessed a high-value potential providing a
sound opportunity for the growth of the
aggregates recycling industry in Greece.
CASE STUDY
Definition of the problem
On Tuesday (September 7, 1999) an earthquake of
magnitude 5.9 (Richter) struck the northern
suburbs of Athens, Greece. The earthquake left
close to 125 dead and more than 100.000 without
homes. The unemployment rose to 30000 persons
in affected areas immediately.
Until September 14, 1999, the 56.000 dwellings
visited by the state inspectors were classified on a
three- color system and the split was as follows:
Red: Buildings with dangerous structure required
demolition, 11% (about 6000)
Yellow: Buildings with damaged structure not
suitable to be used as dwellings, 39% (about
22000) and
Green: Buildings with minor damage, which
could be occupied, 50% (about 28000).
More than 100 buildings (including three great
industrial facilities) were fully collapsed during
the earthquake.
Assumptions
If 6000 buildings were in need of demolition and
200 m3 / building was the mean reinforced-

concrete volume, which could be produced from

the demolition, then the total volume of concrete
debris would be:
6000x200 m3= 1200000 m3
The total weight of the concrete could be:
1200000x2.5 t= 3000000 t of concrete debris (2.5
t/ m3 the concrete specific gravity).
If this material was recycled by crushing and
sizing in a processing plant and the recovery after
processing was only 60%, then the material,
which could be sold, arises to:
3000000 t x 0.6 = 1800000 t
The above recovered material possesses a volume
of 1800000 t / 2 t/ m3 = 900000 m3 and it can be
used as road base material for the road
construction activity.
If in the Athens urban area for the road
construction activity, which is about 100 km
annually of 20 m width roads (here it is included
the new roads for the Athens 2004 Olympic
Games), the road base material (thickness 0.4 m)
annually needed is:
100000 m x 20 m x 0.4 m = 800000 m3
The material from the recycling of earthquake
debris produced from two plants of 250000 t or
125000 m3 annual capacity (distributed in 6 years
production) is:
(900000 m3 / 800000 m3 ) / 6 = 1.125 / 6 = 0.1875
or 18.75% of the whole annually needed.
Pre-feasibility study
Here it is examined, using the known economic
evaluation techniques, the profitability of such an
investment. The assumptions made for this
evaluation are:
Operation capacity (annual): 250000 t / plant
Construction time period: 2 years
Capital: 0% Borrowed money (only equity
capital)
Land requirement: 40000 m2 / plant
Cash flow period: 12 years
Rate of return: Uknown (searched)
Depreciation period: 6 years
4

Tax rate: 40% (35% federal and 5% municipality

tax)
Production schedule: 1 shift per day ( 8h/shift), 5
days per week.

Production period (n years)

X1

It is already known (Wilburn and Goonan, 1998),

that for a medium capacity plant of an operation
capacity (annual) 250000 t, the capital cost is 1.2
million $ (purchase of new equipment).
The other operational estimations for such an
investment, applied to the cost in Greece, are:
Operation Capacity:
250000 t / year
Capital Cost:
1.2 million $
Working Capital:
120000 $
Salvage value (after 12 years): 72000 $
Depreciation / year:
200000 $
Operating Cost (Labor, Equipment Maintenance,
Fuel, Supplies and Fees), $/t of feed material:
0.75 $/t
(-)
Landfill fee of the residues after processing,
$/t of feed material:
0.14 $/t
(-)
Tipping fee credit ($/t of feed material):
0.25 $/t
(+)
Gain from the recovery of steel bars
($/t of feed material)*:
0.72 $/t
(+)
Market price ($/t final product):
2.50 $/t
(+)
* It is assumed that, for old constructions
(dwellings), the total steel bars load (reinforced
concrete) was 60 kg / m3 concrete. If 80% of these
bars are recovered by magnetic separation
methods during the recycling process (crushing
and screening), then the material recovered from
the total feed is:
1200000 m3 concrete x 60 kg / m3 x 0.8 =
5.76x107 kg steel bars .
The market price for this material sold as scrap is
0.0375 $/kg. Thus, the gain totally is:
0.0375 $/kg x 5.76x107 kg = 2.16 million $. If it is
projected for 1t of feed material then the gain
becomes:
2.16 million $ / 3x106 t = 0.72 $/t feed material

X2

X2

X2

(+)

(-)

1
Q1

X1

Q2

10

11

Q3

Plant erection
time (two years)

Figure 2. Time diagram for the annual cash flow

Annual cash flow
Using the amortization schedule to prepare a
before-tax time diagramm of expenses and income
from the project we have Figure 2.
The next step is the calculation of the after-tax
annual cash flow and set up a present worth
equation to solve for the DCF-ROR i.
1. Depreciation period (6 years)
Assuming that the annual income X1 remains
constant for the recycling time period (6 years)
and X2 for the rest 6 years (Figure 2), then the
annual gross profit (net plant return operating
costs) is:
250000 t x 0.6 (recovery after processing) x 2.5
$/t + (0.25 + 0.72) $/t x 250000 t (0.75+0.14)
$/t x 250000 t = 395000 $ (annual gross profit).
The annual cash flow for the depreciation period
(after tax) is:
+ 395000 $ (Gross profit)
- 200000 $ Depreciation (straight line)
+ 195000 $ Taxable income
- 78000 $ Taxes (effective rate 40%)
+ 117000 $ Net Profit
+ 200000 $ Depreciation
X1 = + 317000 $ Annual cash flow for the
depreciation period (after tax)

2. Annual cash flow after depreciation

(rest 6 years of plant lifetime)
The annual cash flow, after the depreciation is
completed, becomes:
+ 395000 $ (Gross profit)
+ 395000 $ Taxable income
- 158000 $ Taxes (effective rate 40%)
+ 237000 $ Net Profit
X2 = + 237000 $ Annual cash flow after the
depreciation period (after tax)
3. Set up of the present worth equation
The equation used for the calculation of N.P.V.
(net present value) for the investment described
is:
X1
X1
+ ... +
+
3
(1 + i )
(1 + i )8
1
X2
X2
.. +
+ (W + S )
9
n+2
(1 + i )
(1 + i )
(1 + i ) n + 2
1
1
Q1 Q2
Q3
1+ i
(1 + i ) 2

(1 + i )6 1
(1 + i )6 1
+

+
X
2
i (1 + i )6 + 2
i (1 + i ) n + 2
1
1
(2)
+ (W + S )
Q1 Q2

n+2
(1 + i )
1+ i
1
Q3
=0
(1 + i ) 2
N .P.V . = X 1

If Q1 , Q2 and Q3 were 500000 $, 350000 $ and

350000 $, respectively and n = 12 years (6+6
years), then the equation for solution becomes:
(1 + i )6 1
(1 + i )6 1
+
237000

i (1 + i )6+ 2
i (1 + i )12+ 2
1
+ (120000 + 72000)
500000
(1 + i )12 + 2
1
1
350000
350000
=0
1+ i
(1 + i ) 2
317000

(3)

Solving equation (3) for i yields:

N .P.V . =

i = 0.178 or 17.8%

(1)

where:
X 1 , X 2 annual cash flow as above
i rate of return
W working capital
S salvage value
Q1 capital investment at the beginning of the first
year
Q2 capital investment at the beginning of the
second year
Q3 capital investment at the end of the second
year
n years of plant lifetime
In order to calculate the discounted cash flow rate
of return (DCF-ROR) I, the value of N.P.V. in
Equation (1) must be set equal to zero. Thus by
rearranging Equation (1) becomes:

The value of discounted cash flow rate of return

(DCF-ROR) i indicates that the investment, under
the conditions already referred, is profitable. If the
money invested was also to some extent (50%)
borrowed money and it was also taken into
account the annual inflation (3-5%), the DCFROR would be lower than 17.8% but the
investment continues to be profitable.
It must be underlined here that after the initial
six-years time period the material available for
recycling must be sufficient to meet the present
industry demand. In any case it is expected that
the aggregates recycling industry will continue to
be viable due to the infrastructure decay and the
need for replacement.
CONCLUSIONS
The trend towards urbanization in Greece and the
great demand for low-cost aggregates gives a
strong reason for recycling aggregates generated
from the demolition of our obsolete infrastructure.
The strict environmental regulations applied to
the opening and operation of new quarries, close
to the urban areas, the transportation costs and the
landfill fees are also very significant reasons.
The market price of the product, the tipping
fees credit, the availability and acquisition of feed
6

material detemine among others the profitabiltiy

of such an operation.
From this work, it has been proved that, based
only upon economic considerations, aggregate
recycling is an attractive and profitable operation.
The aggregate recycling would start in Greece and
the great availability of resources must not be an
inhibitory factor.
On a limited area basis (urban areas), it is
unlikely that recycling could ever completely
replace natural aggregates in certain applications,
such as road base material in road construction.
But, there are many problems related to the
plant site location, the permits, the support by the
State and the municipality and the legislation
ensuring the profitability of such an investment.

Frangiskos A.Z., The Mining Enterprise

(Feasibility Study, Economic Assessment,
Mining Investments), NTUA, p.122, Athens,
1994.

REFERENCES
Wilburn R.D. and Goonan, Aggregates from
Natural and recycled Sources, Economic
Assessments for Construction Applications- A
material Flow Analysis, U.S.G.S Circular
1176, p. 40, 1998.
Tsakalakis K.G.and Frangiskos, A.Z., Principles
of Economic Evaluation for Mining Investment
Projects, General Aspects, Mining and
Metallurgical Annals, Vol. 71, pp.17-36, ),
1989, (in Greek).
Tsakalakis K.G. and Frangiskos, A.Z., Principles
of Economic Evaluation for Mining Investment
Projects and Application in Mineral
Processing Plant Design, Mining and
Metallurgical Annals, Vol. 72, 1989, (in
Greek).
Tsakalakis K.G., The important Role of the Greek
Cement and Concrete Industry and new Trends
towards
the
environmentally
friendly
Production and Use of Cement and Concrete,
Mining and Metallurgical Annals, Vol. 10,
Issue 2, 2001, pp. 79-89, (in Greek).
European
Commission
Directorate-General
Environment, Directorate E- Industry and
Environment ENV.E.3-Waste Management,
Management of Construction and demolition
Waste, DG ENV.E.3, April 2000.
Frangiskos A.Z., Design and Construction of
Mineral Processing Plants (Plant Design),
NTUA, p. 323, Athens, 1992.
7