Tanzania

Our reference: RECYCL 2637 P-authorquery-v9
AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Journal: RECYCL Please e-mail or fax your responses and any corrections to:
E-mail: corrections.esch@elsevier.thomsondigital.com
Article Number: 2637 Fax: +353 6170 9272
Dear Author,
Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen
annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than
Adobe Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF file. To ensure fast publication of your paper please
return your corrections within 48 hours.
For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions.
Any queries or remarks that have arisen during the processing of your manuscript are listed below and highlighted by flags in
the proof. Click on the Q link to go to the location in the proof.
Location in Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go

article Please insert your reply or correction at the corresponding line in the proof
Reference(s) given here were noted in the reference list but are missing from the text please position
each reference in the text or delete it from the list.
Q1 Please confirm that given names and surnames have been identified correctly.
Q2 Refs. PRB (2009), BS 812 (Parts 13) (1975), BS 882 (Part 3) (1975), TPCC (2007), NEN-EN 772-1
(2000), TZS 258 (2002) (E), and TZS 789 (2003) are cited in the text but not provided in the reference
list. Please provide it/them in the reference list or delete these citations from the text.
Q3 Uncited references: This section comprises references that occur in the reference list but not in the body
of the text. Please position each reference in the text or, alternatively, delete it. Any reference not dealt
with will be retained in this section.
Please check this box if you have no

corrections to make to the PDF file
Thank you for your assistance.

G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2012) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Highlights

Concrete block production from construction and demolition waste in
Tanzania
M.M. Sabai , M.G.D.M. Cox, R.R. Mato, E.L.C. Egmond, J.J.N. Lichtenberg
Construction and demolition waste was recycled into building materials in Tanzania. Eight samples of masonry rubble were recycled
in to concrete blocks. 85% of concrete blocks that tested were reached minimum requirements. Construction and demolition waste has
potential to produce building materials in Tanzania.
RECYCL 2637 1
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
1 Concrete block production from construction and demolition waste in Tanzania

2 Q1 M.M. Sabai a, , M.G.D.M. Cox a , R.R. Mato b , E.L.C. Egmond a , J.J.N. Lichtenberg a
a
3 Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
b
4 Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
5
6 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
7
8 Article history: In Tanzania, construction and demolition (C&D) waste is not recycled and knowledge on how it can
9 Received 4 July 2011 be recycled especially into valuable products like building materials are still limited. This study aimed
10 Received in revised form at investigating the possibility of recycling the C&D waste (mainly cementitious rubble) into building
11 12 November 2012
material in Tanzania. The building materials produced from C&D waste was concrete blocks. The con-
12 Accepted 8 December 2012
crete blocks were required to have a load bearing capacity that meets the building material standards
13
and specications. Eight C&D waste samples were collected from C&D building sites, transported to the
14 Keywords:
recycling site, crushed, and screened (sieved) to get the required recycled aggregates. Natural aggregates
15 Construction and demolition waste
16 Recycling
were also used as control. The recycled aggregates were tested in the laboratory following the standard
17 Building materials methods as specied in Tanzanian standards. The physical, mechanical and chemical characteristics were
18 Concrete block determined. The physical and mechanical results showed that recycled aggregates were weaker than nat-
19 Tanzania ural aggregates. However, chemically they were close to natural aggregates and therefore suitable for
use in new concrete block production. In the production process, each experiment utilized 100% recycled
aggregates for both ne and coarse portions to replace natural aggregates. The Fullers maximum density
theory was used to determine the mix proportions of materials in which a method that species con-
crete mix by system of proportion or ratio was used. The concrete blocks production processes included
batching, mixing (that was done manually to get homogeneous material), compacting and moulding by
hand machine and curing in water. After 28 days of curing, the concrete blocks were tested in the labo-
ratory on compressive strength, water absorption ratio and density. The results showed that the blocks
produced with 100% recycled aggregates were weaker than those with natural aggregates. However, the
results also showed that there is a possibility of recycling the C&D waste into building material because
85% of the tested concrete block specimens from recycled aggregates achieved a compressive strength
of 7 N/mm2 , which is dened as the minimum required load bearing capacity in Tanzania. Therefore, the
C&D waste could be a potential resource for building material production for sustainable construction in
Tanzania rather than discarding it. Further work should focus on the economic feasibility of production
of concrete blocks with recycled aggregates in Tanzania.
2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.
20 1. Introduction materials is encouraged by the Tanzanian Government, given the 31
fact that there is a decit of materials like cement. While building 32
21 Shelter is one of the basic needs of human beings. Throughout materials are already limited in many countries, their demand 33
22 the ages, people have exploited natural resources to produce increases daily. In Tanzania, for example, the aggregate demand 34
23 building materials to construct shelter. Even nowadays, almost is approximated to be 2 tonnes per capita annually (Sabai et al., 35
24 all locally available building materials are derived from natural 2011b). The situation in other countries is 11 tonnes/ca in New 36
25 resources (Lowton, 1997). This practice continues today despite Zealand, 5 tonnes/ca in the UK and 8 tonnes/ca in the US (Kirby 37
26 the many challenges facing current and future generations regard- and Gaimster, 2008). The average global aggregate demand is 38
27 ing the availability of building materials. The share of locally 3.8 tonnes/ca yearly (WBCSD, 2009). The relatively low demand in 39
28 available materials used to produce building materials in Tanzania Tanzania compared to other countries may be attributed to the fact 40
29 is 47% (NCC, 1992); the rest is imported, which puts signicant that about 80% of the population live in rural areas (URT, 2003), 41
30 strain on the countrys economic situation. Importation of building whereas studies show that aggregates are consumed mostly in 42
urban rather than in rural areas (Kimambo, 1988). 43
It is estimated that the current population of Tanzania (approx- 44
Corresponding author at: PO Box 513, Vertigo 7.09, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The imately 43 million) will triple by the year 2050. Moreover, 75% of 45
Netherlands. Tel.: +31 402473380/634745104; fax: +31 402475887. the population will by then live in urban areas (PRB, 2009). This Q2 46
E-mail addresses: m.m.sabai@tue.nl, mmsabai@yahoo.com (M.M. Sabai). condition suggests that the dramatic growth of population will put 47
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.003
Please cite this article in press as: Sabai MM, et al. Concrete block production from construction and demolition waste in Tanzania. Resour
Conserv Recy (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
2 M.M. Sabai et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2012) xxxxxx
48 pressure on the provision of shelter and the availability of build- places especially in developed countries. However, in developing 114
49 ing materials like the predominantly used concrete blocks in the countries, such as Tanzania, the C&D waste is still regarded as waste 115
50 future. It is estimated that concrete blocks constitute 70% of the to be dumped into dumping sites or thrown elsewhere, despite its 116
51 total building materials produced in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. recycling potential (EU Commission, 2000; Hansen, 1992; Masood 117
52 In addition, the construction industry is a wasteful sector: it et al., 2002). Knowledge on recycling cementitious rubble into 118
53 is responsible for generating construction and demolition (C&D) building materials is still limited in developing countries like Tan- 119
54 waste of approximately 4050% of the total amount of waste (Dolan zania that have limited funds and technology. This study aimed 120
55 et al., 1999; Macozoma, 2002; McDonald, 1996; Oikonomou, 2005). at investigating the possibility of recycling the C&D waste (mainly 121
56 Besides the waste from normal C&D activities, other causes like cementitious rubble) into concrete blocks as a material for build- 122
57 war, bombing, and structural failures as well as natural disasters ing construction in Tanzania instead of throwing it away or using 123
58 like, earthquakes (e.g., in Italy (2009), Haiti (2010), Chile (2010), it for lower applications like inlling potholes or foundation back- 124
59 New Zealand (2011) and Japan (2011)), avalanches, and tornadoes lling. The rubble from construction and demolition buildings will 125
60 also contribute to the massive generation of C&D waste nowadays. be collected and processed to get ne and coarse aggregates which 126
61 Tanzania is also vulnerable to these natural (e.g., the earthquake in will be used in the production of concrete blocks. These concrete 127
62 June, 2011) and man-made disasters like, the bomb blasts which blocks from recycled aggregates were required to have a load bear- 128
63 occurred recently at Mbagala (2009) and Gongolamboto (2011) in ing capacity that meet the (local) building material standards and 129
64 Dar es Salaam, which left hundreds of houses demolished. Apart specications. 130
65 from the human distress, a challenging question remains regarding The remaining sections of the paper are divided as follows: Sec- 131
66 how to deal with this issue of a massive amount of waste. tion 2 presents the state-of-the-art of concrete block production 132
67 According to Conceico Leite et al.s (2011), one third of C&D from recycled aggregates in Tanzania. Section 3 describes materials 133
68 waste generated in Sao Paul city, Brazil is land-lled and the rest is and methods with the results presented in Section 4. The discussion 134
69 illegally disposed. The US recycles up to 70% while The Netherlands of results is presented in Section 5 with conclusions in Section 6. 135
70 and Germany recycle up to 90% of C&D waste generated (Conceico

71 Leite et al., 2011). Rao et al. (2007) reported that 30% of recycled
72 C&D waste in Taiwan is used for road construction as road base and 2. State-of-the-art of concrete block production from 136
73 the rest is land-lled. In most of the developing countries like Tan- recycled aggregates in Tanzania 137
74 zania, the management of C&D waste remains a challenge because

75 it is classied as solid waste and it is land-lled instead of being 2.1. Requirements for concrete block production from recycled 138
76 reused and/or recycled (URT, 2003, 2004). Dumping C&D waste puts aggregates in Tanzania 139
77 pressure on acquisition of the land and its management in future.

78 All in all, the use of C&D waste for building material production The study was carried out in Dar es Salaam region (which com- 140
79 can be a good solution not only for waste management but also for prises three municipalities, namely: Temeke, Ilala, and Kinondoni) 141
80 providing an alternative source for building materials. because about 44% of construction activities are conducted in Dar 142
81 Various studies have already been carried out to nd out how es Salaam out of 29 regions in Tanzania (Sabai et al., 2011b). The 143
82 the C&D waste can be reused for building material production. search for requirements of concrete blocks with load bearing capac- 144
83 Mueller et al. (2008) reported that the reuse/recycle of C&D waste ity as per Tanzania was rst conducted. This search was carried 145
84 depends on quality of constituents and the products. Bianchini et al. out in order to establish the minimum material requirements that 146
85 (2005) studied how best to reuse the recycled aggregates for con- have to be met while using recycled aggregates for concrete block 147
86 crete production. These researchers also found out that grain size production with a load bearing capacity. For this purpose, the rele- 148
87 fraction ranges between 0.125 and 0.600 mm of recycled aggre- vant stakeholders were identied and consulted. These included 149
88 gates can be directly re-utilized as rst order material. Limbachiya concrete block manufacturers, contractors and consultants, the 150
89 et al. (2007) and Oikonomou (2005) reported that by using 30% of Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS), research institutions Uni- 151
90 recycled coarse aggregates to replace natural aggregates in con- versity of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), Ardhi University (ARU), National 152
91 crete products, these products can comply with the specications. Housing and Building Research Agency (NHBRA), as well as National 153
92 Husken (2010) used up to 20% ne recycled aggregates to replace Construction Council (NCC), informal sectors, and clients who were 154
93 natural aggregates for paving block production and produced the represented by the National Housing Cooperation (NHC). 155
94 paving blocks that full the requirements given by EN 1338 on The Tanzanian standard for concrete blocks (TZS 283, 2002 (E)) 156
95 mechanical resistance and durability. Poon et al. (2002) replaced was purchased from TBS. Structured and non-structured question- 157
96 ne and coarse natural aggregates by recycled aggregates at lev- naires were sent to 58 different building contractors, consultants, 158
97 els varying between 25 and 100% and they found that up to 50% and concrete blocks manufacturers/producers out of 544 who were 159
98 replacement had only little effect on the compressive strength of identied as carrying out the construction activities in Dar es 160
99 bricks and blocks, but above this value the compressive strength Salaam city. The approximately 10% interviewed gave the represen- 161
100 becomes unacceptable. Poon and Lam (2008) reported that they tative information about how construction activities are carried out 162
101 successfully used recycled materials to produce eco-friendly con- in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. It was learnt that the materials currently 163
102 crete blocks with good quality by using 100% recycled materials used in Tanzania for concrete blocks are extracted from natural (vir- 164
103 as aggregates: 50% recycled crushed glass (RCG) and 50% recycled gin) sources and the use of recycled building materials from C&D 165
104 crushed aggregate (RCA) together with an aggregates/cement (A/C) waste is relatively new. Moreover, there is no standard for recycled 166
105 ratio of 4 or below. Debieb and Kenai (2008) investigated the pos- building material products. Thus, for the newly recycled concrete 167
106 sibility to reuse coarse and ne crushed bricks as aggregate in blocks to be accepted in the Tanzanian construction industry, they 168
107 concrete production, and found that the level of substitution should should meet the available standards which are commonly applied 169
108 be limited to 25% and 50% for coarse and ne crushed brick aggre- to the virgin materials. Information from surveyed stakeholders 170
109 gates respectively. The study Poon et al. (2009) showed that the were used for planning the tests that were used subsequently 171
110 low grade recycled ne aggregates can replace natural aggregates applied to determine whether the building materials obtained from 172
111 by 50% to make non-structural pre-cast concrete blocks. These stud- recycling C&D waste in Tanzania were of comparable quality to 173
112 ies show that much effort has been made to recycle the C&D waste those produced from virgin materials as specied in the building 174
113 into building material particularly concrete products in different material standards. 175
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
M.M. Sabai et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2012) xxxxxx 3
Table 1
Survey results for concrete block production and testing in Tanzania.
Item Unit Value Standard (TZS 283, 2002 (E)) Load bearing capacitya
Source of materials (i.e. aggregates) Natural resources

Concrete block mixing ratio Cement:aggregates ratio (by volume) 1:7 up to 1:14
Compressive strength N/mm2 11.6 down to 2.1 3.5 7.0
Testing method Laboratory testing % 20
Local techniquesb % 80
a
Source: Survey respondents as well as Poon et al. (2002), Neville (1995), and Jackson and Dhir (1988).
b
Local techniques used on site such that lifting up and dropping down, scratching and cutting using ngers and an axe respectively.
176 2.2. Building material production and testing on site in Tanzania houses in Tanzania. However, Neville (1995) recommended that 230
the concrete blocks with compressive strength less than 7 N/mm2 231
177 Investigation was carried out to determine the existing mix can be used for non-structural purposes. In this study, the concrete 232
178 ratios applied in Tanzania. It was found that the mixing ratios blocks with load bearing capacity are dened as those concrete 233
179 for concrete block production differ from one producer to another blocks that achieved the minimum compressive strength of 234
180 depending on various individual factors such as demand of clients, 7 N/mm2 . Recycled aggregates from C&D waste aimed to be used 235
181 planned selling price, and decision of the producer. It was dis- to replace natural aggregates to produce the concrete blocks that 236
182 covered that one cement bag can produce 2660 concrete blocks meets the required standards and specications as specied in 237
183 depending on the mix ratio and targeted customers. Interviewees Tanzanian standards, i.e., TZS 283, 2002 (E). Furthermore, all the 238
184 noted that the mix ratio is condential information as far as trade is recycled concrete block specimens in this study were tested in the 239
185 concerned. The mix ratio is established at the building site, depend- laboratory to determine their quality. 240
186 ing on experience, just by counting the number of shovel/spade,

187 basins (karai), buckets, or wheel barrows full of the required mate- 3. Materials and methods 241
188 rial. The cementaggregate mixing ratios applied, according to eld
189 survey, are estimated to range from 1:7 (1/7) to 1:14 (1/14) by 3.1. Materials 242
190 volume. After deciding on the mix ratio, the conventional con-
191 crete block production processes such as mixing, compaction, and 3.1.1. Materials and sampling 243
192 moulding, is applied. Subsequently, blocks are cured by sprinkling The aggregates used in this study for the production of concrete 244
193 with water for 37 days. In the days after the blocks are cured by air. blocks were derived from C&D waste from building construction 245
194 Next, quality assurance testing is performed. The survey showed and demolition sites in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Stratied random 246
195 that out of 58 respondents, only about 20% of the building contrac- sampling (Kothari, 2004) was used to select C&D waste sources 247
196 tors test the quality of their material products in the laboratory. in Dar es Salaam city. Dar es Salaam city is made up of three 248
197 The main reasons why a laboratory is not used for testing were municipalities, namely Temeke, Kinondoni, and Ilala. In order to 249
198 lack of equipments and limited funds. This implies also that there get representative data, the C&D waste materials for concrete block 250
199 is lack of enforcement of regulations and technical personnel. The production were sampled from all three municipalities. The three 251
200 main concrete block parameters tested are compressive strength municipalities share most of the main building material sources like 252
201 and density. However, most of them do not test in the laboratory. quarries for aggregates. Therefore, the quality of recovered waste 253
202 About 80% of them use simple tests on site. The rst method report- might not be affected by spatial distribution of the sources of natu- 254
203 edly used is lifting up and dropping the concrete block down to ral materials. However, it was assumed that the demolition waste 255
204 the ground. The expected outcome of this experiment is that the might be weaker than the construction waste due to the fact that 256
205 block will break into two pieces only if it is strong. But if it dis- demolition waste existed longer and its quality may be degraded. 257
206 integrates into more pieces, it is disqualied. The second test is Therefore, demolition waste deserved more attention. For this rea- 258
207 done by scratching the surface of the block using ones ngers; son, more samples were collected from demolition waste than from 259
208 if it erodes easily, it is disqualied. The third test is cutting the construction waste. These samples consisted of 60% demolition 260
209 block using an axe; if it breaks easily, it is disqualied. These meth- waste, 20% construction waste, and 20% natural sources as control. 261
210 ods are not reliable because they depend on factors that cannot be Both demolition and construction waste samples were obtained 262
211 controlled. Laboratory testing and analysis are required for quality from single- and multi-storey buildings in equal amounts in order 263
212 control to ensure the quality of the concrete products especially to have a good representation of C&D waste that is generated in Tan- 264
213 those produced using recycled C&D waste. zania. In this paper, the abbreviations used for the different types 265
214 Those contractors who do test the quality of their products do so of waste are as follows: DM1, DM2, and DM3 standing for demol- 266
215 at the Laboratory of the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) and/or ished multi-storey buildings; DS1, DS2, and DS3 for single-storey 267
216 at the University of Dar es Salaam Building Materials laboratory. demolished buildings; while CM and CS stand for multi-storey and 268
217 The survey ndings (see Table 1) showed that the compressive single-storey construction buildings, respectively. Each C&D waste 269
218 strength produced ranges from 2.1 to 11.6 N/mm2 (MPa). Accord- sample produced both ne and coarse aggregates that were used 270
219 ing to Tanzanian standards (TZS 283, 2002 (E)), the recommended for concrete block production with the respective sample in this 271
220 compressive strength ranges from 3.5 to 21 N/mm2 through it does study. In addition, NCA and NFA stand for natural coarse aggregate 272
221 not specify the type of building that the products may be used for. (gravel) and natural ne aggregates (sand) from natural (virgin) 273
222 Even though not categorized based on load bearing and non-load resource respectively. The natural aggregates were used for control 274
223 bearing compressive strength, the contractors and consultants purpose. Other materials used include cement and water. 275
224 who were interviewed indicated that they categorize concrete
225 blocks with load bearing block as the ones which have a minimum 3.1.2. Composition of C&D waste in Tanzania 276
226 compressive strength of 7 N/mm2 . This value is also reported by The composition of C&D waste used to produce the recycled 277
227 Poon et al. (2002), Neville (1995), and Jackson and Dhir (1988). aggregates in Tanzania was obtained by rst mixing the C&D waste 278
228 Concrete blocks with compressive strength below 7 N/mm2 are from both single and multi-storey buildings. Waste from both sin- 279
229 mostly used as a structural material for single-storey low-cost gle and multi-storey buildings were used because, in Tanzania, the 280
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
Fig. 1. Aggregates preparation: (a) rubble crushing, (b) quartering reduction technique, (c) sample divider (laboratory scale) technique used.
281 building materials used in construction for these buildings differ crushing strength value, 10% nes values, density, water absorption 317
282 in terms of their quality. For example, most of multi-storey build- ratio, organic impurities, and pH. All these tests were carried out 318
283 ings are framed structures while, single-storey buildings are wall according to standards methods (BS 812 (Parts 13), 1975; BS 882 319
284 structures. Subsequently, the heap of C&D waste was reduced by (Part 3), 1975; TZS 58 (Parts 13), 1980). Two replicate tests were 320
285 quartering (see Fig. 1b) from approximately 1000 kg to 250 kg and carried out for each test and averaged to obtain the results herein 321
286 then sorted. After sorting, the mass of concrete and cementitious presented. 322
287 rubble was weighed using Golden Mark (100 0.5 kg). Similarly,
288 glass, wool, wood, and metal present were measured using digital 3.3.2. Chemical analysis 323
289 balance SMS. The composition results are presented in Table 2. As In this study, all eight recycled and two natural aggregate 324
290 seen from the table, the recycled C&D waste used was mainly (i.e., samples were chemically analyzed. The chemicalmineralogical 325
291 99.88%) cementitious rubble. composition of the C&D waste samples was determined by using X- 326
ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray uorescence (XRF) spectroscopy, and 327

292 3.2. Material processing and volume reduction for laboratory scanning electron microscope (SEM) techniques. All samples were 328
293 analysis prepared into powder form. The analysis instruments used were 329
an automated X-ray uorescence analyzer (ARL 9400), Rigaku and 330

294 The C&D waste was crushed to produce both ne and coarse high resolution SEM JEOL 7500 FA. The results of this analysis are 331
295 aggregates for concrete block production. The heaps of rubble were presented in Section 4.1.2. 332
296 manually crushed using hammers (Fig. 1a) to get the recycled
297 aggregates. Unwanted waste portions like metals, wood, plastics, 3.4. Characterizing cement and water 333
298 gypsum, and papers were removed manually during the crushing
299 and screening process. In the next step, 50 kg of aggregates were In this study, Portlandcomposite cement (Cem II/A-L/32.5R) 334
300 sampled from each recycled aggregates sample (heap). In order to from Tanzania Portland Cement Company (TPCC) was used (TPCC, 335
301 collect a representative sample, the quartering method was applied 2007). The chemicalmineralogical characteristics of the cement 336
302 as recommended in the standard methods (TZS 58 (Part 1), 1980) were determined using analytical techniques such as XRF, XRD, 337
303 and as shown in Fig. 1b and c. Next, the reduced sample (50 kg) was and SEM. The density of the cement was also determined. The Pyc- 338
304 sent to the University of Dar es Salaam (Building Material Labora- nometer method using Micromeritics AccuPyc II 1340 was used for 339
305 tory) for testing. In the laboratory, the 50 kg sample was further density measurement whereby 12 measurements were carried out, 340
306 reduced by a sample divider (Fig. 1c) to the required amount of and particle size distribution was also measured with a Mastersizer 341
307 materials for a particular test. 2000 instrument according to ISO 13320-1, 1999. Also, the quality 342
of water used for the mixing and curing processes was tested in the 343
308 3.3. Aggregate characteristics laboratory to determine the level of impurities which may impair 344
the strength or durability of the concrete blocks (TZS 283, 2002 (E)). 345
309 3.3.1. Physical and mechanical analysis
310 Recycled aggregates and aggregates from natural resources may
3.5. The concrete block production processes 346
311 differ in terms of quality which may have an impact on the qual-
312 ity of the product (Mueller et al., 2008). In order to understand
The concrete block production process starts when materials are 347
313 the quality of the recycled aggregates generated in Tanzania, the
acquired and continues until the concrete block has been produced, 348
314 physical, chemicalmineralogical, and mechanical properties of the
tested, and found t for building construction. This section outlines 349
315 samples were analyzed in the laboratory. The physical and mechan-
the procedures that were followed in this study to produce the 350
316 ical parameters tested included grading (particle size distribution),
concrete blocks from recycled aggregates as illustrated in Fig. 2 and 351
in the detailed descriptions that follow. 352

Table 2 From Fig. 2, the terms used were dened as follows: 353
Composition of C&D waste in Tanzania.
Material type % i. Resource input: the resource input includes materials such as 354
Concrete 39.48 concrete and masonry rubble, natural aggregates, water, and 355
Other cementitious rubble: cementsand matrix apart of concrete 60.40 cement. Other inputs were labour, energy, and information. 356
Glass 0.03 Energy inputs are negligible, since most processes were carried 357
Wool 0.04
out manually. Information includes guidelines for the concrete 358
Wood 0.01
Metal 0.01
block production process (e.g., the required curing time), con- 359
Others: i.e., paper, plastic, gypsum 0.03 crete block specications, and standards. In this study, the focus 360
was on concrete blocks with a load bearing capacity produced 361

Total 100.00
from recycled C&D waste after 28 days of curing. The required 362
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
Fig. 2. Concrete block production from recycled aggregates ow-chart.
363 load bearing capacity in Tanzania for concrete blocks is set at a laboratory. The difference from the one normally applied in Tan- 401
364 minimum strength of 7 N/mm2 (Jackson and Dhir, 1988; Neville, zania may be caused by the nature of the material used (i.e., 402
365 1995; Sabai et al., 2011b; TZS 283, 2002 (E)). recycled aggregates, which are more porous than the natural 403
366 ii. Determination of mix proportions (parameters): the method for aggregates) 404
367 determining the mix parameters used in this study is the same d 1/2
368 as that normally used in UK according to Teychenne et al. (1997) p = 100 (1) 405
369 which species concrete by system of ratios. Normally, this D
370 method applies Fullers maximum density method. According where p = percentage of material smaller than d (mm); 406
371 to Raju (2002), Fuller advocates the maximum density theory D = maximum particle density (mm). 407
372 which states that the greater the amount of solid particles that iii. Concrete block fabrication: after determining mix proportions 408
373 can be packed in a given volume of concrete, the higher the and the compaction method as well as having the equipment, 409
374 strength. Fullers ideal grading curve for maximum compaction the conventional production processes of concrete blocks were 410
375 is based on Eq. (1) (Husken, 2010; Raju, 2002). The dense pack- adopted. These processes include batching, mixing, compact- 411
376 ing is facilitated by the fact that holes of the large particles are ing, moulding, and curing. Fresh concrete with slump less than 412
377 lled with small particles whose voids in turn are lled with 10 mm was prepared manually until a homogenous mixture 413
378 smaller ones and so on to the smallest diameter (Brouwers, was obtained as shown in Fig. 3 in order to get stiff concrete. 414
379 2006). According to Husken (2010) and Schoner and Mwita The manual compaction machine was used. The method is 415
380 (1987), Fullers method is the one which is adopted in most cheap, easy to apply, and the one commonly used by concrete 416
381 of the design codes for normal concrete strength. Since the block producers in Tanzania. Of course, the method is not as 417
382 focus of this paper is to explore whether the recycled aggregates good as the mechanical compaction method. However, it was 418
383 can produce building materials following Tanzanian practices,
384 the mix ratio method was applied. According to Schoner et al.
385 (1987), the mix ratio for concrete blocks production in Tanzania
386 is specied as 1:9 being the proportion of cement to aggregates
387 by volume. Then by applying an analytical method of combin-
388 ing aggregates (Raju, 2002; Schoner and Mwita, 1987), the ne
389 and coarse aggregates fractions were estimated. Out of nine
390 parts of aggregates, the ne:coarse aggregates ratio obtained
391 was 5:4. This shows that the cementaggregates ratio used was
392 1:5:4 (cement:ne (sand):gravel parts in volume). This ratio
393 is equivalent to 1:4:3.3 parts in weight, respectively. The ne
394 aggregates used were those that passed through 5 mm sieve
395 size and coarse aggregates ranging from 5 mm to 12 mm (GTZ,
396 1991; Jackson and Dhir, 1988). The water/cement ratio used
397 ranged from 0.58 to 0.75 (by weight) that was obtained through
398 trial mixes. These values were higher compared to Tanzanian
399 practices which range from 0.23 to 0.30 (by weight) as reported
Fig. 3. Mixed materials, compaction technique and moulding machined used for
400 by Building Material Engineers from UDSM building material concrete block production.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
419 assumed that if the load bearing concrete blocks is produced by

420 using manual method and satises minimum requirements, it
421 is possible to produce concrete blocks on a large scale by using
422 mechanical and other sophisticated equipment with the same
423 or higher quality in future. During the compaction process, the
424 mixed materials were rst compacted using a wooden handle
425 and subsequently, by a steel machine cover. After moulding, the
426 concrete blocks were covered with a plastic sheet for 24 h to pre-
427 vent rapid hardening. After 24 h, the concrete blocks were cured
428 in water (immersed) for 26 days. Then they were taken out of
429 the water for surface drying for 1 day before laboratory testing.
430 3.6. Testing of concrete
431 3.6.1. Testing of fresh concrete Fig. 4. Particle size distribution (grading) of recycled and natural aggregates in
Tanzania.
432 Slump test was used to analyze characteristics of fresh concrete
433 of recycled aggregates. The slump test was carried out following
434 standard method described in TZS 62 (Part 2), 1980. with each one having almost one-eighth of the size of a concrete 476
block. Two specimens were tested for each concrete block sam- 477
435 3.6.2. Testing of hardened concrete block specimens ple. The water absorption ratio was calculated by using Eq. (4) 478
436 After the 28 days of curing, the concrete block specimens were and the average result of the two specimens were calculated. 479
437 taken to the laboratory at the University of Dar es Salaam for test-
ing. The density, water absorption ratio, and compressive strength AD
438 Wab = 100 (%) (4) 480
439 were tested. The analysis was carried out according to the standard D
440 methods which are specied in the NEN-EN 772-1, 2000, TZS 283, where Wab = water absorption, %; A = weight of the surface dry sat- 481
441 2002 (E) and TZS 58 (Part 3), 1980. The following is a summary of urated concrete blocks, kg; and D = weight of oven dry concrete 482
442 how the analysis was carried out. blocks, kg. 483
443 (1) Compressive strength test: The concrete block specimen was 4. Results 484
444 placed and centred on the plate of a compression testing
445 machine. The compaction machine (MFL Systeme-PRUF UND 4.1. Characteristics of recycled aggregates in Tanzania 485
446 MESS) with a maximum of 3000 kN was used. The gross area of
447 the loaded surface was length-width, i.e., 450 230 (mm) bed 4.1.1. Physical and mechanical characteristics of recycled 486
448 face according to NEN-EN 772-1, 2000 and TZS 258, 2002 (E). aggregates 487
449 Two soft sheets of plywood were placed under and above the The results of the physical and mechanical characteristics for 488
450 specimen to reduce friction. Poon et al. (2009) also applied the both recycled and natural aggregates are presented in Table 3, Figs. 489
451 same technique on compressive strength testing. To calculate 4 and 5. 490
452 the compressive strength, Eq. (2) was used. The compressive In Fig. 4, the results show that the grading curves of DS1, DS2, 491
453 strength result reported is an average over ve specimens. CS and DM2 were above the ideal curve which implies that more 492
cement and/or compaction is needed in order to achieve the max-

1 F
n 493
454 fc = (2) imum density, which will result in greater strength of concrete 494
n (l w) product. The loads applied for 10% nes value (TFV) were varied 495
1
as 400 kN, 100 kN, and 50 kN in order to use the graphical approach 496
455 where fc =compressive strength, N/mm2 ; F = failure load in N; to estimate the TFV. The results of TFV are shown in Fig. 5. The 497
456 l w = area of base-face, mm2 ; l = length and w = width of the results from Fig. 5 show that the load required to produce 10% nes 498
457 block. were out of range for all recycled aggregates except for construc- 499
458 Mean strength and standard deviation for the 45 concrete tion waste delivered from multi-storey buildings (CM) and natural 500
459 block specimens were analyzed as well.
460 (2) Density: concrete block specimens were weighed by SOEHNLE-
461 Wagebereich 0.5 bis 55 kg and the dimensions were measured
462 by vernier calliper with 50 cm and 100 divisions. The density
463 was calculated using Eq. (3). For each sample type, the average
464 of the ve specimens was calculated:
M
465 b = (3)
lwh
466 where b = density of the block, kg/m3 ; M = mass of the block,
467 kg; l w h = volume of the block, m3 ; l = length, w = width and
468 h = height of the block, m.
469 (3) Water absorption ratio: the wire basket method was used for
470 water absorption analysis for aggregates larger than 10 mm
471 size (TZS 58 (Part 3), 1980). Even though the standard method
472 described in TZS 58 (Part 3), 1980 was for aggregates, it can also
473 be used for other solid materials like concrete blocks. Since it
474 was not possible to measure the whole concrete block, the size
475 was reduced by cutting the concrete blocks into small pieces Fig. 5. Ten percent nes value (TFV) results.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
Table 3
Physical and mechanical characteristics of recycled aggregates in Tanzania.
Sample Gross density (g/cm3 ) Water absorption (%) pH Aggregate crushing strength value (%) Organic impurities
Fine Coarse
DS1 2.5 2.2 10.3 9.7 58.5 Present

DS2 2.4 2.2 13.0 8.8 71.5 Present
DS3 2.5 2.2 8.1 11.0 47.9 Present
DM1 2.5 2.1 5.6 11.1 38.2 Present
DM2 2.4 2.2 10.7 8.8 57.8 Present
DM3 2.5 2.2 7.6 9.4 49.1 Present
CS 2.5 2.3 9.1 9.6 49.3 Present
CM 2.4 2.3 6.2 11.5 30.4 Minor
NCA na 2.4 1.8 8.8 28.6 na
NFA 2.5 na na 8.8 na Minor
na means not applicable because analysis requiring either ne or coarse aggregates
Fig. 6. X-ray diffractograms of the NFA, CS, DS1, DS2, DS3, NCA, CM, DM1, DM2 and DM3 aggregate samples; () SiO2 , () CaCO3 , () Ca(OH)2 , () C-A-S.
Adapted from Sabai et al. (2011a).
501 aggregates for which10% nes values were obtained when 130 kN methods (ISO 13320) as described in Section 3.4. The results for 525
502 load was applied. 12 measurements were relatively close to each other and the aver- 526
age density was 3.01 g/ml. The PSD result is presented in Fig. 7. 527
Also, before commencing concrete blocks production, the water 528

503 4.1.2. Chemicalmineralogical of recycled aggregates
was tested and the results are shown in Table 5. The results of the 529
504 According to X-ray diffraction analysis, the main identied
chemical composition of cement (i.e., CEM II/A-L32.5R) in Tanzania 530
505 phases in all materials were SiO2 , CaCO3 , Ca(OH)2 , and various cal-
showed that it is mainly composed of C, O, Si, Al, Mg, Fe, Na, S ele- 531
506 cium aluminosilicates as shown in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, the C&D waste
ments, and the chemical oxides presented in Table 6. The chemical 532
507 samples from single storey buildings were close to natural sand
composition of cement used complied with the Tanzanian standard 533
508 (NFA) whereas the C&D waste samples from multiples from multi-
(TZS 727 (Part 1), 2002) because the ratio of CaO/SiO2 by mass was 534
509 storey buildings were close to natural gravel (NCA).
not less than 2.0 and content of MgO was less than 5.0%. 535
510 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was also used to detect
511 the chemical elements present in the recycled aggregates. An EDX
512 detector coupled to a FEI Quanta 600 F E-SEM was used. The chem-
513 ical elements found in all samples were C, O, Ca, Al and Si. The
514 XRF results are presented in Table 4. In Table 4, almost all C&D
515 waste samples were mainly composed of SiO2 like natural sand
516 (NFA). However, physical observation showed that the recycled
517 concrete rubble was composed of limestone-like (CaCO3 ) NCA as
518 coarse aggregates. These results suggest that the either origin rub-
519 ble was dominated with sand (ne aggregates) and/or less cement
520 was used in concrete mix.
521 4.2. Characteristics of cement and water used for concrete block
522 production
523 The density and particle size distribution (PSD) of the Portland-
524 composite cement (PCC) were analyzed according to standard Fig. 7. PSD of Portland composite cement of TPCC, Tanzania.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
Table 4
XRF chemical composition of recycled C&D waste and natural aggregates used in Tanzania.
C&D waste samples Natural (virgin) sample
DS1 DS2 DS3 DM1 DM2 DM3 CM CS NCA NFA
Major elements (% weight)

SiO2 71.81 80.37 60.54 43.12 58.04 64.52 54.56 70.67 14.17 80.00
Al2 O3 1.60 1.57 2.32 3.16 2.35 1.92 8.21 1.72 0.94 1.93
TiO2 0.25 0.35 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.30 0.62 0.32 0.06 0.35
Fe2 O3 0.45 0.48 0.26 0.81 0.64 0.58 4.07 0.51 0.35 0.57
MnO 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02
CaO 15.43 10.42 21.36 30.00 26.46 15.45 18.10 16.64 46.64 18.90
MgO 0.23 0.15 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.28 2.25 0.18 0.68 0.21
Na2 O 0.17 0.15 0.31 0.48 0.19 0.31 1.63 0.10 0.09 0.12
K2 O 0.26 0.27 0.45 0.65 0.71 0.27 0.82 0.17 0.11 0.19
P2 O5 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.02
Trace elements (ppm)
Cr 41.3 26.2 10.0 10.2 11.9 7.6 53.7 10.1 5.0 14.5
Ni 51.8 40.9 4.6 10.0 3. 6 7.5 15.8 2.3 5.8 <2.0
Sr 238.2 227.7 228.4 364.1 414.6 378.8 501.6 192.0 349.9 195.2
Ba 124.4 135.4 202.8 305.8 290.2 119.3 498.6 70.2 40.2 91.5
Zr 272.4 347.9 248.0 437.4 347.4 343.7 222.2 338.0 106.2 384. 8
< means less than detection limit.
Table 5
Characteristics of water used for concrete block production.
Parameter Unit Results TZ standardsa
pH 8.02 9.2
Conductivity S/cm 404 nm
TDS mg/l 2.2 nm
Salinity ppt 0.2 nm
Colour mgPt/l 0.2 50
Turbidity NTU 1.27 25
SO4 mg/l 14 800
NH3 N mg/l 0.16 2.0
PO4 mg/l 0.11 nm
Fe mg/l 0.04 1.0
Chloride mg/l 194 600
P. alkalinity mg/l 0 nm
Total alkalinity mg/l 124 nm
Calcium mg/l 76 100
Total hardness mg/l 157 600
nm, not mentioned; TZ, Tanzania. Fig. 8. Concrete blocks produced from recycled aggregates in Tanzania.
a
Source: TZS 789 (2003).
ratio, and density were measured and the results are shown in Fig. 548
536 4.3. Fresh concrete 8. The results showed that the compressive strength of recycled 549
aggregates ranged from 5.2 to 10.4 N/mm2 but was 14.2 N/mm2 550
537 The slump test results ranged from 5 mm to 10 mm. According for natural aggregates. Moreover, a mean compressive strength of 551
538 to TZS 62 (Part 2), 1980, fresh concrete with slump less than 10 mm 8.8 N/mm2 with a standard deviation of 2.1 N/mm2 was obtained 552
539 has a stiffer consistency. Hence, the fresh concrete for concrete for concrete block specimens produced from recycled aggregates. 553
540 block production was stiff as shown in Fig. 3 (mixed material). On the other hand, a mean compressive strength of 9.4 N/mm2 with 554
standard deviation of 2.6 N/mm2 was obtained for concrete block 555
541 4.4. Concrete block results specimens produced from recycled aggregates and natural aggre- 556
gates. This corresponds to a minimum strength of 6.7 N/mm2 and 557
542 The concrete blocks were produced by using both ne and 6.8 N/mm2 for those concrete blocks produced using only recycled 558
543 coarse aggregates from the same sample of recycled aggregates aggregates and those from a combination of recycled and natural 559
544 except for natural aggregates where sand and gravel were used aggregates respectively. The results indicate that all samples have 560
545 together as is normally done in Tanzania. After 28 days of con- a compressive strength higher than 3.5 N/mm2 according to TZS 561
546 trolled conditions of curing, the concrete blocks were taken to the 283, 2002 (E) but, only 85% of the specimens achieved the 7 N/mm2 562
547 laboratory for testing. The compressive strength, water absorption standards (for load bearing capacity in Tanzania). 563
Table 6
XRF chemical composition of cement.
Main elements (% weight) Trace elements (ppm)
SiO2 Al2 O3 TiO2 Fe2 O3 MnO CaO MgO Na2 O K2 O P2 O5 Cr Ni Sr Ba Zr
19.93 5.99 0.31 2.19 0.08 62.50 0.92 0.16 0.26 0.05 54.54 26.39 824.09 113.62 149.56
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
564 5. Discussions The pH of both recycled and natural aggregates was above 7. This 628
reveals that all aggregates are basic in nature. However, the pH of 629
565 5.1. Aggregate quality the recycled aggregates from construction waste (CM) had higher 630
pH value than the others. This could be attributed to their origins. 631
566 Results for aggregate characteristics as presented in Table 3, Figs. For example, the aggregates recovered from CM originated from 632
567 4 and 5 in Section 4.1 indicate that the recycled aggregates were granite rock while the rest were limestone (calcium carbonate). 633
568 less dense than natural aggregates. In addition, the ne aggregates Since limestone is composed of carbonates its pH may be lowered 634
569 were denser than coarse aggregates for both recycled and natural when it gets in contact with water. 635
570 aggregates. However, the grading results in Fig. 4 show that curves The results for organic impurities that are presented in Table 3 636
571 for CM, DM1, DM3, DS3, and natural aggregates (NCA) comply with indicate that almost all recycled aggregates are polluted except the 637
572 Fullers ideal curve; on other hand, the DS1, DS2, CS, and DM2 grad- recycled aggregates from construction waste (CM) and natural sand 638
573 ing curves did not. These results suggest that the use of more ne (NFA). The CM sample was not organically polluted due to the fact 639
574 aggregates and high compaction mechanism may be needed for the that the CM sample was mostly composed of residual concrete and 640
575 DS1, DS2, CS, and DM2 samples in order to produce concrete blocks broken blocks while other recycled aggregates were sampled and 641
576 with high strength. The concept for using more ne aggregates to sorted from mixed debris. This indicates that re-utilization of C&D 642
577 ll voids of coarse aggregates in production of concrete with high waste as a material input for concrete blocks production will reduce 643
578 strength is supported by particle packing concepts in paving block not only the shortage of building materials, but also the environ- 644
579 production as reported by Husken (2010). mental burdens. Consequently, C&D waste recycling will contribute 645
580 The results of aggregates crushing values (ACV) as presented safeguarding peoples health while achieving sustainable construc- 646
581 in Table 3 also show that aggregates crushing value (ACV) for tion in Tanzania. 647
582 recycled aggregates ranged from 30.4% to 71.5% compared to natu- Results in Table 4 of recycled aggregates (DSs, DMs, CM and CS) 648
583 ral aggregates ACV of 28.6%. According to TZS 58 (Part 2), 1980, the are in rm agreement with results of recycled aggregates as pre- 649
584 maximum recommended crushing value for aggregates to be used sented by Limbachiya et al. (2007) for both in percentage (%) weight 650
585 for concrete and wearing surfaces are 45% and 30%, respectively. (for main elements) and ppm (for trace elements) regardless of 651
586 This indicates that no recycled aggregates qualify to be used for their difference in locations of origins. These results suggest that the 652
587 wearing surfaces except natural aggregate with crushing strength chemical composition of C&D waste may be similar in geographi- 653
588 value of 28.6%. Only crushing strength values of DM1 (38.2%) and cal locations. However, the physical and mechanical characteristics 654
589 CM (30.4%) met the specication which is required for concrete for may differ depending on the original concrete mix used and the 655
590 all recycled aggregates. This indicates that about 75% of the recycled targeted quality of the concrete products, which mostly are inu- 656
591 aggregate samples failed to achieve the recommended standards enced by the available technologies and the economic status of the 657
592 (TZS 58 (Part 2), 1980). Poon et al. (2002) reported that the recycled respective country. 658
593 aggregates crushing strength value in Hong Kong ranges from 21.6% The CM as well as DM1, DM2 and DM3 samples seem to be closer 659
594 to 24.5%. This shows that recycled aggregates from Hong Kong are in chemicalmineralogical composition to NCA (natural coarse 660
595 stronger than those from Tanzania, and their recycling techniques aggregates) while the rest of the recycled aggregates of single- 661
596 might vary depending on initial quality of the recovered waste to storey buildings are more similar to NFA (natural sand). These 662
597 be recycled. This condition suggests that it is impractical to directly results suggest that the original concrete mix of rubble particu- 663
598 transfer outcomes from one country to other another especially larly from single-storey buildings was mainly composed of sandy 664
599 those where the levels of technology differ signicantly (e.g., Hong material and/or less cement material. Based on results of C&D 665
600 Kong and Tanzania). waste composition in Table 2, the concrete, which also contains 666
601 In addition, the 10% nes values (TFV) were tested and the cementsand matrix like mortar comprises about 39% of C&D waste 667
602 results are presented in Fig. 5. The results show that the TFV for recycled in Tanzania; the rest is almost cementsand matrix waste. 668
603 CM and NCA are obtained by applying 130 kN. For the rest of the These results suggest that the original rubble was dominated with 669
604 recycled aggregates, the results showed that the TFV is out of range sandy materials (ne aggregates) and/or less cement was used in 670
605 even though, the graphs of percentage of materials passing through the concrete mix. These results indicate that the original concrete 671
606 the 2.36 mm sieve size versus load applied gave high value with cor- mixtures were mostly composed of sand (i.e., 60% (see Table 2)) 672
607 relation coefcient (R2 ) which were greater than 93%. Unlike Poon and less cement (e.g., 1:14 (see Table 1)). This could be one of the 673
608 et al. (2009) and Poon et al. (2002) who indicated that the TFV of reasons why concrete blocks having compressive strength as low 674
609 recycled aggregates ranged from 72 to 145.1 kN, in this study, the as 2.1 N/mm2 are produced in Tanzania. 675
610 TFV obtained from recycled aggregates from construction waste,

611 and the rest of the recycled aggregates were out of range. The TFV 5.2. Cement and water 676
612 results indicate that the recycled aggregates from demolition (i.e.,
613 DSs & DMs) waste and construction waste from single-storey build- The results in Fig. 7 and Table 3 showed that cement and water 677
614 ing (CS) in Tanzania are very weak. This condition may be caused by used in concrete block production in Tanzania were within the min- 678
615 low cement content applied in the old concrete rubble or because imum requirements specied in TZS 727, 2002 (CEM II/A-L/32.5) 679
616 the rubble was dominated mostly by mortar (cementsand) mate- and TZS 789, 2003, respectively. Thus, they had no impact on the 680
617 rials. strength of the concrete blocks. 681
618 The water absorption ratio results (Table 3) ranged from 6.2 to
619 13% for the recycled aggregates while for natural aggregates it was 5.3. Concrete blocks from recycled C&D waste 682
620 1.8%. The results suggest that the recycled aggregates were porous
621 about 7 times (700%) more porous than natural aggregates. Our The results presented in Fig. 7 show that the denser the con- 683
622 results are generally in agreement, even relatively higher, than pre- crete blocks (i.e., the higher the density value), the higher the value 684
623 vious studies conducted in Hong Kong where it was reported that of compressive strength. For example, concrete blocks with den- 685
624 water absorption for recycled coarse aggregates ranged from 4.2 sities more than 1900 kg/m3 had a compressive strength of more 686
625 to 7.6% (Poon et al., 2002, 2009). This could be caused by the pres- than 7 N/mm2 while DS3 that had lower density value than others, 687
626 ence of the cement paste/mortar attached to the crushed recycled also had a lower compressive strength (5.2 N/mm2 ). These results 688
627 aggregates. are generally in agreement with Fullers theory that the higher the 689
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
690 density, the higher the strength (Raju, 2002). However, the com- between recycled aggregates and those from natural sources indi- 753
691 pressive strength results of DS3 pose a challenge because the results cate that there is less cement used in origin concrete waste. Based 754
692 of aggregates grading corresponded to the ideal curve. Further- on these ndings, further studies are required to identify kind of 755
693 more, ACV analysis results showed that DS3 had lower value (49.1%) organic impurities present in the C&D waste in Tanzania and how 756
694 compared to DS1 (58.5%), DS2 (71.5%), DM2 (57.8%), and CS (49.3%). that can affect the recycled product. 757
695 This outcome may be affected by the compaction technique (man- In this paper, the concrete block production technology used 758
696 ual) which was used because the water absorption ratios showed was manual which is mostly applied and affordable to many con- 759
697 that DS3 had a higher value of 15.1% compared to, for example, that crete block producers in Tanzania. A hand (manual) machine was 760
698 of the CS (8.6%), DM2 (8.8%), DS1 (12.3%). Since it was manual work, used for compacting and moulding processes. After 28 days of 761
699 maybe a worker was tired at the end of the day. curing, the concrete blocks were tested in the laboratory. This tech- 762
700 In this study, manual technology was used in production nology was capable of producing concrete blocks with load bearing 763
701 of concrete blocks from C&D waste because it is affordable capacity and a compressive strength of at least 7 N/mm2 from 89% 764
702 to many Tanzanians due to limited funds in many developing of C&D waste samples recycled and 85% of specimens tested. These 765
703 countries. Regardless of manual technology, the average compres- results indicate that there is a possibility to recycle C&D waste 766
704 sive strength of the 58 concrete blocks specimens, produced from in building material production in Tanzania regardless of existing 767
705 C&D waste, that were tested was 8.8 N/mm2 . Tanzanian Standards technological challenges. The C&D waste recycling will result in 768
706 (i.e., TZS 283, 2002 (E) allows concrete blocks with compressive improved social, economical, and environmental welfare in terms 769
707 strength of 3.5 N/mm2 to be applied in construction industry in of creating more employment, reducing health hazards caused by 770
708 Tanzania. This suggests that there is a possibility for developing C&D waste disposal, reducing the cost of waste management and 771
709 countries like Tanzania to recycle C&D waste into building materials providing an alternative source of building materials in Tanzania. As 772
710 instead of throwing them away. a result, natural resources will be conserved for future use and the 773
711 Furthermore, the compressive strength results indicate that construction industry in Tanzania will become more sustainable. 774
712 there is a possibility to recycle the C&D waste into load bear- Further work should focus on investigating the technology that is 775
713 ing concrete blocks because approximately 85% of concrete blocks capable to produce the minimum compressive strength of 7 N/mm2 776
714 specimens tested in the laboratory attained compressive strength for all (100%) C&D waste samples recycled. Other area of further 777
715 of more than 7 N/mm2 . The recycling of C&D waste into building study will be a detailed economic feasibility of the production of 778
716 materials could help to solve the problems of solid waste disposal in concrete blocks with recycled aggregates in Tanzania. 779
717 Tanzania as well as become an alternative resource for production

718 of new building materials and therefore, contribute to conserv- Uncited reference Q3 780
719 ing natural resources, increasing employment, and improving the
720 economy of the nation at large. Mora (2007). 781
Acknowledgments 782
721 6. Conclusions
The NUFFIC-NFP is highly acknowledged for funding the on- 783
722 The aim of this paper was to investigate the possibility of
going research project. Authors also extend heartfelt thanks to 784
723 recycling the C&D waste (mainly cementations rubble) into con-
Dr. P. Erkelens and Prof. H.J.H Brouwers (TU/e), and Dr. J. Ngowi 785
724 crete blocks as a material for building construction in Tanzania
(ARU) for their constructive comments and ideas. Others to whom 786
725 instead of throwing it away or using it for lower applications like
gratitude is due include laboratory technologists from TU/e (The 787
726 inlling potholes or foundation backlling. The rubble from con-
Netherlands), University of Dar es Salaam and ARU (Tanzania) and 788
727 struction and demolition buildings were collected and processed to
C.G.U. Okwudire for proof reading the article. 789
728 get ne and coarse aggregates which were used in the production
729 of concrete blocks. In this research, the recycled aggregates for both
730 ne and coarse samples replaced natural aggregates by 100% in the References 790
731 concrete block production. The recycled aggregates were tested to

Bianchini G, Marrocchino E, Tassinari R, Vaccaro C. Recycling of construction and 791
732 understand their physical, chemical, and mechanical characteris- demolition waste materials: a chemicalmineralogical appraisal. Waste Man- 792
733 tics, and the results were subsequently applied in mix design for agement 2005;5:14959. 793
734 concrete block production. Brouwers HJH. Particle-size distribution and packing fraction of geometric random 794
packing. Physical Review E 2006;74, 031309-114. 795
735 The recycled aggregates in Tanzania were found to be weaker Conceico Leite F, dos Santos Motta R, Vasconcelos KL, Bernucci L. Laboratory evalua- 796
736 in terms of strength than those produced with natural aggregates tion of recycled construction and demolition waste for pavements. Construction 797
737 as well as those produced in Hong Kong. The poor (weaker) con- and Building Materials 2011;25:29729. 798
Debieb F, Kenai S. The use of coarse and ne crushed bricks as aggregate in concrete, 799
738 dition of recycled aggregates in Tanzania compared to those from construction and building. Materials 2008;22:88693. 800
739 Hong Kong suggests that the cement content of the old concrete Dolan PJ, Lampo RG, Dearborn, JC. Concepts for reuse and recycling of construction 801
740 waste was poor as well. For example, current concrete blocks are and demolition waste. US Army Corps of Engineers: Construction Engineering 802
Research Laboratories. USACERL Technical Report 99/58; 1999. 803
741 produced in Tanzania from natural (virgin) aggregates having rel- European Commission (EU). Management of construction and demolition wastes: 804
742 atively low compressive strength of 2.1 N/mm2 . These conditions working document no. 1, directorate-general environment, waste management; 805
743 are likely to affect the quality of the concrete block to be produced 2000. 806
GTZ. Concrete block producing equipment. http://www.appropedia.org/ 807
744 from them. Also, high percentage of water absorption suggests that
Concrete Block Producing Equipment 3; 1991 [viewed August 2009]. 808
745 the recycled material is composed mostly of cement paste mate- Hansen TC. Recycling of demolished concrete and masonry. RILEM report 6. Bodmin, 809
746 rials, i.e., mortar (sandcement) than stone materials. On other USA: Hartnolls Ltd; 1992. 810
Husken G. Multifunctional design approach for sustainable concrete-with applica- 811
747 hand, chemicalmineralogical results indicated that the recycled
tion to concrete mass products. PhD Thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology, 812
748 aggregates from building construction and demolition waste in Universiteitsdrukkerij, The Netherlands; 2010. 813
749 Tanzania have no inorganic contaminants which can affect the ISO 13320-1. Particle size analysislaser diffraction methods; 1999. 814
750 building materials produced from these aggregates, and therefore, Jackson N, Dhir RK. Civil engineering materials. 4th ed. Hong Kong: ELBS with 815
Macmillan; 1988. 816
751 they are suitable for use in new concrete block production. Fur- Kimambo RH. Development of non-metallic minerals and the silicate industry in 817
752 thermore, the similarities in chemicalmineralogical composition Tanzania, Vol. II. Tanzania: Eastern Africa Publication Ltd; 1988. 818
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
RECYCL 2637 111
819 Kirby A, Gaimster R. Concrete industry conference. http://www. Rao A, Jha KN, Misra S. Use of aggregates from recycled construction and demolition 854
820 contrafedpublishing.co.nz/Contractor/Recycling+concrete.html; 2008 [viewed waste in concrete. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 2007;50:7181. 855
821 October 2009]. Sabai MM, Marinescu MVA, Mato RRAM, Brouwers HJH, Egmond-de Wilde De Ligny 856
822 Kothari CR. Research methodology: method and techniques. 2nd ed. India: New Age ELC, Lichtenberg JJN. Investigation on the possibilities for recycling construction 857
823 International (P) Ltd.; 2004. and demolition waste in to building materials in Tanzania. In: Proceedings of 858
824 Limbachiya MC, Marrocchino E, Koulouris A. Chemicalmineralogical characterisa- EurAsia Waste Management Symposium; 2011. 859
825 tion of coarse recycled concrete aggregate. Waste Management 2007;27:2018. Sabai MM, Lichtenberg JJN, Egmond-de Wilde De Ligny ELC, Mato RRAM, Ngowi J. 860
826 Lowton RM. Construction and the natural environment. Oxford: Butterworth- Use of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste for build- 861
827 Heinemann Linacre House, Jordan Hill; 1997. ing construction in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In: Proceeding of CIB International 862
828 Macozoma DS. Secondary construction materials: an alternative resource pool for Conference Local Wisdom in Global Era; 2011. 863
829 future construction needs. In: Concrete for the 21st Century Conference; 2002. Schoner W, Brunner MYY, Swai A. Building materials. Part 5. Bricks and blocks. Dar es 864
830 McDonald B. RECON waste minimization and environmental program. In: Salaam, Tanzania: Faculty of Engineering, University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM); 865
831 Proceedings of CIB Commission Meetings and Presentations; 1996. 1987. 866
832 Masood A, Ahmad T, Arif M, Mahdi F. Waste management strategies for concrete. Schoner W, Mwita N. Building materials. Part 4. Concrete. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: 867
833 Environmental Engineering and Policy 2002;3:158. Faculty of Engineering, University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM); 1987. 868
834 Mora EP. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials. Teychenne DC, Franklin RE, Erntoy H. Design of normal concrete mixes. 2nd ed. UK: 869
835 Building and Environment 2007;42:132934. British Research Estbalishment (BRE); 1997. 870
836 Mueller A, Sokolova SN, Vereshagin VI. Characteristics of lightweight aggregates TZS 58 (Part 1). Tanzania standard aggregates. Part 1. Sampling and classication; 871
837 from primary and recycled raw materials. Construction and Building Materials 1980. 872
838 2008;22:70312. TZS 58 (Part 2). Tanzania standard, aggregates. Part 2. Natural aggregates for concrete 873
839 National Construction Council (NCC), (1992). Cited from Boonstra E, Oosterlaken I, (specication); 1980. 874
840 and werf R. A policy proposal for a sustainable development of the Tanzanian TZS 58 (Part 3). Tanzania standard aggregates. Part 3. Sampling and test methods; 875
841 timber sector: Development of timber framework products for low cost urban 1980. 876
842 residential housing. Unpublished; 1999. TZS 62 (Part 2). Tanzania standard concrete. Part 2. Method of testing fresh concrete; 877
843 Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Essex, England: Longman Group Limited; 1995. 1980. 878
844 Oikonomou ND. Recycled concrete aggregates. Cement & Concrete Composite TZS 283. Tanzania standard concrete bricks and blocks (masonry units) specica- 879
845 2005;27:3158. tion; 2002 (E). 880
846 Poon CS, Kou SC, Wan H, Etxeberria M. Properties of concrete blocks prepared with TZS 727. Tanzania standard cement. Part 1. Composition, specications and confor- 881
847 low grade recycled aggregates. Waste Management 2009;29:236977. mity criteria for common cements; 2002. 882
848 Poon CS, Lam CS. The effect of aggregate-to-cement ratio and types of aggregates United Republic of Tanzania (URT). Environmental Management Act (EMA, 2004). 883
849 on the properties of pre-cast concrete blocks. Cement & Concrete Composites Dar es Salaam: Vice President Ofce; 2004. 884
850 2008;30:2839. United Republic of Tanzania (URT). Construction industry policy (Tanzania). Dar es 885
851 Poon CS, Kou SC, Lam L. Use of recycled aggregates in molded concrete bricks and Salaam: Ministry of Works; 2003. 886
852 blocks. Construction and Building Materials 2002;16:2819. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Concrete recycling: 887
853 Raju NK. Design of concrete mixes. 4th ed. New Delhi, India: Satish Kumar Jain for the cement sustainability initiative. http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/ 888
CBS Publishers & Distributors; 2002. CSI-RecyclingConcrete-FullReport.pdf; 2009 [viewed November 2009]. 889

Tanzania

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Tanzania

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Our reference: RECYCL 2637 P-authorquery-v9

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Article Number: 2637 Fax: +353 6170 9272

For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions.

Location in Query / Remark: click on the Q link to go

Please check this box if you have no

Thank you for your assistance.

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2012) xxxxxx

Resources, Conservation and Recycling xxx (2012) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

1 Concrete block production from construction and demolition waste in Tanzania

20 1. Introduction materials is encouraged by the Tanzanian Government, given the 31

fact that there is a decit of materials like cement. While building 32

urban rather than in rural areas (Kimambo, 1988). 43

It is estimated that the current population of Tanzania (approx- 44

0921-3449/$ see front matter 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V.

70 and Germany recycle up to 90% of C&D waste generated (Conceico

74 zania, the management of C&D waste remains a challenge because

77 pressure on acquisition of the land and its management in future.

Source of materials (i.e. aggregates) Natural resources

186 ing on experience, just by counting the number of shovel/spade,

ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray uorescence (XRF) spectroscopy, and 327

an automated X-ray uorescence analyzer (ARL 9400), Rigaku and 330

in the detailed descriptions that follow. 352

was on concrete blocks with a load bearing capacity produced 361

Fig. 2. Concrete block production from recycled aggregates ow-chart.

419 assumed that if the load bearing concrete blocks is produced by

430 3.6. Testing of concrete

cement and/or compaction is needed in order to achieve the max-

DS1 2.5 2.2 10.3 9.7 58.5 Present

na means not applicable because analysis requiring either ne or coarse aggregates

Also, before commencing concrete blocks production, the water 528

C&D waste samples Natural (virgin) sample

DS1 DS2 DS3 DM1 DM2 DM3 CM CS NCA NFA

Major elements (% weight)

< means less than detection limit.

Parameter Unit Results TZ standardsa

gates. This corresponds to a minimum strength of 6.7 N/mm2 and 557

Main elements (% weight) Trace elements (ppm)

SiO2 Al2 O3 TiO2 Fe2 O3 MnO CaO MgO Na2 O K2 O P2 O5 Cr Ni Sr Ba Zr

610 TFV obtained from recycled aggregates from construction waste,

617 rials. strength of the concrete blocks. 681

717 Tanzania as well as become an alternative resource for production

731 concrete block production. The recycled aggregates were tested to

Anda mungkin juga menyukai