Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Radiotherapy Techniques for Left-Sided Early-Stage Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: A Systematic Literature Review on Planning Dose Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Predicting Visual Comfort in Art Galleries: The Interactive Influence of Painting Tones and Illuminance
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Review on Anaerobic Digestate as a Biofertilizer: Characteristics, Production, and Environmental Impacts from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/app152011184
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Valorization of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate By-Products from Construction Waste as a Sustainable Material for Granular Subbases: Mechanical and Environmental Assessments

by
José Eduardo Salcedo Fontalvo
1,
Daniela L. Vega A.
1,*,
Rodrigo Polo-Mendoza
2,3,
Felipe Ángeles Puc Hernandez
4,
Luisa Navarro Ortiz
1 and
Grey Meneses Vides
1
1
Department of Civil and Environmental, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla 080002, Colombia
2
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla 080003, Colombia
3
Faculty of Science, Charles University, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic
4
Universidad Americana de Europa UNADE, Chetumal Quintana Roo 77500, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(20), 11184; https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011184
Submission received: 12 September 2025 / Revised: 13 October 2025 / Accepted: 17 October 2025 / Published: 18 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Research on By-Products and Treatment of Waste)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The valorization of by-products from construction waste offers significant potential for developing sustainable materials in road infrastructure. Accordingly, this study investigates the incorporation of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate (FRCA) as a partial replacement of virgin aggregates in Granular Subbases (GSB), considering both mechanical performance and environmental impacts. Replacement levels of 10% and 15% FRCA are examined and benchmarked against standard specifications for GSB within the Colombian context. The experimental campaign is composed of grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction, Los Angeles abrasion, and California bearing ratio tests. Furthermore, a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential environmental benefits of diverting FRCA by-products from disposal and valorizing them as construction materials. Overall, the mechanical and environmental assessments reveal that if the Los Angeles abrasion criterion is set aside (because any FRCA content surpasses the allowable limits), the optimal mixture is the one formed by 85% GSB38 and 15% FRCA. This combination satisfies the standards for high-traffic roads while providing approximately 22.5–25% relative environmental savings.

1. Introduction

Construction and Demolition Wastes (CDWs) represent one of the largest streams of solid waste worldwide, posing significant environmental and management challenges [1,2]. A considerable portion of CDW originates from concrete debris generated during building demolitions and infrastructure renewal [3,4]. When processed, this debris produces Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA), and its fine fraction, known as Fine RCA (FRCA), is commonly treated as a low-value by-product rather than a potential construction material [5,6,7,8]. This classification (as a by-product) results from its heterogeneous composition, high fines content, and variable quality, which often discourages its direct use in high-performance applications [9,10]. Conversely, the coarse fraction of RCA is typically used as a replacement for virgin aggregates for the production of Portland cement concrete and asphalt mixtures [11,12]. Thus, valorizing FRCA instead of discarding it reduces the need for virgin aggregates, mitigates the depletion of natural resources, limits landfilling, and promotes the circular economy in the construction sector, aligning with global efforts toward sustainable resource management [13,14,15].
In Colombia, CDW accounts for nearly 40% of total solid waste, with a substantial volume disposed of in landfills or uncontrolled dumps [16,17]. Estimates from the Colombian government in 2018 indicated that over 30,000 tons of CDW were generated daily in the country [16,17]. Figure 1 illustrates the geographical distribution of this amount. RCAs, in turn, make up a significant share of this waste, highlighting the scale of untapped resources within the country’s construction industry. As shown in this graph, CDW generation is concentrated in major urban and industrial centers, with Bogotá, Valle del Cauca, Antioquia, and Atlántico among the most significant contributors. The Atlántico department, where this research was conducted, ranks among the top regions in CDW generation, reflecting its strong construction and urban development activity. Given that these data correspond to 2018 (i.e., around seven years ago), it is reasonable to assume that the current quantities are considerably higher because of the continued expansion of the construction sector across the region, driven by infrastructure growth and urban renewal projects. This trend underlines the relevance of developing local strategies to reuse and recycle CDW materials. In this context, the study’s focus on the use of FRCA in road infrastructure applications is particularly pertinent for Atlántico, as it offers a sustainable alternative for managing the increasing volumes of construction waste generated in one of Colombia’s most dynamic construction markets.
Despite advances in recycling technologies and the increasing use of coarse RCA in structural and road applications [18,19], fine fractions remain underutilized. Their valorization could alleviate pressure on virgin aggregate quarries, lower transportation and disposal costs, and extend landfill lifespans. In this regard, integrating FRCA into Granular Subbase (GSB) layers in pavement structures represents a practical approach for transforming a widely available by-product into a valuable resource, particularly in regions where sustainable waste management policies are still evolving.
Previous studies have examined the mechanical behavior of coarse RCA in pavement layers, revealing that replacement levels and aggregate characteristics significantly influence performance indicators such as bearing capacity and abrasion resistance [20,21]. For instance, the case study by [22] found that incorporating 10% RCA as a coarse aggregate replacement in GSB resulted in similar or slightly improved mechanical performance compared with natural GSB, whereas higher RCA contents led to decreased performance due to the lower compressive and abrasion resistance of the recycled material. Another notable example is the case study of [23], where a well-graded RCA was used to stabilize dredged marine sediments for road subgrade construction; in that investigation, the combination of 80% RCA and 20% sediment significantly improved bearing capacity, unconfined compressive strength, and tensile strength after lime and cement treatment, meeting all French acceptance criteria for GSBs. While coarse RCA has been evaluated under various conditions, research on FRCA is scarce, especially regarding its use in GSB mixtures. Limited experimental data suggest that FRCA-modified GSBs can maintain or even improve certain mechanical properties and generate environmental savings [22,24,25,26], but these findings are context-dependent and do not yet represent a consensus in the literature. Hence, the lack of systematic research on fine fractions creates uncertainty regarding their potential as sustainable alternatives to virgin materials. Addressing this knowledge gap is essential for establishing reliable design practices and encouraging the adoption of FRCA in road construction.
Accordingly, this research addresses the mechanical performance and environmental implications of incorporating FRCA into GSB as a partial replacement for virgin aggregates. Two substitution levels, 10% and 15%, were selected to evaluate their influence on key geotechnical properties, including grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction, Los Angeles (LA) abrasion, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests. In addition to mechanical appraisals, a cradle-to-gate Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) was performed to quantify the associated environmental burdens. By combining mechanical and environmental analyses, this research provides essential evidence for the potential valorization of FRCA by-products from construction waste, supporting their integration into pavement infrastructure and contributing to more sustainable construction practices. Notably, this study represents the first attempt to evaluate the incorporation of FRCA into GSBs in the Department of Atlántico (Colombia), providing practical guidelines for local suppliers and constructors on the feasible and sustainable use of recycled aggregates in road base applications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials

In this research, the virgin GSB was sourced from a local Colombian quarry and has a maximum nominal size of 37.5mm; therefore, it is referred to as GSB38. On the other hand, the FRCA is derived from the demolition of a local rigid pavement in Barranquilla city (Atlantico, Colombia) and underwent crushing processes to obtain the necessary sizes. Initially, a jaw crusher was used for the primary crushing, which was then followed by a process of abrasion to obtain smaller sizes. Figure 2 shows photographs of these raw materials. The FRCA replacements (i.e., 10% and 15% by weight) were conducted in the fine segment of the GSB, specifically for particles passing through sieve No. 40 (i.e., 0.425 mm) and retained on sieve No. 200 (i.e., 0.075 mm). In order to prepare the FRCA-modified GSB mixtures, the raw materials were thoroughly blended for two hours in a mechanical mixer to ensure uniform distribution of the recycled particles within the granular matrix. Each mixture was prepared under dry conditions to maintain consistency and to avoid premature moisture effects. The mixed materials were subsequently stored in sealed containers until further laboratory testing and compaction procedures were performed.

2.2. Experimental Plan

In order to assess the impact of FRCA on the GSB, a variety of geotechnical and mechanical characterization tests were conducted. Figure 3 illustrates the methodology undertaken for the development of this research. As shown in this graph, a series of tests, including grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction, LA abrasion, and CBR, were performed on three different materials: (i) 100% GSB38, (ii) 90% GSB38 + 10% FRCA, and (iii) 85% GSB38 + 15% FRCA. For each test, three samples were collected, ensuring that the reported results represent the averages of these samples. All tests adhered to the relevant international standards, and the results were compared with the minimum criteria stipulated in the Colombian regulations for GSB38. Table 1 exhibits those standards and acceptance criteria.

2.2.1. Description of Grain Size Distribution

The particle size distribution of the studied materials was determined following the ASTM D6913 standard [27], which establishes the procedure for sieve analysis of soils. The obtained results were subsequently evaluated against the particle size requirements defined for GSB38 granular sub-base materials in Colombia [32]. This method quantifies the proportion of particles within defined size ranges by mass, providing a detailed characterization of the material’s gradation. The particle size distribution curve derived from this analysis reflects the uniformity and continuity of the grain structure, which are key indicators of the material’s stability and performance under hydro-mechanical loading [33,34,35]. A well-graded soil, containing a balanced range of particle sizes, tends to exhibit higher density, improved shear strength, and reduced permeability compared with uniformly graded soils [36,37]. Therefore, determining gradation is essential not only for classifying the soil and ensuring compliance with construction specifications but also for predicting engineering behaviors such as compaction potential, drainage capacity, and resistance to deformation.

2.2.2. Description of Atterberg Limits

The potential plasticity of the studied materials was assessed in accordance with ASTM D4318 [28], which specifies the procedures for determining the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soil-like materials. The liquid limit represents the water content at which the soil transitions from a plastic-like state to a viscous-like state, while the plastic limit corresponds to the water content at which the material changes from a semi-solid to a plastic condition [38,39]. The plasticity index, defined as the numerical difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit, quantifies the range of water contents over which the soil remains plastic [40,41].

2.2.3. Description of Proctor Compaction

Standard Proctor tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D698 [29] to obtain the compaction curves of the studied materials. This laboratory procedure establishes the relationship between molding water content and dry unit weight of soils compacted under a standard energy level of 600 kN·m/m3. The principle of the test is to analyze a characteristic curve to determine the optimum moisture content at which a material reaches its maximum dry density under a controlled compaction stress. These parameters describe how efficiently soil particles can be packed by expelling air voids while maintaining adequate moisture for lubrication between grains [42,43]. The Proctor test provides a fundamental measure of the soil’s compactability, directly influencing its strength, compressibility, and permeability [44,45]. In geotechnical design and construction control, this information is critical for specifying field compaction targets that ensure stability, minimize settlement, and enhance the long-term performance of pavement layers, embankments, and other soil-based structures.

2.2.4. Description of LA Abrasion

The LA abrasion tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM C131 [30]. This method evaluates the resistance of small-sized coarse aggregates to degradation by abrasion and impact using the LA testing machine. During the test, a sample of aggregate is placed in a rotating steel drum with a specified number of steel spheres, which produce repeated impacts and grinding actions that simulate mechanical wear experienced in service. The resulting loss in mass after a prescribed number of revolutions represents the material’s susceptibility to fragmentation and surface wear. The principle of the test lies in reproducing the combined effects of impact and abrasion that aggregates undergo during handling, compaction, and traffic loading. The LA abrasion value obtained provides an empirical measure of the aggregate’s toughness and durability, key parameters influencing the long-term performance of unbound and bound pavement layers [46,47]. Aggregates with low abrasion losses are generally more resistant to crushing and disintegration, contributing to better stability, reduced dust generation, and improved service life of the pavement structure [48,49].

2.2.5. Description of CBR

The CBR tests were conducted in accordance with the ASTM D1883 standard [31], considering three compaction efforts of 10, 25, and 56 blows per layer, with each specimen prepared in five layers. Penetration resistance was recorded at two levels, namely 2.54 mm (1 in) and 5.08 mm (2 in). In order to represent the most critical field conditions, all specimens were submerged for three days prior to testing, which ensures full saturation given the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of coarse-grained soil-like materials [50,51,52].
This test evaluates the bearing capacity and strength of subgrades, subbases, and road base materials for infrastructure applications [22,37,53]. The CBR value represents the ratio between the pressure required to achieve a specified penetration (i.e., 2.54 mm or 5.08 mm) of a standard piston into a compacted soil sample and the pressure needed to produce the same penetration in a reference material consisting of well-graded crushed stone. Testing involved compacting soil in standard molds, allowing specimens to achieve the target dry density and moisture content, and then subjecting them to penetration at a constant rate in a fully saturated state, which replicates the most adverse field conditions (i.e., minimum expected field strength). The resulting CBR index serves as a key parameter in the structural design of pavement structures, providing a direct measure of the material’s ability to resist deformation under mechanical loading and guiding the selection of appropriate layer thicknesses for long-term performance [54,55,56].

2.3. Environmental Evaluation Through LCA

A concise LCA was conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed GSB alternatives. This research follows the guidelines established by ISO-14040 and ISO-14044 standards [57,58], which define the framework and requirements for conducting LCAs. In accordance with these standards, the LCA methodology is structured into four interconnected phases: (i) goal and scope definition, (ii) Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis, (iii) Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), and (iv) interpretation. Additionally, the SimaPro 9.4 software [59] was utilized as the primary tool for data handling, modeling, and impact assessment. It is also important to note that this investigation employs an attributional LCA approach, which aims to describe the environmental burdens directly associated with the production and/or use of a product/system within a defined life cycle, providing a static representation of average conditions rather than examining the potential consequences of changes in demand or supply [60,61].

2.3.1. LCA’s First Phase: Goal and Scope Definition

This environmental assessment aims to evaluate and compare the potential impacts associated with three material alternatives: (i) 100% GSB38, (ii) 90% GSB38 + 10% FRCA, and (iii) 85% GSB38 with 15% FRCA. For consistency in the comparison, a functional unit was defined as the production of 1 m3 of each alternative mixture. The system boundaries followed a cradle-to-gate approach, which encompasses the supply of raw materials, their transportation to the mixing facility, and the final production of the blends [62,63,64,65]. This framework ensures that all relevant upstream processes are considered while excluding downstream life-cycle stages.

2.3.2. LCA’s Second Phase: LCI

The LCI applied in this research was compiled using mainly primary information from previous studies related to Barranquilla city (Atlantico, Colombia) [66,67,68]. A detailed overview of the unit processes implemented in SimaPro to represent the three stages defined within the system boundaries is presented in Table 2. All processes were sourced from the Ecoinvent database, which is maintained by the Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories and has undergone multiple updates over time [66,69]. For this study, version 3.9 of Ecoinvent, released in 2022, was employed to ensure the use of the most recent and consistent datasets available.
For each of the studied mixtures, it is necessary to calculate the required amounts of raw materials (i.e., virgin coarse aggregate, virgin fine aggregate, and FRCA). These quantities need to be determined based on the mixture proportions and the internal composition of the reference material, where GSB38 consists of 37% virgin fines and 63% virgin coarse aggregates. Moreover, the total mass of each blend is governed by its effective density, which, in accordance with Colombian regulations [32], is defined as 95% of the maximum dry density obtained from Proctor tests. Accordingly, the control material (100% GSB38) has an effective density of 2.280 ton/m3, the 90% GSB38 + 10% FRCA mixture has 2.185 ton/m3, and the 85% GSB38 + 15% FRCA mixture has 2.033 ton/m3. Based on the preceding information and considering a functional unit of 1 m3 of compacted material, Table 3 presents the resulting weights expressed in metric tons.

2.3.3. LCA’s Third Phase: LCIA

In this research, the environmental impact evaluation was performed using the BEES+ v.4.08 model, a methodology developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States [70,71]. This framework incorporates 13 distinct categories to quantify environmental pressures, including ACidification (AC), ECotoxicity (EC), EUtrophication (EU), Global Warming (GW), Habitat Alteration (HA), Human Health Cancer (HHC), Human Health Criteria Air Pollutants (HHCAP), Human Health NonCancer (HHNC), Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), Natural Resource Depletion (NRD), Ozone Depletion (OD), SMog (SM), and Water Intake (WI) [70,71]. A brief description of these impact categories is provided in Table 4.
Table 5 presents the unitary characterization of the adopted SimaPro unit processes. This table reports the potential environmental impacts of the analyzed activities on a unit basis, expressed per kWh, ton, or tkm (i.e., ton · km), across the selected impact categories (i.e., AC, EC, EU, GW, HA, HHC, HHCAP, HHNC, IAQ, NRD, OD, SM, and WI). The total characterization results corresponding to the employed functional unit can subsequently be determined by multiplying these unitary characterization factors by the relevant efficiencies, transport distances, and quantities of raw materials previously detailed in Table 2 and Table 3. In addition, Table 5 shows that all considered unit processes exhibit negligible values for IAQ. Consequently, it is demonstrated that the production of GSBs does not generate appreciable emissions of volatile organic compounds, which aligns with multiple studies in the literature documenting that pavement construction does not contribute to such emissions [66,67,68].

3. Results

3.1. Results of Grain Size Distribution

Figure 4 illustrates the average grain size distribution curves for the three materials: (i) 100% GSB38, (ii) a blend of 90% GSB38 with 10% FRCA, and (iii) a blend of 85% GSB38 with 15% FRCA. The shaded bands around each curve represent the experimental variability observed among replicate measurements. The narrowness of these bands indicates a high level of consistency in the gradation results. For reference, Figure 4 also shows the upper and lower specification limits established for GSB38. The comparison reveals that all mixtures fall within the prescribed grading envelope, confirming their compliance with Colombian standards for GSB38. This indicates that partial substitution of GSB38 with FRCA, up to 15%, does not compromise the required particle size distribution.

3.2. Results of Atterberg Limits

The test results show that GSB38 has a liquid limit of 24%, a plastic limit of 19%, and consequently a plasticity index of 5%, indicating that the material is slightly plastic. These values are within the Colombian acceptance criteria, which specify a liquid limit ≤ 25% and a plasticity index ≤ 6% for materials used in sub-base layers [32]. When GSB38 was partially replaced with FRCA, no significant changes in plasticity were observed. This behavior can be attributed to the essentially non-plastic nature of RCA, which, combined with its incorporation in lower dosages, limits its influence on the overall plasticity of the blends.

3.3. Results of Proctor Compaction

For the reference material GSB38, the optimum moisture content was 7.7% and the maximum dry density reached 2.40 g/cm3, as presented in Figure 5. Incorporation of FRCA modified these values, showing a progressive increase in the moisture demand and a reduction in dry density. With 10% FRCA, the optimum moisture rose to 8.7% while the maximum dry density dropped to 2.30 g/cm3, and with 15% FRCA, the values shifted to 9.6% and 2.14 g/cm3, respectively. These variations are attributed to the intrinsic properties of RCA, which contains a porous cement paste coating that augments water absorption when compared with virgin aggregates [9,13]. At the same time, the lower particle density of RCA (regarding soil-like materials) contributes to the decrease in dry density as its proportion increases [8,72].
These results fall well within the recommended ranges established by Colombian specifications for compaction of granular materials. The optimum moisture content of the studied mixtures, ranging from 7.7% to 9.6%, comfortably falls within the acceptable range of 7% to 10%. Similarly, the maximum dry densities, which vary between 2.40 g/cm3 and 2.14 g/cm3, exceed the minimum threshold of 2.0 g/cm3. These findings indicate that, despite the observed increase in water demand and reduction in dry density with higher FRCA incorporation, the GSBs maintain adequate compaction characteristics in line with national standards. The preceding confirms the practical viability of using FRCA, at least regarding Proctor-based criteria.

3.4. Results of LA Abrasion

Figure 6 presents the results of the LA abrasion test for all materials. It is important to highlight that the standard deviation obtained from the three tested samples is minimal, confirming good consistency in the measurements. This graph also indicates that the incorporation of FRCA significantly reduces the resistance of GSB38 to mechanical degradation. The virgin material presented an average abrasion loss of 30.9%, well below the maximum allowable value of 50% (according to the Colombian guidelines [32]). Contrariwise, the mixtures with 10% and 15% FRCA reached average values of 60.0% and 58.9%, respectively, both exceeding the established limit. The LA abrasion values for the FRCA-modified GSBs are thus comparable to each other. These findings demonstrate that the introduction of FRCA into GSB38 increases susceptibility to particle fragmentation under load, compromising compliance with the requirements for subbase layer materials. Overall, the results highlight that the use of FRCA in GSB38 does not meet the durability standards needed for road applications when considering the abrasion criterion. It is worth noting that these outcomes are consistent with observations documented in earlier research [26].

3.5. Results of CBR

Figure 7 shows the results obtained from the CBR test. The control material (i.e., 100% GSB38) yielded the highest resistance, with values spanning 26.9%, 60.9%, and 76.1% at 2.54 mm penetration, and 44.6%, 66.0%, and 82.3% at 5.08 mm penetration for 10, 25, and 56 blows, respectively. The blend of 90% GSB38 with 10% FRCA produced CBRs of 19.6%, 27.2% and 44.2% at 10, 25, and 56 blows, respectively, for the 2.54 mm penetration, and 29.2%, 36.1% and 57.8% at the same blow counts for the 5.08 mm depth. The blend of 85% GSB38 with 15% FRCA returned higher values than the 10% replacement in every test, with 21.7%, 34.8% and 49.3% at 2.54 mm and 33.2%, 36.8% and 66.0% at 5.08 mm for 10, 25, and 56 blows, respectively. All three materials exhibit the expected increase in bearing resistance as compaction energy rises. Furthermore, the larger penetration (5.08 mm) consistently yields higher CBR values than the shallower one (2.54 mm), indicating increased stiffness at more elevated stress levels. This behavior is characteristic of coarse-grained soils, where both strength and stiffness increase with compaction energy and applied stress [73,74,75,76].
Compared with the control material, the 10% FRCA mix shows a relative reduction in CBR of 27.1%, 55.3%, and 41.9% at 2.54 mm penetration for 10, 25, and 56 blows, respectively. Meanwhile, relative drops of 34.5%, 45.3% and 29.8% were found at 5.08 mm penetration. The 15% FRCA replacement results in a slightly smaller relative reduction in CBR values. Respectively, with 10, 25, and 56 blows, these declines were around 19.3%, 42.9%, and 35.2% at 2.54 mm penetration, and 25.6%, 44.2% and 19.8% at 5.08 mm penetration. The fact that the 15% replacement consistently outperformed the 10% replacement in the CBR test series suggests that FRCA can alter soil structure and packing in a non-monotonic way; this hypothesis should be assessed in future research with cutting-edge geotechnical analyses.
In Colombia, the design CBR values must be reported at 95% of the maximum dry density [32] (see Figure 5). In this regard, Figure 8 shows that for the control material, the CBR values reached 43.38% at 2.54 mm penetration and 54.98% at 5.08 mm penetration. For the mixture with 10% FRCA content, the CBR values decreased to 26.85% and 35.78% at 2.54 mm and 5.08 mm penetration, respectively. Similarly, the blend containing 15% FRCA exhibited CBR values of 39.03% and 45.32% for the same penetration levels. These results demonstrate that incorporating FRCA into GSBs consistently lowered the bearing capacity in comparison with the reference material composed solely of GSB38.
According to [32], the design CBR value should correspond to the value measured at 2.54 mm penetration unless the value at 5.08 mm is greater, in which case the latter is used. Based on this criterion, the design CBR for the 100% control material is 54.98%. For the mixture containing 90% GSB38 and 10% FRCA, the design CBR is 35.78%, while the blend with 85% GSB38 and 15% FRCA yields a design CBR of 45.32%. It is important to highlight that the Colombian standards require a minimum of 30% CBR for low- to medium-traffic roads and 40% for high-traffic roads [32]. Therefore, these results indicate that only the mixture with 90% GSB38 and 10% FRCA marginally meets the requirement for low- to medium-traffic roads, which demands a minimum of 30%. In contrast, the remaining alternatives satisfy the standard for high-traffic pavements, which requires at least 40% CBR. Figure 9 summarizes these findings.

3.6. LCA’s Fourth Phase: Interpretation

Table 6 presents the characterization results of the LCA for the analyzed GSB alternatives. In this table, red, orange, and green colors are applied to each impact category to emphasize the material option associated with the highest, intermediate, and lowest environmental impacts, respectively. Across the remaining 12 impact categories, a consistent pattern emerges: increasing the proportion of FRCA in the blends progressively reduces the overall environmental burdens. Figure 10 illustrates the environmental benefits obtained through FRCA incorporation in GSBs, showing that using 10% FRCA leads to reductions in environmental impacts across the different categories of approximately 12.5–15%, while using 15% FRCA achieves a reduction of about 22.5–25%.

4. Discussion

4.1. General Overview

The mechanical and environmental evaluations reveal a notable trade-off between performance and sustainability. Grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, and Proctor compaction remained within the required specifications even with FRCA substitution up to 15%, indicating acceptable granulometry, plasticity, and compactability behavior. Nevertheless, any level of FRCA inclusion resulted in excessively high LA abrasion, exceeding admissible limits. Regarding the CBR test, the material composed of 90% GSB38 with 10% FRCA barely meets low- to medium-traffic requirements, while all other materials satisfy criteria for high-traffic roads. Table 7 summarizes the compliance of the evaluated alternatives across the employed characterization tests. These mechanical drawbacks contrast with the LCA outcomes, which demonstrated substantial environmental benefits. Across impact categories, increasing FRCA content consistently lowered total environmental burdens, with 10% FRCA achieving reductions of approximately 12.5–15% and 15% FRCA achieving 22.5–25%. Thus, although the mechanical results range from acceptable to below standard in some criteria, the environmental advantages of FRCA incorporation present a compelling sustainability strategy.
In summary, if the LA abrasion criterion is disregarded (since any FRCA inclusion exceeds the admissible limits), the best-performing mixture is the one composed of 85% GSB38 and 15% FRCA, which meets the requirements for high-traffic roads while achieving relative environmental savings of over 20%.

4.2. Contributions to Literature

This study contributes to existing literature by providing a systematic assessment of FRCA in sustainable GSBs, which is a topic that has been relatively underexplored compared to the potential use of coarse recycled aggregates. The integration of detailed mechanical testing with a cradle-to-gate LCA offers a comprehensive perspective that previous works often address separately. By demonstrating that moderate FRCA substitutions can deliver considerable environmental savings while maintaining compliance with certain geotechnical specifications, the research strengthens the argument for valorizing construction and demolition by-products as part of sustainable pavement practices. Moreover, by framing the findings within Colombian standards and conditions, the study supplies context-specific data that can inform regional policy-making, design guidelines, and broader discussions on circular economy strategies in road construction.

4.3. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite its strengths, this research has limitations that must be acknowledged. The mechanical performance evaluation did not include long-term durability testing under field conditions or cyclic loading, which may influence the real-world reliability of FRCA-modified GSBs. The environmental assessment applied an attributional LCA with cradle-to-gate boundaries, excluding downstream stages such as construction, maintenance, and end-of-life scenarios. Additionally, the study considered only two FRCA replacement levels and a single regional source, limiting the generalizability of the results. Future research should investigate a broader range of substitution percentages, include diverse FRCA sources with different mineralogical compositions, and incorporate cradle-to-grave LCAs to capture long-term environmental and mechanical behavior. Field trials under varied traffic and climatic conditions, combined with economic evaluations, would further validate the feasibility of FRCA integration into GSBs at larger scales.

5. Summary and Conclusions

This research investigated the valorization of FRCA by-products from CDW as a partial replacement for virgin aggregates in GSBs at 10% and 15% substitution levels. Mechanical testing included grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction, LA abrasion, and CBR to assess geotechnical suitability. In parallel, a cradle-to-gate LCA quantified the potential environmental benefits of incorporating FRCA. In this regard, the study aimed to determine whether FRCA-modified GSBs could satisfy Colombian road specifications while reducing environmental burdens, thereby contributing to more sustainable pavement construction practices. From the obtained findings, the following conclusions can be made:
Grain size distribution, Atterberg limit, and Proctor compaction tests confirmed that all FRCA blends maintained acceptable granulometry, low plasticity, and adequate compactability, complying with Colombian GSB specifications even at 15% substitution dosage.
The design CBR values are 54.98% for the control material, 35.78% for the mixture composed of 90% GSB38 and 10% FRCA, and 45.32% for the blend of 85% GSB38 and 15% FRCA. According to Colombian standards, the material with 10% FRCA meets the minimum 30% CBR for low- to medium-traffic roads, while the other mixes satisfy the 40% requirement for high-traffic roads.
LA abrasion testing demonstrated that both 10% and 15% FRCA mixtures exceeded maximum allowable values for durability limits, indicating reduced resistance to mechanical degradation and potential limitations for demanding subbase applications.
The LCA revealed significant environmental savings, with FRCA incorporation lowering environmental impacts by about 12.5–15% at 10% substitution and achieving 22.5–25% reductions at 15% replacement. These results emphasize the potential of FRCA valorization to improve the sustainability of road infrastructure when performance requirements are carefully matched to site conditions.
If the LA abrasion criterion is disregarded, the optimal mixture is composed of 85% GSB38 and 15% FRCA. This composition meets the other high-traffic road standards and achieves approximately 22.5–25% environmental savings. However, if Colombian standards are strictly followed, FRCA yields GSB materials not suitable for pavement construction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.S.F. and D.L.V.A.; methodology, J.E.S.F. and F.Á.P.H.; software, R.P.-M.; validation, F.Á.P.H.; formal analysis, L.N.O. and G.M.V.; investigation, L.N.O. and G.M.V.; resources, D.L.V.A.; data curation, L.N.O. and G.M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E.S.F. and D.L.V.A.; writing—review and editing, F.Á.P.H., L.N.O., G.M.V., and R.P.-M.; visualization, R.P.-M.; supervision, F.Á.P.H.; project administration, F.Á.P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed at the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sakthibala, R.K.; Vasanthi, P.; Hariharasudhan, C.; Partheeban, P. A critical review on recycling and reuse of construction and demolition waste materials. Clean. Waste Syst. 2025, 12, 100375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Murillo, C.; Calvache, D.; Gómez, C. Mechanical Behavior of Paving Stones Made from Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). Buildings 2025, 15, 2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lara, J.C.F.; El-Fadel, M.; Rauf, A.; Khalfan, M.M.A. Insights and Innovations in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Strategic Framework for Circular Market Development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2025, 28, 200288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Weerakoon, T.G.; Zvirgzdins, J.; Lapuke, S.; Wimalasena, S.; Drukis, P. Integrating Circular Economy (CE) Principles into Construction Waste Management (CWM) Through Multiple Criteria. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bu, C.; Liu, L.; Lu, X.; Zhu, D.; Sun, Y.; Yu, L.; OuYang, Y.; Cao, X.; Wei, Q. The Durability of Recycled Fine Aggregate Concrete: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pedro, D.; de Brito, J.; Evangelista, L. Structural concrete with simultaneous incorporation of fine and coarse recycled concrete aggregates: Mechanical, durability and long-term properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 154, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Prasittisopin, L.; Tuvayanond, W.; Kang, T.H.K.; Kaewunruen, S. Concrete Mix Design of Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA): Analysis of Review Papers, Characteristics, Research Trends, and Underexplored Topics. Resources 2025, 14, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Danish, A.; Mosaberpanah, M.A. A review on recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) characteristics to promote RCA utilization in developing sustainable recycled aggregate concrete (RAC). Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2021, 26, 6505–6539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nedeljković, M.; Visser, J.; Šavija, B.; Valcke, S.; Schlangen, E. Use of fine recycled concrete aggregates in concrete: A critical review. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 38, 102196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khanapur, N.V.; Tripathi, B.; Chandra, T. Incorporating Waelz slag to strengthen the properties of fine recycled aggregate concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 104, 112235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, B.; Yan, L.; Fu, Q.; Kasal, B. A Comprehensive Review on Recycled Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 171, 105565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mikhailenko, P.; Kakar, M.R.; Piao, Z.; Bueno, M.; Poulikakos, L. Incorporation of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) fractions in semi-dense asphalt (SDA) pavements: Volumetrics, durability and mechanical properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 264, 120166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fanijo, E.O.; Kolawole, J.T.; Babafemi, A.J.; Liu, J. A comprehensive review on the use of recycled concrete aggregate for pavement construction: Properties, performance, and sustainability. Clean. Mater. 2023, 9, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Neupane, R.P.; Devi, N.R.; Imjai, T.; Rajput, A.; Noguchi, T. Cutting-edge techniques and environmental insights in recycled concrete aggregate production: A comprehensive review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2024, 25, 200241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alibeigibeni, A.; Stochino, F.; Zucca, M.; Gayarre, F.L. Enhancing Concrete Sustainability: A Critical Review of the Performance of Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCAs) in Structural Concrete. Buildings 2025, 15, 1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vargas, K.L.T.; Vargas, A.P.Q. Analysis of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) Management and Sustainability in Construction in Bogotá D.C. La Salle University. 2021. Available online: https://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/items/27e81597-66ea-4e1a-bf42-ad7c04bdcda2/full (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  17. DNP. Disposición Final de Residuos Sólidos: Informe Nacional—2018; DNP: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pavlu, T.; Pazderka, J.; Fořtová, K.; Řepka, J.; Mariaková, D.; Vlach, T. The Structural Use of Recycled Aggregate Concrete for Renovation of Massive External Walls of Czech Fortification. Buildings 2022, 12, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, Z.; Courard, L.; Groslambert, S.; Jehin, T.; Leonard, A.; Xiao, J. Use of recycled concrete aggregates from precast block for the production of new building blocks: An industrial scale study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 157, 104786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bastidas-Martínez, J.G.; Rondón-Quintana, H.A.; Moreno-Anselmi, L.Á. Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Asphalt Mixtures: A Review. Recycling 2025, 10, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jitsangiam, P.; Nusit, K.; Nikraz, H.; Leng, Z.; Prommarin, J.; Chindaprasirt, P. Dense-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt with 100% Recycled Concrete Aggregate Based on Thermal-Mechanical Surface Treatment. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Salcedo-Fontalvo, J.E.; Vega-Araujo, D.L.; Ariza-Polo, L.; Padilla-Quiroz, J.; Castro-Cabeza, A. Influence of Recycled Concrete Aggregates on the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Granular Sub-bases. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2023, 48, 14095–14104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abriak, Y.; Maherzi, W.; Benzerzour, M.; Senouci, A.; Rivard, P. Valorization of Dredged Sediments and Recycled Concrete Aggregates in Road Subgrade Construction. Buildings 2023, 13, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Toka, E.B.; Olgun, M. Mechanical and Economic Evaluation of Recycled Concrete Aggregate as Granular Road Base and Subbase Material. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023, 35, 04023097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Al-Mosawe, H.; Albayati, A.; Wang, Y.; Mashaan, N.S. An Experimental Study of Granular Material Using Recycled Concrete Waste for Pavement Roadbed Construction. Buildings 2022, 12, 1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Toka, E.B.; Olgun, M. Performance of granular road base and sub-base layers containing recycled concrete aggregate in different ratios. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2021, 23, 3729–3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. ASTM D6913/D6913M-17; Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–34. [CrossRef]
  28. ASTM D4318-17; Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–20. [CrossRef]
  29. ASTM. D698-12; Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
  30. ASTM. C131/C131M-20; Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
  31. ASTM. D1883-21; Standard Test Method for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–16. [CrossRef]
  32. INVIAS. Capitulo 3—Afirmados, Subbases y Bases: Especificaciones Generales de Construccion de Carreteras 2022; Instituto Nacional de Vías (INVIAS): Bogotá, Colombia, 2022; pp. 1–101.
  33. Farooq, U.; Gorczewska-Langner, W.; Szymkiewicz, A. Water retention curves of sandy soils obtained from direct measurements, particle size distribution, and infiltration experiments. Vadose Zone J. 2024, 23, 20364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xie, Y.; Yang, J.; Zheng, X.; Qu, T.; Zhang, C.; Fu, J. Effect of Particle Size Distributions (PSDs) on ground responses induced by tunnelling in dense coarse-grained soils: A DEM investigation. Comput. Geotech. 2023, 163, 105763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stanić, F.; Tchiguirinskaia, I.; Versini, P.-A.; Cui, Y.-J.; Delage, P.; Aimedieu, P.; Tarquis, A.M.; Bornert, M.; Schertzer, D. A new multifractal-based grain size distribution model. Geoderma 2021, 404, 115294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yong, L.; Chengmin, H.; Baoliang, W.; Xiafei, T.; Jingjing, L. A unified expression for grain size distribution of soils. Geoderma 2017, 288, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Duque, J.; Fuentes, W.; Rey, S.; Molina, E. Effect of Grain Size Distribution on California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Modified Proctor Parameters for Granular Materials. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 8231–8239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Karakan, E. Comparative Analysis of Atterberg Limits, Liquidity Index, Flow Index and Undrained Shear Strength Behavior in Binary Clay Mixtures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. O’Kelly, B.C. Theory of liquid and plastic limits for fine soils, methods of determination and outlook. Geotech. Res. 2024, 11, 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bhavya, K.; Nagaraj, H.B. Influence of soil structure and clay mineralogy on Atterberg limits. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 15459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. O’Kelly, B.C. Review of Recent Developments and Understanding of Atterberg Limits Determinations. Geotechnics 2021, 1, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barzegar, A.R.; Asoodar, M.A.; Ansari, M. Effectiveness of sugarcane residue incorporation at different water contents and the proctor compaction loads in reducing soil compactibility. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 57, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mahardika, A.G.; Mulya, E.S.; Biantoro, A.W.; Setiawan, D.; Ariostar; Nuryono, B.; Ramady, D.G. Analysis of Soil Compaction using Proctor Standards in Highway Construction Design. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1933, 1993, 012084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bayat, H.; Asghari, S.; Rastgou, M.; Sheykhzadeh, G.R. Estimating Proctor parameters in agricultural soils in the Ardabil plain of Iran using support vector machines, artificial neural networks and regression methods. Catena 2020, 189, 104467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aragón, A.; García, M.G.; Filgueira, R.R.; Pachepsky, Y.A. Maximum compactibility of Argentine soils from the Proctor test; The relationship with organic carbon and water content. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 56, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kuzmanić, T.; Lebar, K.; Mikoš, M. Comparison of Different-Energy-Level Abrasion in Los Angeles and Micro-Deval Apparatuses Using Mass Loss and Rounding of Sediment Particles. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guo, Y.; Markine, V.; Song, J.; Jing, G. Ballast degradation: Effect of particle size and shape using Los Angeles Abrasion test and image analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 414–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tunc, E.T.; Alyamac, K.E. A preliminary estimation method of Los Angeles abrasion value of concrete aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 222, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Adomako, S.; Engelsen, C.J.; Thorstensen, R.T.; Barbieri, D.M. Review of the relationship between aggregates geology and Los Angeles and micro-Deval tests. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 80, 1963–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Choo, H.; Kim, J.; Lee, W.; Lee, C. Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and formation factor of coarse-grained soils as a function of particle size. J. Appl. Geophys. 2016, 127, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, Z. Hydraulic conductivity of gravelly soils with various coarse particle contents subjected to freeze–thaw cycles. J. Hydrol. 2021, 598, 126302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Alakayleh, Z.; Clement, T.P.; Fang, X. Understanding the Changes in Hydraulic Conductivity Values of Coarse- and Fine-Grained Porous Media Mixtures. Water 2018, 10, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alzara, M.; Onyelowe, K.C.; Ebid, A.M.; Hanandeh, S.; Yosri, A.M.; Alshammari, T.O. Modeling of the effect of gradation and compaction characteristics on the california bearing ratio of granular materials for subbase and landfill liner construction. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 23630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moffat, R.; Faundez, F.; Villalobos, F.A. Experimental Investigation and Analysis of the Influence of Depth and Moisture Content on the Relationship Between Subgrade California Bearing Ratio Tests and Cone Penetration Tests for Pavement Design. Buildings 2025, 15, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lillian, N.; Ahmed, S.B.; Krishnan, D.; Eze, V.H.U. Comprehensive evaluation of sub-base materials for road pavements, integrating California bearing ratio and triaxial compression tests for enhanced stability and durability: A systematic review. Discov. Civ. Eng. 2025, 2, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, T.; Kong, L.; Liu, B. The California Bearing Ratio and Pore Structure Characteristics of Weakly Expansive Soil in Frozen Areas. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. BS EN ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  58. BS EN ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  59. Oele, M.; Dolfing, R.; Grace, V.; Sustainability, P. SimaPro 9.4. Full Update Instructions v1.0. 2022. Available online: https://simapro.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/FullUpdateInstructionsToSimaPro940.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  60. Schaubroeck, T. Relevance of attributional and consequential life cycle assessment for society and decision support. Front. Sustain. 2023, 4, 1063583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schaubroeck, T.; Schaubroeck, S.; Heijungs, R.; Zamagni, A.; Brandão, M.; Benetto, E. Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Smith, S.H.; Durham, S.A. A cradle to gate LCA framework for emissions and energy reduction in concrete pavement mixture design. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stoiber, N.; Hammerl, M.; Kromoser, B. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of CFRP reinforcement for concrete structures: Calculation basis and exemplary application. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cao, C. Chapter 21: Sustainability and life assessment of high strength natural fibre composites in construction. In Advanced High Strength Natural Fibre Composites in Construction; Woodhead: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kokare, S.; Oliveira, J.P.; Godina, R. Life cycle assessment of additive manufacturing processes: A review. J. Manuf. Syst. 2023, 68, 536–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Guerrero-Bustamante, O.; Camargo, R.; Duque, J.; Martinez-Arguelles, G.; Polo-Mendoza, R.; Acosta, C.; Murillo, M. Designing Sustainable Asphalt Pavement Structures with a Cement-Treated Base (CTB) and Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA): A Case Study from a Developing Country. Designs 2025, 9, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Polo-Mendoza, R.; Mora, O.; Duque, J.; Turbay, E.; Martinez-Arguelles, G.; Fuentes, L.; Guerrero, O.; Perez, S. Environmental and economic feasibility of implementing perpetual pavements (PPs) against conventional pavements: A case study of Barranquilla city, Colombia. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Polo-Mendoza, R.; Martinez-Arguelles, G.; Peñabaena-Niebles, R. A multi-objective optimization based on genetic algorithms for the sustainable design of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA). Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2022, 24, 2074417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.-J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G.; et al. The ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodological Framework. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2004, 10, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Curran, M.A.; Overly, J.G.; Hofstetter, P.; Muller, R.; Lippiatt, B.C. NISTIR 6865: BEES 2.0—Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability—Peer Review Report; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lippiatt, B.C. NISTIR 7423: BEES 4.0—Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  72. Cantero-Durango, J.; Polo-Mendoza, R.; Martinez-Arguelles, G.; Fuentes, L. Properties of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) with Several Contents of Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA). Infrastructures 2023, 8, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rahman, A.S.A.; Noor, M.J.M.; Ahmad, J.B.; Sidek, N. Prediction of soil stress-strain response incorporates mobilised shear strength envelope of granitic residual soil. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1891, 020006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sobczyk, K.; Chmielewski, R.; Kruszka, L.; Rekucki, R. Strength characterization of soils’ properties at high strain rates using the hopkinson technique—a review of experimental testing. Materials 2021, 15, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fang, C.; Faller, R.K.; Kim, S.; Alomari, Q.A.; Bahar, M.A.; Kumar, G.S. A Review of Soil Constitutive Models for Simulating Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction Processes Under Impact Loading. Geotechnics 2025, 5, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shi, X.; Sun, J.; Qi, Y.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, X.; Liang, R.; Chen, H. Study on Stiffness Parameters of the Hardening Soil Model in Sandy Gravel Stratum. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 11184 g001
Figure 1. Average CDW generation in Colombia. Adapted from: [16,17].
Figure 1. Average CDW generation in Colombia. Adapted from: [16,17].
Applsci 15 11184 g001
Applsci 15 11184 g002
Figure 2. Photographs of the raw materials used in this study.
Figure 2. Photographs of the raw materials used in this study.
Applsci 15 11184 g002
Applsci 15 11184 g003
Figure 3. Summary of the experimental plan employed in this study.
Figure 3. Summary of the experimental plan employed in this study.
Applsci 15 11184 g003
Applsci 15 11184 g004
Figure 4. Grain size distribution of studied materials.
Figure 4. Grain size distribution of studied materials.
Applsci 15 11184 g004
Applsci 15 11184 g005
Figure 5. Proctor compaction curves.
Figure 5. Proctor compaction curves.
Applsci 15 11184 g005
Applsci 15 11184 g006
Figure 6. Results of LA abrasion test.
Figure 6. Results of LA abrasion test.
Applsci 15 11184 g006
Applsci 15 11184 g007
Figure 7. Results of CBR tests.
Figure 7. Results of CBR tests.
Applsci 15 11184 g007
Applsci 15 11184 g008
Figure 8. CBR results determined at 95% of maximum dry density.
Figure 8. CBR results determined at 95% of maximum dry density.
Applsci 15 11184 g008
Applsci 15 11184 g009
Figure 9. Design CBR values.
Figure 9. Design CBR values.
Applsci 15 11184 g009
Applsci 15 11184 g010
Figure 10. Environmental benefits from incorporating FRCA.
Figure 10. Environmental benefits from incorporating FRCA.
Applsci 15 11184 g010
Table 1. Description of the adopted geotechnical and mechanical characterization tests.
Table 1. Description of the adopted geotechnical and mechanical characterization tests.
Characterization TestInternational StandardAcceptance Criteria
Grain size distributionASTM D6913 [27]Bounds as reported later in the manuscript
Atterberg limitsASTM D4318 [28]Liquid limit ≤ 25%
Plasticity index ≤ 6%
Proctor compactionASTM D698 [29]7% ≤ optimum moisture content ≤ 10%
Maximum dry density ≥ 2.0 g/cm3
LA abrasionASTM C131 [30] ≤ 50%
CBRASTM D1883 [31] ≥ 30% for low- to medium-traffic roads
≥ 40% for high-traffic roads
Table 2. LCI adopted by this research. Adapted from [66,67,68].
Table 2. LCI adopted by this research. Adapted from [66,67,68].
StageProcess NameSimaPro Unit ProcessesDatabase
Raw materials
extraction/production		RCA crushing
(Equipment Efficiency: 0.4 kWh/ton)		Diesel, burned in building machine {GLO}|processing|Cut-off, UEcoinvent
Coarse aggregate extractionGravel, crushed {RoW}|production|Cut-off, U
Fine aggregate extractionSand {RoW}|gravel and quarry operation|Cut-off, U
Transportation of
raw materials to the
processing plant		RCA transportation
(One-way distance: 0 km)		Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 {RoW}|transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4|Cut-off, U
Coarse aggregate transportation
(One-way distance: 73 km)
Fine aggregate transportation
(One-way distance: 73 km)
Composite
materials
production		Mixing process for GSB
(Equipment Efficiency: 2.33 kWh/ton)		Diesel, burned in building machine {GLO}|processing|Cut-off, U
Table 3. Required amounts of raw materials.
Table 3. Required amounts of raw materials.
BlendsRaw Materials
Virgin Coarse Aggregate
(ton)		Virgin Fine Aggregate
(ton)		FRCA
(ton)
100% GSB380.8441.4360.000
90% GSB38 + 10% FRCA0.7281.2390.219
85% GSB38 + 15% FRCA0.6391.0890.305
Table 4. Description and real-world significance of adopted impact categories. Adapted from [70,71].
Table 4. Description and real-world significance of adopted impact categories. Adapted from [70,71].
Impact Categories
(Unit)		MeaningReal-World Significance
AC
(H+ mmole eq)		Measures emissions that increase the acidity of soils and water bodies (e.g., SO2, NOx).Leads to forest decline, freshwater acidification, and damage to buildings and ecosystems.
EC
(g 2.4-D eq)		Quantifies the potential of chemicals to harm terrestrial and aquatic organisms.Reflects risks to biodiversity and ecosystem services due to toxic substances.
EU
(g N eq)		Assesses nutrient enrichment (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) of aquatic systems.Causes algal blooms, oxygen depletion, and aquatic ecosystem degradation.
GW
(g CO2 eq)		Measures the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.Leads to temperature rise, extreme weather, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruption.
HA
(T&E count)		Evaluates land use and resource extraction impacts on threatened and endangered species.Represents loss of biodiversity and natural habitats.
HHC
(g C6H6 eq)		Quantifies exposure to carcinogenic substances.Indicates potential long-term risks of cancer from environmental pollutants.
HHCAP
(microDALYs)		Assesses health effects from common air pollutants (e.g., PM10, O3, CO).Represents morbidity and mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
HHNC
(g C7H7 eq)		Quantifies exposure to toxic substances causing non-cancer effects.Reflects potential for neurological, reproductive, or developmental disorders.
IAQ
(g TVOC eq)		Measures emissions of total volatile organic compounds affecting indoor environments.Affects occupant health, comfort, and productivity in buildings.
NRD
(MJ surplus)		Estimates the extra energy required to obtain future mineral and fossil resources.Indicates the long-term sustainability of resource use and energy demands.
OD
(g CFC-11 eq)		Quantifies emissions that degrade the stratospheric ozone layer.Leads to increased ultraviolet radiation, skin cancer, and crop damage.
SM
(g NOx eq)		Evaluates emissions contributing to photochemical smog formation.Causes respiratory problems, reduced visibility, and crop damage.
WI
(liters)		Measures total freshwater withdrawal during the life cycle.Reflects pressure on freshwater resources and competition with other uses.
Table 5. Unitary characterization of adopted SimaPro unit processes.
Table 5. Unitary characterization of adopted SimaPro unit processes.
Impact CategoriesSimaPro Unit Processes
Diesel, Burned in Building Machine {GLO}|Processing|Cut-off, UGravel, Crushed {RoW}|Production|Cut-off, USand {RoW}|Gravel and Quarry Operation|Cut-off, UTransport, Freight, Lorry 16–32 Metric Ton, EURO4 {RoW}|Transport, Freight, Lorry 16–32 Metric Ton, EURO4|Cut-off, U
(unit)(kWh)(ton)(ton)(tkm)
AC (H+ mmole eq)1.780 × 1022.520 × 1031.450 × 1034.310 × 101
EC (g 2.4-D eq)9.760 × 10−11.260 × 1025.390 × 1019.860 × 10−1
EU (g N eq)3.640 × 10−14.120 × 1011.250 × 1011.970 × 10−1
GW (g CO2 eq)3.250 × 1028.280 × 1034.030 × 1031.700 × 102
HA (T&E count)6.320 × 10−161.450 × 10−137.390 × 10−143.820 × 10−15
HHC (g C6H6 eq)4.410 × 10−15.450 × 1012.170 × 1013.840 × 10−1
HHCAP (microDALYs)5.310 × 10−21.7508.880 × 10−12.370 × 10−2
HHNC (g C7H7 eq)8.220 × 1021.680 × 1056.810 × 1041.440 × 103
IAQ (g TVOC eq)0.0000.0000.0000.000
NRD (MJ surplus)6.300 × 10−11.000 × 1014.9303.410 × 10−1
OD (g CFC-11 eq)4.660 × 10−53.590 × 10−42.510 × 10−42.470 × 10−5
SM (g NOx eq)4.8603.690 × 1012.780 × 1019.450 × 10−1
WI (liters)1.970 × 10−13.760 × 1021.410 × 1032.510 × 10−1
Table 6. Characterization results.
Table 6. Characterization results.
Impact Categories
(Unit)		Materials
100% GSB3890% GSB38 + 10% FRCA85% GSB38 + 15% FRCA
AC (H+ mmole eq)1.233 × 1041.074 × 1049.491 × 103
EC (g 2.4-D eq)3.530 × 1023.051 × 1022.683 × 102
EU (g N eq)8.745 × 1017.565 × 1016.656 × 101
GW (g CO2 eq)4.280 × 1043.712 × 1043.270 × 104
HA (T&E count)8.677 × 10−137.489 × 10−136.581 × 10−13
HHC (g C6H6 eq)1.434 × 1021.240 × 1021.090 × 102
HHCAP (microDALYs)6.9796.0525.333
HHNC (g C7H7 eq)4.836 × 1054.177 × 1053.672 × 105
NRD (MJ surplus)7.562 × 1016.562 × 1015.783 × 101
OD (g CFC-11 eq)5.022 × 10−34.360 × 10−33.845 × 10−3
SM (g NOx eq)2.542 × 1022.222 × 1021.967 × 102
WI (liters)2.385 × 1032.058 × 1031.808 × 103
Table 7. Compliance of evaluated GSB materials across characterization tests.
Table 7. Compliance of evaluated GSB materials across characterization tests.
Characterization TestMaterials
100% GSB3890% GSB38 + 10% FRCA85% GSB38 + 15% FRCA
Grain size distribution✅✅✅
Atterberg limits✅✅✅
Proctor compaction✅✅✅
LA abrasion✅❌❌
CBR (for low- to medium-traffic roads)✅✅✅
CBR (for high-traffic roads)✅❌✅
Nomenclature: ✅—meets requirement; ❌—does not meet requirement.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salcedo Fontalvo, J.E.; Vega A., D.L.; Polo-Mendoza, R.; Puc Hernandez, F.Á.; Navarro Ortiz, L.; Meneses Vides, G. Valorization of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate By-Products from Construction Waste as a Sustainable Material for Granular Subbases: Mechanical and Environmental Assessments. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 11184. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011184

AMA Style

Salcedo Fontalvo JE, Vega A. DL, Polo-Mendoza R, Puc Hernandez FÁ, Navarro Ortiz L, Meneses Vides G. Valorization of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate By-Products from Construction Waste as a Sustainable Material for Granular Subbases: Mechanical and Environmental Assessments. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(20):11184. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011184

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salcedo Fontalvo, José Eduardo, Daniela L. Vega A., Rodrigo Polo-Mendoza, Felipe Ángeles Puc Hernandez, Luisa Navarro Ortiz, and Grey Meneses Vides. 2025. "Valorization of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate By-Products from Construction Waste as a Sustainable Material for Granular Subbases: Mechanical and Environmental Assessments" Applied Sciences 15, no. 20: 11184. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011184

APA Style

Salcedo Fontalvo, J. E., Vega A., D. L., Polo-Mendoza, R., Puc Hernandez, F. Á., Navarro Ortiz, L., & Meneses Vides, G. (2025). Valorization of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate By-Products from Construction Waste as a Sustainable Material for Granular Subbases: Mechanical and Environmental Assessments. Applied Sciences, 15(20), 11184. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152011184

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop