This study evaluates environmental sustainability and economic viability in concrete using recycled fine aggregates, indicating new pathways for circular economy advances.
This study presents a comprehensive sustainability assessment of Recyclable and Modular (R&M) Concrete incorporating treated Recycled Fine Aggregates (RFAs) derived from Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). While conventional concrete remains a structurally reliable material, its dependence on virgin sand, high embodied energy, and associated CO₂ emissions make it environmentally and economically unsustainable in the long term. To address these challenges, this research evaluates the economic, environmental, and socio-technical feasibility of replacing natural sand with RFAs at varying levels (0%, 30%, 50%, and 100%). The assessment integrates direct material cost analysis, life cycle economic indicators, embodied carbon quantification, and socio-economic evaluation to provide a holistic understanding of R&M concrete’s viability. Experimental findings reveal that 30–40% RFA replacement delivers the optimal balance, achieving 10–15% cost savings per cubic meter, along with 11–17% reductions in embodied CO₂ emissions, 35% conservation of natural resources, and up to 45% landfill diversion. Additionally, the study highlights social co-benefits, including employment generation in CDW recycling supply chains and enhanced affordability for prefabricated modular applications. Although higher replacement levels (≥50%) negatively influenced mechanical performance and durability, pre-treatment techniques improved material quality and extended usability within structural-grade applications. Overall, the research demonstrates that R&M concrete, when optimized with treated RFAs, represents a technically sound, eco-efficient, and economically viable construction material. Its integration into modular construction systems offers a scalable pathway for advancing circular economy practices, resource efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rajesh Pandey (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: