Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

Composite recycling in the construction industry

Amanda Conroy, Sue Halliwell, Tim Reynolds
BRE, Watford, Herts, UK
Received 27 April 2005; accepted 13 May 2005

Abstract
This paper is addressing the current waste management options for composite waste in the UK. It outlines legislation that is having an
impact on the composites industry. Covers ways of managing waste from the composite industry through the waste hierarchy. Presents
findings of projects examining the potential for using composite recyclate to make new useful construction products.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Glass fibre; Polymer-matrix composite; Recycling; Disposal

1. Introduction
Fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) are increasingly being
used in construction due to their light weight, ease of
installation, low maintenance, tailor made properties, and
corrosion resistance. The UK FRP industry produces
240,000 tonnes of products a year with 11% of this being
for the construction industry. Current and impending waste
management legislation will put more pressure on the
industry to address the options available for dealing with
FRP waste. Such waste legislation focuses on dealing with
waste through the waste hierarchy and will therefore, put
more pressure on solving FRP waste management through
recycling and reuse.
At present the most common disposal method for UK FRP
waste is landfill. To assist in the transition from disposal in
landfill to recycling, the FRP industry needs to consider
designing materials and components for easier deconstruction, reuse and recycling at the end of the product life.

by 2015, 85% of ELVs will have to be reused or recycled

(excluding energy recovery), with only 10% incinerated
with energy recovery, and only 5% going to landfill [1].
Whilst this new legislation does not impact on the
construction industry, currently in negotiation is the
proposed EU recommendation on Construction and Demolition Waste, which if adopted will have a significant effect.
FRP suppliers could lose their market share to metal and
other industries if they cannot ensure that their FRP
components can be reused or recycled at the end of their life.

3. The waste hierarchy

According to the waste hierarchy, the options for FRP
waste management in order of preference are waste
minimisation, reuse, recycling, incineration with energy
recovery/composting, and lastly incineration without energy
recovery/landfill (see Fig. 1).
3.1. Waste minimisation

2. EU directives
EU directives such as End of Life Vehicles (ELV) and
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) will
put more pressure on solving FRP waste management
through recycling and reuse. The ELV directive states that
1359-835X/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.05.031

The most cost effective and environmentally beneficial

option of waste management is not to produce the waste in
the first place. By reviewing the manufacturing process it
may be possible to identify a method which results in less
production waste. Waste minimisation does not assist in
complying with the ELV directive, but may be useful
to consider in the face of increasing landfill charges and
the development of corporate environmental policies. It

A. Conroy et al. / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

Fig. 1. The waste hierarchy.

could also identify where practicable cost savings can be

made.
The Building Research Establishment (BRE) carried out
an extensive survey of FRP manufacturing techniques in the
UK. Waste takes a variety of forms such as off-cuts, over
spray trimmings, trimming dust, trimming from vacuum
infusion, defective items and trials runs, plus obsolete
moulds. Most automated processes are very efficient and
there is little scope for improvement in terms of reducing
generated waste, although waste may be generated at the
beginning and end of production runs, or if components fail
to meet accepted standards, e.g. through a faulty set up.
Most of the waste produced is disposed of in landfill.
Some manufacturers bear the cost of sending bulky waste
via skip container to landfill using a contractor, and there is
considerable scope for reducing this burden, Fig. 2.
Contamination of FRP waste which could be recycled
with other waste such as resin containers, release agent,
rainwater, cleaning rags etc is an important issue.
3.2. Reuse
Reuse is high in the hierarchy, but it is debatable how
practical this might be. A FRP component is composed of at

Fig. 2. Disposal of waste FRP.

1217

least two constituents working together to produce material

properties that are different from the properties of these
elements on their own [2]. The way in which FRPs are used,
their applications and how they are secured to existing
structures must be considered with a view to deconstruction
and reuse at the end of that applications life [3,4]. The
manufacturing process must be examined to identify any
possible modifications to improve design for future reuse or
recycling. Avoiding embedded metal fixings which are
difficult to separate prior to grinding is one example.
Many FRP items are bespoke in nature, being especially
designed for a particular application or building (e.g.
mouldings and facade panels), meaning that it is very
unlikely such products will to be able to be reused for
another, different application. Items such as FRP swimming
pools, cess pits and pipes are designed with very long
service lives and are not installed with recovery or reuse in
mind. One possible option is a downgrading of product use,
e.g. tanks and silos for use in agriculture. However, there is
potential to reuse FRP features such as domes, clock towers
and chimneys. Indeed, reuse of items like cabins and
gatehouses already takes place.
Structural items such as sections or I beams may be
difficult to reuse since it is difficult to re-calculate their
load carrying properties as recovered items, or reliably
assess any degradation or creep effect. This is quite
different from the situations for recovered steel girders,
large section timbers, and old bricks, for example, all of
which are reclaimed and have a market value today.
Without reference to the original manufacturer it will be
difficult to derive the strength characteristics such as shear
and bending of a FRP section with unknown matrix/fibre
combination and makeup. FRP sections also tend to be
produced to meet a particular set of circumstances and
conditions so will often not be transferable to a different
use. The designer of a building or structure will have a
duty of care to make sure it is sound and a material
cannot be reused if its strength properties are unknown or
in doubt. This also applies to any fixings, bolt holes etc
for FRP claddings and mouldings. Similarly, care must be
taken with reuse of cladding or roofing to ensure its fireresisting properties are known.
Development of modular and prefabricated systems
should allow reuse if this aspect is considered at the design
stage, especially in respect of the type of site applied sealing
and gluing of joints.
Although FRP manufacturers have largely solved issues
relating to UV stability and colour fading of their products,
many fascia panels and mouldings may be surface degraded.
This will affect the ability to reuse such components. FRP
claddings and mouldings can be refurbished, by painting for
example. FRP components are economical to produce, and
this counts against reuse of existing items if they require
labour intensive inspection, cleaning, decontamination or
repair.

1218

A. Conroy et al. / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

3.3. Recycling
3.3.1. Production waste
FRP production waste is generally disposed of since the
raw materials used in FRP manufacture are relatively
inexpensive (with the exception of aramid and carbon
fibres). Quantities of waste produced are usually low in
comparison to product volume. If the waste is to be
recycled, it may need further treatment such as heat curing
before grinding.
3.3.2. Building site waste
Little or no FRP off-cut waste is generated on new-build
construction sites. FRP components are designed for a
particular use, being pre-moulded and made to measure.
This is quite different from the situation with many
traditional building components - timber joists, for example,
need to be cut down on site from standard sizes.
3.3.3. Deconstruction waste
Current volumes of FRP deconstruction waste are
minimal compared to other forms of waste and are
presently sent to landfill. However, as the quantities of
FRP used in a wider variety of applications increases over
the next decade or so, the eventual volumes of postapplication FRP will increase. Landfill taxes are predicted
to increase sufficiently to discourage disposal and promote
reuse or recycling in the future. The FRP industry has to
address the situation and identify possible solutions in
order to maintain the viability of its products in the
construction sector.
There are two main types of resin used for FRPs:
thermoplastics and thermosets. Thermoplastic FRPs can be
recycled by remelting and remoulding. However, this is not
the case for thermoset FRPs which dominate the construction FRP market. One option for thermoset FRPs is
grinding, with the resultant recyclate being used as a filler
in new FRP materials [2]. Other treatments can be used to
return the FRP back to its original constituents in order
to reclaim the fibres. One such approach is thermal
treatment of the FRP. Thermal decomposition of FRPs
has been trialed in order to recover fibres. The FRP
(either thermoset or thermoplastic) is heated at high
temperatures which causes the fibres to separate from the
polymers [5].
A number of options for the use of FRP recyclate have
been identified [6]. Recyclate could be used for reinforcement in polymer lumber [7] (a reinforced thermoplastic
replacement for wood). Recyclate fibre could be used to
improve the strength of asphalt, e.g. asphalt for bridge
decking, which could possibly accept small amounts of
contamination. In speciality Sheet Moulding Compound
(SMC), recyclate could be incorporated in between two
layers of virgin glass. This process broadcasts the recyclate
instead of mixing it with resin. The mixing operation
of Bulk Moulding Compound (BMC) can use recyclate,

and possibly gains some reinforcement from residual fibres

in the recyclate.
Existing FRP recycling pilot plants in countries including
France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have proved
that composite recycling is possible [1]. However, more
markets need to be identified for the recyclate produced; few
exist at present.
An alternative to traditional FRPs is the development of
single-polymer-composites, for example a polypropylene
matrix with high strength polypropylene fibres as the
reinforcement [8]. This all-polypropylene composite can
be recycled resulting in a polypropylene blend that can be
reused to remake all-polypropylene composites or can be
used for other polypropylene applications. By combining
polypropylene honeycombs with polypropylene skins, allpolypropylene sandwich panels with great stiffness can be
produced.
3.3.4. Certification of recycled FRP products
Schemes are being developed to make it easier to
approve construction products on performance rather than
materials specification. However, current procedures do
limit the incorporation of recycled products in many
instances.
Oxford Brookes University supported by AEA Technology, Mouchel Consulting and Tony Gee & Partners are
addressing the development of a performance-based
classification scheme to enable engineering designers to
select materials systems on the basis of performance
requirements [9]. Procedures are being developed for the
assessment of materials systems on site, involving the
development of manufacturing techniques for on-site
fabrication of reliable and consistent test pieces. This
activity is linked with development of in-service health
monitoring techniques that employ both destructive and
non-destructive testing. Generic design guidance is being
compiled that utilises the performance classification scheme
and is informed by experience. Case histories are being used
to further reinforce the guidance. The major outputs from
this project include the performance classification sheme,
test protocols, design guidance and practical application
guidance.
3.4. Incineration with energy recovery and composting
FRPs have a high calorific value therefore incineration
with energy recovery is a viable option for FRP waste.
Incinerator operators actually charge more for accepting
FRP waste because the high calorific content together with
toxic emissions tends to overload the system, meaning they
cannot process as much domestic refuse. It must be borne in
mind that the production of electricity from energy recovery
is a secondary concern and that the prime business of the
incinerator is to dispose of domestic refuse. By burning
relatively small quantities of FRP waste, large volumes of

A. Conroy et al. / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

domestic waste (of which there is an unlimited supply) must

be sent to landfill.
The use of ecocomposites is a growing alternative to
FRPs. They use plant fibres as an environmentally friendly
and low-cost alternative to glass fibres. Natural fibre FRPs
are from renewable resources and can be composted or
incinerated at the end of their life. The European automotive
industry is investigating the possibility of using natural fibre
reinforced thermoplastics to benefit the environment whilst
saving weight (natural fibres are 50% lighter than glass
fibres) and cost at the same time [10]. Wood flour is also
being investigated as an alternative to mineral fillers. These
technologies can be used for both thermosets and
thermoplastics.
Natural fibres can easily compete with glass fibres in
terms of stiffness, but their tensile, compressive and impact
strength are relatively low compared to glass fibres. By
modifying the resin systems, ecocomposites can be
designed to be either stable or biodegradable [11]. As
mentioned above, mechanical recycling is preferred over
incineration and landfill. However, mechanical recycling of
natural fibre composites could prove problematic as they
tend to degrade near the processing temperature of most
thermoplastics.
Composting is unlikely to be practicable for combinations of natural fibre and resins such as polyester resin.
Plenty of clean plant matter from municipal collection of
garden waste, together with agricultural waste such as
chicken litter is available for the compost industry to use
and building components with difficult to separate organic
matter will not be considered.
3.5. Incineration without energy recovery and landfill
Incineration without energy recovery and landfilling of
composites waste are the least preferred options because
they result in a loss of the energy content which could be
harvested by incineration with energy recovery. Landfilling
of composite waste appears to be the most common disposal
option at present in the UK because, although on the
increase, the cost of disposal of waste is still relatively low.
The fate of surplus new or used FRP components depends
on the cost effectiveness of the options available. Thus, until
landfill taxes increase to a value where recycling or
incineration become viable alternatives, or legislation
changes, most of the FRP waste produced will end up
disposed of in the ground.

4. End products from recyclate

Several potential uses for ground FRP recyclate have
been investigated.
Artificial woods have been experimentally manufactured using powder from pulverised waste FRP products.

1219

The waste trimmings from bathtubs were pulverised to

make the FRP powder. The artificial woods were
autoclaved from cementitious compositions with various
other contents including carbon fibre. The material can be
nailed and sawn like natural wood [12].
The effect of adding ground recycled fibreglass composite in combination with wood flour to high density
polyethylene (HDPE) plastic lumber has been investigated
[12]. The glass fibres were recovered from Glass Reinforced
Polyester (GRP) by granulation. The addition of ground
glass fibres to the plastic lumber significantly increased
tensile and flexural modulus, while decreasing impact
strength. The ground glass fibres had a greater stiffening
effect than wood flour, but wood flour had no significant
effect on impact strength. The use of recycled glass fibre and
wood flour together provides better performance than either
alone. Data suggests that recycled glass fibres may be
an economical reinforcing filler for use in HDPE plastic
lumber [12].
Other research has investigated the use of scrap
graphite/epoxy prepreg waste as a high performance
reinforcement for recycled HDPE plastic obtained from
the municipal solid waste stream [13]. Flexural properties
increased dramatically with increasing prepreg content
and creep resistance was enhanced. It is thought the
product may find a niche in the plastic lumber market due
to the improved modulus, strength and creep resistance
measured compared to current commercial recycled
plastic lumber [13,14].
The UK highway engineering industry shows a willingness to adopt alternative sources of material for use in
road construction and thereby promote sustainable
development. As road construction consumes vast quantities of natural materials, it has the potential to provide a
suitable end-use for waste materials such as FRP. A joint
RMCEF project [15] is aiming to improve the recyclability
of composite building products by incorporating GRP
waste composites into highway materials and conducting
tests to ascertain whether they have a detrimental effect on
the material performance. Preliminary findings have
shown that the addition of shredded GRP off-cuts at 1%
has had minimal effect on the performance properties of
20 mm dense bitumen macadam [15]. The research is
continuing using higher proportions of shredded composite
material.
Glass fibres recovered after incineration or thermal
decomposition of FRP waste are sometimes coated in char
when the resin has not been completely decomposed. For
the glass fibres to be recycled as a reinforcement, the char
must first be cleaned off. If the fibres are to be used as
insulation material, the char does not need to be removed,
however the fibre can only be used as low grade
insulation. The insulation performance of glass fibre
partly mixed with calcium carbonate (a filler often used)
is not known.

1220

A. Conroy et al. / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

The end use of FRP recyclate should be based on the

properties given by the recyclate, particularly where these
give added value, such as:
chemical and physical properties (e.g. phenolic composites for greater fire resistance)
where recyclate can give special surface effects and designs
for noise absorption (wall panels or in roads)
use of fluffy material for high thermal insulation or for nonwoven materials
for viscosity modification of polymer mixes
use of coarse grade material as a permeable flow layer in
reinforcement for vacuum injection
low cost core material (in boats or in wood substitute
products)
as reinforcement
milled fibres
asphalt reinforcement
for concrete repair (concrete is prone to cracking in the first
2 days of drying, use of glass avoids crack formation, there
is a few thousand tonne market in Europe for this
application)
in white lines for road markings (abrasive resistance)
The development of new, high grade markets is a high
priority for the development of composites recycling.
There are certain criteria which must be met in order for
utilisation of waste FRP in a product to be economically and
technically viable. In this instance ground FRP waste is
considered:
The use of ground FRP should be beneficial to the
product i.e. the FRP should have either a structural/
reinforcing role or weight saving role, not just act as an
inert filler.
The mix of materials should be synergistic.
The product should not have to be reinforced with other
material or made thicker to compensate for some
deficiency caused by inclusion of ground FRP.
It should not be merely a novel disposal method such as
some component of a geotechnical fill.
The reuse method should be realistic in respect of the
likely volumes of recyclate available.
The reuse of FRP should not make the ultimate recycling
of the product difficult (current types of plastic wood
made from post consumer HDPE and wood fibre can be
easily recycled or burned without pollution).
The product should not pose environmental problems or
health and safety problems in use, e.g. abrasion, wear
related loss of glass fibres, or during cutting and drilling.
The product should not be a substitute for something
which is actually made from a more sustainable material
in the first instance, such as plantation timber.
The combination of ground FRP with some other waste
material should not divert this waste from an existing
higher end reuse chain.

The product should have a suitably long service life.

The product should be cost effective.

4.1. Examples of products made from ground GRP

BRE has carried out development and evaluation trials
for three products incorporating ground GRP [16]. The
applications chosen are high-value end-products where
relatively large volumes of ground GRP could be
incorporated economically.
4.1.1. GRP/plastic lumber
This application offers an alternative to tropical hardwoods or treated softwood for some types of lightly loaded
marine piles such as groynes, fender boards, light bridge
foundations, jetties, boardwalk posts and similar applications. The material can be sawn, drilled and notched like
natural timber (Figs. 3 and 4).
The GRP/plastic lumber has similar properties to some
other wood plastic composite materials in density, modulus
of elasticity and modulus of rupture. It is more durable in a
marine environment than natural timber. A design load of
50 kN would be applicable for the product as a 150 mm
square section pile.
4.1.2. GRP/polyester composite
This product is formed from a dough moulding
compound. The product offers good durability with light
weight, and has been designed for use in a petrol station
forecourt (Fig. 5). A range of similar non-spark, chemical
resistant products where weight is not critical are also
envisaged, for example, drains, hatches, liners.
4.1.3. GRP reinforced wood particleboard
Two panels were manufactured at BRE:
A 13 mm thick panel with a core of 70% GRP and an
outer face of wood flake.

Fig. 3. GRP/plastic lumber.

A. Conroy et al. / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

1221

Fig. 6. Ground GRP/wood flake blend particleboard.

Fig. 4. GRP/plastic lumber with bolted tenon joint to solid timber.

A 11 mm thick panel of 50% ground GRP with 50%

wood flake
The product has similar properties to P5 grade
commercial chipboard used in domestic flooring (Fig. 6).
The 13 mm thick panel was tested in 3 point bending to give
the following properties:
Modulus of elasticity (MOE) Em Z2777 N/mm2
Bending strength Fmax Z35 N/mm2
DensityZ1035 kg/m3
Ground GRP has the advantage of requiring no drying
before use (unlike woodchip) and this reduces the overall
energy input of production.
5. Life cycle assessment and ecodesign
The use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Ecodesign
can aid the construction industry in its search for
ecologically friendly products. LCA is a quantitative

method to assess the environmental impacts occurring

through the product life cycle, covering materials extraction
and processing, manufacture, use, disposal and recycling,
and has already been applied to the construction industry in
the form of BRE Environmental Profiles. Ecodesign takes
into consideration the life cycle of the materials used and the
methods of interactions they have with the environment
[17]. It looks at reducing the environmental impact of a
product over its life cycle without impacting on quality.
Ecodesign concentrates on ensuring that products are easier
to disassemble and use mainly components that are more
easily reused or recycled. Using these principles in the
design process can increase profitability by eliminating
waste at the beginning of the products life cycle rather than
at the end.
LCA and Ecodesign can thus feed into any part of the
waste hierarchy and are in effect an application of the Best
Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). However,
Ecodesign currently lacks the range and detail of
information to make an informed decision for all materials
and components. Environmental Profiles and LCA data
already exist for many recycling and disposal processes, and
provide a mechanism to assess new and experimental
techniquesdue to constraints of time however, these were
not explored in this project.

6. Conclusions

Fig. 5. Manhole cover from ground GRP and polyester resin.

FRPs are increasingly being used in construction due to

their low weight, durability and tailor made properties.
The UK FRP industry currently produces 240,000 tonnes
of product a year with 11% of this being for the
construction sector. FRP is widely considered to be unrecyclable, and at present the most common disposal
method for such material is landfill. Nevertheless several
recycling options have been developed for this material

1222

A. Conroy et al. / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 12161222

including reintroduction of ground FRP waste into the

production process, pyrolysis to generate fuel gas [18] and
fluidised bed recovery of glass fibres [19]. Waste FRP has
also been used experimentally in the production of
wood/plastic composites, road asphalt and concrete.
Incineration with energy recovery or in combination
with the production of cement is also an option.
Current and impending waste management legislation
will put more pressure on the industry to address the
options available for dealing with FRP waste. EU waste
management directives on landfill, incineration, construction and demolition waste, end-of-life vehicles, electrical
and electronic equipment, and UK government policy
such as the waste strategy 2000, the sustainable
construction strategy, the landfill tax, and local government policy could all influence the FRP industry. Such
waste legislation focuses on dealing with waste through
the waste hierarchy and will therefore, put more pressure
on solving FRP waste management through recycling and
reuse.
Waste management is becoming increasingly important
within the FRP and construction industries, especially with
the continual implementation of EU directives concerning
waste management.
Further work is needed to examine the effect of
contamination of waste streams on end-product properties.
Improving the quality of the fibre element of the ground
GRP could also be achieved by work on shredder
technology.

Acknowledgements
This research was carried out as part of the Construction
Innovation Research Programme of the UK Department of
Trade and Industry.

Further information
Network Group for Composites in Construction www.
ngcc.org.uk
NetComposites www.netcomposites.com
Conroy A, Halliwell S, Reynolds T and Waterman A.
Recycling fibre reinforced polymers in construction: a
guide to best practicable environmental option BRE Report
BR467, ISBN 1 86081 689 4, 2004.

References
[1] GPRMC Press releaseEU Waste legislation becoming more severe,
2001 www.gprmc.be/PressReleases.htm.
[2] Hobbs, G. and Halliwell S. Recycling of plastics and polymer
composites, Composites and plastics in construction conference,
Watford, UK, September 1999.
[3] Halliwell, S. Advanced polymer composites in construction, BRE
information paper IP7/99. Garston, CRC Press, 1999.
[4] Hurley J, McGrath C, Bowes H. Deconstruction and reuse of
construction materials. London: CRC; 2001.
[5] Jody, B.J.,Daniels, E.J., and Pomykala, J.A. Thermal decomposition
of PMC for fiber recovery, SPE annual recycling conference, 1999.
[6] Simmons, J. Recycling thermoset composites in North America,
JEC Conference, March 2001.
[7] George, S.D., & Dillman, S.H. Recycled fiberglass composite as a
reinforcing filler in post-consumer recycled HDPE plastic lumber.
Western Washington University.
[8] Cabrera, N., Alcock, B., and Peijs, T. All-polypropylene composites
for ultimate recyclability, Ecocomposites conference, London,
September 2001.
[9] CompClassMaterials classification system classification and qualification of composite materials systems for use in the civil
infrastructure, http://www.compclass.org/.
[10] Peijs, T. Markets and trends in ecocomposites for automotive
applications and beyond, EcoComposites conference, London,
September 2001.
[11] Riedel, U., Nickel, J., & Hermann, A. Bio-composites: state of the art
and further perspectives, EcoComposites conference, London,
September 2001.
[12] Demura K, Ohama Y and Satoh T. Properties of artificial woods
using FRP powder, Disposal and recycling of organic and polymeric
construction materials, Proceedings of the International Rilem
Workshop, Tokyo, 2628 March 1995.
[13] George S and DillmanS. recycled fibreglass composite as a
reinforcing filler in post-consumer recycled HDPE plastic lumber
ANTEC 2000, http://www.sperecycling.org/papers/papers.htm.
[14] Blizard K and Portway J. A wholly recycled structural plastic lumber
incorporating scrap prepreg waste Plastics in building construction,
1998, vol. 22(5), p. 812.
[15] Woodside AR, Woodward WDH and Jellie JH. Highway engineering
material tests at Ulster University, June 2003. [Project funded with
Landfill Tax Credits by the RMC Environment Fund (RMCEF)].
[16] Reynolds T N, Halliwell S, Conroy A, (2004) Markets for FRP
Recyclate Institute of Wastes Management, Scientific and Technical
Review vol. 5(2) p. 2934.
[17] Cranfield University and WE & E Consulting. A brief guide to
ecodesign.
[18] RECOMP Project, development of a novel recycling process for the
recovery of plastic composite materials, bpf seminar on waste
management for the composites industry, London, 15 November 2001.
[19] Pickering, S.J., Rudd, C.D., Recycling and recovery from composite
materials: Final report, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Nottingham, 1997.