1 Introduction
2 Background
2.1 Economical and Environmental Impact
2.2 Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete
Durability | Durability of Recycled Aggregate (RA) can be influenced by coarse aggregate replacement ratio, concrete age, w/c ratio, and moisture content; generally, a lower w/c ratio generates a more durable concrete mix. RA concrete is less durable due to high porosity of recycled aggregate. However, lower resistance to ingress of certain agents might be compensated by the combination of recycled aggregate with CO2 and chlorides which reduces their penetration rates. SCM are used to improve strength and durability of RA concrete | |
Compressive strength | 50 to 100 % replacement of virgin aggregates with recycled aggregate decreases the compressive strength by 5 to 25 %. However, it was found that up to 30 % virgin aggregate can be substituted with RCA without any effects on concrete strength. Strength gain for RCA concrete is lower than normal aggregate concrete (NAC) for the first 7 days. On the other hand, fine RA has a more detrimental effect on compressive strength than coarse RA | |
Fresh concrete Properties: Workability Moisture Content | More water is needed to achieve similar workability to that of NAC due to higher absorption capacity of recycled aggregate which can be attributed to the presence of impurities and attached cement hydrates. As the RA content increase in the mix, the workability reduces especially at lower w/c ratio in their study found that the entrapped air content was similar when compared to normal concrete mix having a range of 2.4 ± 0.2 %. In fact, there is no significant effect regarding the air content up to 25 % replacements | |
Flexural strength | Recycled aggregate has marginal influence on flexural strength, some studies showed that flexural strength reduction is limited to 10 % in RA concrete. Others indicated that RA concrete has very similar flexural behavior with virgin aggregate concrete | |
Modulus of elasticity | Modulus of elasticity is greatly reduced by the use of recycled aggregate; it can reach 45 % of the modulus of elasticity of corresponding conventional concrete. This percentage reduction varies based on the percentage substitution. The 45 % reduction was found at 100 % substitution, while up to 15 % reduction was observed at 30 % substitution | |
Split tensile strength | A reduction of up to 10 % in split tensile strength was observed when virgin aggregate was substituted with recycled aggregate. Studies suggest that split tensile strength is more dependent on the binder quality rather than the aggregate type | |
Specific gravity and bulk density | Padmini et al. (2009) found that the specific gravity and bulk density are relatively low for recycled aggregates when compared to fresh granite aggregate (FGA). This is mainly due to the high water absorption of the RA, as mortar has higher porosity than aggregates; hence RA absorbs more water than FGA | Padmini et al. (2009). |
Aggregate size | Padmini et al. (2009) found that as the maximum size of the RA increases, the achieved strength increases | Padmini et al. (2009). |
Shrinkage and creep | Shrinkage and creep deformation of RA concrete are higher than those of conventional concrete, 25 and 35 % higher, respectively. Percentage of substitution, size and source of parent aggregate, mixing procedure, curing, SCM and chemical admixture affect shrinkage and creep of the RA concrete. Recent studies showed improved behavior could be achieved by mix proportioning, low w/c ratio and curing |
3 Aggregates Used in the Study
4 Experimental Program
4.1 Phase 1: Evaluation of Aggregate Properties
4.1.1 Results of Aggregate Evaluation
4.1.2 Comparison Between Properties of the Virgin Aggregate and RA
Physical tests | Mechanical | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grades | Flakiness index BSI 812-105.2 (1990) | Elongation index BSI 812-105.2 (1990) | Bulk density (kg/m3) ASTM C29/29 M (2009) | Absorption % | Bulk dry | Bulk | Apparent specific gravity | ACV BSI EN 1097-2:2010 (2010b) | Abrasion ASTM C131 (2006) | ||
% | % | Loose | Compacted | Specific gravity | Specific gravity | % (Weight loss) | % (Weight loss) | ||||
December 2012 | |||||||||||
1 | – | – | 1385.8 | 1575.5 | 0.9 | 1.88 | 1.9 | 1.91 | – | – | |
2 | 10.6 | 15.34 | 1161.9 | 1228.2 | 1.69 | 3.40 | 3.46 | 3.61 | 16.63 | 33 | |
4 | – | – | 1281.8 | 1297.25 | 8.56 | 3.05 | 3.31 | 4.12 | 20.8 | 6.8 | |
5 | – | – | 1549.3 | 1704.3 | 0.23 | 1.69 | 2.08 | 2.78 | – | – | |
April 2013 | |||||||||||
1 | – | – | 1182.3 | 1276.7 | 8.2 | 2.97 | 3.21 | 3.94 | 31.4 | – | |
4 | 12.3 | 6.7 | 1758.1 | 1821.5 | 6.08 | 2.32 | 2.46 | 2.7 | 28.71 | 59.1 | |
5 | – | – | 1552 | 1639.7 | 3.38 | 4.57 | 4.73 | 5.41 | – | – | |
Control | |||||||||||
Coarse | 15 | 8.7 | 1411.5 | 1512.65 | 1.1 | 2.62 | 2.65 | 2.7 | 20 | 18 | |
Fine | – | – | 1585.2 | 1728.8 | 2.32 | 2.51 | 2.57 | 2.59 | – | – |
Property | Virgin aggregate | RA |
---|---|---|
Absorption | 1–2.5 % | 1–8.5 % |
Specific gravity | 2.4–2.7 | 2–4.8 |
Crushing value | 15–20 % | 20–35 % |
L.A abrasion | 15–30 % | 25–65 % |
Sodium sulfate soundness (mass loss) | 7–21 % | 5–36 % |
4.2 Phase 2: Evaluation of Concrete Properties Prepared with Different Grade Combinations
4.2.1 Fresh Stage Evaluation
Mix | Unit weight kg/m3
| Slump/flow (cm) | Air content % |
\( f_{c}^{\prime} \)
| Split tensile f
ct
| Modulus of rupture | RCPT | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
f
ct
(Mpa) |
\( f_{ct} /f_{c}^{\prime} \) (%) | Equation 1 | Equation 2 | fr (Mpa) |
\( \frac{{f_{\text{r}} }}{{\left( {f_{c}^{\prime} } \right)^{0.5} }} \)
| Equation 3 | Equation 4 | Coulombs | Class | |||||
2,5 | 2187 | 52 Flow | 3.3 | 47.68 | 2.8 | 5.90 | 3.11 | 2.96 | 5.61 | 0.81 | 4.83 | 5.17 | 3965 | Moderate |
1,2,5 | 2317 | 59 Flow | 3.9 | 46.90 | 3.5 | 7.41 | 3.08 | 2.93 | 6.9975 | 1.02 | 4.79 | 5.14 | 2214 | Low |
4 | 2085 | 52 Flow | 3.3 | 40.89 | 3.0 | 7.46 | 2.88 | 2.67 | 5.67 | 0.89 | 4.48 | 4.80 | 4508 | High |
1,4 | 2194 | 49 Flow | 2.3 | 51.89 | 2.6 | 5.02 | 3.24 | 3.13 | 5.4225 | 0.75 | 5.04 | 5.40 | 3436 | Moderate |
1,5 | 2172 | 49 Flow | 4.3 | 50.80 | 2.34 | 4.61 | 3.21 | 3.08 | 6.345 | 0.89 | 4.99 | 5.35 | 5573 | High |
1,4,5 | 2143 | 14 Slump | 3.5 | 42.24 | 3.2 | 7.59 | 2.92 | 2.73 | 4.455 | 0.69 | 4.55 | 4.87 | 4385 | High |
Control | 2338 | 58 Flow | 3.1 | 51.85 | 3.0 | 5.78 | 3.24 | 3.12 | 6.57 | 0.91 | 5.04 | 5.40 | 2007 | Low |
4.2.2 Hardened Stage Evaluation: Mechanical and Microstructure Evaluation
5 SEM Scan
6 Discussion
Reference | % of target compressive strength (MPa) | Flexural strength (MPa) | Split tensile (MPa) | Elasticity (GPa) | w/c ratio | Aggregate source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mix 1,2,5 Current studyb
| 93.8 (50) | 6.99 | 3.48 | 27 | 0.40 | Recycling facility |
De Brito and Saikia (2013)b
| 88 (N/A) | 5.0 | 3.3 | 26.7 | 0.50 | C and D Waste |
Vivian A. Ulloa et al. (2013)a
| C and D Waste | |||||
–(31.4) | X | 0.51 | 6.1 % Abs- Demolition of old concrete structure | |||
–(26) | 0.61 | |||||
–(36.7) | X | 0.51 | 5.8 % Abs | |||
–(29.5) | 0.62 | |||||
–(42.9) | X | 0.45 | 3.9 % Abs | |||
–(37.7) | 0.54 | |||||
–(38.7) | X | 0.4 | 4.5 % Abs | |||
–(31.4) | 0.5 | |||||
–(37) | X | 0.43 | 4.7 % Abs | |||
–(31.2) | 0.56 | |||||
Abdelfatah et al. (2011)b
| 85.7 (42) | X | X | X | 0.40 | Old concrete with known strength |
Malešev et al. (2010)a
| 91.3 (50) | 5.2 | 2.78 | 29.1 | 0.513 | Crushed laboratory test cubes |
Tabsh and Abdelfatah (2009)b
| 92 (50) | X | 4 | X | 0.40 | Old concrete with known strength |
Corinaldesi and Moriconi (2009)b
| 89 (28) | X | 1.45 | 27 | 0.4 | Rubble Recycling Plant |
Yang et al. (2008)
a—G1 | 90 (36.0) | 3.84 | 3.49 | 29.22 | 0.42 | Old concrete with unknown strength G1—SG 2.53—1.9 % Abs G3—SG 2.4—6.2 % Abs |
Yang et al. (2008)a—G3 | 73.75 (29.5) | 3.20 | 2.56 | 23.72 | 0.42 | |
Rahal (2007)a
| 93 (50) | X | X | 29.5 | 0.6 | Field demolished concrete |
Etxeberria et al. (2007)b
| 93.3 (30) | X | 2.72 | 27.76 | 0.52 | Selected and processed for the study |
Etxeberria et al. (2007)a
| 93.3 (28) | X | 2.72 | 27.76 | 0.50 | C and D Waste |
78.3 (47) | 0.50 | C and D Waste | ||||
85(51) | 0.43 | |||||
93.3(56) | 0.40 | |||||
93.3(56) | 0.40 | |||||
66.7(40) | 0.52 | |||||
Limbachiya et al. (2004)a
| 94 (35) | 4.5 | X | 25 | 0.6 | C and D Waste |
Katz (2003)b
| 77.46 (26.8) | 5.4 | 3.1 | 11.3 | 0.60 | Old concrete with known strength |
6.1 Recommendations from the Current Study
-
For every batch of recycled aggregate:
-
Particle size and distribution should be evaluated every batch
-
Absorption capacity, abrasion resistance, and soundness are important properties that need to be evaluated.
-
-
Mixture design method based on direct volume replacement and high packing density is the key to achieve strength and durable concrete.
-
w/c ratio ≤0.4 is preferred to improve strength and durability of concrete with RA
-
Effect of SCM and high packing density on strength and durability of concrete with RA need to be investigated.