RAJARAJESWARI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

KUMBALGODU, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560074

(An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Institute) (2021-22)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

“Jnana Sangama”, Belagavi – 590018

TECHNICAL SEMINAR
USAGE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE IN CONSTRUCTION

Submitted by
SONU N
[1RR19CV034]

Under the guidance of

Mr. KAMALAKAR G K
Assistant Professor,
Civil Dept. RRCE
Bangalore -27

1
 RAJARAJESWARI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
[NBA & NAAC Accredited, affiliated to VTU, Belagavi, Approved by AICTE, New Delhi]
#14, Ramohalli Cross, Mysore Road, Kumbalagodu, Bengaluru-74

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that seminar entitled “USAGE OF RECYCLED
AGGREGATE IN CONSTRUCTION ” is carried out by SONU N
(1RR19CV034) in partial fulfilment for the award of degree of Bachelor of
Engineering, affiliated to Vishvesvarya Technological University, during
the academic year 2022 – 2023. It is certified that all corrections/suggestions
indicated for internal assessment have been incorporated in the report
deposited in the department library.

Signature of the Guide Signature of the Coordinator Signature of the HOD

External viva:
Name of the examiner
Sign and date

1.

2.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is with pleasure and pride that I present this report before you. At this moment oftriumph,
it would be unfair to neglect all those who helped us in the successful completion of this
seminar work. I am are very thankful to our HOD, Prof. GANGADAR G for their
continuous encouragement, suggestions and support during the project work. I am are very
thankful to our guide, Prof. KAMALAKAR G K for their guidance and whole hearted
support and very valued constructive criticism that has driven to complete the seminar
success fully. I also express my heartiest gratitude to all faculty members and supporting
staff of civil engineering department for all the suggestions and support provided during
this seminar work. Lastly, we thankful all those who directly or indirectly helped us to
successfully complete this seminar work.

3
 ABSTRACT

As the world population increases, the use of natural resources and energy grows
proportionally, becoming one of the major environmental concerns or our times.
Several economic sectors are already pursuing a solution to this problem, by
analysing the added-value potential of reusing their own wastes. The conventional
methods of raising and demolishing buildings and concrete structures are
implemented in such a way that most of the resulting waste is sent to landfills, instead
of being recycled or reused in new constructions. The use of recycled aggregates
from construction and demolition wastes as replacement for natural aggregates has
been considered as one of the most salubrious approaches towards a greater
sustainability in construction. A performance-based classification, based on the
physical properties of aggregates sourced from these wastes is presented in this
paper. It contains a statistical analysis on the effect of increasing recycled aggregate
content to the compressive strength. Furthermore, this paper also presents simple
practical rules in conformity with the Eurocode 2, such as the relationship between
the modulus of elasticity and compressive strength, application of correction factors
to the creep coefficient and the use of existing models for predicting shrinkage.

4
 Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6
2 AGGREGATES ................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 What are recycled aggregates ? ....................................................................................... 7
2.2 Why recycled aggregates ? .............................................................................................. 7
2.3 Sources of recycled aggregates? ……………………………………………………………………….7
3 Need of Using Recycled Concrete as Aggregate………………………………………..7
3.1 Important Sources of Collecting Concrete Waste for Recycling…………………………8
3.2 Process of Recycling Concrete Aggregate………………………………………………….8
3.3 Uses of Recycled Concrete Aggregate………………………………………………9

4 Aggregates Properties ………………………………………………………………….10

4.1 Density, Porosity, and Water Absorption…………………………………10
4.2 Shape and Gradation…………………………………..……………………11
4.3 Crushing and L.A. Abrasion……………………………...…………………….12

5 RA Concrete Material Properties………………………………………………12

5.1 Compressive Strength……………………………………………………….12
5.2 Splitting Tensile Strength………………………………………………..15
5.3 Modulus of Rupture and Elasticity……………………………………...15

6 Structural Performance of RA Beams………………………………………….17

6.1 Midspan Deflection Under Service Load……………………………….. .18
6.2 Crack Width and Spacing…………………………………………..………19
6.3 Ultimate and Cracking Moments………………………………………..…19

7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………22

References

5
1. INTRODUCTION

After demolition of old roads and buildings, the removed concrete is often considered
worthless and disposed of as demolition waste. By collecting the used concrete and breaking
it up, recycled aggregate (RA) is created (Fig. 1). This paper focuses on coarse RA which is
the coarse aggregate from the original concrete that is created after the mortar is separated
from the rock which is reused. The use of RA in new construction applications is still a
relatively new technique. Buck (1977) cites the beginning of RA use to the end of World War
II, when there was excessive demolition of buildings and roads and a high need to both get rid
of the waste material and rebuild Europe. After the immediate need to recycle concrete, the
use of RA tapered off. In the 1970s, the United States began to reintroduce the use of RA in
non-structural uses, such as fill material, foundations, and base course material (Buck 1977).
Since this time, some research has been conducted regarding how viable RA is as an option
to replace unused natural aggregate (NA) in structural concrete.

One of the main reasons to use RA in structural concrete is to make construction more
‘‘green’ and environmentally friendly. Some major environmental issues associated with
construction, as stated by Oikonomou (2005), are that con- struction ‘‘takes 50 % of raw
materials from nature, con- sumes 40 % of total energy, [and] creates 50 % of total waste.’’
The use of RA on a large scale may help to reduce the effects of the construction on these
factors by reusing waste materials and preventing more NA from being harvested.

6
2. AGGREGATES
2.2 What are recycled aggregates ?

 Recycled aggregates are the aggregates produced from the processing of previously
used construction materials such as concrete or masonry.
 Recycled aggregates consists of hard, graduated fragments of inert mineral materials,
including sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag, rock dust, or powder.

2.2 Why recycled aggregates ?

 Due to rapid growth in population and urbanization, the natural resources are depleting.
 High cost of good quality crushed aggregates, as compared to Recycled aggregates.
 Shortage of dumping sites has resulted in sharp increase in transport and disposal costs.
 An enormous increase in the quantity of waste materials and the shortage of dumping
sites.

2.3 Sources of recycled aggregates ?

 Construction and demolished waste generated due to natural disasters, for future
development the old buildings are replaced by new ones, and war inflicted damages.
 Crushing of Portland concrete pavement
 Tested specimens from laboratory.
 Concrete from ready mix concrete plants and precasting units.
 Worn out rail ballast.

3.Need of Using Recycled Concrete as Aggregate

Concrete is the most common material used for construction around the world. Approximately
million tons of concrete debris is dumped as construction waste per year.These demolished
materials are often dumped on land and are not reused for any purpose. This effects the
environment and fertility of the land.Using recycled concrete as aggregate would lead to
environmental and economic benefits. Apart from these, recycled aggregate has several
benefits since they are durable like natural aggregate.To use recycled concrete as aggregate for
concrete contaminants like reinforcing, steel foundation, materials soil etc are removed from
the concrete debris. It can be done by screening, air-separation, demolition using
electromagnets.Then the debris is crushed either manually or mechanically. It in done in
specified size and quality usually around 20 millimeters to 50 millimeters.Based on various
research it is generally accepted that around 30% of natural crushed coarse aggregate can be
replaced with coarse recycled aggregate. It is done without significantly affecting any of the
properties of the concrete.However it is advised to perform the various concrete tests by
replacing some part of natural aggregate. This is done to determine the perfect proportions of
concrete.

7
3.1 Important Sources of Collecting Concrete Waste for Recycling

 Best source for collection is waste generated due to construction or demolition of the
structure.

 Natural calamities like earthquake causes demolition of old buildings, structure etc,
which could again prove to be important source.

 Tested Specimens (concrete cubes) which are further of no use can be collected from
big testing laboratory.

 Waste concrete generated in the ready mix concrete plant and precast concrete
fabrication units.

 Worn out rail ballast.

3.2 Process of Recycling Concrete Aggregate

It is mainly done by two methods :

1. Mechanical Method.

2. Air-heating and Grinding Method.

Mechanical Method

8
 Air-heating and Grinding Method

3.3 Uses of Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Recycled Concrete Aggregate has a wide variety of uses in the field of the construction
Industry. The uses are grouped into two categories :

 Unprocessed Recycled Aggregate

 Processed Recycled Aggregate

Unprocessed recycled aggregates are used for bulk fills, backfill material, riverbank
protection, base fill for drainage structures, aggregate for road construction etc.
The processed recycled aggregates are being utilized for various structural works in bridges
pavements, used as an aggregate in lean concrete, bituminous concrete, used in the
construction of shoulders, median barriers, sidewalks, curbs and gutters etc.

Merits :

 Wide market for supply.

 Providing more job opportunities.
 Creates minimal environmental impact.
 Resulted aggregate is light weight than original aggregate.
 More Sustainable.

9
Demerits:

 Less strength than original aggregate.

 No proper guidelines and specifications for process.
 Supply is currently inefficient.

4.AGGREGATES PROPERTIES
This section discusses the properties of RA as compared to NAs. An understanding of how
the aggregate changes after already being used in concrete can improve the ability to
describe why RA may perform differently when used in new concrete than NA. The main
aggregate properties that are presented are the density, porosity, and water absorption of the
aggregate, the shape and gradation of the aggregate, and the aggregate resistance to crushing
and abrasion.

4.1 Density, Porosity, and Water Absorption

Residual adhered mortar on aggregate is a main factor affecting the properties of density,
porosity, and water absorption of RA. The density of RA is generally lower than NA density,
due to the adhered mortar that is less dense than the underlying rock. The variation in density
is dependent on the specific aggregate in question. A study by Limbachiya et al. (2000)
showed that the relative density of RA (in the saturated surface dry state) is approximately 7–
9 % lower than that of NA. Sagoe-Crentsil et al. (2001) reported bulk densities of 2,394 and
2,890 kg/m3 for RA and NA, respectively, approximately a 17 % difference. The adhered
mortar can be lightweight compared to aggregate of the same volume, which causes the
decrease in density.

10
 Fig. 1 Recycled concrete aggregates (RA).

Porosity and water absorption are related aggregate char- acteristics, also attributed to
residual mortar. NA generally has low water absorption due to low porosity, but the adhered
mortar on RA has greater porosity which allows the aggregate to hold more water in its pores
than NA. Shayan and Xu (2003) found water absorption values of 0.5–1 % for NA and 4–4.7
% for RA in the saturated surface dry condition, up to a 4.2 % difference. Other studies showed
differences where RA absorption was 5.6 and 4.9–5.2 % compared to NA absorption of 1.0
and 2.5 % (Sagoe-Crentsil et al. 2001; Limbachiya et al. 2000).
The aggregate characteristics of density, porosity, and water absorption are a primary focus
in determining the proper concrete mix. These characteristics should be known to limit
absorption capacity of aggregates to no more than 5 % for structural concrete, and thus the
proportion of RA is often limited in concrete mixes (Exteberria et al. 2007), as is discussed
later in this paper. Table 1 summarizes accep- tance criteria for RAs used worldwide.

4.2 Shape and Gradation

The shape of the aggregate pieces is influential on the workability of the concrete.
Exteberria et al. (2007) warned that the method of producing RA and the type of crusher that is
used in this process is influential in the shape of RA pro- duced. NA is generally an angular
shape with smooth sides. Sagoe-Crentsil et al. (2001) initially described the plant-pro- duced
RA as grainy in texture and later discussed that the RA has a more rounded, spherical shape
which seemed to improve workability. The residual mortar on RA can smooth out the hard edges
of the original aggregate. This allows the new mortar to flow better around the aggregate. The
effects of the aggregate shape on workability and strength parameters of concrete are discussed
further later in this paper.
Standards for concrete aggregate define a range within which the gradation of aggregate

11
must lie in order to be acceptable aggregate for structural concrete. Both Sagoe- Crentsil
et al. (2001) and Shayan and Xu (2003) found that the gradation curves of RA were within
this specified range. This indicates that RA should have acceptable gradation by applicable
standards without adjustments being made.

4.3 Crushing and L.A. Abrasion

Crushing and Los Angeles (L.A.) abrasion tests are mea- sures of the durability of
aggregate material on its own. There is a general trend that RA has higher values for crushing
and L.A. abrasion than NA, meaning when the aggregate is contained and crushed or
impacted by steel balls in the L.A. abrasion test RA has more fine particles break off of than
NA. Crushing tests resulted in values of 23.1 % for RA vs. 15.7 % for basalt (a NA) and 24 %
for RA vs. 13 % for basalt in two separate studies (Sagoe-Crentsil et al. 2001; Shayan and Xu
2003). L.A. abrasion values for RA versus NA were found in two studies as 32 vs. 11 % and
26.4–42.7 vs. 22.9 % (Shayan and Xu 2003; Tavakoli and Soroushian 1996). This is a
reasonable result for these tests, in that the RA has residual mortar that can break off easily
at the interfacial transition zone (ITZ), which is the typically weak area of concrete. It is
logical that, when subjected to loading, the residual mortar on RA would break off, while
NA does not have a similar coating to lose.

The behavior of RA in crushing and abrasion tests demonstrates the weakness of the
adhered mortar. Since this layer is most likely to break off of the aggregate itself, it is
predicted that the adhered mortar layer may also create a weak connection within concrete.

5. RA Concrete Material Properties

Since the recycled aggregate has different properties than NA, it behaves differently in
concrete mixes and causes the finished concrete to perform unlike conventional concrete.
This section describes the variation between the properties of RA concrete compared to
conventional NA concrete.

5.1 Compressive Strength

Compressive strength of RA concrete can be influenced by the properties and amount
of recycled aggregate. Several factors can influence the compressive strength in RA
concrete, including the water/cement (w/c) ratio, the per- centage of coarse aggregate
replaced with RA, and the amount of adhered mortar on the RA. Most research rec-
ommended that, without changes to the mix involving adjustments to the w/c ratio, up
to 25 or 30 % of coarse aggregate can be replaced with RA before the ceiling strength is
compromised. In a study by Limbachiya et al. (2000), concrete specimens made with up
to 30 % RA had equal compressive strengths for w/c ratios greater than 0.25 as seen in
Fig. 2, which shows trends for compressive strengths for three RA fractions as they vary
with w/c ratio. The data for 30 % RA follows that of 0 % RA for almost every w/c ratio
tested, while the 100 % RA data lie at compressive strength values below that of 0 or
30 % RA by about 5 N/mm2. At the lowest w/c ratios, the compressive strengths for

12
 mixes with RA become more dissimilar to conventional concrete.

Fig. 2 Concrete compressive strength versus water-to- cement ratio for RA contents of 0–100 % (plotted using
data from Limbachiya et al. 2000).

Country or standard Recycled aggregate type Oven-dry density criterion Absorption ratio of aggregate
(kg/m3) criterion (%)
Australia (AS1141.6.2) Class 1A C2,100 B6
(AS 1996)
Class 1B C1,800 B8
Germany (DIN 4226-100) (DIN Type 1 C2,000 B10
2002)
Type 2 C2,000 B15
Type 3 C1,800 B20
Type 4 C1,500 No limit
Hong Kong (Works Bureau of – C2,000 B10
Hong Kong 2002)
Japan (JIS A 5021, 5022 and 5023) Coarse—Class H C2,500 B3
(JIS 2011, 2012a, b)
Fine—Class H C2,500 B3.5
Coarse—Class M C2,300 B5
Fine—Class M C2,200 B7
Coarse—Class L No limit B7

Fine—Class L No limit B13

Korea (KS F 2573) (KS 2002) Coarse C2,500 B3
Fine C2,200 B5
RILEM (1994) Type 1 C1,500 B20
Type 2 C2,000 B10

13
 Type 3 C2,500 B3
Spain (EHE 2000) – C2,000 B5

Australia (AS 1996): Class 1A well graded RA with no more than 0.5 % brick content; Class 1B Class 1A RA blended
with no more than30 % crushed brick.
Germany (DIN 2002): Type 1 concrete chippings ? crusher sand; Type 2 construction chippings ? crusher sand; Type
3 masonry chip-pings ? crusher sand; Type 4 mixed chippings ? crusher sand.
Japan (JIS 2011): Class H no limitations are put on the type and segment for concrete and structures with a nominal strength
of 45 MPa or less;Class M members not subjected to drying or freezing-and-thawing action, such as piles, underground
beam, and concrete filled steel tubes; Class L backfill concrete, blinding concrete, and concrete filled in steel tubes.
RILEM (1994): Type 1 aggregates from masonry rubble, Type 2 aggregates from concrete rubble; Type 3 mixture of natural
(min 80 %) and recycled (max 20 %) aggregate

Exteberria et al. (2007) found similar behavior with tests using 25 % RA that performed as
well as conventional concrete with the same w/c ratio. This study tested concrete made with
0, 25, 50, and 100 % RA concrete mixes and concluded that up to 25 % could be replaced
without sig- nificant change in compressive strength or a different w/c ratio; however, to
obtain the same strength with 50–100 % RA, w/c ratio needed to be 4–10 % lower, and
without this alteration, the compressive strength for 100 % RA mixes was reduced by 20–25
% (Exteberria et al. 2007).

Table 2 RA material tests (by Kang et al. 2012).

Concrete f0c (MPa) Reduction fct (MPa) Reduction fr (MPa) Reduction

in f0c (%) in fct (%) in fr (%)
RA 0 % 38.6 – 3.3 – 10.2 –
RA 15 % 32.7 15 3 9 9.7 5
RA 30 % 31.7 18 2.7 18 9.0 12
RA 50 % 29.0 25 2.7 18 8.9 13

Yang et al. (2008) attributed a reduction in compressive strength for RA concrete to the
increased water absorption of the aggregate and found that at relatively low water absorption
(relatively low RA fraction) concrete had equivalent compressive strengths while higher RA
frac- tions and absorption compressive strengths were 60–80 % of that of conventional control
concrete, but that the compres- sive strength improved with age. Since the aggregate can store
more water, this water can be released into the new mortar over time to continue to feed the
cement for longer time, which improves strength.
The degree of strength reduction in RA concrete does vary with each source aggregate.
Froudinstou-Yannas (1977) also found that some mixes replacing 100 % of coarse aggregate
with RA had about 76 % of the compressive strength of conventional concrete, while mixes
using dif- ferent w/c ratios had as low as 4 % reduction in compressive strength. Furthermore,
a report by Tavakoli and Soroushian (1996) studied compressive strength of concretes made
with two different sources for RA side-by-side. It is found that while RA usually reduces
concrete compressive strength due to higher water absorption of the aggregate and the weak
residual mortar layer. It is possible to produce concrete that is stronger than a conventional

14
concrete if the source con- crete is stronger than that at which the RA concrete is intended to
perform. It would be recommended that when using RA for structural concrete applications,
strength tests be performed to ensure what strength of concrete the RA is capable of producing
and verify what RA fraction is acceptable or if there are changes in the w/c ratio needed in
order to produce concrete of the desired strength.

5.2 Splitting Tensile Strength

Splitting tensile strength is less affected by RA content than compressive strength. Several
past and recent tests (e.g., Kang et al. 2012) show that the splitting tensile strength of RA
concrete is comparable to conventional concrete. In some cases, RA concrete performed
superior to NA con- crete with regards to tension. According to Exteberria et al. (2007), the
improvement is due to the increased absorption of the mortar attached to the recycled
aggregate and the effective ITZ, which indicates a good bond between aggre- gate and the
mortar matrix. While this residual mortar cre- ates a weakened spot for compressive failure
to occur, limited quantities improve the tensile capacity by creating a smoother transition
between mortar and aggregate.

Unlike with compressive strength, high-strength concrete mixes with low w/c ratios show
even greater improvement in splitting tensile strength. Figure 3, from Tavakoli and
Soroushian (1996), shows the tensile strengths for RA concrete mixes made from two
aggregate sources as com- pared to NA mixes. In Fig. 3, the samples with lower w/c ratios
have more improved tensile strength than the higher w/c ratios when aggregate size and dry
mixing time do not have a distinct influence. Most RA concrete samples in the figure at the
lower w/c ratio have showed the improved tensile strength. Overall, the confidence interval
of the measured RA tensile strength is greater than the measured NA tensile strength.
Similarly, Yang et al. (2008) relate improved tensile perfor- mance of RA concrete to high
strength source aggregate which has lower water absorption and w/c ratios. This mirrors the effect
of high strength source concrete on compressive strength. Fig- ure 4 shows that samples made
with high strength concrete (grade I) have greater normalized tensile strengths than samples
made with lower strength source concrete (grade III). Also, it shows that the generalized
relationship to predict tensile strength
(ft) from compressive strength (fc0 ) where (ft/ f 0c = 0.53) is conservative for all samples made
from grade I concrete, but not
all grade III samples reached the predicted value (Yang et al. 2008). This indicates that using
RA from higher strength source aggregate may be as beneficial in improving tensile strength
as it is for improving compressive performance.

5.3 Modulus of Rupture and Elasticity

The modulus of rupture, a measure of flexural strength, and the modulus of elasticity (also
known as Young’s modulus), a measure of concrete stiffness, are often pre- dicted from
compressive strength, but these relationships do not represent RA concrete as well as NA
concrete. This section examines each modulus and how RA affects these characteristics of
concrete.

15
The modulus of rupture is not well represented by the stan- dard relationship with compressive
strength. Tavakoli and Soroushian (1996) described that the modulus of rupture tests of RA
concrete gave more varied results. The RA concrete performed better in terms of the modulus
of rupture than con- ventional concrete at the higher water-cement ratio, but it per- formed worse
at the lower water-cement ratio. Since the current model relating compressive and flexural
strengths is inade- quate, there should be more research on the impact of RA on concrete flexural
strength so that a new, more representative, relationship can be developed. Yang et al. (2008)
examined how water absorption of RA and the strength of RA source concrete influence how
well compressive strength predicts modulus of rupture. This paper concluded that RA concrete
made with RA from high strength source concrete with low water absorption perform like
conventional concrete, while low strength source RA with high water absorption yields a
modulus of rupture less than predicted, likely due to the weak residual mortar layer (Yang et al.
2008). Since both compressive and tensile strengths generally decrease under the same con-
ditions that cause reduced flexural strength, this conclusion is reasonable. While in flexure the
top of the specimen experi- ences compression while the lower portion experiences tension.

If either the compressive or tensile capacity of the specimen is compromised, the flexural
strength will also be affected. Tensile strength was also greater than the predicted value for
concrete with RA from a high strength source with low water absorp- tion. Since concrete is
weaker in tension than in compression, it is reasonable that modulus of rupture would follow a
similar pattern to tensile strength, the weaker chord resistance. Recent tests by Kang et al. (2012)
proved that the modulus of rupture is moderately affected by the replacement of RA. For the RA
replacement ratio of 15–50 %, the modulus of rupture was reduced by only 13 % at most
(Table 2).

Fig. 3 Splitting tensile strength for RA and NA concrete with varied aggregate size, w/c ratio, and dry mix time
(plotted using thedata from Tavakoli and Soroushian 1996).

16
 Fig. 4 Normalized splitting tensile strength versus aggregatewater absorption for RA concrete (adapted from
Yang et al. 2008).

The main factor affecting the RA concrete modulus of elasticity is the modulus of elasticity
for the aggregate itself. Improvement of tensile strength with the addition of RA would
usually be associated with an improved elasticity; however, because the ‘‘recycled aggregates
are more prone to deformation than raw aggregates,’’ the weakness of the aggregate reduces
the Young’s modulus for concrete when RA is used (Exteberria et al. 2007). Generally,
Young’s modulus for RA concrete was lower than that of conven- tional concrete, but there
is significant variation between studies as to how much the modulus is reduced. For exam-
ple, a study by Froudinstou-Yannas (1977) found that the modulus of elasticity for RA
concrete was as low as 60 % of that of NA concrete, whereas a study by Maruyama et al.
(2004) found a reduction of only 20 %. The most likely cause for this variation is the
different properties of the aggregate used in each study. This would further prove the theory
that the modulus of elasticity is controlled by the aggregate properties (e.g., aggregate
elasticity) rather than the properties of the concrete as a whole (e.g., compressive or flexural
strength). Similar to modulus of rupture, the effect of RA on Young’s modulus of concrete
requires further research to develop a relationship that can be used to better predict the
behavior.
In the following section, given that the properties of RA concrete are known, structural
performance of RA concrete beams is assessed.

6. Structural Performance of RA Beams

Knowing about how the different properties of aggregate affect concrete material behavior is
vital to understanding how the concrete will perform in structural members. It cannot be
determined if RA concrete is a structurally viable material without realizing how the changes
in concrete properties from RA addition will influence overall perfor- mance on the large
scale. This section examines the behavior of large-scale RA concrete beams in flexure and
how it compares to that of conventional concrete beams.

17
 Fig. 5 Flexural failure of RA beam (tested by Kang et al. 2012).

6.1 Midspan Deflection Under Service Load

Based on service load deflection, RA reinforced con- crete beams perform less well than
conventional concrete beams. However, the change in aggregate does not have enough
influence on deflection to discourage RA use in concrete beams. In a study by Fathifazl et
Exposure classa or Type 1b (%) Type 2b (%)
aggregate
DAfStb (1998)—Germany X0 [coarse] B45 B35
XC1 to XC4 [coarse] B45 B35
XF1 and XF3 [coarse] B35 B25
XA1 [coarse] B25 B25
[Fine] Not allowed
Type 1c Type 2c Type 3c
RILEM (1994) Coarse (C4 mm) B100 % B100 % B20 %
Fine (\4 mm) Not allowed
NEN 5950:1995 (VBT 1995)—Netherlands (NEN Coarse B20 %
5950:1995 nl 1995)
Fine B20 %
CRIC (2004)—Belgium Coarse B100 %

Fine Allowed with restriction

DS 481 (1998)—Denmark Coarse B100 %
Fine B20 %
BS EN 12620:2002?A1 (BS 2002)—UK Coarse B20 %

Fine Not allowed

Table 3 Criteria of RA replacement ratio for production of

structural concrete.

18
it was found that, under a load of 40 % of failure load, midspan deflection was greater for
RA beams than for NA beams, but that predicted deflections from the ACI 318-11 (2011),
Eurocode 2 (2004), and the moment curvature method are still greater than the observed
deflections. Maruyama et al. (2004) and Sato et al. (2007) also confirm that midspan
deflections of beams are larger with RA than NA based concrete; while Sato et al. (2007)
went a step further to note that this effect is consistent regardless of RA type and source
concrete or the wet or dry curing condition of the beam. A likely cause for increased
deflections in RA concrete beams is the reduced modulus of elasticity of the RA concrete
(Maruyama et al. 2004). The low Young’s modulus indicates that the material is easier to
deform; thus, a lower load may cause greater deformation in an RA concrete beam than in a
conventional concrete beam. The most important thing to consider, however, is if the
increase in deformation is enough to rule out RA concrete as a viable structural material.
Since the standard predictions of midspan deflections are still more severe than deflections
produced by the use of RA, there is no reason to deny RA use in regards to deflection.

6.2 Crack Width and Spacing

Maruyama et al. (2004) also found that RA beams had greater crack width and smaller crack
spacing, but noted that the variation of these parameters between RA and NA concrete was
small from an engineering perspective and that RA beam crack width was still well below the
applicable standards. A third study by Sato et al. (2007) had similar relationships, but also
studied the effect on the curing con- ditions, where dry curing had smaller crack spacing than
wet curing, still with no significant effect. It can be concluded that RA can increase crack
width and reduce crack spacing, but that current standards can still be used to predict these
parameters. An explanation for this behavior stems from the addition of a second ITZ region
in RA concrete. This region is a weak point in the concrete where cracking is most likely to
occur. With both the ITZ from the residual mortar and the ITZ from the new mortar meeting
the RA, this ITZ can become larger and yield closer, wider cracking. Since the effect of RA on
these parameters is still small, RA is not a hindrance to structural concrete members with
respect to crack spacing and width.

6.3 Ultimate and Cracking Moments

Ultimate moments of reinforced concrete beams tended to be unaffected by the use of RA,
as long as steel yielding occurs prior to concrete crushing. This was true even if RA beams had
larger upward shifts of the neutral axis after cracking compared to the NA beams (Fig. 5). As
described earlier, only the concrete strength is reduced for RA con- crete. If the concrete
strengths were the same between the RA and NA beams, the difference in moment strength
turned out to be very small (Kang et al. 2012). Furthermore, the difference was even negligible
if ratio of the volume of RA to the volume of NA would be limited to about 3/7 (Kang et al.

19
2012). The criteria of RA replacement ratio for the production of structural concrete set forth
by various countries are summarized in Table 3.

Sato et al. (2007) also concludes that as long as the steel yielding occurs the ultimate
moments of RA and NA reinforced concrete beams are practically the same and that ‘‘the
ultimate moment can be predicted using Japanese codes irrespective of the type of original
aggregate and original concrete.’’ Knowing that RA from more than one source performed
the same provides confidence that the behavior is consistent for all RA concrete and that
there is no special consideration to be made if the aggregate is of a lower quality or from a
weaker source concrete. The conclusion that ultimate moment is unchanged by RA use is
verified in other studies as well. One study by Maruyama et al. (2004) found that all
experimental ultimate moments were 10–20 % greater than predicted, and Fathifazl et al.
(2009) also shows measure ultimate moments greater than predicted values by several
methods, as seen in Fig. 6, where beam IDs beginning with ‘ E’ and ‘‘C’’ represent RA
and NA concretes, respectively. With evidence that beams with RA have equivalent ultimate
moments and that various predictors of this moment are still applicable, there is no reason
that RA cannot be used with respect to ultimate moments.

Fig. 6 Comparison of experimental and predicted ultimate

moments (plotted using data from Fathifazl et al.2009).

20
 Cracking moments are more impacted by RA than ulti- mate moments, since the strength
properties of the concrete itself have more influence on cracking. Fathifazl et al. (2009) found
that RA concrete cracking moments were lower than with NA and compared the experimental
cracking moment from visual inspection to what is predicted based on both the modulus of
rupture and the splitting tensile strength. While either prediction was still applicable to RA
concrete beams, the cracking moment predicted from splitting tensile strength was closer to
the observed cracking moment, within 20 % of predicted for all but one test (Fathifazl et al.
2009). Since the changed concrete properties with RA use lower cracking moment and some
strength parameters are better predictors, more research should be done to determine if,
generally, concrete made with RA is still acceptable for structural use with regards to
cracking moment. Cracking moments for RA concrete beams being only slightly lower than
those of conventional concrete beams from an engineering perspec- tive would indicate that
the harm of RA is limited, but the change in effectiveness of the predictors with RA use could
be a concern, possibly requiring an amendment to the current standards.

21
7.Conclusion
This paper has discussed properties of RA, the effects of RA use on concrete material
properties, and the large scale impact of RA on structural members. Aggregate properties are most
affected by the residual adhered mortar on RA. Because of this, RA is less dense, more porous,
and has a higher water absorption capacity than NA. While RA and NA have similar gradation,
RA particles are more rounded in shape and have more fines broken off in L.A. abrasion and
crushing tests. Replacing NA in concrete with RA decreases the compressive strength, but yields
equivalent or superior splitting tensile strength. The modulus of rupture for RA concrete was less
that of conventional concrete, likely due to the weakened interfacial transition zone from residual
mortar. The modulus of elasticity is also lower than expected, caused by the more ductile aggregate.
Full scale beams did not seem to be as affected by RA content as small scale materials tests. Beams
with RA did experience greater midspan deflections under a service load, but the deflections
were still much less than the codified maximums. Crack spacing was closer and crack widths
were greater, but these variations were not different enough from conventional concrete to
warrant concern. Ultimate moment, still controlled by steel yielding was unaffected by RA
content. Lastly, cracking moments were reduced in beams with RA. While cracking moment
was still predictable by relationships to split- ting tensile strength and modulus of rupture, the
relationship to modulus of rupture seemed less representative for RA beams. Overall, even though
RA can be lower quality aggregate and have a negative influence on concrete material
proper- ties, the large scale testing showed that, when looking at a complete structural
member, RA can still be used to create a structural concrete. Since the performance of RA
con- crete beams is still within standard specifications, it is likely a viable option for structural
use. Since the qualities of RA are still highly varied among different sources, there is room for
more testing to make sure the conclusions that have been drawn in this paper are applicable in
the broad sense of RA concrete, regardless of the RA source.

22
 References
ACI Committee 318. (2011). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary.
Farm- ington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
AS. (1996). Particle density and water absorption of aggre- gates (AS 1141.6.2-1996). Sydney: Australian Standard.
BS EN 12620:2002?A1. (2002). Aggregates for concrete.
British-Adopted European Standard.
Buck, A. D. (1977). Recycled concrete as a source of aggregate.
ACI Journal, 74, 212–219.
CRIC. (2004). TRA 550—Toepassingsreglement beton, versie
2.1 (in Dutch).
DAfStb. (1998). Deutscher ausschuss für elsenbeton. Germany: German Committee for Reinforced Concrete (in
German). DIN. (2001). Concrete—Part 1: Specification, performance,production and conformity (DIN EN 206-
1). Berlin: Deuts-
ches Institut für Normung.
DIN. (2002). Aggregates for mortar and concrete—Part 100: Recycled aggregates (DIN 4226-100). Berlin:
Deutsches Institut für Normung.
DIN. (2008). Concrete, reinforced and prestressed concrete structures—Part 2: Concrete—Specification,
properties, production and conformity—Application rules for DIN EN 206-1 (DIN 1045-2:2008). Berlin:
Deutsches Institut für Normung.
DS 481. (1998). Concrete—Materials. Draft 3rd version (in Danish).
EHE. (2000). Instrucción de hormigón structural. Madrid: Ministerio de Fomento (in Spanish).
Eurocode 2. (2004). Design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings (EN 1992-1-1).
European Standard, European Committee for Standardiza-tion, Ref. No. EN 1992-1-1:2004: E.
Exteberria, M., Vásquez, E., & Marı́, A. R. (2007). Influence of amount of recycled coarse aggregates and production
pro- cess on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 37, 735–742.
Fathifazl, G., Razaqpur, A. G., Igsor, O. B., Abbas, A., Four- nier, B., & Foo, S. (2009). Flexural performance of
steel- reinforced recycled concrete beams. ACI Structural Jour- nal, 106(6), 858–867.
Froudinstou-Yannas, S. (1977). Waste concrete as aggregate fornew concrete. ACI Journal, 74, 373–376.
JIS. (2011). Recycled aggregate for concrete-class H (JIS A 5021:2011). Tokyo: Japan Concrete Institute (in
Japanese).
JIS. (2012a). Recycled concrete using recycled aggregate class M (JIS A 5022:2012). Tokyo: Japan Concrete
Institute (in Japanese).
JIS. (2012b). Recycled concrete using recycled aggregate classL (JIS A 5023:2012). Japan Concrete Institute: Japan
Concrete Institute (in Japanese).
Kang, T. H.-K., Kim, W., Kwak, Y.-K., & Hong, S.-G. (2012).
The choice of recycled concrete aggregates for flexural members. In Proceedings of 18th international
associationfor bridge and structural engineering congress on inno- vative infrastructures, Seoul, Korea.

23