Review

Mechanical properties modeling of recycled aggregate concrete

Antonio Eduardo Bezerra Cabral
a,
*
, Valdir Schalch
b
, Denise Carpena Coitinho Dal Molin
c
,
Jos Luis Duarte Ribeiro
c
a
Department of Structural Engineering and Civil Construction (DEECC), Federal University of Cear (UFC), Campus Universitrio do Pici, Bloco 710, CEP 60455-760, Fortaleza/CE, Brazil
b
Hydraulic and Sanitation Department (SHS) of the University of So Paulo (EESC/USP), Av. Trabalhador Socarlense, 400, Centro, CEP 13.566-590,
Caixa Postal 359, So Carlos/SP, Brazil
c
Nucleus Geared Towards Innovational Buildings (NORIE) of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99,
3 andar, CEP 90.035-190, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 February 2009
Received in revised form 11 October 2009
Accepted 15 October 2009
Available online 13 November 2009
Keywords:
Recycled aggregate
Mechanical properties
Design of experiments
C&D waste
a b s t r a c t
The variability observed in the composition of construction and demolition (C&D) waste is a problem that
inhibits the use of recycled aggregates in concrete production. To contribute in this eld, a research was
carried out varying water/cement ratio and substitution percent of natural aggregates by recycled aggre-
gates. The experimental program used samples of main Brazilian C&D waste sources, which are concrete,
mortar and red ceramic bricks as well as tiles. Results of concrete compressive strength and elastic mod-
ulus were statistically analyzed and modeled. The study shows that for both concrete properties, recycled
coarse aggregate was more inuential than recycled ne aggregate. However, the use of ne recycled red
ceramic increased concrete strength. Coarse recycled red ceramic aggregate and ne recycled concrete
aggregate exercised the largest and the smallest inuence, respectively, in concrete properties.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
2. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
2.1. Design of experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
2.2. Concrete production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
3. Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
3.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
3.2. Elastic modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
3.3. Compressive strength and elastic modulus correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
1. Introduction
Construction industry is a productive sector that has a consider-
able role in the Brazilian economy. Between 1980 and 1996, this
sector was responsible for 65% of total investment in the country.
In 1999, this sector reached the mark of 70%. By 2001, this sector
was responsible for 15.6%of the GNP, andconstructionof residential
buildings represented around 7.5% of national GNP. Construction
industry is indeed the largest consumer of natural resources in the
world, absorbing from 20% to 50% of all resources explored [1].
Construction activities demand a signicant amount of natural
materials, such as sand and gravel. In Brazil, there is an estimated
annual consumption of 210 million tons of aggregates, only for the
production of mortars and concretes, without considering the vol-
ume used in paving and its losses [1]. In the USA, 40% of natural re-
sources harvested have been used in construction operations [2].
The extraction of this material modies the course of rivers and
its beds, creating environmental problems. The extraction of rocks
from mountains is also a dangerous activity to environment, since
it alters landscapes and causes stability problems in them.
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.011
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 85 3366 9607; fax: +55 85 3366 9607.
E-mail address: eduardo.cabral@ufc.br (A.E.B. Cabral).
Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Construction and Building Materials
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ conbui l dmat
As many industrial process, construction industry generates
waste on large scale, as it might be responsible for 40% of the waste
generated from the whole economy [1]. The annual C&D waste in
the USA is estimated as 136 million tons and in the rst 15 coun-
tries of the European Union it reaches about 180 million tons [3].
Shanghai City alone, wastes 20 million tons annually [4]. Other
studies reported that C&D waste corresponds to 50% of all munici-
pal waste generated in Brazilian cities [5]. The waste is also large in
other countries, as in the Hong Kong SAR, Canada and the UK, that
currently takes up 33% to 65% of the existing landll space [2].
The improper disposal of C&D waste is a problem faced by
municipalities, not only in Brazil, but also in other countries of
the world. Irregular disposal affects the environment directly,
being responsible inline with other factors for oodings, damages
to landscapes, road obstructions, disease proliferation, and other
damages to human health and living beings.
As a result of high aggregate consumption, there is a critical
shortage of natural aggregates for concrete production in many ur-
ban areas, as well as an increasing amount of C&D waste, being
generated in the same areas. A solution to these problems could
be the recycling of C&D waste, generating recycled aggregates
and its utilization in the construction industry itself, as an alterna-
tive material.
Nevertheless, C&D waste varies its composition depending on
location and time. Concrete, mortar and red ceramics appears as
the main components of C&D waste, reaching above 70% by weight
[5,6]. The heterogeneity inuences the characteristics of recycled
aggregates, therefore the use of aggregate types, produces some
modications in the behavior of produced concrete, regarding
some properties [7]. Therefore, it is important to assess properties
of recycled aggregate concrete, considering that the percentage of
these main contents does vary.
Hence, the aim of this report is model concretes compressive
strength and elastic modulus as a function of water/cement ratio
as well as recycled aggregate types and quantities.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Design of experiments
Seven independent variables (factors) were identied: ne recycled aggregates
of red ceramic (brick ceramic) (FRB), coarse recycled aggregates of red ceramic
(brick ceramic) (CRB), ne recycled aggregates of mortar (FRM), coarse recycled
aggregates of mortar (CRM), ne recycled aggregates of concrete (FRC), coarse recy-
cled aggregates of concrete (CRC) and water/cement ratio (w/c). These aggregates
were produced using a jaw crusher and comes from a real rubble. The ne and
coarse recycled aggregates have the same grading curves and neness modulus
(2.70 and 6.50) of theirs respectively natural aggregates.
The experimental design selected to study the effect of all seven factors on the
response variables was a second order composite design [8]. The second order
composite design contemplates a 2
72
fractional factorial design (mixtures 132
in Table 1) plus 2
k
vertexes of star points (mixtures 3346 in Table 1) and two
central points (mixtures 47 and 48 in Table 1) [8].
The use of fractional factorial projects is quite useful when there are a large
number of factors to be analyzed. Fractional designs allow time and cost optimiza-
tion, since just a fraction of the total number of tests is performed. Fractional facto-
rial designed have been previously used and reported by numerous researches
[911].
Besides the traditional second order composite design, mixtures 49 and 50 were
inserted into the experimental design, since these mixtures represent the condition
where all aggregates (recycled and natural) are present. Regarding these mixtures,
the water/cement ratio were the two averages of the lower and upper thirds, in
other words, 0.46 and 0.74. Table 1 shows all concrete mixtures tested in the exper-
imental plan.
Compressive strength and elastic modulus are the response variables (depen-
dent variables), which are measured following procedures described in Brazilian
Standards NBR 5739/07 and NBR 8522/08, respectively.
The statistical analyses for compressive strength and elastic modulus were per-
formed and models were obtaining. These models allow the prediction of concretes
performance for 0100% replacement of natural aggregates by recycled aggregates
and water/cement ratio ranging from 0.46 to 0.74.
Water absorption, specic gravity and bulk density of recycled ne and coarse
aggregates and natural ne and coarse aggregate were measured by the methods
proposed by their respective Brazilian Standards. For each aggregate, those proper-
ties were dened twice, through two samples. The average results for ne aggre-
gates are in Table 2, while average results for coarse aggregates are in Table 3.
The cement used was Brazilian Portland Cement type V and its properties are
shown in Table 4.
2.2. Concrete production
The reference dosage of the natural aggregates was performed using the IPT/
EPUSPs method [12]. The workability was xed in 120 20 mm based in the slump
test method. Dosage diagram is shown in Fig. 1. Table 5 shows concrete composi-
tion for the 0.46w/c ratio, performed with natural aggregates.
When substituting the natural aggregates for the recycled ones, some adjust-
ments in concrete dosage were necessary, such as volume compensation and pre-
soaking water for recycled aggregates. The volume compensation of recycled aggre-
gates employed in the pre-determined mixtures was done to compensate the fact
that specic gravity of recycled aggregates is lower than natural aggregates and
the simple mass substitution would result in higher volumes of recycled aggregates
[13,14]. This would require more water and cement in order to produce equivalent
mixtures. The volume compensation of the recycled aggregates in the experimental
project mixtures was done according to:
M
RA
M
NA
:
c
RA
c
NA
1
M
RA
is recycled aggregate mass (kg), M
NA
is natural aggregate mass (kg), c
RA
is
specic gravity of recycled aggregate and c
NA
is specic gravity of natural aggregate.
Afterwards, 10 min prior to mixing process, recycled aggregates were moist-
ened with 80% of the water that would be absorbed in 24 h by the recycled aggre-
gate mass corresponding to the mixture. This procedure was recommended by
other authors [15]. This procedure allowed that aggregates were already moist
when they went to the pan-mixer, avoiding that part of the mixing water could
be absorbed by the aggregates, which would disturb the water/cement ratio [3].
Some superplasticizer mass were added to the mixtures to reach desired workabil-
ity (120 20 mm, as indicated by the slump test).
Four cylindrical specimens with 10 cm (diameter) by 20 cm (height) were
casted for each produced mixture, according to the procedures of Brazilian Standard
NBR 5738/08. The specimens were maintained in a humid chamber until the age of
test (28 days). At this age, the specimens received a sulfur coat and were tested
according to the Brazilian Standards NBR 5739/07 and NBR 8522/08 for compres-
sive strength and elastic modulus, respectively.
The results were treated statistically and models for compressive strength and
elastic modulus were produced. Using these models the behavior of specimens with
different percentages of recycled aggregates and w/c ratios were graphically illus-
trated. A table presenting losses and earnings for each mixture was also generated.
3. Results
It is well established in literature that compressive strength
follows Abrams Law (Eq. (2)), while elastic modulus follows
Eq. (3). However, to cope with the effect of the addition of recy-
cled aggregates, a specic term (Eq. (4)) was added to these equa-
tions. The value assumed by this termdepends on type and content
of recycled aggregate that replaces ne and coarse natural
aggregate.
f
c

b
1
b
a=c
2
!
: 2
E
c

b
3
a=c
0;5

3
1 a
1
:CRM a
2
:FRM a
3
:CRC a
4
:FRC a
5
:CRB a
6
:FRB 4
The coefcients b
1
, b
2
and b
3
were obtained from the results of
concrete specimens without recycled aggregates. The coefcients
from a
1
to a
6
were obtained from the results of concretes produced
with recycled aggregates.
More complex models were tested, but the statistical gain was
quite small, therefore the simpler models were chosen. The
attempt of inserting square terms (as CRC
2
, for example) or inter-
actions (as CRM FRM, for example) did not improve the adjust-
ment, so those more complex terms were left out. After the
construction of the models, residual analyses were performed to
check goodness-of-t.
422 A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430
3.1. Compressive strength
The parameters estimates for Eqs. (2) and (4) are shown in
Table 6. Eq. (5) represents the model for compressive strength of
concretes with recycled aggregates, considering possible inclusion
of coarse and ne aggregates from concrete, mortar or brick ceram-
ics recycling.
f
c

115
7:2
a=c

1 0:306 CRM0:164 FRM0:195 CRC
0:058 FRC 0:344 CRB 0:136 FRB 5
Table 1
Concrete mixtures dened according to the second order composite design.
Mixtures w/c Coarse aggregate (%) Fine aggregate (%)
Natural Concrete Brick ceramics Mortar Natural Concrete Brick ceramics Mortar
01 0.46 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
02 0.74 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
03 0.74 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
04 0.46 100 0 0 0 0 50 50 0
05 0.74 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100
06 0.46 0 0 0 100 0 0 50 50
07 0.46 0 0 0 100 0 50 0 50
08 0.74 0 0 0 100 0 33 33 33
09 0.46 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
10 0.74 0 0 100 0 0 0 50 50
11 0.74 0 0 100 0 0 50 0 50
12 0.46 0 0 100 0 0 33 33 33
13 0.74 0 0 50 50 100 0 0 0
14 0.46 0 0 50 50 0 0 100 0
15 0.46 0 0 50 50 0 100 0 0
16 0.74 0 0 50 50 0 50 50 0
17 0.46 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
18 0.74 0 100 0 0 0 0 50 50
19 0.74 0 100 0 0 0 50 0 50
20 0.46 0 100 0 0 0 33 33 33
21 0.74 0 50 0 50 100 0 0 0
22 0.46 0 50 0 50 0 0 100 0
23 0.46 0 50 0 50 0 100 0 0
24 0.74 0 50 0 50 0 50 50 0
25 0.46 0 50 50 0 100 0 0 0
26 0.74 0 50 50 0 0 0 100 0
27 0.74 0 50 50 0 0 100 0 0
28 0.46 0 50 50 0 0 50 50 0
29 0.74 0 33 33 33 0 0 0 100
30 0.46 0 33 33 33 0 0 50 50
31 0.46 0 33 33 33 0 50 0 50
32 0.74 0 33 33 33 0 33 33 33
33 0.60 0 50 25 25 0 33 33 33
34 0.60 0 0 50 50 0 33 33 33
35 0.60 0 25 50 25 0 33 33 33
36 0.60 0 50 0 50 0 33 33 33
37 0.60 0 25 25 50 0 33 33 33
38 0.60 0 50 50 0 0 33 33 33
39 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 50 25 25
40 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 0 50 50
41 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 25 50 25
42 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 50 0 50
43 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 25 25 50
44 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 50 50 0
45 0.80 0 33 33 33 0 33 33 33
46 0.40 0 33 33 33 0 33 33 33
47 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 33 33 33
48 0.60 0 33 33 33 0 33 33 33
49 0.46 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
50 0.74 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Table 2
Fine aggregates characteristics.
Aggregate Method
NM 30/00 NBR 9776/87 NM 45/02
Absorption
(%)
Specic gravity Bulk density
(kg/m
3
)
Natural 0.42 2.64 1,560
Recycled concrete FRC 7.55 2.56 1,430
Recycled mortar FRM 4.13 2.60 1,390
Recycled brick ceramics FRB 10.69 2.35 1,260
Table 3
Coarse aggregates characteristics.
Aggregate Method
NM 53/02 NM 53/02 NM 45/02
Absorption
(%)
Specic
gravity
Bulk density
(kg/m
3
)
Natural 1.22 2.87 1,440
Recycled concrete CRC 5.65 2.27 1,540
Recycled mortar CRM 9.52 2.01 1,440
Recycled brick ceramics CRB 15.62 1.86 1,460
A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430 423
The R
2
statistic indicates that the model as tted explains 96.5%
of the variability in compressive strength. The standard error of the
estimate shows the standard deviation of the residuals to be 1.64.
Once the condence interval does not contain zero, it can be as-
sumed that all included terms in the model are signicant for this
condence level (95%).
It is worth noting that the rst term between parentheses refers
to concrete strength without substitution of natural aggregates by
recycled ones and it is a function of water/cement ratio. This term
was previously dened, starting from an analysis of the values ob-
tained when the water/cement ratio is 0.46, 0.60 and 0.74, being
dened to minimize the prediction errors. The second term, be-
tween brackets, denes a percentile to be applied on the original
strength, reducing or improving the strength in function of the
recycled aggregate type and content. In this model, the percentage
of substitution of ne or coarse natural aggregates for those recy-
cled should be informed in the scale of 0 (0%)1 (100%), while
water/cement ratio is expressed in the usual scale, varying from
0.40 to 0.80. The sum for the percentage of substitution of natural
aggregates by recycled ones should be equal or lower than 1 (100%)
for each aggregate type (coarse and ne).
It is observed that coarse aggregate substitution produces an ef-
fect larger than the substitution of ne ones. This is conrmed by
the magnitude of the respective coefcients. This behavior is in
agreement with other results reported in literature [11].
According to Eq. (5), substitution of natural aggregates by the
recycled ones results in a reduction in concrete strength, except
in the case of ne recycled aggregate of brick ceramics (FRB) that
provides an increment in concrete strength.
Figs. 24 and Table 7 present results obtained using Eq. (5). As
can be seen in Figs. 24 water/cement ratio inuences concrete
compressive strength. FRC and FRM exercise a negative inuence
in the strength. The lowest inuence was performed by FRC, reduc-
ing the compressive strength in 6% for 100% of substitution. This
value is quite similar to results reported by Evangelista and Brito
[17]. They obtained a 7.6% lower strength resistance concrete with
100% of ne recycled concrete aggregate [15].
The FRB produced an improvement in compressive strength,
reaching a 14% increase associated to 100% replacement. This
increase might be due to pozzolanic reactions. These reactions
improve the interfacial transition zone between the paste and
the aggregates and consequently improving the mechanical prop-
erties of the concretes and mortars produced with this type of ne
recycled aggregates [3,14]. Strength increase is also partly due to
the roughness of particles in the recycled aggregates of ceramics
that supplies a better bond between the cement paste and the
Table 4
Properties of Portland Cement used.
Oxide Composition (%)
MgO 4.85
SO
3
3.10
Free lime 1.31
Al
2
O
3
4.40
SiO
2
18.55
Fe
2
O
3
2.66
CaO 60.11
Alkaline equivalent 0.59
Insoluble residue 0.76
Loss on ignition 3.46
Fineness (Blaine method) 4916 cm
2
/g
Grip time
Begin 185 min
End 245 min
Strength
1 day 30.8 MPa
3 days 39.5 MPa
7 days 44.9 MPa
28 days 51.5 MPa
Fig. 1. Concrete dosage diagram.
424 A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430
aggregates. Another possibility is that water absorbed by recycled
aggregates becomes available for the continuous hydration of ce-
ment [2,18,19]. That behavior was related by other researchers
[20].
The weakest results were obtained when natural coarse aggre-
gate was replaced by recycled coarse aggregate of brick ceramics
(CRB). According to the model, this replacement reduces the
strength by 38% for a replacement of 100%. Such reduction value
is quite coherent with others reports [16,21,10,22]. This behavior
is probably due to the angular aggregates shape. This shape does
not provide an efcient grain package and thus it produces con-
cretes with large amounts of voids [2].
The coarse aggregate presenting the best performance consider-
ing strength behavior was the CRC, although it has still shown a
reduction of 28% for 100% replacement. However, the strength of
the concrete mix that the coarse recycled concrete aggregate was
made of inuences the strength of the recycled concrete. The great-
er the strength of the original concrete, the lesser inuence the
coarse recycled concrete aggregate will promote [23]. As the CRC
used comes from rubble, the strength of original concrete is un-
known, but probably is lesser that the strength of the recycled con-
crete produced.
According to the model, ne recycled aggregates of mortar and
concrete do not produce a large inuence on concrete strength,
showing a reduction of 15% and 7%, respectively, for a 100%
replacement.
Nevertheless, to produce recycled aggregate concrete with the
same or superior natural aggregate concretes compressive
strength, an improvement of cement consumption or the use of
mineral additions should be considered [4,6,15,19].
3.2. Elastic modulus
The procedure to obtain the parameters estimates for the elas-
tic modulus model was the same described for the compressive
strength model using multiple regression tools. Table 8 shows
the parameters estimates. Eq. (7) presents the elastic modulus
model for concretes with recycled aggregates, considering coarse
and ne aggregates from concrete, mortar and brick ceramics
recycling.
E
c

21
a=c
0:5

1 0:344 RMC 0:150 RMF 0:214 RCC
0:098 RCF 0:438 RBC 0:102 RBF 6
As can be seen in Table 8, model R
2
statistic is high (96.6%). The
standard error of the estimate shows that the standard deviation of
the residuals is 0.76. Once coefcients condence interval do not
contain zero, it can be assumed that all included terms in the mod-
el are signicant for this condence level (95%).
As for compressive strength model, percentage of substitution
of ne or coarse aggregates are informed in the 0 (0%)1 (100%)
scale, while water/cement ratio ranges from 0.46 to 0.74. The
sum of the substitution percentages for the recycled aggregates
Table 5
Composition of concrete with w/c ratio equal to 0.46, prepared with natural
aggregates.
Cement (kg) Fine aggregate (kg) Coarse aggregate (kg) Water (kg)
5.952 9.642 15 2.738
Table 6
Parameters estimates and ANOVA for compressive strength model (Condence level:
95%).
Parameter Estimate Standard error Lower Upper
Condence interval
b
1
115.12 5.445 104.12 126.11
b
2
7.20 0.569 6.05 8.35
a
1
0.306 0.028 0.249 0.361
a
2
0.164 0.028 0.106 0.222
a
3
0.195 0.028 0.138 0.251
a
4
0.058 0.028 0.001 0.116
a
5
0.344 0.027 0.291 0.398
a
6
0.136 0.030 0.196 0.074
Source Sum of squares DF Mean square F test
ANOVA
Model 36272.9 8 4534.11 1692.5
residual 109.828 41 2.678
Total 36382.7 49
R
2
= 96.50%
Standard error of estimate = 1.64
Fig. 2. Compressive strength behavior as a function of percentage of replacement and type of recycled aggregate for a water/cement ratio equal to 0.46.
A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430 425
should be equal or lower than 1 for each aggregate type (coarse
and ne).
The rst term in parenthesis in Eq. (6) refers to the elastic mod-
ulus for concrete without any substitution of natural aggregates,
which is a function of water/cement ratio. This term was previ-
ously dened from an analysis of the values obtained when
water/cement ranges from 0.46 to 0.74. The modeling was carried
out minimizing prediction errors. The second term, in brackets, de-
nes a percentage to be applied over the original modulus, modi-
fying it as a result of the substitution of the natural aggregate by
the recycled one.
We observe that for all aggregate types when natural aggregate
is replaced by recycled aggregate it results in a decrease on elastic
modulus, which is consistent with results reported in literature
[21,10,2426].
Using the model described in Eq. (6), Figs. 57 and in Table 9
were draw. From these gures and table the inuence of water/ce-
ment ratio on the performance of elastic modulus for recycled
aggregates concretes may be observed. Following an increase in
w/c ratio from 0.46 to 0.60 and to 0.74, there is a reduction of
12% and 21% in the modulus, respectively.
It is also observed that substituting coarse aggregate produces a
greater loss in modulus than substituting ne aggregate. This can
be easily veried checking the magnitude of the coefcients in
Fig. 3. Compressive strength behavior as a function of percentage of replacement and type of recycled aggregate for a water/cement ratio equal to 0.60.
Fig. 4. Compressive strength behavior as a function of percentage of replacement and type of recycled aggregate for a water/cement ratio equal to 0.74.
Table 7
Compressive strength performance of recycled aggregate concretes.
Percentage of replacement (%) Type of recycled aggregate
CRM CRC CRB FRM FRC FRB
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
50 0.85 0.90 0.83 0.92 0.97 1.07
100 0.69 0.81 0.66 0.84 0.94 1.14
426 A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430
Eq. (6). This behavior is coherent, once concretes elastic modulus
is intrinsically associated to volumetric fraction, specic gravity,
modulus of elasticity of the aggregate, cement matrix, and charac-
teristics of transition zone [27]. These authors point out that aggre-
gates deformation is mainly associated to its porosity, and to a
lesser degree, to maximum dimension of aggregate, form, texture,
grading and mineralogical composition. According to them, it is
the aggregates modulus that controls the restriction capacity
of the matrix deformation and this is controlled by the porosity
of the aggregate.
From the aforementioned statements and considering the char-
acteristics of recycled aggregates used in this experiment (the spe-
cic gravity of the recycled ne aggregates is lower than the
specic gravity of the recycled coarse aggregates), it is consistent
to state that elastic modulus of concretes produced with the for-
mer ones is lower than elastic modulus of concretes produced with
the latter ones.
The CRB exerts the highest inuence in the concretes elastic
modulus, reaching a 44% reduction in modulus value for a 100%
substitution. Considering recycled aggregates characteristics, such
behavior can be explained seeing that CRB has the least specic
gravity and the highest water absorption of all used aggregates,
therefore being the most porous. Conrming these results, other
authors [2,14,10,22,28] state that elastic modulus of concretes
with coarse recycled ceramic aggregates is lower than conven-
tional concretes modulus.
By the other hand, CRC is the recycled coarse aggregate that has
less inuence in elastic modulus of elasticity, since a decrease of
21% was observed for a replacement of 100%. This is consistent
with results reported in literature, that also substituted natural
coarse aggregate for recycled coarse aggregate of concrete, detect-
ing a decrease of 19% in elastic modulus [20]. This decrease prob-
ably occurs due to the high mortar ratio (around 40% of its volume)
which is found in this type of recycled aggregate [13].
According to Figs. 57 and Table 9, FRC and FRB exert the least
inuence on elastic modulus, with a reduction of 10% for a 100%
substitution. The recycled ne aggregate of concrete is known to
have a high natural rock ratio in its composition, a grinding result
of the concrete with natural aggregate that has a high specic grav-
ity and the least water absorption, among the recycled aggregates
used.
Although FRB has increased compressive strength, a marginal
decrease was observed in elastic modulus. It probably happens
due to the fact that recycled brick ceramic aggregate are more
prone to deformation, usually presenting lower modulus of elastic-
ity than natural aggregate. This behavior was reported by other
researchers [6,13,19].
3.3. Compressive strength and elastic modulus correlation
Using the models for compressive strength (Eq. (5)) and elastic
modulus (Eq. (6)) of recycled aggregate concretes, a correlation be-
tween those two variables was computed. A correlation of com-
pressive strength and elastic modulus for conventional concretes
was also carried out. The correlation between those two variables,
for concretes with recycled and natural aggregates can be observed
through Fig. 8.
According to Fig. 8, for a same strength level, recycled aggregate
concretes present smaller elastic modulus than concretes with nat-
ural aggregates. That happens because, in general, recycled aggre-
gates of C&D waste are more prone to deformation than natural
aggregates, mainly due to cement matrix that is constantly present
Table 8
Parameters estimates and ANOVA for elastic modulus model (Condence level: 95%).
Parameter Estimate Standard error Lower Upper
Condence interval
b
3
21.03 0.369 20.282 21.770
a
1
0.150 0.018 0.114 0.186
a
2
0.214 0.017 0.179 0.249
a
3
0.098 0.017 0.063 0.133
a
4
0.438 0.016 0.405 0.470
a
5
0.102 0.016 0.069 0.135
a
6
21.03 0.369 20.282 21.770
Source Sum of squares DF Mean square F test
ANOVA
Model 13590.8 7 1941.54 3395.6
residual 24.0143 42 0.572
Total 13614.8 49
R
2
= 96.6%
Standard error of estimate = 0.756
Fig. 5. Modulus of elasticity behavior as a function of percentage of replacement and type of recycled aggregate for a water/cement ratio equal to 0.46.
A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430 427
in the same, making concrete produced with recycled aggregates
more elastic than concrete produced with natural aggregates
[23,28,29].
This reduction in elastic modulus at a same compressive
strength level is also expressed by the models. Eq. (7) represents
the model that predict the behavior of concrete made with natural
aggregates while Eq. (8) presents shows the model for recycled
aggregate concrete. R-squared associated with Eqs. (7) and (8)
are 99% and 81%, respectively.
E
c
4:55 f
0;50
c
7
E
c
2:58 f
0;63
c
8
Eq. (7), which was obtained for concrete with natural aggregate,
is quite close to the equation suggested by Brazilian Standard NBR
6118:2007, which is expressed in Eq. (9), presenting therefore
coherence in the results.
E
c
4; 76 f
0;50
c
9
Several authors [9,14,2932] present mathematical formula-
tions to correlate elastic modulus and compressive strength of
concretes with recycled aggregates. Some authors also correlate
those two properties with the substitution percentage of recycled
Fig. 6. Modulus of elasticity behavior as a function of percentage of replacement and type of recycled aggregate for a water/cement ratio equal to 0.60.
Fig. 7. Modulus of elasticity behavior as a function of percentage of replacement and type of recycled aggregate for a water/cement ratio equal to 0.74.
Table 9
Elastic modulus performance of the recycled aggregate concretes.
Percentage of replacement (%) Type of recycled aggregate
CRM CRC CRB FRM FRC FRB
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
50 0.83 0.89 0.78 0.93 0.95 0.95
100 0.66 0.79 0.56 0.85 0.90 0.90
428 A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430
aggregates [33]. The equations proposed by those authors are pre-
sented in Table 10. It can be observed that all equations have
E
c
= af
c
b
+ c format, which is similar to the Eq. (8) format.
4. Conclusion
The replacement of natural aggregates by recycled aggregates
modied concretes compressive strength and elastic modulus.
In general, concrete produced with recycled aggregates had lower
compressive strength, except concrete made of recycled ne
aggregate from brick ceramic (RFB), where an increase in com-
pressive strength was observed. According to the compressive
strength model (Eq. (5)), recycled coarse aggregates have higher
inuence than recycled ne aggregates. Concretes elastic modu-
lus was reduced for all types of recycled aggregates. The modulus
of elasticity model (Eq. (6)) shows that recycled coarse aggregates
exert greater inuence than recycled ne aggregates. Among all
aggregates tested, recycled coarse aggregate of red ceramic
(RCB) exerted the larger inuence on concretes elastic modulus,
while recycled ne aggregate of concrete (RFC) exerted the least
inuence. For a same strength level, recycled aggregate concrete
presented lower elastic modulus than concretes with natural
aggregates.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper is part of the Doctoral Thesis
developed by the rst author. The authors thank the Construction
Innovation Nucleus (NORIE) of the Federal University of Rio Grande
do Sul (UFRGS), in Brazil, to support the accomplishment of the
experiments and the Brazilian Research Supporting Agency
(CAPES) for the nancial support through the PQI 106/08-03 agree-
ment (CEFET/CE-EESC/USP).
References
[1] Marques Neto JC. Management of construction and demolition waste in Brazil.
So Carlos: Rima; 2005 (in Portuguese).
[2] Agamuthu P. Challenges in sustainable management of construction and
demolition waste. Waste Manage Res 2008;26:4912.
[3] Bektas F, Wang K, Ceylan H. Effects of crushed clay brick aggregate on mortar
durability. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:190914.
[4] Li J, Xiao H, Zhou Y. Inuence of coating recycled aggregate surface with
pozzolanic powder on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2009;23:128791.
[5] Cabral AEB. Mechanical properties and durability modeling of recycled
aggregates concrete. considering the construction and demolition waste
variability. Ph.D. thesis, University of So Paulo; 2007 (in Portuguese).
[6] Gonzlez-Fonteboa B, Martnez-Abella F. Concretes with aggregates from
demolition waste and slica fume. Materials and mechanical properties. Build
Environ 2008;43:42937.
Fig. 8. Correlation between compressive strength and elastic modulus for concretes made with recycled and natural aggregates.
Table 10
Equations that correlate elastic modulus with compressive strength.
Author Equation Type of aggregate
Ravindrarajah et al. (2000) [32] E
c
= 5.31f
c
0.5
+ 5.38 Natural
E
c
= 7.77f
c
0.33
Coarse recycled concrete
E
c
= 3.48f
c
0.5
+ 13.1 Coarse recycled concrete
E
c
= 3.02f
c
0.5
+ 10.7 Coarse and ne recycled concrete
Ravindrarajah and Tam (1985) [31] E
c
= 4.63f
c
0.5
Coarse recycled concrete
Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat (1983) [30] E
c
= 8.3f
c
0.5
Coarse recycled red ceramic
Nagataki et al. (2000) [29] E
c
= af
c
0.3
Coarse recycled concrete
Bairagi et al. (1993) [33] E
c
= (5781.34r)f
c
0.27
where r is the recycled aggregate tenor Coarse recycled concrete
Leite (2001) [14] E
c
= 4.63f
c
0.5
3.48 Coarse and ne recycled C&D waste
Lovato (2007) [9] E
c
= 5.74f
c
0.5
13.39 Coarse and ne recycled C&D waste
A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430 429
[7] Bianchini G, Marrocchino E, Tassinari R, Vaccaro C. Recycling of construction
and demolition waste materials: a chemicalmineralogical appraisal. Waste
Manage 2005;25(2):14959.
[8] Ribeiro JLD, Caten CST. Project of experiments. Porto Alegre: FEEng/UFRGS;
2001 (in Portuguese).
[9] Lovato PS. Parameters control verication of recycled aggregates from
construction and demolition waste to concrete use. Master Thesis. Porto
Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul; 2007 (in Portuguese).
[10] Cachim PB. Mechanical properties of brick aggregate concrete. Constr Build
Mater 2009;23:12917.
[11] Debieb F, Kenai S. The use of coarse and ne crushed bricks as aggregate in
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:88693.
[12] Helene PRL, Terzian P. Manual of dosage and control of concretes. So Paulo:
PINI; 1992 (in Portuguese).
[13] Hansen TC, Narud H. Strength of recycled concrete made from crushed
concrete coarse aggregate. Concr Int 1983(January):1623.
[14] Leite MA. Evaluation of mechanical properties of concretes produced with
recycled aggregates of construction and demolition wastes. Ph.D. thesis,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul; 2001 (in Portuguese).
[15] Etxeberria M, Vzquez E, Mar A, Barra M. Inuence of amount of recycled
aggregates and production process on properties of recycled aggregate
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:73542.
[17] Evangelista L, Brito J. Mechanical behavior of concrete made with ne recycled
concrete aggregates. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29:397401.
[18] Suzuki M, Meddah MS, Sato R. Use of porous ceramic waste aggregates for
internal curing of high-performance concrete. Cem Concr Res
2009;39:37381.
[19] Corinaldesi V, Moriconi G. Inuence of mineral additions on the performance
of 100% recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:
286976.
[20] Binici H. Effect of crushed ceramic and basaltic pumice as ne aggregates on
concrete mortars properties. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:11917.
[21] Xiao J, Li J, Zhang Ch. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete
under uniaxial loading. Cem Concr Res 2005;35(6):118794.
[22] Senthamarai RM, Manoharan PD. Concrete with ceramic waste aggregate. Cem
Concr Compos 2005;27:9103.
[23] Tabsh SW, Abdelfatah AS. Inuence of recycled concrete aggregates on
strength properties of concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:11637.
[24] Hansen TC, BEgh E. Elasticity and drying shrinkage of recycled-aggregate
concrete. ACI J 1985;82(5):64852.
[25] Ajdukiewicz A, Kliszczewicz A. Inuence of recycled aggregates on mechanical
properties of HS/HPC. Cem Concr Compos 2002;24(2):26979.
[26] Gmez-Sobern JMV. Porosity of recycled concrete with substitution of
recycled concrete aggregate: an experimental study. Cem Concr Res
2002;32(8):130111.
[27] Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM. Concrete: structure, properties and materials. 3rd
ed. So Paulo: PINI; 2008.
[28] Rilem Recommendation. Specications for concrete with recycled aggregates.
121-DRG guidance for demolition and reuse of concrete and masonry. Mater
Struct 1994; 27(9): 5579.
[29] Nagataki S, Iida K, Saeki T, Hisada M. Properties of recycled aggregate and
recycled aggregate concrete. In: Proceedings international workshop on
recycled aggregate. Niigata; 2000. p. 5368.
[30] Akhtaruzzaman AA, Hasnat A. Properties of concrete using crushed brick as
aggregate. Concr Int 1983;February:5863.
[31] Ravindrarajah SR, Tam CT. Properties of concrete made with crushed concrete
as coarse aggregate. Mag Concr Res 1985;37(130):2938.
[32] Ravindrarajah SR, Stewart M, Greco D. Variability of recycled concrete
aggregate and its effects on concrete properties: a case of study in Australia.
In: Proceedings international workshop on recycled aggregate. Niigata; 2000.
p. 925.
[33] Bairagi NK, Ravande K, Pareek VK. Behaviour of concrete with different
proportions of natural and recycled aggregates. Res Conserv Recy 1993;9(1
2):10926.
430 A.E.B. Cabral et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 421430