Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1291 – 1296

Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques, MBMST 2016

Impact of recycled aggregates on selected physical and mechanical

characteristics of cement concrete
Krzysztof Zielińskia*
a
Poznań University of Technology Institute of Structural Engineering, ul. Piotrowo 5, 60-965 Poznań, Poland

Abstract

The issue of using construction rubble was recognized in Europe not earlier than in the nineties of the twentieth century. This was
due to economic and ecological considerations. However, recycled aggregate is characterized by high volatility of physical and
mechanical properties. The quantity and type of various kinds of impurities harmful to the durability of concrete is virtually
unpredictable. For over twenty years various organizations in different countries have tried to sort out this problem and possibly
unequivocally define the criteria for the suitability of different types of recycled aggregates to the production of concrete. The
article presents and compares the most important guidelines, currently in force, regulating the scope of use of recycled aggregates
(RILEM as well as Japanese, German and European standards). The article also contains the results and the analysis of
comparative studies of selected physical and mechanical characteristics of concrete produced with the use of natural aggregate
and concrete produced with the use of recycled aggregate obtained from milling of masonry.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility oforganizing
of the the organizing committee
committee of MBMST
of MBMST 2016 2016.

Keywords: recycled aggregates, cement concrete, ecology.

1. Introduction

Recycling refers to reusing waste or worn parts to manufacture new products. Depending on base material,
various types of recycling can be distinguished, including for instance chemical, energy, organic or raw material

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +4861-665-2168; fax: +4861-665-2059
E-mail address: krzysztof.zielinski@put.poznan.pl

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of MBMST 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.157
1292 Krzysztof Zieliński / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1291 – 1296

recycling. According to the definition in standard [1], the aggregate obtained from processing inorganic material
previously used in construction is called recycled aggregate.
Construction rubble was used for construction purposes as early as in ancient times. A number of Roman
aqueducts were made of recycled aggregate. Brick rubble was reused on a mass scale in more recent time, i.e. in
1940s and 50s, for instance for rebuilding ruined cities after World War II. The beginning of the “new era” in
recycling of construction rubble in the mid-seventies coincided with the emergence of numerous environmental
movement. At this time the first standard regulating the rules on the use of secondary aggregate to produce concrete
was developed in Japan. Within a short time economic factors also started to play a role. The aggregate obtained
from recycling became a commercial product [2]. The first international symposium devoted to the issue of
producing concrete with the use of recycled aggregate was held in Rotterdam in 1985.

2. Regulations and recommendations on the scope of application of recycled aggregates

The issue of reusing construction rubble on a larger scale was recognized in Europe not earlier than in the 1990s.
This was due to both economic and ecological considerations [3]:
x The cost of mining and transporting natural aggregates are high and have a continuously upward trend,
x Large areas in Europe have no easily accessible postglacial deposits of construction aggregate and it needs
to be obtained from quarries,
x Large quantities of rubble resulting from the demolition of various types of building structures fill landfills,
destroying the landscape and causing irreparable ecological damage,
x Disposing of rubble to landfills becomes more and more expensive.

We can distinguish the following groups of construction waste, suitable for recycling:

x construction rubble (brick, concrete),

x waste generated during construction (rubble, mortar, packaging material, plastics),
x soil and rocks,
x rubble from the demolition of roads and streets.

Recycled aggregates are characterized by highly volatile physical and mechanical properties. The quantity and
type of various kinds of contaminations contained in the aggregate and harmful to concrete durability is virtually
unpredictable. For over twenty years various organizations in different countries have tried to sort out this problem
and clearly define the criteria of usefulness of different types of recycled aggregates to produce concrete.
According to RILEM (Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires et Experts des Materiaux, Systemes de
Construction et Ouvrages) recommendations on coarse aggregate (> 4 mm), the recycled aggregate can be divided
into the following three categories (Table 1.)

x RCAC Type I – rubbles originally coming from masonry,

x RCAC Type II – rubbles originally coming from concrete,
x RCAC Type III - a mixture of natural and recycled aggregates.

According to a Japanese standard coarse recycled aggregate should not contain more than 10 kg/m3 plaster, clay
lumps and other contaminants with density of less than 1950 kg/m3. However, the content of other contaminations
with density lower than 1200 kg/m 3 and diameter of more than 1.2 mm (including bitumen, paints, textiles, paper,
wood) should not exceed 2 kg/m3.
A German standard [4] divides recycled aggregate into four types: concrete aggregate (type I), the aggregate from
construction elements (type II), the aggregate from masonry (type III) and mixed aggregate (type IV). Selected
parameters and acceptable qualitative composition of aggregate is presented in Table 2.
 Krzysztof Zieliński / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1291 – 1296 1293

Due to calcium chloride (CaCl2) still commonly used a few years ago as an additive which accelerated binding,
concrete rubble may be a source of chlorides dangerous for the durability of concrete. They are a threat to the
hardened cement paste and the reinforcing steel. Chlorides contained in concrete cause, among other things,
formation of expansive alkali salts and decomposition of the matrix of calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H phases).
Therefore, the German DIN 4226-100 standard introduces a limit on the maximum content of soluble chlorides in
recycled aggregate - for types I, II and III ≤ 0.4%, and for the type IV ≤ 0.15% by weight.

Table 1. Classification of coarse recycled aggregates added to concrete, according to RILEM.

Aggregate characteristics RCAC typ I RCAC typ II RCAC typ III
Minimum dry density (kg/m3) 1500 2000 2400
Maximum absorption (%) 20 10 3
Maximum content of material with density of
– 10 10
<2200 kg/m3
content of material with density of <1800 kg/m3 10 1 1
content of material with density of <1000 kg/m3 1 0.5 0.5
Maximum content of impurities/ foreign materials
5 1 1
(metal, glass, bitumen) (%)
Maximum content of metal (%) 1 1 1
Maximum content of organic material (%) 1 0.5 0.5
Maximum content of ash fractions
3 2 2
(< 0,063 mm) (%)
Maximum content of fractions < 4 mm (%) 5 5 5
Maximum content of soluble sulphates as SO3 (%) 1 1 1

Table 2. Parameters and admissible quality composition of aggregate according to DIN 4226-100.
Content (in %) Maximum
Aggregate Minimum dry
absorbabilit
type Concrete Brick Plaster Bitumen Impurities density (kg/m3)
y (%)
Typ I ≥ 90 ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤1 ≤ 0,2 2000 10
Typ II ≥ 70 ≤ 30 ≤ 30 ≤1 ≤ 0,5 2000 15
Typ III ≥ 20 ≤ 80 ≤5 ≤1 ≤ 0,5 1800 20
Typ IV ≥ 80 ≤ 20* ≤1 1500 –
*
– bitumen + other mineral elements.

a b
1294 Krzysztof Zieliński / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1291 – 1296

Fig. 1. (a) recycled aggregate from masonry; (b) recycled aggregate from concrete.

According to fairly strict recommendations contained in standard [5] for recycled aggregates, the shape ratio
should be lower than SI35 or flatness index < FI50. This standard divides recycled aggregate into two types: A
(concrete aggregate) and B (aggregate from masonry). This draft standard also contains information on maximum
content of recycled aggregate that can replace natural aggregate in concrete, depending on the class of concrete
exposure. For type A recycled aggregate for the exposure class X0 it can be 50%, and for exposure classes XC, XF1,
XA1 and XD1 it can be 30%. For type B aggregate for exposure class X0 it is 50% and for the exposure classes
XC1 and XC2: 20%. For all the other classes of exposure the use of recycled aggregates of both type A and B is
prohibited. Moreover, type B aggregate should not be used in concrete of strength class higher than C30/37.
One of the main problems in the manufacture of concrete using recycled aggregates is high water demand. It is
therefore recommended that the mixing time should be lengthened and the aggregate should be pre-soaked with
water.

3. Test results

Tables 3 and 4 show the results of comparative studies of natural aggregates and recycled aggregates carried out
in the Institute of Structural Engineering of Poznan University of Technology [6]. The aggregate used for the tests
was obtained from grinding masonry parts (type B according to EN 206-1). The aggregate consisted of approx. 25%
of concrete, 25% of mortar and 50% of porous ceramic. Two types of cement were designed and manufactured, each
of class C16/20 and thick flexible consistency of the mix. The first concrete was made entirely of natural aggregate,
while in the other concrete gravel fractions (4-31.5 mm) were replaced with recycled aggregate. Before use, the
recycled aggregate was improved, dividing them into fractions 4-8, 8-16 and 16-31.5 (mm) and removing from them
sand fractions and other contaminations which could be removed in a macroscopic way.
For both types of aggregates the following set of laboratory tests were performed: sieve analysis, bulk density in
loose state, contents of extraneous impurities, determination of shape ratio, water absorption and frost resistance).
For both types of concrete the following characteristics were determined: compressive strength, flexural strength,
water absorption, frost resistance and contraction in the first 28 days of maturation. The test results are presented in
Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. The results of comparative tests of natural and recycled aggregate.

Type of aggregate
Test type
natural (pebble) recycled
Factions used (mm) 4–8, 8–16, 16–31.5 4–8, 8–16, 16–31.5
Bulk density in loose state (kg/dm3) 1.55–1.67* 1.10
Quantity of foreign impurities (%) No quantity 4–5*
Quantity of shapeless grains (%) 2.79–4.40 1.87–7.74
Absorbability (%) 1.19–2.99 10.6–14.7
Frost resistance – mass loss of grains (%) 6.0–8.4 21.2–45.6
*
The table provides average test results obtained for fractions 4–8, 8–16 and 16–31.5 mm or the range in which they were
included.

Table 4. The test results of selected physical and mechanical characteristics for concrete produced with the use of natural
aggregate and recycled aggregate.
Type of aggregate
Test type
natural aggregate recycled aggregate
Compressive strength (MPa) 24.0 18.5
Flexural strength (MPa) 7.4 6.8
Absorbability (%) 4.4 6.5
 Krzysztof Zieliński / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1291 – 1296 1295

Frost resistance:
– average loss of mass (%) 1.3 3.6
– average decrease of strength (%) 6.8 15.3

Analyzing the data in Table 3 it can be observed that the average value of bulk density in loose state for the
natural aggregate is approx. 30% higher than for the recycled aggregate. It has been observed that the share of
impurities in the recycled aggregate depends largely on their random content in the lot of aggregate taken. In terms
of quality the main organic impurities were roofing membrane, wood and fibreboard as well as paper, glass, and thatch.
The content of shapeless grains is clearly higher in recycled aggregate. Water absorption of the recycled
aggregate is approx. 3.5 times higher than the absorption of natural aggregate. The percentage loss of mass for the
recycled aggregate, being a measure of frost resistance, is on average 3-4 times higher than for the natural aggregate.
The content of ash fraction (<0.063 mm) in recycled aggregate obtained directly from the crusher exceeded 20%
(before sieving it into fractions).
The average compressive strength of concrete manufactured with the use of recycled aggregate is over 20%
lower than for the traditionally made concrete (Table 4). The content of recycled aggregate does not significantly
affect the decrease of the flexural strength of concrete. A visible increase of water absorption (almost 50%) can also
be observed for the concrete made with the use of recycled aggregate, compared to traditionally manufactured
concrete. Decrease of frost resistance is very significant. The average loss of mass increased from 1.3% to 3.6% and
the decrease of resistance increased from 6.8% to 15.3%.
The recycled aggregate used for the studies presented above was not of very high quality (RCAC type I
according to RILEM or type B according to EN 206-1). This type of aggregate, however, is currently the most often
used kind of recycled aggregate.

4. Final conclusions

The analysis of the regulatory requirements and the test results obtained allow us to draw the following
conclusions:
1. Before using recycled aggregate from masonry for the production of cement concrete, particular attention should
be paid to the necessity of precise sorting of the processed rubble. This should mainly involve:

x Removing macroscopically visible impurities from the aggregate,

x Determining the content of organic compounds,
x Sieving the crumbled rubble into fractions,
x Due to the high content of ashes as well as variable and often unpredictable properties, fine fractions (<4
mm) should be replaced with natural aggregate.

2. Recycled aggregate produced from unsorted rubble should not be used for the production of structural concrete as
it constitutes a random mixture of pieces of concrete, mortar and ceramics with unpredictable technical
characteristics.
3. Designing cement concrete containing recycled aggregate it should be remembered that its compressive strength
will be significantly lower (on average by one compressive strength class) than its equivalent made with the use of
natural aggregate with similar grain size. Its absorbability will also be much higher and its frost resistance will be
lower.
The laboratory tests and the experience in the construction practice have clearly demonstrated the usefulness of
recycled aggregate also for the production of structural concrete. Good results are obtained especially when using
aggregate obtained from crushing concrete of high strength class.
1296 Krzysztof Zieliński / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1291 – 1296

References

[1] EN 12620:2013 Aggregates for concrete.

[2] B. Zając, I. Gołębiowska, Nowoczesne metody recyklingu betonu, Inżynieria i Aparatura Chemiczna 49(5) (2010) 136–137.
[3] A. Ajdukiewicz, A. Kliszczewicz, Recykling betonu konstrukcyjnego - cz. I, Inżynier Budownictwa 02(59) (2009).
[4] DIN 4226-100:2002-02 Gesteinskörnungen für Beton und Mörtel - Rezyklierte Gesteinskörnungen.
[5] EN 206-1:2014 Concrete - Part 1: Specification performance, production and conformity.
[6] K. Zieliński, Analiza możliwości zastosowania gruzu budowlanego do wykonawstwa betonów cementowych, Recykling 10 (2003).