SCC

Aggregate Research Programme
Performance Related Approach to

Use of Recycled Aggregates
The project was carried out to investigate the possibility of using an

alternative method for classifying recycled aggregates that would
overcome the current barriers and concerns with recycled aggregate that
restricts their specification and use in concrete.
Project code: AGG0074 ISBN: 1-84405-302-4

Research date: January 2005 – January 2007 Date: February 2007
Front cover photograph: On-site production of recycled aggregates from demolition waste in Dundee
WRAP and the University of Dundee believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. While steps have been taken to
ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with
this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site:
www.wrap.org.uk
Published by
Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone
Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040
Banbury, Oxon E-mail: info@wrap.org.uk
OX16 0AH
Executive summary
BS 8500-2:2002 provides a basis for the use of recycled aggregates in concrete. However, to date only a small
proportion of recycled aggregates are used, and this is thought to be partly as a result of the way in which
recycled aggregates are sub-divided in BS 8500-2:2002 into two separate classes. Of these classes, RCA is
permitted for use in concrete up to strength class of C40/50 and durability classes X0, XC1-4, DC1 and XF1, whilst
the much more common RA is only permitted provided additional provisions are included in the project
specification to account for the potential variability.
This report describes a project carried out to investigate the possibility of using an alternative method for
classifying recycled aggregates that would overcome the current barriers and concerns with recycled aggregate
that restricts their specification and use in concrete. This required research to ascertain appropriate tests for
establishing recycled aggregate quality and performance, and to determine a method for classifying recycled
aggregates for use in concrete.
A total of 125 concrete mixes were cast and tested using a number of different aggregates: natural aggregate,
three crushed concretes, three crushed bricks, eight combinations of brick and crushed concrete, and three
genuine recycled aggregates. Tests were carried out for: cube strength, flexural strength, elastic modulus, drying
shrinkage, initial surface absorption, carbonation resistance, chloride ingress, freeze/thaw attack, abrasion,
sulfate attack and leaching.
Results tended to show that use of RCA and RA at 20% by mass of aggregate had little effect on performance of
concrete, and that the proportion of brick (RB) within the RA when used at these moderate levels was not
significant. Based on the results, three classes of recycled aggregate were derived based on the properties (LA,
aggregate absorption, density and drying shrinkage) of the combined coarse aggregate. It has been suggested
that Class A recycled aggregates may be used in a wide range of concrete including marine environments, whilst
Class C should be restricted to only the “mildest” exposure conditions (XO and DC-1). It is expected that most
combinations of natural and recycled aggregate would fall within Class B, and will be suitable for most
“moderate” exposure conditions (up to XC-4 and XF-2).
As an alternative to the performance related approach, a similar set of criteria and range of suitable environments
was derived based on the compositional classes of recycled aggregate, i.e. (i) RC50, RB50, (ii) RC70, RB30 and (iii)
RC90, RB10, that may be included in the revised version of BS EN 12620.
These classes of recycled aggregate based on performance-related properties and or composition should allow a
wider range of recycled aggregates to be used in higher value applications than the current limits in BS 8500-2.
Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 1

Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.0 Programme of work ................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Phase 1: Literature Review (Months 1-6).......................................................................6
3.2 Phase 2: Characterisation of Recycled Aggregates (Months 3-9).................................6
3.3 Phase 3: Concrete Properties (Months 6 to 16) .............................................................6
3.4 Phase 4: Grades of Concrete (Months 14 to 18).............................................................6
3.5 Phase 5: Recommendations for Recycled Aggregates (Months 18 – 20) .....................6
3.6 Phase 6: Dissemination and Technology Transfer (Months 18 – 22)............................6
4.0 Phase 1: Literature review ....................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................7
4.2 Manufacture and Processing.............................................................................................7
4.2.1 Origin of RA..............................................................................................................7
4.2.2 Restrictions and Separation of CDEW .........................................................................8
4.2.3 Crushing and Grading of RA..................................................................................... 10
4.3 Composition of RA ........................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1 Crushed Brick (RB) .................................................................................................. 10
4.3.2 Crushed Concrete (RC) ............................................................................................ 11
4.3.3 Unbound aggregates (RU)........................................................................................ 11
4.3.4 Asphalt (RA)............................................................................................................ 11
4.3.5 Glass (RG)............................................................................................................... 11
4.3.6 Other Constituents (X) ............................................................................................ 11
4.4 Properties and Characteristics of RA.............................................................................. 12
4.4.1 Sulfate Content....................................................................................................... 12
4.4.2 Chloride Content ..................................................................................................... 13
4.4.3 Alkali Content ......................................................................................................... 14
4.4.4 Water Absorption .................................................................................................... 14
4.4.5 Physical Properties .................................................................................................. 14
4.5 Properties of RA Concrete............................................................................................... 15
4.5.1 Fresh Properties...................................................................................................... 16
4.5.2 Engineering Properties ............................................................................................ 17
4.5.3 Permeation Properties ............................................................................................. 19
4.5.4 Resistance to Chemical Attack ................................................................................. 20
4.5.5 Resistance to Physical Attack ................................................................................... 20
4.5.6 Leaching ................................................................................................................ 21
5.0 Phase 2: Characterisation of Recycled Aggregates................................................................ 22
5.1 Physical Properties .......................................................................................................... 23
5.1.1 Density................................................................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Water Absorption .................................................................................................... 24
5.1.3 Drying Shrinkage .................................................................................................... 24
5.1.4 Physical Properties .................................................................................................. 26
5.2 Chemical Properties ........................................................................................................ 29
5.2.1 Water-Soluble Chlorides .......................................................................................... 29
5.2.2 Acid-Soluble Chlorides ............................................................................................. 29
5.2.3 Acid-Soluble Sulfates............................................................................................... 29
5.2.4 Bulk Oxide Analysis ................................................................................................. 29
5.3 Environmental Properties ............................................................................................... 30
6.0 Phase 3: Concrete Properties................................................................................................. 31
6.1 Concrete Mix Proportions................................................................................................ 31
6.2 Cube Strength .................................................................................................................. 31
6.2.1 Effect of Recycled Aggregate Content ...................................................................... 31
6.2.2 Effect of RB content within Recycled Aggregates ....................................................... 38
6.2.3 Adjustment to w/c ratio for Equal Strength............................................................... 39
6.3 Static Modulus of Elasticity............................................................................................. 40
6.3.2 Effect of RB Content within Recycled Aggregates....................................................... 40

6.3.3 Relationship between Cube Strength and Elastic Modulus .......................................... 41
6.4 Flexural Strength ............................................................................................................. 43
6.4.3 Relationship between Cube Strength and Flexural Strength ....................................... 44
6.5 Drying Shrinkage ............................................................................................................. 45
6.6 Permeation and Durability Properties............................................................................ 46
6.6.1 Initial Surface Absorption ........................................................................................ 46
6.6.2 Carbonation............................................................................................................ 48
7.0 Phase 4: Grades of Concrete .................................................................................................. 50
7.1 Cube Strength .................................................................................................................. 50
7.1.1 Performance related approach ................................................................................. 50
7.1.2 Composition based approach ................................................................................... 52
7.2 Elastic Modulus ................................................................................................................ 53
7.3 Drying Shrinkage ............................................................................................................. 54
7.4 Initial Surface Absorption ............................................................................................... 54
7.5 Chloride Ingress .............................................................................................................. 57
7.6 Carbonation...................................................................................................................... 57
8.0 Phase 5: Recommendations for Recycled Aggregates ........................................................... 58
8.1 Performance Related Approach ...................................................................................... 59
8.2 Composition Based Approach ......................................................................................... 59
8.2.1 Limits on combined aggregate ................................................................................. 59
8.2.2 Limits on RA ........................................................................................................... 59
9.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 61
10.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 62
11.0 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 65
Appendix 1 Preliminary Mixes............................................................................................................ 66

1.0 Introduction
The annual production of inert construction demolition and excavation (CDEW) waste in the UK amounts to
approximately 110 million tonnes, accounting for over 60% of UK total waste, and equal to approximately 55% of
the 200 million tonnes of primary aggregates used by the UK construction industry each year. Rather than send
CDEW to landfill as waste, increased environmental awareness has led to pressure to use these materials as a
resource. There are two ways in which CDEW can be developed for use in concrete, namely as a cement
component (a novel approach) and as recycled aggregates (a commonly perceived approach). Indeed,
approximately half of all inert CDEW is currently recycled and used as aggregate.
The research carried out by the Concrete Technology Unit (Dhir et al 1998, Dhir et al 2001, and Dhir and Paine
2003), amongst others, has led to the inclusion of recycled aggregates in BS 8500-2:2002 and has provided a
basis for their use in concrete. However, to date only a small proportion of recycled aggregates are used in
concrete. This is primarily as a result of the way in which recycled aggregates are defined in BS 8500-2:2002 in
two separate classes:
RCA (for which a considerable amount of research has been carried out) which contains a maximum of 5%
masonry.
RA (for which little meaningful research work has been carried out in the UK) that can contain up to 100%
masonry.
As a result of this classification, only RCA is fully specified for use in concrete up to strength class of C40/50 and
durability classes X0, XC1-4, DC1 and XF1. Concern over the very wide range of composition of RA meant that it
was not possible to permit use of RA for a given type of concrete without the need for additional provisions in the
project specification based on the composition of the proposed RA. The additional requirements needed in the
project specification are:
(i) maximum acid-soluble sulfate; (ii) method for determination of the chloride content; (iii) classification with
respect to alkali-aggregate reactivity; (iv) method for determination of the alkali content; and (v) any limitations
on use in concrete.
This classification meant that material containing 95% crushed concrete was permitted for use in a wide sphere
of concrete activity, whilst similar material containing 94% crushed concrete was not. Clearly, this did not
provide a sustainable solution to the CDEW problem. Indeed, with these restrictions in place, ready-mixed
concrete suppliers informed the British Standards Institution (BSI) that it was not viable to stock RA.

2.0 Objectives
Whilst the need for BSI to exercise its duty of care is recognised, clearly such a list of requirements for inclusion
in the project specification is a significant deterrent to the use of RA. A need for an alternative approach that will
maximise the use and value of recycled aggregates in concrete construction has been identified and can be
achieved by:
Overcoming the barriers and concerns with recycled aggregate that restricts their specification and use in
concrete.
Developing appropriate tests for establishing recycled aggregate quality and performance.
Determining a method for classifying recycled aggregates for use in concrete by performance*.
Developing recycled aggregate specifications for appropriate concrete applications.
* Note that performance will largely relate to physical properties (i.e. strength, drying shrinkage, absorption,
freeze/thaw resistance) since durability performance with regard to deleterious chemical reactions can be
governed through limits on sulfate, chloride and alkali content, which are already defined for RCA and RA in
BS 8500-2.

3.0 Programme of work
The project was carried out in six phases as described in detail below.
3.1 Phase 1: Literature Review (Months 1-6)
To take stock of the current situation and understand the potential variability of recycled aggregates, a
review of literature pertaining to previous research on use of recycled aggregates was carried out. This identified
potential application issues that may restrict the use of recycled aggregates in concrete, e.g. high sulfate
contents, variable composition and brick types. Literature and best practice from overseas was a key priority.
3.2 Phase 2: Characterisation of Recycled Aggregates (Months 3-9)
This phase comprised of comprehensive testing of all recycled aggregates used in the project for physical
properties and chemical composition, with the aim of developing the necessary tools for characterising
recycled aggregate quality without reference to crushed concrete or masonry content. To ensure that the
recommendations and conclusions from the project were relevant it was necessary to investigate the full range of
potential recycled aggregates, i.e. from very good quality (pure crushed high-strength concrete) to very poor
quality (crushed weak brick). To achieve this, the project prepared recycled aggregates across the potential full
range by selective mixing of crushed concretes of different strength and different types of crushed brick.
Genuine recycled aggregates were sourced to provide comparison with the artificially produced materials.
3.3 Phase 3: Concrete Properties (Months 6 to 16)
This phase of the work comprised the main experimental work to assess potential applications for various
qualities of recycled aggregate concrete. The initial intention was to design and cast concrete for DC1, XC4 and
XF1 environments, since these are the medium value concretes in which recycled aggregates have most
potential. However, after using this approach for the initial six months of the project it was noted that known mix
proportioning techniques were unsuitable for all recycled aggregate concretes (see Appendix I). Consequently, a
decision was taken to compare the range of recycled aggregate types at equal water/cement ratio. A total of 95
concrete mixes were made and tested, in addition to the 27 mixes described in the Appendix.
3.4 Phase 4: Grades of Concrete (Months 14 to 18)
This phase of the work consisted of relating recycled aggregate concrete performance to the physical properties
of recycled aggregates used to develop appropriate specifications. Whilst it was expected that in general
concrete performance would diminish as recycled aggregate quality fell, it was necessary to determine whether
there was any aggregate property, or combination of properties, that provided a consistent representation of
performance.
3.5 Phase 5: Recommendations for Recycled Aggregates (Months 18 – 20)
During this phase, recommendations for the use of recycled aggregates in the grades of concrete outlined in
Phase 4 were made. A key aim of this, in line with the fundamental principles of sustainable construction, was to
ensure that recycled aggregates are used in the most suitable applications, and therefore tools to promote
appropriate use of recycled aggregates were drawn up: taking the shape of draft specifications and the
composition of alternative clauses for use in BS 8500-2.
3.6 Phase 6: Dissemination and Technology Transfer (Months 18 – 22)
The final phase of the work will consist of dissemination of the findings and technology transfer to create
confidence in the use of recycled aggregates.

4.0 Phase 1: Literature review
4.1 Introduction
Recycled aggregate is aggregate resulting from the processing of inorganic material previously used in
construction, e.g. crushed concrete, masonry, brick. Within this family of materials, a recycled aggregate that is
made predominately from crushed concrete is called recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). The performance
characteristics of RCA are regarded as better than those of recycled aggregate and consequently there are fewer
restrictions on their use in concrete. This literature review will concentrate on the characteristics of, and
performance of concrete made with, recycled aggregates not meeting the classification of RCA. Recycled
aggregate will be abbreviated as RA for the purposes of this literature review.
4.2 Manufacture and Processing
4.2.1 Origin of RA
By far the largest quantities of material recyclable for use in construction come from the rather broad field of
CDEW. The majority of CDEW is usually sourced from:
Specialist demolition companies
Utility companies
Local councils
Recycling of CDEW can take place either at the site from which the material is sourced using mobile crushers
(Figure 1), or the material may be transported to a fixed recycling centre (sometimes referred to as urban
quarries) where large stockpiles may be accumulated.
Figure 1 Crushing of CDEW on site of the arisings using mobile crushers and screens
Mobile crushers whilst often more economical in that they avoid transporting CDEW away from site, are rarely
sophisticated enough to remove all impurities. For this reason, recycled aggregates produced from mobile
crushers are usually used as site fill or capping layers, and used at, or close to, the location they were crushed.
To obtain RA properties suitable for use in higher value applications, operations should be put in place to:
Restrict the type of CDEW that is used.

Separate materials before crushing.

Screen out oversize materials.
Crush twice: using primary and secondary crushers.
Separate out impurities.
Wash aggregates.
4.2.2 Restrictions and Separation of CDEW
Prior to October 2003, BS 8500-2:2002 imposed limits on RA composition as shown in Table 1. This has now
been removed, and users of RA have to assess the suitability of the material on a case-by-case basis. However,
many of the leading recycled aggregate producers in Europe have recognised that in order to obtain RA with
properties suitable for use in higher-value applications it is necessary to restrict the type of CDEW put through
the crushing plant, and create RA approaching that described by Table 1. Most importantly, many recycled
aggregate producers have recognised that to use RA in higher-value applications there is a need to limit the
asphalt content.
Table 1 Requirements for RA in BS 8500-2 prior to October 2003
PROPERTY RA
Maximum content masonry, % m/m 100
Maximum fines, % m/m 3
Maximum lightweight material, % m/m§ 1.0
Maximum asphalt, % m/m 10.0
Maximum other foreign materials, % m/m 1.0
(e.g. glass, plastics, metals)
Maximum acid-soluble sulfates SO3, m/m 1.0
§ 3
density < 1000 kg/m
An example of good practice in Europe is to separate all materials arriving at a recycling centre into three distinct
colour-coded groups:
Black: Asphalt
White: Concrete
Red: Mixed waste, but generally comprised of brick.
At all times, the activities of contractors bringing CDEW to the recycling centre are monitored (sometimes using
CCTV), and any contractors found to be violating the rules are banned. The success of these operations is
marked by the lack of asphalt and concrete in the “red” pile. Clearly, the success of such an operation is
dependant on demolition and excavating contractors to separate materials at source.
RCA is created from the “white waste”. RA is produced from the “red waste” and is largely brick-based RA.
RCA may sometimes be added to brick-based RA to improve the performance of the product.
Clearly, reliance on external contractors imposes an element of risk in ensuring the consistent and overall quality
of recycled aggregates. For this reason some large demolition contractors produce recycled aggregates using
only CDEW sourced from their own work. The resulting RCA and RA are usually of very high quality.
Alternatively, other recycled aggregate producers tend to concentrate almost exclusively on excavation waste
(EW) supplied by local councils and utilities where no attempt has often been made to separate the material.
Therefore in order to obtain a “consistent” product the EW is periodically mixed manually. The resulting RA is
usually used as:
Type 1 sub-base
Unbound capping, or
Soil.

Typical properties of RA produced from such an operation are shown in Table 2. Clearly, such a high asphalt
content limits use in cement bound applications. This type of RA may be regarded as asphalt-based RA, and
falls within a general family of recycled aggregates known as RAP (WRAP, 2005). RAP is of little interest for use in
concrete (and indeed the proposed EN 12620 classification of constituents for recycled aggregate for use in
concrete (CEN/TC 154/SC2 2005) will limit asphalt content to a maximum of 10% by mass). However, research
by Huang et al (2006) has concluded that it may be practical to incorporate a certain fraction of fine asphalt-
based RA to replace natural fine aggregate. It was also noted that concrete containing asphalt-based RA had a
much higher energy-absorbing toughness than conventional concrete. The engineering properties of asphalt-
based RA are generally similar to those of brick-based RA.
Whilst best-practice leads to good separation of CDEW and good quality end-products, many smaller recycling
companies are unable to put sufficient pressure on contractors to segregate materials at source, nor the
capability to police the contractors on-site. Therefore RA produced in many operations, whilst nominally brick-
based often has an asphalt content too high for use in cement bound applications (Figure 2).
Table 2 Typical properties of asphalt-based RA
Asphalt-based RA
PROPERTIES
(Tarmac 2005)
Composition, %
Concrete 49
Asphalt 45
Masonry 6
Others 0
Water Absorption, % 3.9
Total sulfates, % 0.05
Magnesium sulfate soundness 10
Los Angeles Coefficient (LA) 32
micro-Deval (MDE) 34
Figure 2 Typical RA from an operation in which there has been poor-sorting prior to crushing

However, even with the best restrictions and quality control procedures in place, aggregates produced from the
white waste stream often do not comply with the definition of RCA in BS 8500-2: i.e. mean asphalt contents less
than 5%. It is likely that the proposed maximum of 10% by mass of asphalt (CEN/TC 154/SC2 2005) will be of
much practical use to some producers.
4.2.3 Crushing and Grading of RA
To achieve the most desirable grading curves and shape for recycled aggregates, a series of successive crushers
(or crushes) and screening should be used; with oversized material returned to the respective crusher. An
example of good practice is to use primary crushers (usually jaw crushers as they can handle larger fragments) to
reduce the CDEW to 50mm, and secondary crushers (either impact or cone crushers) to reduce the particle size
to 32mm or less. Impact crushers are beneficial as they give RA a more rounded shape which is beneficial for
engineering performance. Magnets, air knives (directed blasts of air) and hand picking are usually used between
the two crushes to remove impurities. Trommels and eddy currents are also occasionally used, whilst use of
additional magnets after the secondary crusher will aid removal of wire reinforcement.
Screens are used at various stages within the crushing process although usually the main separation by size takes
place after the second crusher. It is increasingly common however to screen off the fines before the primary
crusher as a preponderance of fines can reduce crushing performance. Care should be taken when crushing RA
containing a large proportion of brick since this produces more fines than crushing of concrete or primary
aggregates (Mulheron and O’Mahony 1990).
Soil, silt and clay can be particular problems and care is usually taken to avoid these materials entering the CDEW
stream at source. Where they are present some contractors use a scalping screen ahead of the primary crusher
to remove soil and clay balls (ECCO 1999). Other practices rely on the soil and clay being removed during
washing processes. To avoid the resulting soil, silt and clay being directed to landfill, a number of producers use
innovative methods to create products for this material. One example is the creation of filter cakes for use in
drainage.
4.3 Composition of RA
As described above RA may be either brick-based or asphalt-based. A proposed amendment to EN 12620 to
incorporate clauses for recycled aggregates has created a number of potential categories. These are given in
Table 3 below. Since the asphalt content (RA) is limited to a maximum of 10% by mass, this essentially limits RA
for use in concrete to material consisting of stone, concrete or brick. A method for classifying the constituents of
coarse RA is given in prEN 933-11:2005.
4.3.1 Crushed Brick (RB)
In BS 8500-2:2002, RA containing more than 5% crushed brick may not be classed as RCA, i.e. as little as 6% by
mass of brick in a stockpile of otherwise crushed concrete renders the material unsuitable for producing RCA. RA
may however contain as much as 100% by mass of brick.
The proposed amendment to EN 12620, classifies brick within a family of materials with the designation (RB).
This family of materials includes:
Clay masonry units (i.e. bricks and tiles)

Calcium silicate masonry units
Aerated non-floating concrete
RAs with high RB contents are common from best-practice recycling centres in which a concerted effort has been
made to separate the concrete and asphalt to other stockpiles and for other uses. However, RA containing very
high RB contents (RB > 50%) are not widely sought by users and it is not uncommon for producers to add a
limited amount of RCA to the RA to improve performance.
At centres where sorting of CDEW is poor and/or at mobile crushing plants, it is more common to obtain RA with
a mix of brick and concrete. For example, in a demonstration project carried out between 2001 and 2003, Dhir
and Paine (2003) investigated the performance of three RAs for use in concrete: the RB content varied between
20 and 35%.

4.3.2 Crushed Concrete (RC)
Crushed concrete is common in most RAs as a result of: (i) failure to produce RCA due to poor pre-sorting of
wastes, (ii) its presence in the CDEW stream, or (iii) deliberate addition to improve the crushed brick RA. Much is
known about the properties of RCA and the effect its addition has on concrete properties (Dhir et al. 2005c). In
general:
Source and type of concrete have little effect on strength or engineering properties.
RCA may be used at up to 30% by mass replacement of natural aggregate without strength and associated
engineering properties.
Concrete is normally reactive with regard to alkali-silica reaction
In the proposed amendment to BS EN 12620, crushed concrete will be classified by the designation RC. This
category also includes mortar and concrete masonry units. It is currently intended that this will lead to grades of
RA in which: (i) RC ≥ 90%, (ii) RC ≥ 70%, or (iii) in which RC < 70% and the quality of the RA is determined by
RB content.
4.3.3 Unbound aggregates (RU)
RA often contains a significant proportion of unbound aggregate (from crushed concrete) or natural stone. As far
as the authors are aware there has been no research carried out to investigate the effect of unbound aggregate
or natural stone on the properties of RA; presumably because there is no reason to suspect that these
constituents will behave any differently to natural aggregates. Indeed, it is reasonable to presume that RA
containing large quantities of unbound aggregate or natural stone may be superior to RCA.
In the proposed amendment to EN 12620, unbound aggregates (RU) are coupled with natural stone and
hydraulically bound aggregate. In terms of classifying categories of constituents, a RU content is not specified
alone and must be combined with RC, i.e. RC+RU: forming a RCU (i.e. unbound aggregate, natural stone and
concrete) category.
4.3.4 Asphalt (RA)
Bituminous materials (termed asphalt in BS 8500-2 and limited to 5% by mass) have a general effect of reducing
concrete strength in a similar way to the effect of low-strength lightweight aggregate on conventional concrete
(Sagoe and Brown, 1998). Hansen (1992) has reported that the addition of 30% by volume of asphalt to RA
concrete reduces the cube strength by about 30%. The proposed amendment to EN 12620 will allow use of RA
containing a maximum bituminous materials (RA) content of 10%. However, in all likelihood many producers will
aim to produce RA meeting the stricter limits of 5% (the current BS-8500 limit) or even 1% by mass.
4.3.5 Glass (RG)
Glass is usually removed from buildings prior to demolition, and given recycling efforts in most of UK and Europe
tends not to be present in mixed waste. Consequently it is unusual for glass to be present in large quantities in
RA. Indeed, given the brittle nature of glass most usually ends up in the fines content following crushing. In the
quantities that it is likely to be present in RA there should be no concerns with potential ASR. Note that glass has
a similar density to that of stone and brick and is therefore best separated from CDEW prior to demolition.
In the proposed amendment to EN 12620, glass is given the designation RG. RA may be specified that has other
constituents (Table 3) plus RG content not exceeding 1% by mass.
4.3.6 Other Constituents (X)
Organic materials, for example wood and plastic, tend to float to the surface of fresh concrete under vibration,
and in the longer-term may become unstable in concrete when subjected to cyclic wetting and drying.
Lightweight materials (particle density less than 1000kg/m3) are therefore limited to less than 0.5% by mass in
BS 8500-2 (0.4% by mass in the UK Highway Specification). Owing to their lower densities, lightweight materials
increase their relative content in concrete on a volumetric basis. As wood and plastic are often difficult to
separate from CDEW prior to crushing, good practice is to separate these materials using air knives, or
sometimes by hand from a moving conveyor belt, between the primary and secondary crushes.

Any non-floating wood, paper and plastic remaining in RA are classified as other constituents (X). It should be
noted that wood and plastic which float in water are classified separately as floating non-stony material (FLNS)
and limited to a maximum of 0.1% by mass, although stricter categories (0.01% or 0.05%) may be specified.
Although smaller in size than 4mm, soil and clay frequently cling to stone and brick. If not removed their
presence may be deleterious in concrete. However, washing of RA prior to use should remove most soil and clay.
As with non-floating wood and plastic, clay and soil are classified as “other constituents (X)”.
Ferrous metals are usually removed from CDEW following jaw crushing by use of magnetic belts, whilst eddy
currents may be used (although rarely) to remove non-ferrous metals. In addition, at recycling centres, hand
picks may be used to remove metals from a moving conveyor belt prior to use of a secondary crusher. Metals
(both ferrous and non-ferrous) are classified as “other constituents (X)”.
Gypsum may be present in RA either from its use in plasterwork or use of gypsum boards as interior walls in
buildings. Hansen (1992) has suggested that strict limits should be placed on the gypsum content to prevent
sulfate expansion. Work by Dhir et al (2001), however, showed that there were no concerns with expansions
resulting from use of gypsum-contaminated RCA provided the gypsum content was sufficiently low that the total
sulfate content of the aggregate was less than 1% by mass. In the Netherlands, CDEW containing gypsum is
regarded as contaminated, and is not used to produce recycled aggregates; contaminated CDEW, along with
sewer sand and contaminated soil, is often extensively cleaned (in an elaborate process) to produce secondary
sand. In the proposed amendment to BS EN 12620, gypsum will be classified in the family of “other constituents”
and given the designation X (Table 3), although it should be noted that the test procedure (prEN 933-11) does
not take account of the particles less than 10mm in size and therefore most gypsum is likely to be missed. RA
may be specified that has a content of all other constituents and glass (RG) not exceeding 1% by mass; although
stricter limits of 0.5% or 0.2% by mass may be applied.
4.4 Properties and Characteristics of RA
4.4.1 Sulfate Content
According to BS 8500-2:2002, the maximum acid-soluble sulfate content of RA must be determined on a case-by-
case basis; however, prior to October 2003, BS 8500-2:2002 set a limit of 1.0% by mass, which is also the limit
on sulfate content given for RCA in BS 8500-2:2002.
Table 3 Proposed categories for constituents of coarse RA in EN 12620 (CEN/TC 154/SC2)

CONSTITUENT CONTENT (% by mass) CATEGORY
RC ≥ 90 RC90
≥ 70 RC70
< 70 RCDeclared
No requirement RCNR
RC+RU ≥ 90 RCU90
≥ 70 RCU70
≥ 50 RCU50
< 50 RCUDeclared
No requirement RCUNR
RB ≤ 10 RB10
≤ 30 RB30
≤ 50 RB50
> 50 RBDeclared
No requirement RBNR
RA ≤1 RA1-
≤5 RA5-
≤ 10 RA10-
FLS+FLNS ≤1 FLtotal1
≤3 FLtotal3
FLNS ≤ 0.01 FLNS0.01
≤ 0.05 FLNS0.05
≤ 0.1 FLNS0.1
X+RG ≤ 0.2 XRG0.2
≤ 0.5 XRG0.5
≤1 XRG1

A proposed amendment to EN 12620, suggested by CEN/TC 154/SC 2, is to include categories for recycled
aggregate based on water-soluble sulfate content; with two categories: (i) SS0.2, with a limit on water-soluble
sulfate content of 0.2% by mass, and (ii) a category with no requirement. The argument made by CEN/TC
154/SC 2 (2005) is that it is the water-soluble sulfates in RA that are potentially reactive (e.g. gypsum plaster)
and may give rise to expansive disruption of concrete, and that using acid-soluble sulfate content may unduly
restrict use of RA in concrete.
Tests on three RAs, with a RC content between 61% and 82%, have been shown to give mean acid-soluble
sulfate contents between 0.2 and 0.7% by mass (Dhir and Paine 2003). While these mean values were below
the former limit in BS 8500-2 (1.0%), the mean value + 2 standard deviations was outside the limit of 0.8%
required to meet Category AS0.8 specified in BS EN 12620 for 10/20 aggregates. The 10/5 recycled aggregates
tended to have lower sulfate contents.
No relationships have been observed between sulfate content and masonry content for RA (Figure 3). However,
it is believed that bricks made from sulfate-rich clay (e.g. Oxford clay) may have high sulfate contents, and be
present in sufficient quantities in RA to lead to potential problems. Sulfate contents for five types of brick (two
obtained from demolition rubble) were measured by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry by Dhir et al. (2005b). A
maximum sulfate content (equivalent to total sulfate content) of 0.1% by mass was obtained.
1.2
20/10
1
10/5
ACID-SOLUBLE SULFATES, %
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 3 Relationship between RB content of RA and acid-soluble sulfate content

(Dhir and Paine 2003)
4.4.2 Chloride Content
Concrete standards place a limit on the chloride content of concrete of between 0.2%-1.0% by mass of cement
based on the sum of the contributions from all constituents. Chloride contributions from RCA for use in this
calculation are measured by an acid-soluble test (BS 1881-24 or BS EN 1744-5 when it is introduced) that
provides a worst-case value (Dhir et al, 2001) and probably overestimates the availability of chlorides – thus
providing a margin of safety (CEN/TC 154/SC 2 2005).
Acid-soluble chloride contents, measured in accordance with BS 1881-124, for three sources of RA tested by Dhir
and Paine (2003) gave results of 0.02%, 0.04% and 0.20%. The high acid-soluble chloride content in the latter
RA can possibly be attributed to the use of marine/estuarine aggregates in the original concrete (RC content of
the RA was 75%); no data pertaining to the original concrete design exists. Such a high value would clearly
restrict use of this RA in steel reinforced concrete. However, water-soluble chloride contents, measured in
accordance with BS 812-117, for all RAs were determined as 0.00% by mass.

Chloride contents obtained by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry for five types of brick (two obtained from
demolition rubble) were reported by Dhir et al. (2005b). Clay bricks (including those obtained from demolition
rubble) were found to have zero chloride content. A value of 0.3% by mass was measured for a calcium silicate
brick.
4.4.3 Alkali Content
The presence of alkalis (usually from the cement), and reactive silica in aggregates may lead to expansive alkali-
silica reaction. Consequently, care is taken to limit the alkali content of the constituents of concrete. Concerns are
often raised over use of RA because they can contain fractions of alkali-rich hydrated cement in the RC fractions,
as well as alkalis from the product. The use of RCA is usually considered to be of greater concern than the use of
RA. However, research has shown that in most cases, total equivalent sodium oxide, Na2Oeq, values for Portland
cement concrete containing RCA are below the recommended limit of 3.5 kg/m3 (Dhir and Paine 2004). As a
result RCA could be regarded as a normal reactivity aggregate.
Alkali contents, measured by means of the test described in BS EN 196-21-National annex, on three RAs (RC
content between 61% and 82%) gave values (expressed as total equivalent sodium oxide, %Na2Oeq, calculated
as %Na2O + %0.658K2O) in the range 0.09 – 0.16% (Dhir and Paine 2003). Generally higher alkali values were
observed by Dhir and Paine (2003) in RCA than RA, which would correspond to the higher proportion of hardened
cement paste. Whilst the values measured were higher than for natural gravel they are lower than those of
natural granite. Alkali release tests were carried out by Dhir et al. (2005b) on five types of brick, gave %Na2Oeq
values in the range 0.2% - 0.6%; higher than those of RCA.
4.4.4 Water Absorption
Hansen (1992) has reported water absorption values of 22-25% by mass for brick, and has reported that it takes
about 30 minutes for crushed brick aggregates to become almost fully saturated with water (further saturation up
to 24 hrs only absorbing 2% more water). Crushed concrete can also be highly porous and absorb water in the
range between 5-10% by mass (Dhir et al. 2005c).
Tests by Fraaij et al (2002) showed that RA typically had an absorption about 25% higher than that of RCA
(2.7% compared with 2.2%) at 60 minutes.
4.4.5 Physical Properties
There are a number of test methods available for investigating the physical properties of RA and other
aggregates. BS EN 12620:2002 includes tests for among others:
Resistance to fragmentation: Los Angeles test, BS EN 1097-2

Resistance to wear: micro-Deval test, BS EN 1097-1
Particle density and water absorption, BS EN 1097-6
Thermal and weathering properties, BS EN 1367-4
However, prior to the publication of BS EN 12620:2002, it was common for tests to BS 882 to be performed on
aggregates, including ten percent fines value (TFV) and aggregate impact value (AIV).
Resistance to fragmentation tests carried out on a sample of RA (RC = 80%, RB = 12%) have reported a Los
Angeles coefficient (LA) of 29 (Dhir and Paine 2003); giving lower performance than a RCA sourced from the
same site (LA = 22). A value for asphalt-based RA has been reported as 32 (Table 2).
Ten percent fines value (TFV) for three RAs (61% ≤ RC ≤ 82%) have been measured to be in the range 60 to
100kN; with a possible relationship between TFV and RC content (Figure 4). This may suggest that TFV has
potential as a means for expressing a measure of the quality of RA without reference to composition. However, it
should be noted that BS EN 12620 does not include TFV as a test for aggregates, and is unlikely to ever do so.
However, some authors have noted that there is a good correlation between TFV, aggregate impact value (AIV)
and LA (Bjarnason et al 2000). Consequently use of LA to express RA quality should be investigated.

There is an additional requirement in BS 8500-2 that the combined aggregate has a drying shrinkage of not more
than 0.075% when determined in accordance with BS EN 1367-4 (BCA, 2002). It has been proposed that this
will added as an amendment to the next version of EN 12620. No data on the drying shrinkage of RA have been
reported in the literature.
The density of RA is generally lower than that of natural aggregates reflecting the lower density of brick and/or
asphalt particles and the relatively porous and less dense mortar particles adhering to the surface of the original
natural aggregate particles in the crushed concrete part (Dhir et al, 2005c).
As a means of indicating resistance to freeze/thaw attack, the magnesium sulfate soundness of an aggregate is
often calculated. However, it should be noted that for recycled aggregates containing cementitious materials (i.e.
RC > 0), this test is regarded as unreliable (ECCO 1999).
4.5 Properties of RA Concrete
One of the most significant differences between RCA concrete and natural aggregate concrete occurs at the
interfacial zone (ITZ) between the mortar and coarse aggregate. In natural aggregate concrete there is just one
ITZ; however two exist in RCA concrete as shown in Figure 5: the interface between the original aggregate and
adhesion mortar (old ITZ) and the interface between the adhesion mortar and new mortar (new ITZ). It is
believed that the adhered mortar from the original concrete plays an important role in determining the
performance of RCA concrete, particularly with respect to permeability and strength (Ryu, 2002, Otsuki et al,
2003). The same is likely to be true of RA concrete; however to a lesser extent due to the lower RC content.
180
160
14/10
TEN PERCENT FINES VALUE, kN
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
RC CONTENT, %
Figure 4 Relationship between RC content of RA and ten percent fines value (TFV)

Original
aggregate
Adhered mortar Old ITZ

New ITZ
New mortar
Figure 5 Concept of old and new interfacial transition zones (after Ryu 2002)
4.5.1 Fresh Properties
Consistence
Concrete containing crushed brick have been reported to be harsher and less workable than natural aggregate
mixes (Khalaf and DeVenny 2004). This is probably related to the friable nature of brick, that leads to RA with
angular surfaces and a flaky shape.
Dhir and Paine (2003) have observed that concretes in which the RA was added in a laboratory dry condition
tended to have a greater deviance from the design slump class than concretes in which the RA was added in a
saturated surface dry condition (SSD). This may be attributable to excessive free water in the mix as a result of
not giving RA sufficient time to reach a saturated state in the mixer (Dhir et al. 1998). Similar results have been
observed elsewhere (Poon et al. 2004).
Bleeding
Bleeding of fresh RA concrete (RA contents from 0 to 100% by mass of coarse aggregate) has been monitored in
accordance with ASTM C232 Method A (Dhir and Paine 2003). Typical results are given in Table 4, and show that
that provided that RA is added to the mixer in a SSD condition the amount of bleeding is similar to that of an
equivalent natural aggregate concrete.
Table 4 Bleeding (after 120 hours) of fresh concrete containing various proportions of RA
RA CONTENT, BLEEDING, %
% by mass
RA added to RA added to
mixer dry mixer SSD
0 0.1 0.1
10 0.6 0.0
20 0.8 0.1
30 0.8 0.1
40 1.0 0.1
50 1.4 0.1

Finishability
The finishability of RA concretes as determined by visual assessment of the surface of slumped concrete, after 10
passes with a float has been performed by Dhir and Paine (2003). Generally concretes with RA content up to
30% by mass have similar finishability to natural aggregate concretes with a slight reduction thereafter. All
concretes tested by Dhir and Paine were found to have sufficiently good finishability to have practical use. It was
noted that RA with higher RC contents led to concretes that were slightly easier to finish than RA with a lower RC
contents.
4.5.2 Engineering Properties
Development of Cube Strength

Tests on RCA concrete show that use of up to 30% RCA as replacement of natural aggregate will have no
adverse effect on cube strength. For higher RCA contents minor alterations to the mix proportions may be
necessary to ensure that equivalent performance to natural aggregate concrete is achieved. In these cases the
design strength can be obtained by adjusting the water/cement ratio (Dhir et al. 1998).
Tests on RA concrete by Dhir and Paine (2003) were designed on this basis. It was shown that for up to 30% by
mass of RA (61% ≤ RC ≥ 82%) as coarse aggregate there was relatively little effect of RA on cube strength;
agreeing in general with the principal of the mix design method. However for RA contents greater than 30% by
mass, there was a clear reduction in cube strength. This suggests that the reduction in water/cement ratio
required by the mix design procedure is conservative, and that RA leads to lower cube strengths than for RCA
concrete and that the design needs adjusting to account for RA quality.
It was additionally noted that the addition of RA in a SSD state produced concrete with a higher strength than
concretes where laboratory dry RA had been used. Again this may be attributable to excessive free water in the
mix as a result of not giving RA sufficient time to reach a saturated state in the mixer (Dhir et al. 1998).
It should be noted that tests by Zakaira and Cabrera (1996) using crushed bricks as the sole coarse aggregate
showed lower early-age cube strengths, but higher long term cube strengths, than equivalent natural aggregate
concretes. They attributed the long-term cube strength to the finely ground portion of the brick having
pozzolanic properties.
Flexural Strength
Tests have shown that in general the flexural strength (fct,fl) of RA concrete reflects the lower cube strength in
the corresponding cases, i.e. up to 30% by mass there is little effect of RA on flexural strength when compared
with natural aggregate concrete, but at higher replacement levels lower flexural strengths are recorded.
A typical relationship between flexural strength and cube strength (fcc), is shown in Figure 6, and results appear
to correspond well with the suggested design formula proposed by RILEM TC 162 (2000); which has also been
shown to correlate with other new and developing concretes (Dhir et al. 2005a). Furthermore, based on a
literature review of 24 RCA studies, Xiao et al (2006) has argued that a relationship of the form below fits all data
well.
f ct , fl = 0.75 f cc
There is some evidence, however, that the use of crushed brick as coarse aggregate increases tensile strength
and flexural strength as the result of improved bond between the matrix and coarse aggregates: 10-15%
increases in flexural strength over equivalent natural aggregate concretes have been reported (Hansen 1992,
Khaloo 1994). The improved bond of brick aggregate is attributed to the surface roughness of the aggregate.
Static Modulus of Elasticity

The static modulus of elasticity (Ec) of RA concrete is lower than that of equivalent natural aggregate concretes.
Tests on concrete with crushed brick as the sole coarse aggregate have shown the static modulus of elasticity to
be between 50% and 66% that of natural aggregate concrete (Hansen 1992). Xiao et al’s (2006) comparison of
24 studies determined that for a given cube strength, Ec of RCA concrete could vary by as much as 15 kN/mm2.

6.0
RA
FLEXURAL STRENGTH, N/mm 2 RCA
5.0
4.0
3.0
fct,fl = 0.35 fcc2/3
(RILEM TC 162, 2000)
2.0
1.0 fct,fl = characteristic flexural strength

fcc = mean cube strength
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
CUBE STRENGTH, N/mm 2
Figure 6 Relationship between cube strength and flexural strength for RA and RCA concretes
Drying Shrinkage
Some results for the mean drying shrinkage of RA concrete (design strength 30 N/mm2) after 60 days are shown
in Figure 7 (Dhir and Paine 2003). The results show that addition of up to 30% by mass of RA as coarse
aggregate had little effect of the level of shrinkage when compared with an equivalent natural aggregate
concrete. However, beyond 30% there was a significant increase in the level of shrinkage. This observation is
mainly due to the higher cement contents needed in RA concrete to achieve a given design strength. In contrast,
however, tests by Fraaij et al (2002) have shown RA concretes to have lower shrinkage than RCA and NA
concretes.
Creep
Creep tests carried out by Fraaij et al (2002) have shown that RA concretes have greater creep than natural
aggregate concretes.

800
750
SHRINKAGE, Microstrain
700
650
600
550
0 20 30 50 100
RA CONTENT
Figure 7 Effect of RA on drying shrinkage of concrete after 60 days (Dhir and Paine 2003)
4.5.3 Permeation Properties
Surface Absorption
The process of water absorption in RA concretes and NA concretes are similar and in general obey the same laws
(Levy and Helene 2004). Initial surface absorption tests results for RA concrete carried out in accordance with BS
1881-208 are shown in Figure 8 (Dhir and Paine 2003). It can be seen that up to 30% by mass of aggregate
there was no significant effect of RA, and that therefore, it can be presumed, there was no significant effect on
the surface quality: similar results using the ASTM C642 method were observed by Levy and Helene (2004).
However, beyond a RA content of 30% by mass the initial surface absorption increased. However, all mixes
containing less than 50% by mass of RA as coarse aggregate had values below 50 ml/m2/s after 10 minutes; this
can be regarded as satisfactory.
Levy and Helene (2004) found that RA (RB100) had slightly higher water absorption than RCA concrete, and when
used at 20% by mass of natural coarse aggregate, absorption values were 7-8% for RA compared to 6-7% for
RCA. When used at 100% by mass of coarse aggregate, values were 12% (RA) and 9% (RCA).

70.0
60.0
50.0
ISA, ml/m 2/s x 10 -2
40.0
RA Content
30.0 0%
20%
20.0 30%
50%
100%
10.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
TIME, Minutes
Figure 8 Effect of RA on initial surface absorption of concrete (Dhir and Paine 2003)
Carbonation
Accelerated carbonation tests on RA concrete have been carried out by Levy and Helene (2004) using the RILEM
CPC 18 method (RILEM TC 56, 1988). They showed that in general carbonation depth (for concretes of equal
compressive strength) decreased as the RA content increased, with better behaviour being reported for 100%
masonry brick concretes than RCA concretes. It was purported that this was due to the fact that RA concretes
have a higher cement content in order to achieve a given strength. Thus the alkaline reserve acts to protect the
concrete surface against carbonation mechanisms. In addition, RAs from crushed concrete and crushed masonry
are partly constituted with old mortar that increase the alkaline reserve further. It was noted, however, that the
best performance overall in terms of carbonation was for concretes with a RA content of between 20 and 50%.
Thus there is probably an optimum in terms of balancing the increased alkaline reserve and the increased
porosity when using RA in concrete.
4.5.4 Resistance to Chemical Attack
Alkali-Silica Reaction
Dhir et al. (2005b) have carried out expansion tests in accordance with BS 812-123 at 60°C using RA as both
coarse and fine aggregate. Tests over a 12-week test period gave expansions lower than 0.06%. The conclusion
was that use of RA is likely to be low risk with respect to damaging alkali-silica reaction (ASR). For the materials
tested, it was noted that there was no correlation between the alkali release content of the RA and ASR
expansion.
Sulfate Attack
There are no reported data on the resistance of RA concrete to sulfate attack.
4.5.5 Resistance to Physical Attack
Abrasion
Abrasion resistance of RA concrete has been assessed using an accelerated abrasion method (Dhir and Paine
2003). For concretes designed for equal strength, the results show that there is a tendency for abrasion
resistance to reduce as RA content increases; up to 1mm difference being recorded between the natural
aggregate and 100% RA mixes. However, up to 30% by mass of RA as coarse aggregate there is only a small
difference in abrasion resistance (approximately 0.2 mm), and this is within test repeatability.

Freeze-Thaw Resistance.
Tests on air-entrained concrete with RA (RC = 80%) used at up to 100% by mass of coarse aggregate have been
shown to give good freeze/thaw scaling resistance (56 day scaling < 0.5 kg/m2), see Figure 9, and to perform
similarly to RCA concretes (Dhir and Paine 2003). Fraaij et al (2002) demonstrated that for non-air entrained
situations, RA concretes were somewhat more prone to freezing and thawing degradation than RCA concretes;
tests using the Fagurlund method (Fagurlund 1977) showing that after 12 freeze/thaw cycles the elastic modulus
for RA concretes had dropped by 10% at a saturation of 70%, compared to 90% for RCA concrete (and 82% for
NA concrete).
0.60
RA Content
0%
0.50 20%
30%
50%
0.40
SCALING, kg/m 2
100%
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CYCLES
Figure 9 Effect of RA on freeze/thaw resistance of concrete (Dhir and Paine 2003); scaling of less
than 0.5 kg/m2 after 56 days shows good resistance
4.5.6 Leaching
Results indicate that use of RA as aggregate in concrete increases the potential for leaching of sodium, potassium
and chloride ions, but results in lower leaching of calcium (Sani et al. 2005). There is no evidence in the
literature of greater leaching of heavy metals.

5.0 Phase 2: Characterisation of
Recycled Aggregates
This phase comprised testing of all recycled aggregates to be used in the project for physical properties and
chemical composition, with the aim of developing the necessary tools for characterising recycled aggregate
quality without reference to crushed concrete or masonry content.
Physical tests included tests in the European aggregates standard (BS EN 12620), e.g. Los Angeles coefficient (BS
EN 1092-2), micro-Deval coefficient (BS EN 1092-1), and drying shrinkage (EN 1367-4), as well as tests that are
not currently part of the European suite of tests, e.g. aggregate impact value (BS 882).
Chemical tests consisted of standard sulfate, chloride and alkali tests in addition to use of the CTU’s suite of
apparatus including x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, x-ray diffraction and ion chromatography. Maximum
availability leaching tests (utilising the Dutch availability leach test NEN 7341) were also carried out to assess the
potential for leaching from the RCA, brick and other constituents used.
Tests were carried out on three RCAs (produced from crushing of three laboratory prepared concretes of different
28-day strength [Table 5]), seven crushed brick aggregates (CBA), eight recycled aggregates created from
combining the RCA and bricks, and three genuine recycled aggregates. Physical, chemical and mechanical
properties are shown in Tables 6 to 9. The properties of natural Fife gravel used as the control natural coarse
aggregate in this study are also given in Tables 6 to 9.
The number of bricks to be tested was increased from three (in the proposal) to seven bricks to reflect concerns
that it is potential variability in brick quality that is one of the major issues for users of recycled aggregate. In
particular, the sulfate content of London stock bricks needed investigating because of the form of clay used. Of
the seven bricks tested, two were London stock bricks.
Table 5 Mix proportions used to create concrete for producing RCA
MIX PROPORTIONS, Kg/m3

CODE w/c COARSE NA
water PC 0/4
4/10 10/20
RCA-10 1.03 180 175 695 395 790
RCA-35 0.65 175 270 635 430 860
RCA-60 0.35 175 505 395 445 885

Table 6 Summary of properties and characteristics of natural aggregates
and recycled concrete aggregates
NA RCA-10 RCA-35 RCA-60

Constituents
RB (Masonry) 0 0 0 0
RC (Concrete) 0 100 100 100
RU (Stone) 100* 0 0 0
Floating material 0 0 0 0
RA (Asphalt) 0 0 0 0
Flakiness Index § 14.5 9.5 8.5 5.5
Shape Index 21.0 18.5 15.0 15.0
Density, kg/m3
Dry (oven dry) 2511 2260 2263 2291
SSD 2546 2377 2387 2392
Apparent 2603 2561 2585 2548
Loose bulk 1485 1270 1360 1250
Water Absorption, % 1.2 5.2 5.5 4.8
Acid-Soluble Sulfates, % 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5
Acid-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.08
Water-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aggregate Impact Value, dry †, % 13 17 18 17
Los Angeles Coefficient, †, % 22 40 35 29
micro-Deval Coefficient, †, % 16 38 34 29
Drying Shrinkage, % 0.050 0.070 0.065 0.060
§
28-6.3 mm only, † 14-10 mm only, * Natural gravel
5.1 Physical Properties
5.1.1 Density
The particle density (oven dry and saturated surface dry [SSD]), apparent density and loose bulk density of each
of the materials are given in Tables 6 to 9. All RCA and recycled aggregates were classed as normal weight
aggregates, since particle density > 2000 kg/m3 and bulk density (were measurable) > 1000 kg/m3. However,
the particle density of CBA-3 and CBA-4 were lower than 2000 kg/m3. Noticeably, CBA-1, had a higher particle
density than the other bricks – 2300 kg/m3 compared with a next highest of 2120 kg/m3.

Table 7 Summary of properties and characteristics of crushed bricks
CBA-1 CBA-2 CBA-3 CBA-4 CBA-5 CBA-6 CBA-7

Constituents
RB (Masonry) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
RC (Concrete) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RU (Stone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Floating material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RA (Asphalt) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bulk Oxide Analysis
CaO 2.9 9.8 9.5 9.7 13.0 0.4 7.8
SiO2 56.7 61.6 64.6 59.9 60.2 77.0 55.0
Al2O3 17.0 11.4 11.6 12.3 12.0 9.2 19.4
Fe2O3 7.5 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.7 6.0
MgO 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.7 0.7 0.5 2.0
MnO 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
TiO2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1
K2O 3.4 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.2 3.2
Na2O 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.5
P2O5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3
SO3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 2.4
Cl 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Na2Oeq 3.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.6 0.9 2.6
Flakiness Index § 24 -- -- -- -- -- --
Density, kg/m3
Dry (oven dry) 2130 -- -- -- -- -- --
SSD 2300 2010 1990 1940 2120 2080 2120
Apparent 2567 2550 2630 2630 2540 2450 2620
Loose bulk 1020 -- -- -- -- -- --
Water Absorption, % 8.0 20.6 24.6 28.0 14.9 14.1 17.2
Acid-Soluble Sulfates, % 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.9
Acid-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aggregate Impact Value (AIV), †, % 26 17 22 20 21 31 26
Los Angeles Coefficient (LA), †, % 48 -- -- 51 -- -- 60
micro-Deval Coefficient (MDE), †, % 37 -- -- 41 -- -- 42
Drying Shrinkage, % 0.040 0.095 0.110 0.115 0.080 0.105 0.125
§ †
28-6.3 mm only, 14-10 mm only,
5.1.2 Water Absorption
The water absorption of the three RCA were similar, reflecting the fact that they were produced from the same
constituent materials (albeit in different proportions) – values ranged from 4.8% to 5.5% which is typical of RCA
produced in the field (Dhir et al 1998). This is roughly 4.5 times higher than the natural aggregates from which
they were produced.
The water absorption of the CBA ranged from 8% (CBA-1) to 28% (CBA-4). It is again notable that the lowest
water absorption was measured on CBA-1. Given, the higher water absorption of the other CBA it was felt that
lower concrete performance would be produced when they are used as concrete aggregates.
The water absorption of the CBA is closely related to the density (Figure 10) as would be expected.
5.1.3 Drying Shrinkage
Drying shrinkage tests were carried out in accordance with BS EN 1367-4, with one exception. Because recycled
aggregates have a high water absorption it is not possible to use them in an oven-dry form with the set mixture
proportions given in the Standard: doing so produces a completely unworkable mix. Following consultation with
Cemex UK (Lay 2005) it was decided to use all recycled aggregates in a SSD form.

Table 8 Summary of properties and characteristics of artificial recycled aggregates
ARA-1 ARA-2 ARA-3 ARA-4 ARA-5 ARA-6 ARA-7 ARA-8

Constituents
RB (Masonry) 30 α 70 α 30 α 70 α 30 β 70 β 30 γ 70 γ
RC (Concrete) 70 δ 30 δ 70 ε 30 ε 70 δ 30 δ 70 δ 30 δ
RU (Stone) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Floating material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RA (Asphalt) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flakiness Index § 10.2 18.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Density, kg/m3
Dry (oven dry) 2245 2180 2225 2180 2154 2210 2170 2045
SSD 2405 2345 2365 2330 2250 2150 2310 2205
Apparent 2650 2625 2575 2575 2540 2550 2595 2610
Loose bulk 1115 1065 1295 1085 1220 1100 -- --
Water Absorption, % 6.8 7.5 6.0 6.2 6.0 7.0 9.5 13.2
Acid-Soluble Sulfates, % 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.7
Acid-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Water-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AIV, †, % 23 27 23 26 23 25 21 24
LA, †, % 39 44 35 42 36 44 43 53
MDE, †, % 35 36 31 35 34 41 36 40
Drying Shrinkage, % 0.060 0.050 0.055 0.050 0.070 0.090 0.075 0.115
§
28-6.3 mm only, † 14-10 mm only,
α CBA-1 β CBA-4 γ CBA-7 δ RCA-35 ε RCA-60
2400
2200
2000 CBA
DENSITY, Kg/m3
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
WATER ABSORPTION, %
Figure 10 Relationship between water absorption and density of CBA
Results are given in Tables 6 to 9. BS 8500-2 sets a requirement that the combined aggregate should have a
drying shrinkage of not more than 0.075%. The results show that the natural aggregate, RCA and recycled
aggregates all meet this limit. These RCA and recycled aggregates would therefore be permissible for use as
100% coarse aggregate in relation to their drying shrinkage.

Table 9 Summary of properties and characteristics of genuine recycled aggregates
RA-1 RA-2 RA-3

Constituents
RB (Masonry) 12 10 13
RC (Concrete) § 36 10
88
RU (Stone) 54 76
Floating material 0 0 0
RA (Asphalt) 0 0 0
RG (Glass) 0 0.05 0
X (Other) 0 0 0.7
Bulk Oxide Analysis
CaO 11.3 12.5 7.6
SiO2 56.0 60.5 58.9
Al2O3 13.7 9.4 14.3
Fe2O3 6.0 4.5 5.0
MgO 2.9 1.6 3.2
MnO 0.1 0.1 0.1
TiO2 0.8 0.5 0.9
K2O 2.0 1.9 2.3
Na2O 1.4 0.6 1.5
P2O5 0.3 0.1 0.2
SO3 0.5 0.5 0.6
Cl 0.1 0.1 0.1
Na2Oeq 2.7 -- --
Density, kg/m3
SSD 2400 2590 2650
Water Absorption, % 9.5 4.8 3.5
Acid-Soluble Sulfates, % 0.5 0.5 0.5
Acid-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.07 0.08 0.07
Water-Soluble Chlorides, % 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aggregate Impact Value, dry †, % 15 13 16
Los Angeles Coefficient, †, % 31 30 36
micro-Deval Coefficient, †, % 31 18 36
Drying Shrinkage 0.055 0.075 0.065
§
RU + RC † 14-10 mm only
RA-2 also contained 0.06% of porcelain
Results for the CBA, however, vary. Interestingly, CBA1 had a drying shrinkage value less than that of the
natural aggregate and RCA. A similar result was observed when combined with natural aggregate (at 30% by
mass). Indeed, combined aggregates with a high proportion of CBA-1 had a drying shrinkage lower than that of
natural aggregate, but aggregates containing RCA had a slightly higher drying shrinkage. It may be suggested
that there is a relationship between water absorption value and drying shrinkage (Figure 11).
5.1.4 Physical Properties
LA tests were carried out in accordance with BS EN 1092-2. Tests were carried out in a dry condition using the
10/14mm fraction. Results are given in Tables 6 to 9, and ranged from a lowest value of 22% for natural gravel
(signifying greatest resistance to fragmentation) to 60% for CBA-7. Results for RCA and RA were in the range 29-
40%. Figure 12 shows the relationship between density of the aggregate and LA coefficient. Whilst the denser
aggregates tend to have greater resistance to fragmentation, there is no clear relationship.

0.14
DRYING SHRINKAGE, % 0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
NA
0.04 RCA
CBA
0.02 RA-1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
WATER ABSORPTION, %
Figure 11 Relationship between water absorption and drying shrinkage for natural aggregates, RCA
and CBA
70
NA
60
CBA
50 RCA
RA
40
LA, %
30
20
10
0
1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
DENSITY, kg/m3
Figure 12 Relationship between aggregate density and LA coefficient
Resistance to wear (micro-Deval) was determined in accordance with BS EN 1092-1. Tests were carried out in a
dry condition using the 10/14mm fraction. Lowest micro-Deval (MDE) coefficients, and thus greatest resistance to
wear was measured on the natural gravel (16%), whilst CBA-7 had least resistance to wear (42%). Results for
RCA and RA were generally in the range 29-38%, although RA-2 had a particularly low MDE coefficient of 18%;
similar to that of the natural gravel. Whilst this may reflect the high RU content in this RA, it nevertheless differs
significantly from the other two RAs which both have similar RU contents.
Figure 13 shows the relationship between LA and MDE coefficients. Unlike observations elsewhere (Bjarnason et al
2000), there appears to be a good relationship between these two physical characteristics.

50
45 NA
40 CBA
35 RCA
2
30 RA R = 0.7011
MDE, %
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LA, %
Figure 13 Relationship between LA coefficient and micro-Deval coefficient
Due to the amount of material required for the tests, LA and MDE coefficients were only determined on
aggregates used in the later concrete tests (i.e. only three of the seven CBAs). However, aggregate impact values
(AIV), in accordance with BS 812-112, were determined in a dry condition for all aggregates. The results
showed that the natural aggregate had the greatest resistance to impact, whilst the RCA were fractionally
weaker. CBA were found to be weaker than the RCA and values ranged from 17% to 31%. Surprisingly, CBA-1
which had the highest density and lowest drying shrinkage was found to be one of the weakest materials under
impact. This may suggest that it was a more brittle material. Indeed, from Figure 14 it may be suggested that
the densest CBA tended to have the lowest impact resistance. The artificial recycled aggregates had AIVs in the
range 23% to 26% and were notably higher than the genuine recycled aggregates that had AIVs in the range 13
to 16%. This reflected the significantly higher RB content in the artificial recycled aggregates.
35
NA
30
CBA
25 RCA
RA
20
AIV, %
15
10
0
1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
DENSITY, kg/m3
Figure 14 Relationship between aggregate density and aggregate impact value

5.2 Chemical Properties
5.2.1 Water-Soluble Chlorides
The water-soluble chloride content of each aggregate was determined in accordance with BS EN 1744-1 in which
a test portion is extracted with water to remove chloride ions, and analysed via Volhard titration where an excess
of silver nitrate solution is added to the chloride solution and the unreacted portion is back-titrated with a
standardized solution of thiocyanate, using ammonium iron (III) sulfate solution as an indicator.
Results expressed in terms of the chloride ion content as a percentage by mass of the aggregate, are given in
Tables 6 to 9, to the nearest two decimal places. For all aggregates detection of chloride ions was below 0.01%
by mass of aggregate.
5.2.2 Acid-Soluble Chlorides
The acid-soluble chloride content of each aggregate was extracted in accordance with BS 1881-124, in which
nitric acid is used as the extraction agent. Analysis of sulfates and chlorides within the extract was carried out
using x-ray fluorescence spectrometry.
Results expressed in terms of the chloride ion content as a percentage by mass of the aggregate, are given in
Tables 6 to 9, to the nearest two decimal places. For all CBA, detection of chloride ions was below 0.01% by
mass of aggregate. For the RCA, acid-soluble chloride contents were in the range of 0.03 to 0.08%, with chloride
content increasing with the percentage of Portland cement in the original concrete. The acid-soluble chloride
content of the natural aggregate was 0.01% by mass of aggregate. The value for the RAs was 0.07% to 0.08%
by mass. However, this does not necessarily mean that the cement content of the crushed concrete part was
high, as chlorides could have ingressed during service life.
5.2.3 Acid-Soluble Sulfates
The acid-soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with BS EN 1744-1, where the sulfates, are
extracted from a test portion of the aggregate by dilute hydrochloric acid, and the sulfate content determined by
gravimetry. Results expressed as the sulfate ion content as a percentage by mass of the aggregate are given in
Tables 6 to 9. The acid-soluble sulfate content of the natural aggregate was 0.1% by mass of aggregate, and
that of the RCA was in the range 0.4 to 0.5%, with the RCA with higher origin cement contents giving the highest
result. These values were well below the limit of 1.0% given for sulfate content in BS 8500-2.
The sulfate content of the CBA varied depending on source, and for most CBAs varied between 0% and 0.5%.
However, one of the CBAs produced from London Clay (CBA-7) had a sulfate content (1.9%) significantly higher
than the limit of 1.0% given in BS 8500-2.
5.2.4 Bulk Oxide Analysis
Bulk oxide analysis was carried out by ball-milling representative samples of each of the aggregates and
submitting these samples to x-ray fluorescence spectrometric analysis.
Alkalis
Alkali contents (expressed as total equivalent sodium oxide, %Na2Oeq, calculated as %Na2O + %0.658K2O) for
natural aggregate were found to be 3.9%. This was higher than the alkali contents of all seven CBA, with alkali
contents found to be in the range 0.9 to 3.7%. This would suggest that for the range of CBA investigated in this
study there is no additional risk with regard to damaging alkali-silica reaction.
Sulfates
Total sulfate content of the CBAs, expressed as percentage by mass, are similar in general to the results of the
acid-soluble sulfate tests described above – with results ranging from 0.0 to 0.5% by mass for CBAs 1 to 6. CBA-
7 has a significantly higher sulfate content with a value of 2.4% by mass recorded.

5.3 Environmental Properties
Maximum availability, which is defined as the maximum quantity or soluble fraction of a constituent that can be
released into solution under aggressive leaching conditions, was determined using the Dutch availability leach
test, NEN 7341; which in theory provides an estimate of the maximum mass of material that can be leached in a
100 to 1000 year time frame. Results are shown in Tables 10 and 11. The leaching of elements from CBA was
of similar magnitude to those of natural aggregate and RCA.
Table 10 Maximum availability leaching test results (mg/kg)
ELEMENT NA RCA-10 RCA-35 RCA-60
Cd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cu 2.4 9.8 9.7 9.8
Fe 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7
Pb 0.5 2.0 1.8 1.9
Zn 14.0 90.1 92.6 89.4
K 200.3 650.2 680.3 688.1
Na 100.6 730.3 720.6 715.1
Cl 100.3 1050.2 980.8 980.3
SO4 720.6 4206.3 4243.3 4363.8
Table 11 Maximum availability leaching test results (mg/kg)
ELEMENT CBA-1 CBA-2 CBA-3 CBA-4 CBA-5 CBA-6 CBA-7
Cd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cu 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Fe 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1
Pb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zn 6.5 0.8 2.3 1.5 0.1 2.3 2.1
K 401.3 368.3 301.3 398.2 103.3 265.3 361.2
Na 200.2 461.7 205.6 481.3 521.3 386.3 281.5
Cl 75.2 61.3 58.4 102.1 98.3 75.1 78.5
SO4 1363.3 1832.1 943.3 3645.2 645.2 3828.3 4810.3

6.0 Phase 3: Concrete Properties
6.1 Concrete Mix Proportions
The mix proportions are given in Tables 12 to 17. Whilst mixes were proportioned for equal water/cement ratio,
a decision was made to amend the water content to reflect the more angular shape of the recycled aggregates
when compared with natural gravel; in the same way that natural crushed rock aggregates are used with a
higher water content. The rationale behind this was to overcome occasional problems with consistence and
finishability that had been observed when using RA concretes during previous projects (e.g. Dhir and Paine
2003).
6.2 Cube Strength

The cube strength, measured at 3, 7 and 28 days, for all the concretes are given in Tables 18 to 23.
6.2.1 Effect of Recycled Aggregate Content
Figure 15 shows the effect of recycled aggregate on the 28-day cube strength. The general trends observed
were similar to those noted in the earlier research in this project (see Appendix I).
Table 12 Mix proportions (in kg/m3) for RCA and CBA concretes with w/c = 0.84,
designed for natural aggregate concrete strength of 20 N/mm2
RA COARSE
CONTENT, COARSE NA RECYCLED
Water PC 0/4
% AGGREGATES
4/10 10/20 4/10 10/20
NA 0 180 214 853 377 754 0 0
20 182 216 842 297 595 74 148

30 183 217 837 259 518 110 222
RCA-35 40 184 219 831 220 441 147 294
100 190 226 800 0 0 354 708
20 182 216 842 297 595 74 148

30 183 217 837 259 518 110 222
RCA-60 40 184 219 832 220 441 147 294
100 190 226 801 0 0 354 708
20 182 216 839 296 593 74 148

CBA-1 40 184 219 825 218 437 145 291
100 190 226 784 0 0 346 693
20 182 216 826 292 584 73 146

CBA-4 40 184 219 799 211 423 141 282
100 190 226 720 0 0 318 630
20 182 216 832 294 588 73 147

CBA-7 40 184 219 812 215 430 143 287
100 190 226 752 0 0 332 665

Table 13 Mix proportions (in kg/m3) for Artificial RA concretes with w/c = 0.84
RA COARSE
Water PC 0/4
% AGGREGATES
4/10 10/20 4/10 10/20
NA 0 180 214 853 377 754 0 0
20 182 216 843 298 596 74 149
ARA-1 100 190 226 803 0 0 355 710
20 182 216 841 297 594 74 148

ARA-2 100 190 226 792 0 0 350 700
20 182 216 841 297 594 74 148

ARA-3 100 190 226 796 0 0 351 703
20 182 216 840 297 594 74 148

ARA-4 100 190 226 790 0 0 349 698
20 182 216 837 296 592 74 148

ARA-5 100 190 226 776 0 0 342 685
20 182 216 834 294 589 73 147

ARA-6 100 190 226 758 0 0 335 670
20 182 216 839 296 593 74 148

ARA-7 100 190 226 786 0 0 347 695
20 182 216 824 291 582 72 145

ARA-8
100 190 226 768 0 0 339 678
Table 14 Mix proportions (in kg/m3) for genuine RA concretes with w/c = 0.84
RA COARSE
Water PC 0/4
% AGGREGATES
4/10 10/20 4/10 10/20
NA 0 180 214 853 377 754 0 0
20 182 216 843 298 596 74 149

40 184 219 832 220 441 147 294
RA-1 60 186 221 822 145 290 218 436
80 188 223 813 71 143 287 574
100 190 226 802 0 0 354 709
RA-2 20 182 216 850 300 600 75 150

30 183 217 848 262 524 112 224
40 184 219 846 224 448 149 299
100 190 226 836 0 0 369 739
RA-3 20 182 216 852 301 602 75 150

30 183 217 851 263 526 112 225
40 184 219 850 225 451 150 300
100 190 226 847 0 0 374 748

Table 15 Mix proportions (in kg/m3) for RCA and CBA concretes with w/c = 0.61,
designed for natural aggregate concrete strength of 35 N/mm2
RA COARSE
Water PC 0/4
% AGGREGATES
4/10 10/20 4/10 10/20
NA 0 180 295 734 389 779 0 0
20 182 298 724 307 614 76 153

30 183 300 719 267 534 114 228
RCA-35 40 184 301 715 227 454 151 303
100 190 311 685 0 0 363 727
20 182 298 724 307 615 75 153

30 183 300 719 267 534 114 229
RCA-60 40 184 301 715 227 455 151 303
100 190 311 686 0 0 364 728
20 182 298 721 306 612 76 153

CBA-1 40 184 301 709 225 451 150 300
100 190 311 671 0 0 356 712
20 182 298 710 301 602 75 150

CBA-4 40 184 301 686 218 436 145 290
100 190 311 614 0 0 325 651
20 182 298 716 303 607 75 151

CBA-7 40 184 301 697 221 443 147 295
100 190 311 643 0 0 340 681
Table 16 Mix proportions (in kg/m3) for artificial RA concretes with w/c = 0.61
RA COARSE
Water PC 0/4
% AGGREGATES
4/10 10/20 4/10 10/20
NA 0 180 295 734 389 779 0 0
20 182 298 725 307 615 76 153

ARA-1 100 190 311 688 0 0 365 730
20 182 298 723 306 613 76 153

ARA-2 100 190 311 679 0 0 360 720
20 182 298 724 307 614 76 153

ARA-3 100 190 311 682 0 0 361 723
20 182 298 722 306 613 76 153

ARA-4 100 190 311 676 0 0 358 717
20 182 298 720 305 611 76 152

ARA-5 100 190 311 663 0 0 351 703
20 182 298 717 304 608 76 152

ARA-6 100 190 311 647 0 0 343 686
20 182 298 722 306 612 76 153

ARA-7 100 190 311 673 0 0 357 714
20 182 298 718 304 609 76 152

ARA-8
100 190 311 656 0 0 348 696

Table 17 Mix proportions (in kg/m3) for genuine RA concretes with w/c = 0.61
RA COARSE
Water PC 0/4
% AGGREGATES
4/10 10/20 4/10 10/20
NA 0 180 295 734 389 779 0 0
20 182 298 725 307 615 76 153
40 184 301 715 227 455 151 303
RA-1 60 186 304 706 149 299 224 449
80 188 308 697 73 147 295 591
100 190 311 687 0 0 364 729
RA-2 20 182 298 731 310 620 77 155

30 183 300 729 270 541 116 232
40 184 301 728 231 463 154 308
100 190 311 718 0 0 380 761
RA-3 20 182 298 733 311 622 77 155

30 183 300 732 271 543 116 233
40 184 301 732 232 465 155 310
100 190 311 727 0 0 385 771
Table 18 Engineering properties of RA concrete (w/c = 0.84)
fct,fl Ecm, Shrinkage,

fcc, N/mm2
RA Content N/mm2 kN/mm2 %
3 7 28 28 28
NA 0 12.5 15.5 20 2.50 19.0 0.05
20 12.5 15.0 19.5 2.55 17.5 0.06
30 11.5 14.5 19.5 2.60 17.5
RCA-35 40 12.0 14.5 19.0 2.50 17.5 --
100 10.0 12.5 16.5 2.15 15.5 --
20 12.0 16.0 20.0 2.55 17.5 0.05

30 11.5 15.5 19.5 2.5 17.5
RCA-60 40 10.5 15.0 19.5 2.45 17.5 --
100 10.5 12.5 16.0 2.25 16.0 --
20 13.0 15.0 19.0 2.55 17.5 0.07

CBA-1 40 11.5 14.5 18.0 2.35 17.0 --
100 8.0 10.5 12.0 2.25 15.5 --
20 10.5 13.0 17.5 2.50 15.0 0.07

CBA-4 40 10.0 12.0 16.5 2.45 15.5 --
100 6.5 9.0 10.0 1.95 13.5 --
20 12.0 14.0 18.5 2.50 16.5 0.08

CBA-7 40 11.0 13.5 17.5 2.45 16.0 --
100 8.0 10.5 11.5 2.05 15.5 --

fct,fl Ecm,
fcc, N/mm2
RA Content N/mm2 kN/mm2
3 7 28 28 28
NA 0 12.5 15.5 20.0 2.55 19.0
20 11.5 15.0 19.5 2.55 17.5

ARA-1 100 10.0 13.0 16.0 2.20 17.0
20 11.5 14.5 18.5 2.45 17.5

ARA-2 100 9.0 11.5 14.5 2.10 15.5
20 11.0 15.0 19.0 2.50 17.5

ARA-3 100 9.5 13.0 16.0 2.25 17.0
20 11.5 14.5 18.5 2.45 17.5

ARA-4 100 9.5 11.5 14.0 2.05 16.5
20 11.5 14.5 18.5 2.50 17.5

ARA-5 100 8.5 11.5 14.0 2.05 18.0
20 10.0 12.5 16.0 2.45 17.5

ARA-6 100 8.5 10.0 12.5 2.00 17.5
20 11.0 14.5 19.0 2.50 17.5

ARA-7 100 9.5 12.5 14.5 2.15 16.0
20 10.0 14.0 18.0 2.40 17.0

ARA-8
100 8.5 10.5 12.0 2.05 15.5
fct,fl Ecm,
fcc, N/mm2
RA Content N/mm2 kN/mm2
3 7 28 28 28
NA 0 12.5 15.5 20.0 2.55 19.0
20 11.5 14.5 19.5 2.50 19.0

40 11.0 14.0 19.0 2.45 18.5
RA-1 60 10.5 13.0 17.5 2.30 17.0
80 9.5 12.0 16.5 2.20 16.0
100 9.5 11.5 15.0 2.10 15.5
20 11.0 14.5 19.0 2.60 19.0

30 10.5 14.0 19.5 2.55 18.5
RA-2 40 10.5 14.5 19.5 2.50 18.0
100 10.0 12.0 15.5 2.45 16.5
20 14.0 15.5 21.0 2.60 18.5

30 13.0 15.0 20.5 2.55 18.5
RA-3
40 13.5 15.0 20.0 2.50 18.0
100 11.5 14.0 16.0 2.35 17.0

fct,fl Ecm, Shrinkage

RA fcc, N/mm2
N/mm2 kN/mm2 %
Content
3 7 28 28 28
NA 0 24.0 31.5 39.5 3.75 22.0 0.05
20 22.0 31.0 39.5 3.75 20.5 0.06

30 23.0 31.0 38.5 3.65 20.5 --
RCA-35 40 22.0 30.5 38.0 3.65 20.0 --
100 19.0 24.0 32.0 3.45 19.5 --
20 23.0 30.0 38.5 3.70 20.5 0.04

30 22.5 29.0 38.0 3.60 20.0 --
RCA-60 40 22.0 29.5 37.5 3.65 20.0 --
100 18.0 24.5 31.5 3.35 18.5 --
20 22.0 29.0 38.0 3.75 20.5 0.06

CBA-1 40 22.0 29.0 36.0 3.55 20.0 --
100 15.5 19.5 25.5 3.05 16.5 --
20 20.0 28.5 36.5 3.65 20.0 0.06

CBA-4 40 20.0 27.5 33.5 3.60 17.5 --
100 13.0 17.0 23.0 2.75 16.5 --
20 20.5 29.0 37.5 3.70 18.5 0.09

CBA-7 40 21.5 28.0 36.5 3.15 17.5 --
100 16.0 19.5 25.5 2.65 16.0 --
Table 22 Engineering properties of artificial RA concrete (w/c = 0.61)
fct,fl Ecm, Shrinkage,

RA fcc, N/mm2
N/mm2 kN/mm2 %
Content
3 7 28 28 28
NA 0 24.0 31.5 39.5 3.75 22.0 0.05
20 23.0 30.0 38.5 3.65 20.0 0.05

ARA-1 100 19.5 25.5 31.5 3.25 18.5 --
20 22.0 28.5 37.0 3.60 19.0 0.05

ARA-2 100 17.5 22.0 28.5 3.05 17.5 --
20 22.5 29.0 38.0 3.65 20.0 0.06

ARA-3 100 18.0 24.5 31.0 3.20 18.0 --
20 22.5 29.5 38.0 3.65 19.0 0.07

ARA-4 100 15.5 22.0 28.0 3.00 17.5 --
20 23.0 30.0 38.5 3.70 19.0 0.06

ARA-5 100 16.0 21.0 29.0 2.95 17.5 --
20 22.5 29.0 37.5 3.60 19.0 0.08

ARA-6 100 16.0 20.5 26.5 2.90 17.0 --
20 22.5 29.5 39.0 3.7 19.5 0.07

ARA-7 100 17.0 23.5 30.5 3.25 18.5 --
20 20.5 29.0 38.0 3.65 19.0 0.09

ARA-8
100 14.0 19.5 26.0 2.95 17.5 --

Table 23 Engineering properties of genuine RA concrete (w/c = 0.61)
fct,fl Ecm,
RA fcc, N/mm2 Shrinkage, %
N/mm2 kN/mm2
Content
3 7 28 28 28
NA 0 24.0 31.5 39.5 3.75 22.0 0.05
20 23.0 28.5 38.0 3.65 22.0 0.03

40 20.0 25.5 36.5 3.55 21.0 0.03
RA-1 60 19.5 24.0 35.0 3.45 20.5 0.03
80 20.0 23.5 32.5 3.30 20.0 0.04
100 18.0 22.0 29.0 3.15 19.0 0.05
20 23.5 28.5 37.5 3.80 21.0 0.06

30 22.0 27.0 37.0 3.60 20.5 0.07
RA-2 40 20.5 25.0 36.0 3.55 20.0 0.07
100 21.5 24.0 31.0 3.55 18.0 0.08
20 24.5 32.0 38.5 3.65 22.5 0.05

30 23.5 31.5 37.5 3.65 22.0 0.06
RA-3 40 22.5 32.0 37.0 3.60 21.5 0.06
100 20.0 24.0 33.0 3.50 20.0 0.07
45
40
35
CUBE STRENGTH, N/mm2
30
25
20
15
RCA-35
10 RCA-60
CBA-1
5 CBA-4
CBA-7
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RA CONTENT, %
Figure 15 Relationship between coarse RA content and cube strength for RCA and CBA
There was little difference in behaviour between concrete containing RCA-35 and RCA-60. This again confirms
earlier studies showing that the strength of the origin concrete has little effect on the performance of the RCA.
In general, there was a reduction in cube strength as the RCA content increased, but up to around 20-30% RCA
content, the effect was within experimental variability. This again confirms general practice and earlier studies in
which it has been suggested that RCA may be used up to approximately 30% by mass of coarse aggregate
without adversely affecting performance.
The use of CBA reduced the cube strength to a greater extent than that of the RCA. Concretes containing 20%
by mass of CBA had strengths below that of the natural aggregate concrete and the percentage decrease in

strength increased with CBA content. Concretes containing 100% CBA had strengths of approximately 20-25%
lower than that of the natural aggregate concrete.
The RA concretes showed similar performance to RCA concretes at early age, but tended to have lower strengths
at 28 days.
6.2.2 Effect of RB content within Recycled Aggregates
Figures 16 and 17 shows the effect of the RB content within the recycled aggregates on cube strength; i.e. RB =
0% is RCA, whilst RB = 100% is CBA. Results at RB = 30% and RB = 70% being those of the artificially created
recycled aggregates. The limits for grades of RA based on the CEN TC154/SC2 recommendations are also shown.
When RA is used as the sole coarse aggregate (Figure 16) it can be seen that there is a decrease in the strength
of concrete as the RB content of the RA increases, although there is some scatter in the results. The lower bound
envelope is shown, in order to demonstrate the limits of worst performance based on the tests carried out.
When RA was used at 20% by mass of coarse aggregate (as typically used in most UK construction), it can be
seen that there was generally an insignificant effect of RB content on cube strength (Figure 17), i.e. the
composition of RA had little effect when used at moderate levels of the overall coarse aggregate content as
shown by the lower bound envelope.
Figure 18 shows the mean relative performance (determined from the lower bound envelope) for each grade of
RA compared to the pure crushed concrete, when RA is used at 20% by mass of the total aggregate. The grades
shown are RCA (RB ≤ 5%) from BS 8500-2, and RCU90, RCU70 and RB50 as recommended by CEN TC154/SC2
(Table 3). Whilst relative performance decreased with an increase in RB content, the relative performance up to
and including RB50 was greater than 0.9, i.e. performance was within 10% of the performance of pure crushed
concrete.
30
RUC90 RUC70 RB50 RBNR
25
28-DAY CUBE STRENGTH, N/mm2
20
15
10
RCA-35,CBA-1
RCA-60,CBA-1
RCA-35,CBA-4
5 RCA-35 CBA-7
RA-1
RA-2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 16 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and cube strength
(recycled aggregates used at 100% by mass of coarse aggregate)

45
28-DAY CUBE STRENGTH, N/mm2 40
35
30
25 20% RA content
20
15 RCA-35,CBA-1
RCA-60,CBA-1
10 RCA-35,CBA-4
RCA-35 CBA-7
5 RA-1
RA-2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 17 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and cube strength
1.2
RCU90,
RCA RCU70, RB30 RB50
RB10
1
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE
Cube Strength
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 18 Relative cube strength performance between each grade of RA and pure crushed concrete
6.2.3 Adjustment to w/c ratio for Equal Strength
Based on the results, an attempt has been made to calculate the actual w/c ratio required to achieve the same
strength as the natural aggregate concrete, and thus the correction required to natural aggregate mix proportions
when using RA. A similar exercise was carried out by Dhir et al. (1998) for RCA used in BS 5328 designated
mixes. The relationship devised by Dhir et al. (1998) is shown in Figure 19, and essentially consists of a bi-linear
relationship in which no adjustment to w/c ratio is required for RCA contents less than 30%, whilst the reduction
in w/c ratio required for 100% RCA is determined by multiplying by 0.925.

Estimates of the adjustment required for concretes made using RCA-35, RCA-60, CBA-1 and CBA-4 are shown in
Figure 19. The two RCAs adjustments have similar curves, with reductions in w/c ratio required even at 20% by
mass. Furthermore, a greater reduction in w/c ratio is required when 100% by mass of RCA is used than
suggested by Dhir et al. (1998). Indeed, a number of projects in recent years have suggested that this may be
the case, e.g. Dhir and Paine (2003). More significant are the large reductions in w/c ratio that are necessary
when proportioning with CBA-1 and CBA-4. Mix proportions devised with these much lower water/cement ratios
(i.e. higher cement contents) may make use of large CBA contents uneconomical. This needs to be investigated.
6.3 Static Modulus of Elasticity
The static modulus of elasticity (elastic modulus) at 28 days, for all concretes, is given in Tables 18 to 23.
Figure 20 shows the effect of RA on the elastic modulus. In general, there is a reduction in elastic modulus with
RA content (both RCA and CBA), although the effect (with the exception of CBA-4) is generally insignificant up to
approximately 20-30% by mass of coarse aggregate.
6.3.2 Effect of RB Content within Recycled Aggregates
Figures 21 and 22 show the effect of the RB content within the recycled aggregates when recycled aggregates are
used at 100% by mass of aggregate. In general, there was a linear relationship between elastic modulus and RB
content. Figure 23 shows the mean relative performance (determined from the lower bound envelope) compared
to the pure crushed concrete for four grades of RA. A similar relationship to that observed for cube strength was
observed. Whilst relative performance decreased with an increase in RB content, the relative performance up to,
and including, RB50 was greater than 0.92, i.e. performance was within 8% of the performance of pure crushed
concrete.
1.05
1
Dhir et al. 1998
MEAN W/C CORRECTION
0.95
0.9
0.85
RCA-35
RCA-60
0.8 CBA-1
CBA-4
0.75 CBA-7
0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
RA CONTENT, %
Figure 19 Estimation of correction required to w/c ratio to achieve equal strength to NA and
comparison with previous correction determined by Dhir et al. (1998)

25
20
ELASTIC MODULUS, kN/mm2
15
10 RCA-35
RCA-60
CBA-1
5
CBA-4
CBA-7
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RA CONTENT, %
Figure 20 Relationship between coarse RA content and elastic modulus for RCA and CBA
25
20
15
10
RCA-35,CBA-1
RCA-60,CBA-1
RCA-35,CBA-4
5 RCA-35 CBA-7
RA-1
RA-2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 21 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and elastic modulus
6.3.3 Relationship between Cube Strength and Elastic Modulus
Figure 24 shows the relationship between cube strength and elastic modulus based on the results in Tables 18 to
23. In general, there was a typical curve of results showing that as cube strength reduced elastic modulus
reduced in proportion. However, it can be seen that concretes containing high proportions of RB tended to have
lower elastic moduli, for a given cube strength, than RCA and NA concretes.

25
20
15
RCA-35,CBA-1
10 RCA-60,CBA-1
RCA-35,CBA-4
RCA-35 CBA-7
RA-1
5 RA-2
20% RA content
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 22 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and elastic modulus
1.2
RCU90,
RB10
1
0.8
0.6
0.4 Flexural Strength
Elastic Modulus
0.2
Drying Shrinkage
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 23 Relative engineering property performance between each grade of RA and pure crushed
concrete (recycled aggregates used at 20% by mass of coarse aggregate)
It should be noted that the elastic modulus values recorded were particularly low. It is well known that the
natural Fife gravel aggregates used at the Concrete Technology Unit tend to give lower elastic moduli than would
be predicted from equations in for example Eurocode 2: values are usually around 70% (Dhir et al. 2005).
However, the values given in Figure 24 even fell below this figure (the full line shown).

30
25 Ecm = 6.65 (0.8fcc + 8)1/3

20
NA
RCA-35
15 RCA-60
CBA-1
10 CBA-4
CBA-7
RA-1
5
RA-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 24 Relationship between cube strength and elastic modulus
6.4 Flexural Strength
The flexural strength, measured at 28 days, for all concretes is given in Tables 18 to 23.
Figure 25 shows the effect of recycled aggregate on the flexural strength. In general, there was a reduction in
flexural strength with RA content, although the effect (for both RCA and CBA concretes) was relatively small up to
approximately 40% by mass of coarse aggregate. The maintenance of flexural strength up to 40% by mass may
be due to the angular nature of the recycled aggregates.
3.5
FLEXURAL STRENGTH, N/mm2
2.5
1.5 RCA-35
RCA-60
1
CBA-1
0.5 CBA-4
CBA-7
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RA CONTENT, %
Figure 25 Relationship between coarse RA content and flexural strength for RCA and CBA

Figures 26 and 27 show the effect of the RB content within the recycled aggregates when recycled aggregates
were used at 100% and 20% by mass of aggregate.
When RA was used at 100% by mass of aggregate, slightly different behaviour appears to occur between the two
w/c ratios investigated. For the lower w/c ratio (w/c = 0.61), flexural strength appeared to drop fairly rapidly with
an increase in RB content suggesting that crushed concrete aggregate gives better performance. However, for
w/c = 0.84 (the lower curve) there was only a small effect of RB content on flexural strength. Results for RA
used 20% by mass of aggregate are similar to those of the latter case in that there was no significant difference
in flexural strength between concrete containing RAs with RB = 0 and those with RB = 10% to 30%.
Figure 23 shows the mean relative performance (determined from the lower bound envelope) compared to the
pure crushed concrete for four grades of RA. A similar relationship to that observed for elastic modulus was
observed. Whilst relative performance decreased with an increase in RB content, the relative performance up to
and including RB50 was greater than 0.95, i.e. performance was within 5% of the performance of pure crushed
concrete.
6.4.3 Relationship between Cube Strength and Flexural Strength
Figure 28 shows the relationship between cube strength and flexural strength based on the results in Tables 18
to 23. In general, there was a typical curve of results showing that as cube strength reduced flexural strength
reduced in proportion. It was notable, however, that the values fell below the typical relationship which is known
to hold true for most concretes containing natural gravel cast at the Concrete Technology Unit.
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
RCA-35,CBA-1
RCA-60,CBA-1
1 RCA-35,CBA-4
RCA-35 CBA-7
0.5 RA-1
RA-2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 26 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and flexural strength

4
FLEXURAL STRENGTH, N/mm2 3.5
2.5
2
RCA-35,CBA-1
1.5 RCA-60,CBA-1
RCA-35,CBA-4
RCA-35 CBA-7
1 RA-1
RA-2
0.5
20% RA content
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 27 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and flexural strength
6.5 Drying Shrinkage
Tests for drying shrinkage, using the method (although not the mix proportions) described in BS EN 1367-4, were
carried out for selected mixes. As would be expected, drying shrinkage tended to increase with both RCA and
CBA content.
Figure 29 shows the effect of the RB content within the recycled aggregates when recycled aggregates were used
at 20% by mass of aggregate. The worst case envelope is also shown, although it is notable that there was a
considerable scatter of results. Based on the worst-case curve, a RB content of approximately 40% by mass is
the maximum that can be used to ensure that drying shrinkage of RA concrete is less than 0.075%.
pure crushed concrete for four grades of RA. Because of the variable nature and the poor performance of
concretes containing CBA-7, the relative performance decreased sharply with an increase in RB content.

5
FLEXURAL STRENGTH, N/mm2 4.5
4 fct,fl = 0.35 fcc2/3
3.5
3
NA
2.5 RCA-35
RCA-60
2 CBA-1
1.5 CBA-4
CBA-7
1 RA-1
RA-2
0.5 RA-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 28 Relationship between cube strength and flexural strength
0.1
0.09
0.08
DRYING SHRINKAGE, %
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
20% RA content
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 29 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and drying shrinkage
6.6 Permeation and Durability Properties
6.6.1 Initial Surface Absorption
Initial surface absorption tests were carried out on selected specimens (Tables 24 to 26) and results were similar
to earlier reported results: very high initial surface absorption values being measured for the CBA concretes. This
can be seen in Figure 30, in which natural aggregates and RCA gave similar performance, but even with only
20% CBA used - initial surface absorption values are noticeably higher. Permeation performance when using CBA
in concrete is therefore clearly a concern.

Figures 31 and 32 show the effect of the RB content within the recycled aggregates when recycled aggregates
were used at 100% and 20% by mass of aggregate. The worst case envelope is also shown, with again a large
scatter in results – particularly because of the poor performance of concrete containing CBA-7.
1.8
Recycled aggregates at Recycled aggregates at

1.6
20% by mass of coarse aggregate 100% by mass of coarse aggregate
1.4
1.2
ISA-10, ml/m2/s
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
NA RCA-35 RCA-60 CBA-1 CBA-4 NA RCA-35 RCA-60 CBA-1 CBA-4
Figure 30 Effect of recycled aggregates on initial surface absorption of concrete
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
ISA-10, ml/m2/s
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 31 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and initial surface
absorption after 10 minutes (recycled aggregates used at 100% by mass of coarse aggregate)
An ISA-10 value of 1.0 ml/m2/s is approximately the upper limit of performance for typical natural concrete
aggregates (Price and Bamforth 2003), although a value above 0.5 ml/m2/s is usually considered to be high.
Based on 1.0 ml/m2/s, a limit of RB = 20% in RA would be needed should RA be used as the sole aggregate.
However, when RA was used at 20% by mass of aggregate all results fell below 1.0 ml/m2/s.

pure crushed concrete for four grades of RA. Because of the variable nature and the poor performance of
concretes containing CBA-7, the relative performance decreased sharply with an increase in RB content.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
ISA-10, ml/m2/s
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
20% RA content
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 32 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and initial surface
absorption after 10 minutes (recycled aggregates used at 20% by mass of coarse aggregate)
1.2
RCU90,
RB10
1 Carbonation
0.8
ISA
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 33 Relative permeation and carbonation performance between each grade of RA and pure
crushed concrete (recycled aggregates used at 20% by mass of coarse aggregate)
6.6.2 Carbonation
Results of carbonation tests are shown in Figure 34. In all cases the use of recycled aggregate in concrete gave
better performance with respect to carbonation than natural aggregate despite the lower permeability
performance: similar performance has been observed elsewhere (Ifah 2000, Levy and Helene 2004), whilst Dhir
et al (1998) have previously shown that at equal strength, RCA concrete gives better performance than NA
concrete.

20
Recycled aggregates at 20% by mass of coarse aggregate
18 Recycled aggregates at
CARBONATION DEPTH, mm 100% by mass of coarse aggregate
16
14
12
10
0
NA RCA-35 RCA-60 CBA-1 CBA-4 RA-1 NA RCA-35 RCA-60 CBA-1 CBA-4 RA-1
Figure 34 Effect of recycled aggregates on carbonation of concrete after 8 weeks (accelerated test)
The increased performance is probably related to:
The higher cement content of the recycled aggregate mixes used to compensate for shape.
Residual cement from crushed concrete within the recycled aggregate.
Figure 35 shows the effect of the RB content within the recycled aggregates when recycled aggregates were used
at 20% by mass of aggregate. The worst case envelope is also shown, and in general an increase in RB content
leads to a slight increase in carbonation when compared with crushed concrete.
Indeed, Figure 33 shows the mean relative performance (determined from the lower bound envelope) compared
to the pure crushed concrete for four grades of RA. Whilst relative performance decreased with an increase in RB
content, the relative performance up to and including RB50 was greater than 0.9, i.e. performance was within
10% of the performance of pure crushed concrete.
20
18
16
CARBONATION DEPTH, mm
14
12
10
2
20% RA content
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 35 Relationship between brick content (RB) within recycled aggregates and carbonation
depth after 8 weeks (recycled aggregates used at 20% by mass of coarse aggregate)

7.0 Phase 4: Grades of Concrete
In order that the effect of recycled aggregate quality on concrete performance could be objectively assessed it
was necessary to establish requirements on performance for each of the main concrete properties.
7.1 Cube Strength
In all cases use of RA in concrete led to lower cube strength after 28 days than use of the equivalent natural
aggregate concrete. Therefore, as seen in earlier work using RCA (Dhir et al. 1998), it is necessary to reduce the
w/c ratio to achieve equal cube strength. This is well established. From a practical point of view, however, it is
likely to be unsustainable to permit large reductions in w/c ratio as this may lead to much higher cement contents
and/or the need for larger dosages of admixture to achieve the required consistence class.
Consequently, an important requirement for use of RA in concrete is that it does not lead to significant changes in
the w/c ratio. In recognition of this, it was decided to set a maximum w/c ratio correction factor of approximately
0.9. This means that a concrete designed using natural aggregates with a w/c ratio of 0.5, must have a w/c ratio
no less than 0.45 when part of the coarse natural aggregates are replaced mass-for-mass by RA.
Based on known cube strength to w/c ratio relationships for concrete cast with the natural aggregates used in
this programme, this can be taken as implying that concrete cast at w/c ratio of 0.61 should have a strength no
lower than 34.5 N/mm2, and for w/c ratio of 0.84 a strength no lower than 16 N/mm2.
7.1.1 Performance related approach
Figure 36 shows relationships between LA coefficient and cube strength. Based on the requirement, above, it can
be determined that provided the LA coefficient of the aggregate is less than 28%, then cube strength will be
greater than or equal to 34.5 N/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.61, and greater than or equal to 16 N/mm2 at w/c ratio of
0.84.
Similarly, Figure 37 shows the relationships between aggregate density (SSD) and cube strength. Based on the
same requirement, it can be determined that in general provided the density of the combined aggregate is
greater than 2440 kg/m3 then cube strength will be greater than or equal to 34.5 N/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.61,
and greater than or equal to 16 N/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.84.
Indeed, Xiao et al (2006) have argued that density is a good method for determining the effect of RCA on cube
strength. However, it can be seen that at w/c ratio of 0.61 there are a number of concretes that do not meet this
criteria. Therefore, use of LA coefficient would appear to be a more suitable means for determining the effect of
RA on cube strength than density.
Similar criteria can be put in place for higher and lower classes of concrete: for example, requirements that the
w/c correction factor is no less than 0.95 and 0.80. Indeed, Figures 38 and 39 show the minimum LA coefficient
to meet these requirements. For the higher class, LA coefficient must be less than approximately 25% and for the
lower class less than approximately 45%.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
w/c = 0.84
5 w/c = 0.61
Class B
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LA, %
Figure 36 Limit on LA coefficient required to achieve a cube strength within 15% of natural gravel
concrete
45
w/c = 0.84
40
w/c = 0.61
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Class B
0
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700
AGGREGATE DENSITY SSD, kg/m3
Figure 37 Limit on aggregate density required to achieve a cube strength within 15% of natural
gravel concrete

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
w/c = 0.84
5 w/c = 0.61
Class A
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LA, %
Figure 38 Limit on LA coefficient required to achieve a cube strength within 7.5% of natural gravel
concrete
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
w/c = 0.84
5 w/c = 0.61
Class C
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LA, %
Figure 39 Limit on LA coefficient required to achieve a cube strength within 30% of natural gravel
concrete
7.1.2 Composition based approach

Figure 40 shows the relationship between RB content and cube strength for all concretes tested. In general this
relationship is linear, although the coefficient of correlation (R2) is smaller than that between LA coefficient (and
or density) and cube strength (Figure 36). Based on the requirements, above, it can be determined that provided
the RB content of the combined coarse aggregate is less than 10%, then cube strength will be greater than or
equal to 34.5 N/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.61, and greater than or equal to 16 N/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.84.
However, it can be seen that a number of points lie below the limit of 34.5 N/mm2 for 0% RB content. These
values relate to RA concrete containing 100% crushed concrete (RC) as coarse aggregate. Figure 41 shows the
relationship between RC content and cube strength for these mixes. Based on the linear relationships observed it
can be argued that a cube strength of 34.5 N/mm2 will be achieved at w/c ratio of 0.61 provided the coarse
aggregate contains less than 80% RC: this in effect limits the RA content of concrete to 80% by mass of coarse
aggregate. Again similar criteria can be put in place for higher and lower grades of concrete.
45
40
35
CUBE STRENGTH, N/mm 2
30
R2 = 0.6981
25
20
15
R2 = 0.7486
10
w/c = 0.84
5 w/c = 0.61
Class B
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 40 Limit on RB content to achieve a cube strength within 15% of natural gravel concrete
7.2 Elastic Modulus
Based on the criteria that use of RA should w/c ratio reduction factors should be no less than 0.9, this in effect
approximates to reductions in strength of no more than 15%. Similarly, a limit of reduction in engineering
properties (elastic modulus and flexural strength) of 15% may be used. For example, for the concretes used in
this study, natural aggregate concretes gave Ec of 22 kN/mm2 and 19 kN/mm2 at w/c ratios of 0.61 and 0.84
respectively; consequently, use of RA in equivalent concrete mixes should not be permitted to reduce Ec to values
less than 19 kN/mm2 and 16 kN/mm2, respectively.
Figure 42 shows the relationships between aggregate density (SSD) and elastic modulus for all concretes tested.
Based on the above requirement, it can be determined that in general provided the density of the aggregate is
greater than 2450 kg/m3 then elastic modulus will be greater than or equal to 19 kN/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.61,
and greater than or equal to 16 kN/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.84.
Similar criteria can be put in place for higher and lower classes of concrete based on elastic modulus reducing by
less than 7.5% and 30%.

45
40
35
R2 = 0.9458
30
25
20
15
R2 = 0.9263
10
w/c = 0.84
5 w/c = 0.61
GradeBB
Class
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RC CONTENT, %
Figure 41 Limit on RC content to achieve a cube strength within 15% of natural gravel concrete
Figure 43 shows the relationships between RB content and elastic modulus for all concretes tested. It can be
determined that, in general, provided the RB content of the aggregate is less than 12%, then elastic modulus will
be greater than or equal to 19 kN/mm2 at w/c ratio of 0.61, and greater than or equal to 16 kN/mm2 at w/c
ratio of 0.84. Furthermore, because of low elastic modulus with very high RC contents, the maximum possible RA
content needs to be less than 90% by mass for these values of elastic modulus to be achieved.
7.3 Drying Shrinkage
There is currently a requirement that aggregates must have a drying shrinkage value less than 0.075%. Very few
of the concretes tested in this study failed to meet this requirement, and consequently there is no reason to set
lower and/or higher requirements for use of RA concrete.
7.4 Initial Surface Absorption
There are no limits for the initial surface absorption (ISA) of concrete, although following comparison of ISA
values for different types of concrete used in the field, Levitt (1971) proposed a tentative limit of 0.5 ml/m2/s for
reinforced and prestressed concrete in order to prevent significant ingress of aggressive agents. Since the work
in this project is targeted at lower “classes” of concrete suitable for less aggressive environments, a limit of 0.8
ml/m2/s is probably more suitable for concrete that is unlikely to be used for reinforced and prestressed concrete;
particularly as since Levitt’s work was carried out in 1971 it has become more common to use fly ash, ggbs,
water-reducing admixtures, water-resisting admixtures and particle packing techniques to reduce the surface
absorption of concrete. However, a limit of 0.5 ml/m2/s for concrete should be imposed for higher classes of
recycled aggregate.
Figure 44 shows the relationship between aggregate water absorption and ISA-10 (initial surface absorption of
the concrete after 10 minutes) for all concretes. It can be seen that the limits of 0.5 ml/m2/s and 0.8 ml/m2/s
will be met provided that the water absorption of the aggregate are less than 2% by mass and 6% by mass,
respectively.

Figure 45 shows the relationship between RB content and ISA-10. Again, the limits of 0.5 ml/m2/s and 0.8
ml/m2/s will be met provided that the RB content of the combined aggregate is less than 6% by mass and 20%
by mass, respectively.
25
20
15
10
5 w/c = 0.84
w/c = 0.61 Class B
0
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700
AGGREGATE DENSITY SSD, kg/m3
Figure 42 Limit on aggregate density to achieve a static modulus of elasticity within 15% of
natural gravel concrete
25
20
ELASTIC MODULUS, kN/mm 2
15
10
w/c = 0.84
w/c = 0.61
5
Class B
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 43 Limit on RB content to achieve a static modulus of elasticity within 15% of natural gravel
concrete

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
ISA-10, ml/m2/s
1
Class B
0.8
0.6 Class A
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AGGREGATE WATER ABSOPTION, %
Figure 44 Limit on water absorption of aggregates to achieve ISA-10 values less than 0.8 and
0.5 ml/m2/s
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
ISA-10, ml/m 2/s
1
Class B
0.8
0.6 Class A
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
RB CONTENT, %
Figure 45 Limit on RB content to achieve ISA-10 values less than 0.8 and 0.5 ml/m2/s

7.5 Chloride Ingress
It is generally suggested that concrete suitable for use in marine environments should have a rapid chloride
permeability value of less than 4000 C. However, all concretes tested in this project were shown to have chloride
ingress values greater than 4000 C, which reflects the high w/c ratio (0.61) and low cement contents (295-310
kg/m3) used.
However, as the natural aggregates used in this project have been shown in various other projects to be suitable
for use in marine environments when used in properly proportioned concretes (Dhir et al 2002), it is perhaps
appropriate to assess the suitability of recycled aggregates in a similar manner to cube strength, by limiting the
allowed increase in permeability above that of the natural aggregate concrete to say 10% (the test repeatability)
and 15%, i.e. since the natural aggregate concrete gave a value of 4100 C, limits are set at 4500 C and 4700 C.
Figure 46 shows that based on these values, it is necessary to limit the water absorption of combined aggregates
to 2% and 4%, respectively. Similarly, RB limits of the combined aggregate of 5% and 7% would be necessary.
Further research is required to assess the ability of RA concrete to achieve suitable resistance to chloride ingress
when used in conjunction with CEM III and CEM II-V cements. This is being partly investigated in on-going CTU
research into the use of blended cements and combinations.
7.6 Carbonation
In general, most results showed that use of RA in concrete increases the resistance to carbonation. Reasons for
this were given in Section 6.6.2. Subsequently, there appear to be no reasons to limit use of RA in carbonation
environments. However, given the limited data it is probably appropriate to be cautious at very high RB contents.
8000
RAPID CHLORIDE PERMEABILITY, C
7000
6000
5000 Class B
Class A
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AGGREGATE WATER ABSOPTION, %
Figure 46 Limit on water absorption of aggregates to achieve rapid chloride permeability within
15% and 7.5% of natural gravel concrete

8.0 Phase 5: Recommendations for
Recycled Aggregates
Based on the performance requirements discussed in Phase 4, three classes of recycled aggregate are proposed
based on the performance of the combined aggregate. The three classes are based on:
Class A
W/c reduction factor ≥ 0.95
Engineering properties within ±7.5% of that of equivalent NA concrete
Initial surface absorption ≤ 0.6 ml/m2/s
Drying shrinkage ≤ 0.075%
ISA-10 < 0.5 ml/m2/s
Rapid chloride permeability within ± 10% of that of equivalent NA concrete
Based on the above requirements, Class A recycled aggregates are suitable for use in concrete exposed to
carbonation, marine environments, sulfate conditions and other aggressive agents. Based on earlier work these
aggregates will also have good resistance to freeze/thaw conditions provided suitable air-entrainment is used
(Dhir and Paine 2003). It is suggested that recycled aggregates meeting this class could be used in the following
exposure conditions:
No risk of corrosion XO
Corrosion induced by carbonation XC-1 XC-2 XC-3 XC-4
Corrosion induced by chlorides XD-1 XD-2
Corrosion induced by chlorides (seawater) XS-1 XS-2
Freeze/thaw attack XF-1 XF-2 XF-3 XF-4
Sulfate attack DC-1 DC-2
Class B
Engineering properties within ±15% of that of equivalent NA concrete
Initial surface absorption ≤ 0.8 ml/m2/s
ISA-10 < 0.8 ml/m2/s
Based on the above requirements, Class B recycled aggregates are suitable for use in concrete exposed to
carbonation, and moderate sulfate conditions and other aggressive agents (provided appropriate cements are
used), and moderate freeze/thaw conditions (Dhir and Paine 2003). They should not be used in chloride
environments. It is suggested that recycled aggregates meeting this class could be used in the following exposure
conditions:
Corrosion induced by carbonation XC-1 XC-2 XC-3 XC-4
Freeze/thaw attack XF-1 XF-2
Sulfate attack DC-1 DC-2
Class C
Engineering properties within ± 30% of that of equivalent NA concrete
Based on the above requirements, Class C recycled aggregates are suitable for use in concrete exposed to
moderate levels of carbonation. It is suggested that recycled aggregates meeting this class could be used in the
following exposure conditions:

Corrosion induced by carbonation XC-1 XC-2
Sulfate attack DC-1
8.1 Performance Related Approach
From the work described in Section 7, requirements on combined coarse aggregates to meet these three classes
of recycled aggregate were derived and are shown in Table 27.
This selection of properties is similar to that given in the Japanese standard JIS 5021: 2005, which gives
requirements for high quality RA, and will later include requirements for medium and low class RA. The
requirements for high quality RA in JIS 5021:2005 are similar to those for Class B, with limits on an oven dry
density of greater than 2500 kg/m3, water absorption less than 3.0%, and a LA coefficient of less than 35%.
Table 27 Performance related requirements for three proposed classes of coarse RA

(based on properties of combined coarse aggregates)
PROPERTIES CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C

Minimum LA Class LA25 LA30 LA40
Minimum density, SSD, kg/m3 2550 2450 2150
Maximum water absorption, % 2 6 No limit
Drying shrinkage value, % 0.075 0.075 0.075
These classes only to be used for aggregates containing a minimum of 10% RA
8.2 Composition Based Approach
8.2.1 Limits on combined aggregate
As an alternative, it is possible to set limits based on composition of RA for each of these three classes. These are
shown in Table 28. For example, for Class B aggregates there is a limit on RA content of 80% by mass, and an
additional limit that the combined aggregate must contain less than 10% by mass of RB. This means that if 80%
by mass of RA was used in concrete then the RB content of that RA would need to be less than 12.5% by mass;
however, when used at only 30% by mass of aggregate it would be permissible to use RA containing 33% by
mass of RB.
Table 28 Compositional requirements for three proposed classes of coarse RA
REQUIREMENTS CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C

Maximum RA content, % 40 80 No limit
Maximum RB content, % total aggregate 5 10 20
Drying shrinkage value, % 0.075 0.075 0.075
These classes only to be used for aggregates containing a minimum of 10% RA
8.2.2 Limits on RA
The above compositional requirements are specified for the combined aggregate. However, it is recognised that
the update to BS EN 12620 is likely to include categories of RA based partly on RC and RB contents (Table 3).
However, it is also clear that the amount of RB permitted in concrete depends on the RA content. Based on the
compositional requirements given in Table 28 above, the allowable RA categories for each class of concrete and
RA content can be determined. These are shown in Table 29 for Class B requirements: for example, when RA is

used at 40% by mass of aggregate, it is permissible to use RA containing 25% of RB. Therefore, this enables
users to use RA classified as RB10 but not RB30. Table 30 shows a similar table for the stricter Class A
requirements where RA content is limited to 40% by mass.
Table 29 Types of RA permitted for use in XO, XC-4, XF-2 and DC-2 environments
RA CONTENT, % 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Maximum RB content, % 100 50 33 25 20 16 14 12
MINIMAL PERMISSABLE CLASSES
RC -- RC50 RC70 RC90 RC90 RC90 RC90 RC90
RC+RU -- RCU50 RCU70 RCU90 RCU90 RCU90 RCU90 RCU90
RB RB100 RB50 RB30 RB10 RB10 RB10 RB10 RB10
Table 30 Types of RA permitted for use in XO, XC-4, XD-2, XS-2, XF-2 and DC-2 environments
RA CONTENT, % 10 20 30 40
Maximum RB content, % 50 25 16 10
RC RC50 RC90 RC90 RCU90
RC+RU RCU50 RCU90 RCU90 RB10
RB RB50 RB10 RB10 RC90
Alternatively, Table 31 shows the results in an alternative format in which the maximum RA content for any given
category of RA is given.
Table 31 Maximum permissible RA contents for three categories of RA

and allowable environments
RC50 RC70 RC90

ALLOWABLE ENVIRONMENTS RC+U50 RC+U70 RC+U90
RB50 RB30 RB10
XO, XC-4, XD-2, XS-2, XF-2, DC-2 10% 16% 50%
XO, XC-4, XF-2, DC-2 20% 33% 80%
XO, XC-2, DC-1 40% 66% 100%

9.0 Conclusions
A total of 125 concrete mixes have been cast and tested using a number of different aggregates: natural
aggregate, 3 crushed concretes, 3 crushed bricks, 8 different combinations of brick and crushed concrete, and a
genuine recycled aggregate. Tests have been carried out for: cube strength, flexural strength, elastic modulus,
drying shrinkage, initial surface absorption, carbonation resistance, chloride ingress, freeze/thaw attack, abrasion,
sulfate attack and leaching.
A revised chart showing the necessary adjustment to w/c ratio when proportioning RA concretes has been
developed. Results tend to show that use of RCA and RA at 20% by mass of aggregate has little affect on
performance of concrete, and that the proportion of brick (RB) within the RA when used as these moderate levels
is not significant.
Three classes of recycled aggregate can be derived based on the properties (LA, aggregate absorption, density
and drying shrinkage) of the combined coarse aggregate. It is suggested that Class A recycled aggregates may
be used in a wide range of concrete, and possibly marine environments, whilst Class C should be restricted to
only the “mildest” exposure conditions (XO and DC-1). It is expected that most combinations of natural and
recycled aggregate would fall within Class B, and will be suitable for most “moderate” exposure conditions (up to
XC-4 and XF-2).
It was also possible to differentiate recycled aggregates by composition, and maximum RA contents that could be
used in various exposure conditions were determined based on the following compositional classes of (i) RC50,
RB50, (ii) RC70, RB30 and (iii) RC90, RB10.
These classes of recycled aggregate based on performance related properties and or composition will allow a
wider range of recycled aggregates to be used in higher value applications than the current limits in BS 8500-2.

10.0 References
ASTM C403M-99 Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance.
American Society of Testing and Materials.
BJARNASON, G., PETURSSON, P., ERLINGSSON, S. (2000). Aggregates resistance to fragmentation, weathering
and abrasion. Unbound Aggregates in Road Construction (UNBAR), A A Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, 11pp.
BRE (2000). Quality control – the production of recycled aggregates. Building Research Establishment, 6pp.
BS 812-111:1988. Testing aggregates. Method of determination of ten per cent fines value. British Standards
Institution. (Method no longer current).
BS 812-117:1988. Testing aggregates. Method of determination for measuring water-soluble chloride salts.
British Standards Institution. (Superseded by BS EN 1744-1).
BS 1881-124:1988. Testing concrete. Methods for analysis of hardened concrete. British Standards Institution.
BS 8500-1:2002. Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 - Method of specifying and

guidance for the specifier. British Standards Institution.
BS 8500-2:2002. Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 - Specification for constituent

materials and concrete. British Standards Institution.
BS EN 206-1:2000. Concrete - Specification, performance, production and conformity. British Standards

Institution.
BS EN 1097-3:1998. Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. Determination of loose bulk
density and voids. British Standards Institution.
BS EN 1744-1:1998. Tests for chemical properties of aggregates – Chemical analysis. British Standards
Institution.
BS EN 12620:2002. Aggregates for Concrete. British Standards Institution.
CEN/TC 154/SC2. Proposed Amendments to EN 12620 to Incorporate Clauses for Recycled Aggregates.
DHIR, R K, LIMBACHIYA, M C, LEELAWAT, T. (1998). Recycled concrete aggregate for use in BS 5328 designated
mixes. Concrete Technology Unit, Report CTU/498, 134pp
DHIR, R K, LIMBACHIYA, M C, BEGGS, A. (2001) Resolving application issues with the use of recycled concrete
aggregate. Concrete Technology Unit, Report CTU/1601, 171pp
DHIR, R K, JONES, M.R., MCCARTHY, M.J., ZHENG, L., CHITTIRATTNAKORN, P.S., SCOREY, V. (2002)
Optimising the use of Portland cement in concrete by void minimisation using fillers and non-Portland binders.
University of Dundee, Report CTU/1902
DHIR, R K, PAINE, K A (2003) Demonstration project utilising coarse recycled aggregates. Concrete Technology
Unit, Report CTU/2403, 109pp
DHIR, R K, PAINE, K A (2004) Suitability and practicality of using coarse RCA in normal and high-strength
concrete. 1st International Conference on Sustainable Construction: Waste Management, Singapore, 10-12 June
2004, pp 108-121
DHIR, R K, McCARTHY, M J, PAINE, K A (2005a). Engineering property and structural design relationships for new
and developing concretes. Materials and Structures, RILEM, Vol. 38, No. 275, pp 1-9
DHIR, R K, McCARTHY, M J, HALLIDAY, J.E., TANG, M.C. (2005b). ASR testing on recycled aggregates: Guidance
on alkali limits and reactivity. WRAP Report. January 2005, 29pp
DHIR, R K, PAINE, K A, CALISKAN, S. (2005c). Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Concrete. Technology
Application Document 1, Concrete Technology Unit, 33pp

ECCO (1999). Recycling concrete and masonry. Research Inforation Sheet EV 22. Environmental Council of
Concrete Organizations, Illinois, USA.
FAGURLUND, G. (1977). The critical degree of saturation method of assessing the freeze/thaw resistance of
concrete. Materials and Structures, RILEM, Vol. 10, No. 58, pp 217-229
FRAAIJ, A.L.A., PIETERSEN, H.S., DE VRIES, J. (2002). Performance of concrete with recycled aggregates.
Sustainable Concrete Construction, International Conference, Dundee 9-11 September 2002, pp 187-198
HANSEN, T.C. (1992). Recycling of demolished concrete and masonry. RILEM Report No. 6.
HUANG, B., SHU, X., BURDETTE, E.G. (2006). Mechanical properties of concrete containing recycled asphalt
pavements. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp 313-320
IFAH, J.M. (2000). Suitability of recycled aggregate for use in BS 5328 designated mixes. MSc Dissertation,
University of Dundee, 112pp
JANKOVIC, K. (2002). Using recycled brick as coarse aggregate. Sustainable Concrete Construction, International
Conference, Dundee 9-11 September 2002, pp 231-240
KHALAF, F.M., DEVENNY, A.S. (2004). Recycling of demolished masonry rubble as coarse aggregate in concrete:
Review. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 4, July/August, pp 331-340
KHALOO, A.R. (1994). Properties of concrete using crushed clinker brick as coarse aggregates. ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp 401-407
LEVITT, J. (1971). The ISAT – A non-destructive test for the durability of concrete. British Journal of Non-
destructive Testing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp 106-112
LEVY, S.M., HELENE, P. (2004). Durability of recycled aggregate concrete: A safe way to sustainable
development. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 34, No.11, pp 1975-1980
MULHERON, M., O’MAHONY, M. (1990). Properties and performance of recycled aggregates. Highway
Transportaion, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp 35-37
OTSUKI, N., MIYAZATO, S., YODSUDJAI, W. (2003). Influence of recycled aggregate on interfacial transition
zone, strength, chloride penetration and carbonation of concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 1,
No. 5, pp443-451
POON, C.S., LAM, L., FOK, H., KOU, S.C. (2004). Influence of moisture states of natural and recycled aggregates
on the slump and compressive strength of concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp 31-36
PRICE, W.F.,BAMFORTH, P.B. (1993). Initial surface absorption of concrete: Examination of modified test
apparatus for obtaining uniaxial absorption. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 45, No. 162, pp 17-24
prEN 933-11: 2006. Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. Classification test for the constituents of
coarse recycled aggregate. Comité Européen de Normalisation.
RILEM TC 56 (1998). CPC-18 Measurement of hardened concrete carbonation depth. Materials and Structures,
RILEM, Vol. 21, No. 126, pp 453-455
RYU, J S (2002). An experimental study on the effect of recycled aggregate on concrete properties. Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp 7-12
SAGOE-CRENTSIL, K., BROWN, T (1998). Guide for Specification of Recycled Concrete Aggregates (Rca) for
Concrete Production. Commonwealth Scientific Information and Research Organization, September 1998.
SANI, D., MORICONI, G., FAVA, G., CORINALDESI, V. Leaching and mechanical properties of concrete
manufactured with recycled aggregates. Waste Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp 177-182
SWEDISH STANDARDS. SS 13 72 44. Betonproving – Hrdnad betong – Avflagning vid frysning
WRAP (2005). The quality protocol for the production of aggregates from inert waste. Waste and Resources
Action Programme, September 2005, revised edition, 11pp

XIAO, J.Z., LI, J.B., ZHANG, C. On relationships between the mechanical properties of recycled aggregate
concrete: an overview. Materials and Structures, Vol. 39, 2006, pp 655-664
ZAKAIRA, M., CABRERA, J.G. (1996). Performance and durability of concrete made with demolition waste and
artificial fly ash-clay aggregates. Waste Management, Vol. 16, Nos 1-3, pp 151-158

11.0 Acknowledgements
WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action Programme), Aggregate Industries, Cemex UK, Concrete Centre, Ove
Arup and Partners, Quarry Products Association, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Tarmac are
gratefully acknowledged for their funding of the project. Bovingdon Brick, Errol Brick, Hanson Brick and Ibstock
Brick are thanked for supplying brick samples, and Delson Limited are thanked for their assistance in crushing
these. D J Laing Ltd and Coleman and Company are thanked for supplying recycled aggregates.
The following individuals formed the Steering Committee for the project and are thanked for their advice,
suggestions and contributions to the research: Mr John Barritt (WRAP), Miss Michaela Clelland (Scottish
Environment Protection Agency), Professor Tom Harrison (Quarry Products Association), Mr John Lay (Cemex
UK), Mr Allister Melvin (Aggregate Industries), Dr Howard Robinson (Tarmac), Miss Anna Scothern (The Concrete
Centre) and Mr Alistair Wylie (Ove Arup and Partners).
Shakeer Abdulshukoor, David Collery, Rajiv Gupta, Tomas McAuliffe, Brian Murphy, Adrian Nevin, Elena Rapti and
Tushar Vaja are thanked for their assistance with the experimental work.

Appendix 1 Preliminary Mixes
Introduction
This appendix reports on the results of tests carried out on concretes designed for DC1 (non-aggressive soil), XC4
(high chloride ingress) and XF1 (moderate freeze/thaw attack) environments. For each environment, a natural
aggregate concrete and recycled aggregate concretes were prepared. The recycled aggregates were used at
both 30% by mass of coarse aggregate and 100% by mass of coarse aggregate. Four types of recycled
aggregate were used:
(i) crushed concrete (0% brick),

(ii) crushed brick (100% brick),
(iii) a mixture of crushed concrete and crushed brick (70% concrete, 30% brick), and
(iv) a mixture of crushed brick and crushed concrete (30% concrete, 70% brick).
Tests were carried out for engineering properties and durability properties related to the environment for which
the concretes were designed. Leaching tests are on-going.
Mix Proportions
The RAs used in the concrete were produced by mixing of three crushed concretes (RCA) and one crushed brick
in various proportions.
The three RCA’s were of various strengths and composition and were produced by casting specimens in the
laboratory curing for 28 days and then crushing in a mobile plant. The concrete mixes (C10, C35 and C60) were
designed to achieve strengths of 10 N/mm2, 35 N/mm2 and 60 N/mm2 at 28 days, respectively. The mix
proportions used are given in Table A-1, and measured mean 28-day cube strengths were 10.5 N/mm2, 35.0
N/mm2 and 62.0 N/mm2, respectively.
The brick was obtained from waste samples collected at Errol Brick Works in Perthshire. They were crushed at
the same mobile crusher as used for the RCA.
Table A-1 Mix proportions used to create concrete for producing RCA

CODE w/c COARSE NA
water PC 0/4
5/10 10/20
C10 1.03 180 175 695 395 790
C35 0.65 175 270 635 430 860
C60 0.35 175 505 395 445 885
Concretes were proportioned to be suitable for use in DC1 (fcc > 7.5 N/mm2, cement content > 120 kg/m3), XC4
(fcc > 30 N/mm2, cement content > 260 kg/m3, w/c < 0.65) and XF1 (fcc > 30 N/mm2, cement content > 280,
w/c < 0.6, air content > 3.5%) environments. Mix proportions are given in Tables A-2 and A-3, respectively. For
each environment, nine concrete mixes were produced to:
Obtain the performance of a natural aggregate concrete.

Investigate the effect of RCA content on performance (as a control series).
Tests were carried out at either 30% replacement of natural aggregate or complete replacement of natural
aggregate. Based on previous work on RCA, the RCA concrete mixes were proportioned with the intention of
achieving equal strength at 28 days to the natural aggregate concrete through adjustment to the water/cement

ratio (i.e. through cement content). Concretes containing brick or recycled aggregate were proportioned at the
same w/c ratio as the equivalent RCA concrete.
Table A-2 Proportions for use in DC1 Environment (intended characteristic strength = 10 N/mm2)

w/c COARSE NA COARSE RCA COARSE BRICK
CODE water PC 0/4
5/10 10/20 5/10 10/20 5/10 10/20
100NA 1.03 180 175 695 395 790 0 0 0 0
30RCA 1.03 180 175 695 270 540 115 230 0 0
100RCA 0.95 180 190 680 0 0 365 730 0 0
30B 1.03 180 175 695 265 530 0 0 115 230
100B 0.95 180 190 680 0 0 0 0 350 700
30RA (30B) 1.03 180 175 695 270 540 80 160 35 70
30RA (70B) 1.03 180 175 695 270 540 35 70 80 160
100RA (30B) 0.95 180 190 680 0 0 250 505 110 215
100RA (70B) 0.95 180 190 680 0 0 105 215 250 495
RCA: Source C10
Table A-3 Mix proportions for XC4 Environment (intended characteristic strength = 35 N/mm2)

w/c COARSE NA COARSE RCA COARSE BRICK
CODE water PC 0/4
5/10 10/20 5/10 10/20 5/10 10/20
100NA 0.65 175 270 635 430 860 0 0 0 0
30RCA 0.65 175 270 635 295 590 125 250 0 0
100RCA 0.60 175 290 615 0 0 395 795 0 0
30B 0.65 175 270 635 290 580 0 0 125 250
100B 0.60 175 290 615 0 0 0 0 380 760
30RA (30B) 0.65 175 270 635 295 590 85 175 40 75
30RA (70B) 0.65 175 270 635 290 580 40 75 85 175
100RA (30B) 0.60 175 290 615 0 0 275 550 115 235
100RA (70B) 0.60 175 290 615 0 0 115 230 270 540
RCA: Source C35
Effect of Recycled Aggregates on Concrete Properties
These RCA were used in combination with brick and/or natural aggregate in various proportions in concrete
designed for a DC1 (non-aggressive soil), XC4 (high chloride ingress) and XF1 (moderate freeze/thaw attack)
environments. Results are given below.
Cube Strength
Cube strengths were measured at 3, 7 and 28 days. For DC1 specimens, tests were also carried out at 56 days.
The results are given in Table A-4.
The relationship between RA content and cube strength for all three types of concrete is shown in Figure A-1.
For the DC1 and XF1 concretes the results followed similar patterns to that observed in earlier work (see Section
4.5.2), i.e. the cube strength with use of 30% RA was equivalent to that of the natural aggregate concrete: the
strength of concrete at 30% by mass of RA appearing to be unrelated to RA type. Despite the changes in w/c
ratio to achieve equal cube strength at 28 days for 100% RA content by mass it was clear that this was not
achieved. This was true for both the RCA (0% brick) concrete and the concrete containing higher percentages of
brick. The concretes containing the higher percentages of brick tended to give lower cube strength when used at
100% by mass.

Table A-4 Engineering Properties of RA concrete
fct,fl,
fcc, N/mm2 ISA, ml/m2/s x10-2
Slump, N/mm2
MIX
mm days day minutes
7 14 28 28 10 30 60
DC1
100NA - 9 11.5 14.5 - - - -
30RCA 90 9 11.5 14 3.30 45 21 15
100RCA 150 5 7.5 9 3.30 - -
30B 50 9 11 14.5 3.05 49 24 16
100B 150 5.5 8 8.5 1.90 101 58 38
30RA (30B) 105 8.5 11.5 13 2.80 36 26 18
30RA (70B) 35 9.5 13 14 3.05 66 35 24
100RA (30B) 120 8 8.5 9 2.30 94 40 26
100RA (70B) 125 7.5 8.5 9.5 2.15 70 35 23
XC4
100NA - 34 39 45.5 4.30 39 31 23

30RCA - 31 35.5 43.5 4.20 55 42 32
100RCA - 25.5 31.5 38.5 3.90 60 47 36
30B - 30 37 41.5 4.10 75 64 49
100B - 21 25.5 30.5 3.30 190 100 73
30RA (30B) - 32 38 42.5 4.10 65 47 34
30RA (70B) - 31 37.5 42 4.00 71 53 41
100RA (30B) - 24.5 31.5 37 3.45 126 62 54
100RA (70B) - 23 28 33 3.40 166 81 63
XF1
100NA 10 45 51.5 57 5 - - -
30RCA 15 44.5 52 57.5 4.95 - - -
100RCA 30 40 48 52.5 4.5 - - -
30B 40 44.5 51 57 5.45 - - -
100B 120 39 45 50.5 4.65 - - -
30RA (30B) 25 45 53.5 58 5.05 - - -
30RA (70B) 25 49 55.5 60 5.45 - - -
100RA (30B) 110 41 47 52 4.35 - - -
100RA (70B) 125 40 48 53 4.4 - - -
fcc = cube strength, fct,fl = flexural strength, ISA = initial surface absorption

70
60
XF1
50
XC4
40
30 RCA
30% brick
70% brick
100% brick
20
DC1
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONTENT, %
Figure A-1 Effect of RA on cube strength of concrete for RA containing between 0% and 100% brick
The relationship between RA content and cube strength for the XC4 concretes differed somewhat. For these
concretes there appeared to be a linear relationship between RA content and cube strength, and the losses in
cube strength when using RA were greater than those for XF1 and DC1; such that use of RA at 30% by mass
does not give equivalent strength to the natural aggregate concrete. It was also clear that cube strength was
related to the amount of brick contained in the RA.
Engineering Properties
Flexural Strength
Flexural strength tests were carried out at 28 days. The results are given in Table A-4. The relationship between
RA content and flexural strength for XC4 and XF1 concretes is shown in Figure A-2.
The flexural strength of XC4 concretes showed similar behaviour to the cube strength, i.e. there was a clear fall in
flexural strength as the RA content increased and as the amount of brick in the RA increased. Differences in
flexural strength at RA contents of 100% by mass were as large as 0.5 N/mm2. On the other hand, the
relationship between flexural strength and RA content for the XF1 concretes showed a different behaviour, which
again was similar to that observed for the cube strengths and similar to that observed in previous work (see
Section 4.5.2). For example up to 30% by mass, there was little effect of RA on flexural strength; but at 100%
by mass there was a slight loss in flexural strength. Interestingly, the RA containing 100% brick gave the highest
flexural strengths; this has been reported by researchers elsewhere (see Section 4.5.2), but clearly further tests
are required.

In general, the flexural behaviour of the concretes was similar to that of the cube strength as shown in Figure A-
3. The results tend to follow the trend given by the equation:
f ct , fl = 0.35 f cc2 / 3 (1)
This equation has been shown to be applicable to a wide range of concretes and suggests that prediction of
flexural behaviour through cube strength is entirely appropriate for RA concrete.
6.0
5.5
5.0
XF1
4.5
4.0
XC4
3.5
3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure A-2 Effect of RA on flexural strength of concrete for RA containing between

0% and 100% brick
Durability Properties
Initial Surface Absorption

Initial surface absorption tests (ISAT) that measure the absorption of the outer zone of the concrete, and give an
indication of the quality of the concrete surface and its resistance to durability, were performed in accordance
with BS 1881-208 at 10, 30 and 60 minutes. All results are shown in Table A-4.
The relationship between initial surface absorption after 10 minutes (ISA-10) and RA content is shown in Figure
A-4. It is clear that the initial surface absorption increases with both an increase in RA content and with an
increase in brick content within the RA.
Values of ISA-10 for natural aggregate concretes usually fall in the range of 20 to 50 ml/m2/s x 10-2. All
concretes with RA used at 30% by mass fall within this range. However, other than the RCA concrete all RA
concretes give ISA-10 greater than 50 ml/m2/s x 10-2 when used at 100% by mass.
The results would suggest that RA concretes have a lower quality surface and will be less resistant to abrasion
and ingress of harmful substances (e.g. chlorides, sulfates and to carbonation).

6
5 XC4

XF1
3
fct,fl = 0.35 fcc2/3
2 (RILEM TC 162, 2000)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure A-3 Relationship between cube strength and flexural strength for RA concrete
80
70
ISA-10, ml/m2/s x 10-2
60
50
40
30 RCA
20 30% brick
70% brick
10 100% brick
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure A-4 Effect of RA on initial surface absorption of concrete after 10 minutes for RA containing
between 0% and 100% brick
Sulfate attack
Prisms of 75 x 75 x 300m with end-reference studs were used to monitor deterioration of concrete exposed to
sulfate solution. The specimens were stored in tanks containing solutions of 0.3g/l sulfate (Na2SO4) at 20ºC.
Tests were carried out on DC1 specimens only. There was no expansion recorded.
Freeze/thaw
Freeze/thaw scaling tests were carried out in accordance with the CEN/TC 51 method in which a 3mm deep pond
(3% sodium chloride solution) is formed on the sawn surface of 150mm x 150mm x 50mm specimens. The
specimens are then subjected to repeated freezing and thawing for 56 days, each cycle lasting for 24 hours.
After 7, 14, 28, 42 and 56 days the test solution was drained and material that had scaled from the surface
collected and weighed, and the freezing medium replenished.

Tests were carried out on XF1 specimens. The relationship between RA content and freeze/thaw scaling after 56
days are shown in Figure A-5. The Swedish Standard states that scaling of less than 0.5 kg/m3 is equivalent to
good resistance to freeze/thaw, and based on this all concretes give good resistance. No relationship was
observed between freeze/thaw resistance and either RA content or RA type.
1.0
0.9 RCA
FREEZE/THAW SCALING, kg/m2
30% brick
0.8
70% brick
0.7 100% brick
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure A-5 Effect of RA on freeze/thaw scaling of concrete after 56 cycles for RA containing
Abrasion
Abrasion is being measured by exposing a 300mm x 300mm x 100m specimen to a rotating wheel for 15
minutes. Abrasion of the concrete surface takes place through sliding, scraping and percussion actions. Tests
were carried out at 28 days.
Tests were carried out on XF1 specimens. The relationship between RA content and abrasion resistance is shown
in Figure A-6. It can be seen that, as both the RA content and brick content within the RA increased, the
abrasion resistance reduced: this was similar to the behaviour noted for initial surface absorption (Figure 4).
Note however, that the performance of RA containing RCA and 30% brick are equivalent to that of natural
aggregate concrete when used at only 30% by mass of aggregate.
Resistivity
Electrical resistivity is an indirect means of measuring the interconnected porosity of concrete, and it is possible
that results may relate to the carbonation resistance of concrete. Two methods were used: a direct method and
a four-point method.

1.0
0.9 RCA
0.8 30% brick
70% brick
0.7
ABRASION, mm 100% brick
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure A-6 Effect of RA on abrasion of concrete for RA containing between 0% and 100% brick
Tests were carried out on XC4 specimens. Relationships between RA content and resistivity are shown in Figures
A-7 and A-8. The results are somewhat confusing in that there was no trend between resistivity and either RA
content or RA type. It can be seen however that the RA concrete containing RCA gave consistently the lowest
resistivity; whilst the RA concrete containing brick gave some of the highest resistivity values. It is suspected
that all values fall within the test error of the method and that there is in fact no effect of RA on the resistivity of
concrete.
120
100
RESISTIVITY, Ω m
80
60
RCA
40
30% brick
70% brick
20
100% brick
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure A-7 Effect of RA on resistivity of concrete (as measured by 4-point method) for RA containing

60
50
RESISTIVITY, Ω m
40
30
RCA
20
30% brick
70% brick
10 100% brick
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure A-8 Effect of RA on resistivity of concrete (as measured by direct method) for RA containing
Summary of Preliminary Work
Tests were carried out for engineering and durability properties of a number of concretes designed for DC1
(non-aggressive soil), XC4 (high chloride ingress) and XF1 (moderate freeze/thaw attack) environments; using
natural aggregates and four types of recycled aggregate. Recycled aggregates were used at both 30% by
mass of coarse aggregate and 100% by mass of coarse aggregate.
Relationships between both: (i) RA and cube strength, and (ii) the type of RA and cube strength, were
unclear.
In general flexural strengths followed the trend of cube strength in the respective cases. Prediction of flexural
strength through design equations based on cube strength would appear to be entirely appropriate for RA
concrete.
RA concretes give higher initial surface absorptions than natural aggregate, and the quality of the surface
appears to reduce with (i) increasing RA content, and (ii) diminishing RA quality (i.e. brick content increases).
The results suggest that there are limits that should be placed on RA content and quality to ensure good
performance.
All concretes tested gave good resistance to freeze/thaw. No relationship was observed between freeze/thaw
resistance and either RA content or RA type.
Abrasion tests followed a similar trend to that of initial surface absorption tests in that resistance reduced as
RA content increased, and as the RA quality diminished.
Tests for resistivity were inconclusive.

Written by: Professor Ravindra K Dhir and Dr Kevin A Paine
Published by
Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone
Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040
Banbury, Oxen E-mail: info@wrap.org.uk
OX16 0AH www.wrap.org.uk

SCC

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SCC

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aggregate Research Programme

Performance Related Approach to

The project was carried out to investigate the possibility of using an

Project code: AGG0074 ISBN: 1-84405-302-4

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 1

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 2

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 3

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 4

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 5

3.1 Phase 1: Literature Review (Months 1-6)

3.2 Phase 2: Characterisation of Recycled Aggregates (Months 3-9)

3.3 Phase 3: Concrete Properties (Months 6 to 16)

3.4 Phase 4: Grades of Concrete (Months 14 to 18)

3.5 Phase 5: Recommendations for Recycled Aggregates (Months 18 – 20)

3.6 Phase 6: Dissemination and Technology Transfer (Months 18 – 22)

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 6

4.2 Manufacture and Processing

 Restrict the type of CDEW that is used.

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 7

4.2.2 Restrictions and Separation of CDEW

Table 1 Requirements for RA in BS 8500-2 prior to October 2003

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 8

Table 2 Typical properties of asphalt-based RA

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 9

4.2.3 Crushing and Grading of RA

4.3.1 Crushed Brick (RB)

 Clay masonry units (i.e. bricks and tiles)

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 10

4.3.3 Unbound aggregates (RU)

4.3.4 Asphalt (RA)

4.3.5 Glass (RG)

4.3.6 Other Constituents (X)

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 11

4.4 Properties and Characteristics of RA

4.4.1 Sulfate Content

Table 3 Proposed categories for constituents of coarse RA in EN 12620 (CEN/TC 154/SC2)

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 12

Figure 3 Relationship between RB content of RA and acid-soluble sulfate content

4.4.2 Chloride Content

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 13

4.4.3 Alkali Content

4.4.4 Water Absorption

4.4.5 Physical Properties

 Resistance to fragmentation: Los Angeles test, BS EN 1097-2

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 14

4.5 Properties of RA Concrete

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 15

Adhered mortar Old ITZ

4.5.1 Fresh Properties

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 16

4.5.2 Engineering Properties

Development of Cube Strength

Static Modulus of Elasticity

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 17

1.0 fct,fl = characteristic flexural strength

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 18

4.5.3 Permeation Properties

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 19

4.5.4 Resistance to Chemical Attack

4.5.5 Resistance to Physical Attack

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 20

Performance Related Approach to Use of Recycled Aggregates 21

Table 5 Mix proportions used to create concrete for producing RCA

Restrict the type of CDEW that is used.

Clay masonry units (i.e. bricks and tiles)

Resistance to fragmentation: Los Angeles test, BS EN 1097-2