Properties of New and Recycled Clay Brick Aggregates for Use in

Concrete

Fouad M. Khalaf1 and

Alan S. DeVenny2
This paper was performed what properties are shown in concrete using new and
recycle brick. Various physical and mechanical properties of eight different types
aggregates were determined and compared with the limits set out in the British
Standards for aggregate from natural sources used in concrete .The results showed
that most of the crushed clay-brick aggregates tested can be used in producing PPC
for low-level civil engineering applications and that some kinds of brick aggregate
possess good physical and mechanical properties that qualify them for producing
high quality concrete
Introduction

Because of the extensive use of aggregate in concrete, many countries

throughout the world have tried to find other sources of aggregate to use in
construction. One of the alternative sources of aggregate is rubble from
demolished buildings (Trevorrow et al. 1988; Collins and Sherwood 1995;
deVries 1993; Hansen 1992; Tavakoli et al. 1996; Khaloo 1994). Recycling and
reusing rubble from demolished buildings is not a new concept, since several
countries have been crushing waste to aggregate for a number of years;
however, the aggregate produced has mainly been limited to such low-level uses
as pipe bedding, site fill, sub-base, or as a capping layer (Khalaf and DeVenny
2004).
A task force acting for the International Union of Laboratories and Experts in
Construction Materials Systems and Structures ~RILEM 1994! classified
recycled aggregates for use in PCC into 3 main types:
Type 1aggregates that are implicitly understood to originate primarily from
masonry rubble;
Type 2aggregates that are implicitly understood to originate primarily from
concrete rubble; and
Type 3aggregates that are implicitly understood to consist of
a blend of recycled aggregates and natural aggregates.
Type 3 aggregates also have the following additional requirements:
The minimum content of natural aggregates is at least 80%; and
The maximum content of Type 1 aggregates is 10%.
 The preceding recommendations were given as guidelines for writing of
European standards to promote the use of secondary aggregates in construction.
The specifications drawn up by the RILEM ~1994! task force also suggest
maximum allowable values for impurities in recycled aggregate ~See Table 1!.
In the table, Type 1 aggregate is composed of 100% recycled brick,

Type 2 is 100% recycled concrete, and Type 3 is a blend of natural and

recycled aggregates.
The economics of recycling are constantly changing because of government
policies. The introduction of a landfilltax and a levy on quarrying and
extracting virgin aggregates in the United Kingdom has been a big incentive for
the recycling industry. Significant restrictions on the use of recycled materials
by the construction industry include the lack of standards, specifications,
knowledge on properties, durability, and performance on-site.

Clay Brick Aggregate in Portland Cement Concrete

Concrete buildings made with crushed brick have been known since early
Roman times. An early example is the concrete channel of the Eiffel water
supply to Cologne. In this structure, the binder is a mixture of lime and crushed
brick dust or other pozzolans of the time ~Czernin 1980; Hansen 1992).
Brick aggregate is different from crushed concrete aggregate because of
differences in the raw materials used and the manufacturing process of clay
bricks. Aggregate produced by crushing clay bricks is very porous, and problems
arise when it is used in new PCC..
Hansen ~1992!, crushed brick must be completely saturated before use in the
manufacture of PCC to prevent the concrete from being too thirsty. The
absorption of crushed brick is estimated to have a value between 22 and 25% by
weight in relation to the material in its dry state.
Neville ~1995! does not recommend prewetting for any aggregate because the
aggregate particles can become quickly coated with cement paste that prevent
further ingress of water necessary for saturation. This practice results in an
increase of total water/cement ~w/c! ratio added to the mix over what would
occur if full absorption of water by the aggregate were allowed.

It is generally accepted that crushed brick aggregate concretes can be made

with consistencies that vary from very stiff to plastic. Concretes made with
recycled aggregates tend to be harsher and less workable than mixes containing
virgin aggregates.
According to deVries ~1993!, recycled aggregates are more angular in shape
and have higher water absorption than virgin aggregates, which demand more
water during mixing to produce concrete. He recommended that recycled
aggregates be soaked in water in a tank before mixing. However, the
disadvantage of soaking is the risk of oversaturation. Oversaturation, in turn can
cause problems in producing homogeneous concrete mixes. The first of two
alternative solutions proposed by deVries was to add extra water to compensate
for absorption by the recycled aggregates; the second was to mix 20% recycled
aggregate and 80% virgin aggregate to avoid workability problems.
Khaloo ~1994! used crushed clinker bricks as the coarse aggregate in PCC. He
reported only a 7% loss in concrete compressive strength compared with
concrete made with natural aggregates. In addition to this decrease in strength,
there is a 9.5% decrease in the unit weight of crushed brick concrete.
Eight different types of crushed aggregate were used in this investigation. They
included five kinds of aggregate from new

bricks, a recycled aggregate containing predominantly masonry material, a

recycled masonry aggregate, and a proven natural granite aggregate. The granite
aggregate was included in the experimental program for comparison.

Experimental Program:

Brick Used in Investigation:

Five types of new clay bricks of 215 3102.5 365 mm working sizes with
varying compressive strength were crushed to produce aggregate To find the
compressive strength of each brick type, tests were carried out in accordance
with BS 3921 ~BSI 1985b! and ASTM C 67 ~ASTM 1989!. The only
alteration made to the procedure was the number of bricks tested. Instead of
testing 10 samples, only 5 were tested. The brick types and compressive
strength results are given in Table 2.
The results in Table 2 indicate that the different bricks used in this
investigation represent a wide range of strength. The reason for using bricks of
different strengths was to study and compare their mechanical properties with
aggregate from natural sources that is suitable for PCC.
The figure1 shows that a good linear relationship exists between the average
results of strength produced from testing half-block and full-block samples.

Fig.1.Half brick compressive strength vs full-brick compressive strenght

 The best-fit equation for the relationship shown in Fig. 1 is as follows:

fhb = 1.09ffb + 2.19

s1d R2= 0.95

where fhb 5 half-brick compressive strength sN/mm2d; and ffb 5 full-brick

compressive strength sN/mm2d.
The relationship in Eq. ~1! is useful in converting the compressive strength of
half-bricks tested by using the American standard test method to full-brick
compressive strength tested by using the British standard test method and vice
versa

Types of Aggregate Used in Investigation

Seven different kinds of crushed brick aggregate and one type of granite
aggregate were used in the investigation. They include the following:

New Brick Aggregate

The new brick aggregate was produced by breaking down whole new bricks by
smashing them on a metal plate with a hammer. The large brick pieces were
crushed again to smaller sizes and sieved until the grading of the aggregates
complied with the grading limits set out in BS 882 ~BSI 1992! and BS 63: Part
1 ~BSI 1987! for 20-mm single-sized aggregate ~that is, fractions passing the
20-mm sieve but retained on 14, 10, and 5 mm!.

Recycled Washed Aggregate

The 20-mm recycled washed aggregate required no preparation, since it was
supplied as a 20-mm single-sized aggregate by the producer. This aggregate had
been screened at the recycling site to remove impurities, but the material still
contained a percentage of such impurities as timber, metal, glass, paper, rubber,
and mortar.

Recycled Masonry Aggregate

The recycled masonry aggregate was produced by crushing larger masonry
pieces supplied by the manufacturer as a 40 to 60 mm aggregate. The crushed
aggregate contained brick pieces from at least six different brick types. The only
impurities present were pieces of mortar that had adhered to the bricks before
crushing. When the bricks were crushed in the laboratory to a 20-mm single-
sized aggregate ~that is fractions passing the 20-mm sieve but retained on 14,
10, and 5 mm!, most of the mortar was reduced to dust and removed when
sieved but some of the mortar still adhered to the aggregate particles.

Granite Aggregate
Natural crushed 20-mm single-sized granite aggregate that previously had been
successfully employed to produce good-quality PCC was used in the present
investigation so that comparisons could be made with other aggregates.
To obtain representative samples for testing, all aggregates were riffled in
accordance with BS 812: Part 102 ~BSI 1989!. The samples of aggregate were
then tested to determine the type and amount of impurities, grading, impact
value, relative density, water absorption, and porosity.
Table.3. Percentages of Impurities Present in Recycled Washed
Aggregate
Impurity Percentage by weight
Paper ~%!
0.08
Plastic 0.11
Timber 0.12
Glass 0.45
Asphalt concrete/felt 0.47
Metal 0.76
Ceramic 1.21
Total 3.2

Sieve Analysis
A sieve analysis was carried out on all types of aggregate before their use in the
experimental work. The appropriate nest of sieves used for each analysis was in
accordance with BS 410 ~BSI 2000! and BS 812: Part 103.1 ~BSI 1985c! for the
grading of aggregate. Table 4 displays the results of the sieve analysis for all the
coarse aggregates used in the investigation.
Table 4. Sieve Analysis Results for All Coarse Aggregates
Sieve size Percentage by mass passing British standard sieves for
~mm! Common 5-slot 3-slot
nominal10-hole
sizes Eng B Recycled Recycled Gra
37.5
washed
masonry nite
100
20 100 10 10 10 10 100 100 95.0
14 25.9 23.5
0 18.0
0 18.0
0 20
0 44 22.8 24.4
10 5.6 5.7 3.0 4.0 3.6 12 5.0 2.5
5 1.5 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.7 5 0.5 0.4
2.36 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 3 0.2 0.3

Impact Value Test IV

The impact value gives a relative measure of the resistance of an aggregate to
sudden shock or impact. In some aggregates, this resistance can differ from its
resistance to a slowly applied compressive load., the lower the impact value, the
tougher and stronger the aggregate.
The maximum allowable impact values for aggregates recommended for use in
concrete, as given in BS 882 ~British 1992!, are as follows:
25% when the aggregate is to be used for heavy-duty concrete flooring;
30% when the aggregate is to be used for pavement wearing surfaces; and
45% when the aggregate is to be used for other concretes.

Fig: 2. Half-brick compressive strength vs impact value for new brick aggregate
.
 The figure shows that as the impact value of brick aggregate increases, the
compressive strength of the parent brick decreases. The results would also be
useful in deter-mining the suitability of recycled brick for use as the aggregate
in new PCC. The best-fit equation for the relationship shown in Fig. 2 is as
follows:

Fhb = - 3.64(IV) + 155.44 (2) ; R2 = 0.93 where IV=impact value (%)

Relative Density RD

The relative densities of the brick aggregates and the granite aggregate were
determined in accordance with BS 812: Part 2 ~BSI 1995! by using the gas jar
method. This method involves the immersion of an aggregate sample in water
for 24 hours in an airtight vessel. The mass of the vessel containing the water
and aggregate was weighed ~Mass B!, and the mass of the vessel containing
only water was also recorded ~Mass C!. After the 24 hours of immersion, the
aggregate was removed from the water and placed on a dry cloth to remove any
excess water from the surface of the aggregate particles. The weight of
aggregate was then recorded ~Mass A! in this saturated surface-dry ~SSD!
condition. The relative density was then calculated by using Eq. ~3!. The results
of relative density on an SSD basis for the aggregates used in this investigation
are shown in Table 2.

Mass A
Relative density(RD)= (3)
Mass A(Mass B Mass C)
Fig:4. Half brick compressive strength vs relative density for new brick
aggregate.

The results in Table 2 indicate that, in general, stronger bricks produced higher
values of relative density. In addition, new brick aggregates and recycled
aggregates have a lower relative density.

Fhb = 141.93(RD)-238.23 (4)

R2= 0.89
Where RD =Relative density (SSD)
Fig. 4 shows a relationship between the impact value of brick aggregate and its
relative density. As the relative density in-creases, the impact value decreases at
a linear rate. Tougher brick aggregates therefore have a higher relative density.
: