Title no.
93-M21
Strengths of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made Using
Field-Demolished Concrete as Aggregate
by Mostafa Tavakoli and Pat-viz Soroushian
Experimental work was performed to determine the compressive, splitting
tensile, andfiexural strengths of recycled coarse aggregate concrete and to
compare them with those of concrete made using natural crushed stone.
The properties of the aggregate were also compared. Thejine aggregate for
recycled and conventional concrete was 100 percent natural sand.
Two sources of recycled aggregate (crushed concrete pavements from
U.S. 23 and I-75 projects in Michigan) and one source of natural aggre-
gate (crushed limestone) were used. Two maximum sizes of aggregates, two
levels of water-cement ratio, and two levels of dry mixing time of coarse
aggregate were selected to perform the experiments based on a full facto-
rial design.
Test results indicate that the strength characteristics of recycled aggre-
gate concrete are injluenced by key factors, such as the strength of the orig-
inal concrete, the ratio of coarse to fine aggregate in the original concrete,
the ratio of top size of aggregate in the original concrete to that of the recy-
cled aggregate, and the Los Angeles abrasion loss and water absorption of
recycled aggregate. These factors also influence the effect of water-cement
ratio, aggregate top size, and dry mixing on the strength characteristics of
recycled aggregate concrete. It is also shown that the conventional rela-
tionships between splitting tensile, flexural, and compressive strengths may
have to be modifiedfor recycled aggregate concrete. TheJLinal conclusion is
that through proper measures high-quality concrete materials can be pro-
duced using recycled concrete aggregate. For this purpose, it is needed to
determine the properties of the original concrete, based on which realistic
qualities can be targeted for recycled aggregate concrete.
Keywords: aggregates; compressive strength; demolition; flexural
strength; recycling; splitting tensile strength.
The depletion of the supply of quality aggregates together
with environmental, economic, and energy considerations are
encouraging the recycling of demolished concrete structures
and pavements as aggregate in new concrete construction. Re-
searchers have tried to relate the quality of recycled aggregate
concrete to the properties of the original concrete and paste,
deterioration condition of the old concrete, crushing proce-
dure, and the new mix composition; their findings have been
extensively reviewed and discussed by Hansen.’ It is generally
accepted that the cement paste from original concrete that is
adhered to the recycled aggregate plays an important role in
determining the performance of recycled aggregate concrete.
The qualities of the paste and the interface zones, as well as
the paste content of the original concrete, thus influence tk
properties of the recycled aggregate concrete.
Most researchers have made the original concrete in the
laboratory to have control of the properties and mix propor-
tions of the original concrete and to be able to study some
specific properties of recycled concrete under controlled
conditions. However, this will lead to results that may differ
from those obtained when field-demolished concrete is used
to produce recycled aggregate.
The main thrust of this research was to evaluate recycled
concrete from field demolition operations for use as coarse
aggregate in concrete; a broad basis covering wide ranges of
experimental design and data analysis was adopted to vali-
date the conclusions at a high level of confidence.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental and economic factors are increasingly en-
couraging higher value utilization of demolition debris. The
research reported herein on recycling of demolished con-
crete as aggregate in new concrete addresses this critical is-
sue. Realistic demolition conditions and broad ranges of
variables are used in this research to provide a general basis
for evaluating recycled concrete as aggregate for new con-
crete and help reach consensus regarding the potentials and
limitations of recycled aggregates.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
An experimental program based on the statistical concept
of factorial design was devised to investigate the effects of
recycled coarse aggregate source, size, dry mixing, and wa-
ter-cement ratio of the new concrete on the properties of re-
cycled aggregate concrete. The factorial design of ex-
periments is presented in Table 1, together with the control
experiments conducted with crushed limestone. The vari-
ACI Materials Journal, V. 93. No. 2, March-April 1996.
Received March 14, 1994, and revlewed under Institute publicabon policies. Copy-
right 0 1996, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, mcludmg the makmg
of copies unless permissIon is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Penment dls-
cuss~on will be published in the January-February 1997 AC2 Matennls Journal tf
received by October 1, 1996
Most& Tavakoli is on ussiamt pn$essor of civil engineering at Shurif Univeraiy
Technolog\: Tehran. Iran. He received his BS fmm Tehmn Unrversi~, Iran. his MS
Jiom U’aww State Universi~, Detmit, Michigan, and his PhD from Michrgort
University Eust L.unsing. Michigan. His resenrch interests include concrete muterials
and desi,qn
ACI member Parviz Soroushian is on orrocinte professor qf civil engmeeriq at
Michigan State Unrwrsrt\: He received his BSfrom Tehran Uniwrsity und his MS und
PhD from Cornell Uniwrsrn: Ithucn. New York. He smvs on a number of ACI.
ASTM. und TRB technical commit&w. His rreonh mttv.sts include concrete materi-
als and technolog?:
ables of the experimental design are discussed below.
Source of recycled and natural coarse aggregate
Two different sources of recycled coarse aggregate were
selected, one from the U.S. 23 job at Fenton and the other
from the I-75 Detroit reconstruction project, both freeways
in Michigan. The natural aggregate was crushed limestone
from St. John, Michigan. Table 2 presents some information
about these two reconstruction projects.
of Dry mixing of coarse aggregates
Dry mixing of coarse aggregates for 20 min in a rotary
State drum mixer (used for concrete mixing) was tried to investi-
gate the possibility of partial removal of the mortar adhered
to coarse recycled aggregate. For the purpose of dry mixing,
coarse aggregate in saturated surface dry condition was
placed in the drum mixer and the mixer was run for 30 min
prior to the addition of other materials. These materials were
added to the mixer while it was running. The dry mixing pro-
cess and time results in the evaporation of some moisture and
reduces the moisture content of the coarse aggregate. How-
ever, any modification of the moisture content after the dry
mixing was disregarded in this investigation.
Water-cement ratio
Two levels of water-cement ratio (0.3 and 0.4) were con-
sidered to study the effects of water-cement ratio on recycled
aggregate concrete performance while accounting for the
water-cement ratio of the old concrete.

Aggregate maximum size PROPERTIES OF ORIGINAL CONCRETE

Two maximum sizes, 0.75 and 1 in. (19.0 and 25.4 mm), The size distribution of the original aggregates in the old
were tried for the recycled and natural coarse aggregates. concrete is shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the mix propor-

Table l-Factorial design of experiments

Recycled aggregate source Control (natural) aggregate
U.S. 23 aggregate I-75 aggregate Crushed limestone
Recycled aggregate maximum Recycled aggregate maximum
size size Natural anereuate maximum size
0.75 in. 1 in. 0.75 i n . I in. 0.75 i n . 1in.
Water-
Dry mixing Dry mixing Dry mixing Dry mixing Dry mixing Dry mixing
cement _
ratio None 130min None (3Omin None 130min None 130min None 1130min None 130min
0.3 * * * * * * * * t t t t

0.4 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * t t t t
* Variables considered for recycled aggregate concrete.
: Variable5 considered for control (natural) aggregate
Note: I in. = 25.4 mm.

Table P-Sources of recycled aggregates

Aeerenate source I U.S. iob at Fenton 1 1-75 Detroit reconstruction
Project length About 5.5 miles About 2.5 miles
Original pavement 9-in.-thick and 24.ft-wide lo-in. -thick and 4%ft-wide
Type of reinforcement I Steel mesh I Steel mesh
Demolition method I Imoact hammer I Imoact hammer
Crusher type Jaw primary, cone secondary Jaw primary, cone secondary
Coarse aggregate in drainage and MDOT* open grade 5G: MDOT*
Existing use of recycled materials lines, steel sold 21AA
* Michigan Department of Transportation.
Note: I mile = I .6l km; 1in. = 25.4 mm: I ft = 305 mm

Table 3-Properties of original aggregates in demolished concrete

Coarse aggregate grada- Maximum
Source tion*, percent by weight aggregate size, in. Type of fine aggregate
50: 4A
U.S. 23 50: 6AA Natural sand
50: 4A
I-75 50: IOA Natural sand
* Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) gradation.
Note: I in. = 25.4 mm.

Journal
 Table 4-Properties of original (demolished) concrete
Compres- Sfdidi;g
Unit sive
Slump, Age, weight, strength, strength,
Source w/c* s/c* g/c* g/s* in.* years* Ib/ft3+ psi+ psi+
U.S. 23 0.483 2.016 4.234 2.1 2.5 36 139.6 7914 398
I-75 0.436 2.588 3.236 1.25 2.5 30 147.2 6432 384
* Original concrete properties and mix proportions by weight; w, s, c. and g indicate weights of water, sand, cement,
and gravel, respectively.
’ Ptqctties of concrete at crushing (present) time.
Note: I in. = 25.4 mm; I lb/R3 = 16.02 kg/tn3; 1 psi = 6895 N/m’.

Table 5-Gradation of coarse aggregate

* Actual and exact percentage used for recycled aggregate gradation.

Note: Total percent passing, 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Table Gradation of natural sand

No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100
Sieve size 0.375 in. 0.187 in. 0.093 in. 0.047 in. 0.024 in. 0.012 in. 0.006 in.
Total per-
cent passing 100 98 84 71 57 20 4
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

tions and the strengths of the demolished concrete. As can be
seen from Table 4, the ratio of coarse to fine aggregates in the
original concrete mix for the U.S. 23 recycled aggregate was
about 1.68 times that of the recycled aggregate from I-75. The
original I-75 concrete had a higher cement factor than the
U.S. 23 original concrete. Therefore, the I-75 recycled ag-
gregate had more mortar attached to the original aggregate
than the U.S. 23 aggregate of the same size.
PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATES
The recycled aggregate concrete consisted of 100 percent
recycled coarse aggregate and 100 percent natural sand. Two
aggregate gradations with two different maximum sizes
were selected (see Table 5). Table 5 also compares the gra-
dations of the aggregates used in the original concrete from
the U.S. 23 and I-75 sources with those of the recycled ag-
gregates of the two different maximum sizes. The gradation
of natural sand is shown in Table 6. The specific gravity of
the sand was 2.5.
Table 7 shows the properties of the coarse aggregates
from different sources. The % hr dry mixing of aggregate
was performed to study the possibility of the release of mor-
tar attached to the original aggregate in the recycled aggre-
gate. Aggregates were placed in the drum mixer and the
mixer was run for I/Z hr; the aggregates were then taken out
of the mixer, received, and weighed to determine the amount
of very tine particles released in the dry mixing process and
184
passing the smallest size sieve of the corresponding grada-
tion of the coarse aggregate. The amount of fines released
from recycled aggregates from U.S. 23 and l-75 sources did
not differ drastically. Size 17A U.S. 23 aggregate seemed to
have the smallest loss in the process. Natural aggregate was
crushed stone, and that led to a relatively large loss (com-
pared to that of the recycled aggregates) for the natural ag-
gregate. However, the L.A. abrasion loss percentage for the
I-75 aggregate was about 1.5 times that of the aggregate
from U.S. 23. This may be an indication that a larger amount
of mortar was attached to the aggregate from I-75 that had a
smaller coarse-to-fine aggregate ratio and higher cement fac-
tor in the original concrete when compared to aggregate
from U.S. 23. Therefore, under the stresses caused by the im-
pact loads applied by the L.A. abrasion machine, larger
amounts of mortar were released from I-75 aggregate.
There was another major difference between aggregates
from the two different sources. The water absorption of I-
75 aggregate was between 1.5 and 2.25 times that of the ag-
gregate from U.S. 23, depending on the size of the aggre-
gates. This further supports the assumption that I-75
recycled aggregate had more mortar attached to the surface
of the original aggregate. The aggregates were mixed in con-
crete in a saturated surface dry condition.
In general, aggregate from the U.S. 23 project showed
properties closer to those of natural aggregate when com-
pared to aggregate from the I-75 project.
ACI Materials’ Journal / March-April 1998
 Table 7-Properties of natural and recycled aggregates
-- -
Source of aggregate Natural aggregate U.S. 23 aggregate I-75 aggregate
MDOT gradation 6A 1 17A 6A 1 17A 6A 1 17A
Maximum aggregate size, in. 1.0 1 0.75 1.0 1 0.75 1.0 0.75

Unit weight, Ib/ft3 100.8 98.7 82.54 83.33 84.92 85.65

Unit weight, ssd, lb/ft3 99.70 96.79 79.68 79.76 79.65 79.23
Bulk specific gravity, dry 2.67 2.58 2.37 2.31 2.22 2.09
Bulk specific gravity, ssd 2.69 2.63 2.45 2.41 2.37 2.26
__
Apparent _
specific -_
gravitv 2.75 2.72 2.59 2.57 2.61 2.51
Voids, percent by weight 39.29 38.54 44.00 42.02 38.66 34.09
Absorption, percent by weight 1.11 1.97 3.60 4.48 6.62 8.10
Loss after 1.2 hr dry mixing,* 6.82 3.44 4.53 3.20 4.71 4.45
percent by weight
L.A. abrasion loss, percent by 22.87 22.87 28.72 26.40 42.69 41.67
weight
* Percent smaller than #40 sieve (smallest size in Table 5) for 17A and #4 sieve (smallest size in Table 5) for 6A aggre-
gates after ‘j2 hr dry mixing in drum mixer (percent of aggregate weight before dry mixing).
Note: I in. = 25.4 mm: I lb/ft3 = 16.02 kg/m3.

Table 8-Standards for tests

Test ASTM standards
Sieve analysis of aggregate, fine and coarse C 136
Unit weight and voids in aggregate C 29
Specific gravity and absorption of aggregate, coarse and fine C 127, C 1 2 8
Total moisture content of aggregate, drying method C 566
Resistance to degradation of coarse aggregate by abrasion in L.A. machine c 131
Making and curing concrete in laboratory C 192
Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens c 39
Splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens C 496
Flexural strength using third-point loading C 78

Table 9-Test specimens and equipment

Displacement control,
Flexure Prism, 4 in.* 4 in., L = 12 in. 4
UlOOO = 0.012 in./min
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb = 4.448 N.

TEST PROCEDURES TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

All test procedures conformed to ASTM standards as indi-
cated in Table 8.2 Table 9 shows the size of the specimens
and loading rates for different tests.
CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
Water-cement ratio was considered at two different levels:
0.3 and 0.4. The cement used was Type I portland cement, and
the cement contents for lower strength concrete (water-cement
ratio of 0.4) were 530 lb/yd3 with 0.75 in. (314 kg/m3 with 19
mm) and 510 lb/yd3 with 1 in. (303 kg/m3 with 25.4 mm) top
size aggregates. The corresponding values were 700 and 675
lb/yd3 (415 and 400 kg/m3) for higher strength concrete (wa-
ter-cement ratio of 0.3). Coarse (recycled or natural) aggre-
gate and natural sand were used in equal volumes. Recycled
concrete contained 100 percent recycled coarse and 100 per-
cent natural fine aggregates. About 0.1 percent by weight of
cement of an air-entraining agent conforming to ASTM C
250 was used in all mixes.
Fig. 1 through 6 compare the mean values of the compres-
sive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths of the natural ag-
gregate concrete to those of the recycled aggregate concrete
for each level of water-cement ratio, dry mixing time, and
aggregate top size.
Test results for 28-day compressive, splitting tensile, and
flexural strengths are shown in Fig. 7 through 9 for all the ag-
gregate sources and the two levels of water-cement ratio, dry
mixing time, and aggregate top size. The 95 percent con&
dence intervals are also shown in the figures. The test data
and statistical analyses of the results for each of the three
strength types are discussed in the following.
Compressive strength
Tables 10 and 11 show the significance of different vari-
ables and their interactions in determining the 28-day corn-
.y+
pressive strength of concrete. A key observation in % i
tables is that various parameters (i. e., aggregate source, ag-

ACI Materials Journal / March-April 1996

 I I
0 200 A00 600 809 T@Jc)
u 2300 aoo 6ooo 8ooo loo00
Sprittmg Tens& Strength. 175 ReCyclee. OS!
Compressive Strength. US23 RecycW 6s:

Fig. l-Mean value compressive strengths of natural ver;us Fig. 4-Mean value splitting tensile strengths of natural ver-
U.S. 23 recycled aggregate concretes (I psi = 6895 N/m ) sus I-75 recycled aggregate concretes (1 psi = 6895 N/m’)

r
i

0 2 0 0 0 Loo0 6COO 6 0 0 0 10000 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Cmxxessve Strength. I75 Recycled. 0s~ Fkwral Strength. US23 DSI
;
Fig. 2-Mean value compressive strengths of natural versus Fig. 5-Mean valuejkxural strengths of natural versus U.S. 23
” I-75 recycled aggregate concretes (I psi = 6895 N/m2) recycled aggregate concretes (I psi = 6895 N/m’)

ii;
0 200 400 600 800 loo0

Tens& Strength us23 Recvcled. 00

1 I
Splitting
0 2k A00 600 800 :oQo

Fig. 3-Mean value splitting tensile strengths of natural versus Fig. 6-Mean valueflexural strengths of natural versus 1-75
U.S. 23 recycled aggregate concretes (1 psi = 6895 N/m2) recycled aggregate concretes (I psi = 6895 N/m’)

188 ACI Materials Journal / March-April 1996

 6
7
6
5
4
* 3
2
1
0

. _. . _ .._ -._ ..:. ._. __.. .._ _.. .. .. .. . .

Fig. 7-Compressive si
6.895 MPa)

..-.......... ..................

_.. . . ._.................

. . . . . .
Natural
6j Recycled - US23
Ia Recycled - l-75 I

Fig. &Splitting tensile strength of concrete at 28 days (means and 95percent confidence intervals; 1 in. = 25.4 mm, f ksi
= 6.895 MPa)

ACI Materials Journal / March-April 1996 187

 Flexural Strength, psi

Natural
q Recycled - US23
m Recycled - l-75

AS = Aggregste Sire, in
WC = Water - Cement Ratio
DM = Dry Mixing Time, hr

Fin. 9-Flexurul - of concrete at 28 days (means and 95 percent conjidence

strength intervals; I in. = 25.4 mm, I ksi = 6.895
MPa)

Table lo-significance of different variables and Table 11-Significance of different variables and
ir interactions from statistical analysis of all their interactions of 28-day compressive strength
;; yfgregate sources in determining 28-day
Aggregate source Natural U.S. 23 1-75
* 9 * L
AS - t
Compressive Splitting tensile * * *
Variable strength strength F :lexural strength w/c

*** --* -1*

I * * * DM I * I * I *
AS - * * AS*w/c

I i
W/C * * * AS*DM
DM * t - w/c *DM
* * AS*w/c*DM - * *
PAS $
* * AS = aggregate we. U/C = water-cement ratio. IA44 = dry nxw&! time
IVC *
* Stgmticant at 98 percent level of confidence
I*DM * * * t Slgnthcant at 95 to 98 percent level ot confidence.
AS*w/c * * 6 Slgntlicant at 90 to 95 lebel of confidence.
t
AS*DM - * *
W/C *DM - * - Fig. 7 indicates that the U.S. 23 recycled aggregate con-
PAS%dC * * * crete generally had higher compressive strength than both
I*AS*DM t * - the control and I-75 recycled aggregate concretes. This was
‘*w/c*DM * $ “r particularly true when the water-cement ratio was low and
S*w/c*DM * - 9 the resulting strength was larger than the strength of the I-7.5
4S*w/c*DM * * - original concrete. The better performance of the U.S. 23 re-
- ~
Note I = $o”rce ot aggregate, AJ = aggregate \,ze: w/c = water-cement ratlo; cycled aggregate was generally confirmed statistically at a 95
DM = dry tmxing ttme
* Stgntlicant at 98 percent level of conhdence. percent level of confidence. Dry mixing does not change the
t Stgmlicant at 95 to 98 percent level of conhdence
f Slgmficant at 90 to 9.5 percent level of confidence
strength of U.S. 23 recycled concrete significantly, but it seems
to be weakening concretes made using natural or I-75 recycled
aggregates. However, the statistical level of confidence for
gate top size, water-cement ratio, and dry mixing time) the effect of dry mixing is different for different values of other
,..ierally show strong interactions. Therefore, the effect of variables. For identical water-cement ratios, the I-7.5 recycled
each of these variables would be different at different levels aggregate seems to perform more poorly than natural aggre-
\
of other variables. gate when the strength of control concrete is higher than that of
:.....w
.i .<. 1 8 8 ACI Materials Journal / March-April 1996
 the original concrete in the I-75 project, and better when the
strength of control concrete is lower than that of the original con-
crete. This conforms well to the findings of others.’ Dry mixing
increases the gap between the strengths of control and 1-75 recy-
cled aggregate concretes since dry mixing weakens control
concrete more at the higher water-cement ratio and weakens l-75
aggregate concrete more at the lower water-cement ratio.
The fact that recycled aggregate concrete may behave dif-
ferently has also been observed by other researchers. They
found that the strength of recycled aggregate concrete could
be lower than that of corresponding control concrete made
with natural aggregate at the same water-cement ratio when
the strength of such control concrete exceeded the strength
of the original concrete from which the recycled aggregate is
originated.” The weaker bond between the old mortar and the
actual stone particles in the recycled aggregate seems to
cause this behavior. Compared to control concrete having
lower strength than the original concrete, however, recycled
aggregate concrete performs well. This is confirmed in this
research work even when the B-day strength control con-
crete is compared with the long-term (over 30 years) strength
of original concrete.
The effect of aggregate size on compressive strength is not
statistically significant for natural aggregate and U.S. 23 re-
cycled aggregate concretes due to the fact that there is not a
significant difference between the two maximum aggregate
sizes. However, even at this level of difference between the
two aggregate top sizes, size plays a significant role for the
1-75 recycled aggregate concrete at low water-cement ratio
and with dry mixing. This can be attributed to the mortar
paste adhered to the stone particles in the recycled aggregate.
Previous research has shown that the size of recycled coarse
aggregate is a critical factor in determining the amount of
mortar attached to the stone particles, with the larger size
having less adhered mortar.’ Therefore, the smaller size
( 17A) recycled aggregate loses a larger percentage of ad-
hered mortar than the bigger size (6A) recycled aggregate.
This leads to a larger difference in the actual stone particle
size between the two sizes of recycled aggregates. On the
other hand. the U.S. 23 recycled aggregate had a larger
amount of coarse stone particles in the original concrete than
the I-75 recycled aggregate, leading to less adhered mortar
and closer actual stone particle top sizes for the two different
aggregate maximum sizes, and a behavior that is closer to
natural aggregate in terms of aggregate top size insignificant
effect on the compressive strength of the U.S. 23 recycled
and control concretes.
The lower amount of coarse to fine aggregates and the
larger cement factor in the original I-75 concrete mix leads
to a higher amount of mortar attached to the actual stone
particles in the I-75 recycled aggregate. This. in turn, pro-
duces higher L.A. abrasion loss and water absorption for
the I-75 recycled aggregate when compared to the U.S. 23
recycled aggregate.
Splitting tensile strength
Factorial analysis of variance of the splitting tensile
strength test results was indicative of strong interactions be-
tween different variables (see Tables 10 and 12). Fig. 8 indi-
cates that splitting tensile strength may be affected
ACI Materials Journal / March-April 1996
i
Table 12-Significance of different variables and
their interactions of 28-day splitting tensile
strength
differently from compressive strength by the variables con-
sidered. At a 95 percent level of confidence, aggregate size
does not affect the splitting tensile strength of recycled ag-
gregate concrete, but an increased top size of natural aggre-
gate leads to a higher splitting tensile strength except in the
case of dry mixing at low water-cement ratio. Dry mixing
does not significantly change splitting tensile strength for
any of the aggregates. The two recycled aggregates produced
splitting tensile strengths that were either higher than or sta-
tistically comparable to that obtained using natural aggregate.
For stone or gravel concrete, tests show that the splitting
tensile strength can be approximated by 6(/i.‘)“’ psi,
0.5OcfJ” MPa, where ,f,.’ is the 28-day compressive
strength in psi, MPa.’ Table 13 compares this relationship
with the splitting tensile strengths obtained in the present re-
search. The established relationship seems to work better for
recycled aggregate concrete with lower water-cement ratios.
The empirical relationship seems to overestimate the split-
ting tensile strength for recycled aggregate concrete of high-
er water-cement ratio and for natural aggregate used in this
investigation at all water-cement ratios.
Flexural strength
Results of the factorial analysis of variance of the flexur-
al strength test results are presented in Tables 10 and 14, in
which strong interactions between different variables are
observed again. As shown in Fig. 9, the U.S. 23 recycled
aggregate of smaller top size generally leads to higher
strength than the I-75 recycled aggregate. Compared to the
natural aggregate, the U.S. 23 recycled aggregate per-
formed better at the higher water-cement ratio, but it per-
formed worse at the lower water-cement ratio except when
dry mixing was applied.
AC1 Code 3 18’ expresses the flexural strength (modulus
of rupture),f, by the following equation
f,. = 7.5 Y;.‘)“2 psi,J;: in psi
f,. = 0.62 (f;.‘f2 MPa,f,.’ in MPa
Table 13 compares the values obtained using this equation
and the values obtained from the tests. The relationship is
very conservative for natural aggregate concrete, especially
189
Table 13-Splitting tensile and flexural strength versus compressive strength for concretes with
aggregates from different sources
Natural aggregate ,
U.S. 23 recvcled aggregate 1 1-75 recycled aggregate
Aggregate size, Water-cement Dry mixing Splitting tensile Flexural Splitting tensile Flexural Splitting tensile I Flexural

!--
in. ratio time, hr strength* strength? strength* strengtht strength* strengtht
0.75 0.3 0.0 -27.9 +52.6 -6.7 -25.4 -9.0 -21.3
0.75 0.3 0.5 -32.7 +54.3 -2.4 -21.9 -4.5 -23.6
0.75 0.4 0.0 -31.4 +14.7 -37.4 -49.9 -11.7 -29.3
0.75 0.4 0.5 -17.2 +16.0 -16.2 -32.9 -28.4 -42.7
I .o 0.3 0.0 - 14.2 +37.5 -1.9 -21.5 -2.7 -22.1
1.0 0.3 0.5 -15.6 +24.4 -12.1 -29.6 -11.0 -28.9
1.0 0.4 0.0 -13.9 +13.1 -19.9 -36.0 -28.6 -42.9
1.0 0.4 0.5 -13.4 +13.4 -23.0 -38.5 -22.9 -38.3
r
* Measured4 (fC’)“*. percent.
t Measured-7.5 (f,-‘)I’*, percent
Note: I psi = 6895 N/m*.

Table 14-Significance of different variables and
their interactions of 28-day flexural strength
Aggregate source U.S. 23 Natural
AS t j:
AS = Aggregate size: w/c = water-cement ratio; DM = dry mixing time
* Sgnilicant at 90 to 95 percent level of confidence.
t Significant at 95 to 98 percent level of confidence.
$ Significant at 98 percent level of confidence.
at the lower water-cement ratio. For recycled aggregate con-
crete, the test values are less than the AC1 values, and the dif-
ference is larger at a higher water-cement ratio.
CONCLUSIONS
1. If the compressive strength of the original concrete that
is being recycled is higher than that of the control concrete,
then the recycled aggregate concrete can also be made to
have higher compressive strength than the control concrete.
2. Increased L.A. abrasion loss and water absorption ca-
pacity of recycled aggregates, which partly reflect the in-
creased amount of mortar adhered to original stone
aggregate, generally lead to reduced compressive strength of
recycled aggregate concrete.
3. Splitting tensile and flexural strengths of recycled ag-
gregate concrete can be higher or lower than those of the nat-
ural aggregate concrete, depending on water-cement ratio
and dry mixing period.
4. Effects of dry mixing and recycled aggregate top size on
the strength of recycled aggregate concrete depend on the ra-
tio of the top size of the original stone particles in the original
concrete to the top size of the recycled aggregate, the coarse-
to-fine aggregate ratio in the original concrete, the cement
content of the original concrete, and the water-cement ratio
of the recycled aggregate concrete.
5. Conventional relationships established between split-
ting tensile and flexural strengths and the compressive
strength of natural aggregate concrete are generally uncon-
servative in application to recycled aggregate concrete.
I-75 6. The qualities of original concrete seem to restrict the
t qualities achievable in recycled aggregate concrete. Howev-
er, the complex effects and interactions of various variables
make it difficult to come up with specific predictions regard-
ing the behavior of recycled aggregate in concrete without
conducting tests under applicable circumstances.
7. As far as strengths are concerned, the basic trends in be-
havior of field-demolished concrete aggregate are not signif-
icantly different from those of the laboratory-made recycled
concrete aggregate. The major difference between the two
cases is that many different variables such as the mix propor-
tions and the aggregate gradation in the original concrete are
involved in the field-demolished concrete that cannot be
changed during the recycling process. In demolishing the
laboratory-made concrete, the properties of the original con-
crete can be controlled.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank David Smiley of the Michigan Department of
Transportation, Jack Kzeski of Interstate Highway Construction, Mark
Johnson of Ajax Paving, Mike Gleeson of Angela h&ate, Gerald J. McCarthy
of the Michigan Concrete Paving Association, and Siavash Ravanbakbsh of
the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Michigan State
University for their technical assistance. The support of the Department of
Civil Engineering at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. and the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Michigan State Uni-
versity is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1, “Recycling of Demolished Concrete and Masonry,” T. C. Hansen, ed.,
Report 6, International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for
Materials and Structures, 1992, 3 16 pp.
2. “Concrete and Aggregates, ” 1 9 9 3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Section 4, V. 04.02, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
3. Hansen, T. C., and Narud, H., “Strength of Recycled Concrete Made
from Crushed Concrete Coarse Aggregate,” Concrete Intemationa-Design
and Construction, V. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1983, pp. 79-83.
4. Leet, K., Reinforced Concrere Design, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1991.
5. AC1 Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (AC1 318.89),” American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989.

190 ACI Materials Journal / March-April 1996