RILEM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE-37-DRC

- A

DEMOLITION AND RECYCLING OF CONCRETE

Recycled aggregates and recycled aggregate concrete

second state-of-the-art report
developments 1945-1985

Torben C. Hansen

Building Materials Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Building 118, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark.

The extensive, but fragmented research on recycled concrete aggregates and recycled
aggregate concrete, which has been carried out in various parts of the world from
1945 to 1985, has been collated to form a comprehensive state-of-the-art document.
A thorough analysis of the data has been made, leading to a guide to the production
and evaluation of recycled concrete aggregates as well as the design, production,
and use of recycled aggregate concrete.
The present document will be followed up by another state-of-the-art report on
recycled aggregate concrete produced with mixed demolition rubble as recycled
aggregate. The second document is also being prepared RILEM TC-37-DRC and will
be published in this journal at a later date (53).

LIST OF C O N T E N T S 6.5. Grading of Crusher Products

6.6. Storage and Handling of Recycled Aggregates
7. Quality of recycled aggregates
1. Introduction
7.1. Grading, Particle Shape, and Surface Texture of Recy-
2. First state-of-the-art report cled Aggregates
7.2. Attached Mortar and Cement Paste
3. Second state-of-the-art report 7.3. Density
4. Terminology 7.4. Water Absorption
7.5. Los Angeles Abrasion Loss and B.S. Crushing Value
5. Original concrete 7.6. Sulfate Soundness
5.1. Separation of Different Qualities of Original Concrete 7.7. Contaminants
5.2. Demolition of Original Concrete and Removal of 7.7.1. General
Reinforcing Steel and Other Foreign Matter 7.7.2. Bitumen
7.7.3. Gypsum
6. Production of recycled aggregates 7.7.4. Organic Substances
6. 1. Layout of Production Plants 7.7.5. Chlorides
6.2. Crushers 7.7.6. Chemical and Mineral Admixtures
6.3. Sorting Devices and Screens 7.7.7. Soil
6.4. Environmental Problems in the Recycling of Concrete 7.7.8. Metals

0025-5432/86/03 201 45/$ 6.50 9 BORDAS-GAUTHIER-VILLARS 201

Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
7.7.9. Glass
7.7,10. Fragmented Brickwork and Lightweight Concrete
7.7.11. Particles Damaged by Weathering or Fire
7.7.12. Particles Susceptible to Frost Damage
7.7.13. Alkali- Reactive Aggregate Particles
7.7.14. Industrial Chemicals and Radioactive Substances
7.7.15. High Alumina Cement
7.8. Repeated Recycling of Recycled Aggregate Concrete
8. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete
8.1. Compressive Strength and Rate of Strength Deve-
lopment
8.1,1. Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made with Coarse
Recycled Aggregate and Natural Sand
8.1.2. Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made with Coarse
and Fine Recycled Aggregates
8.1.3. Effect of Dry Mixing of Aggregate
8.2. Coefficient of Variation for Compressive Strength of
Recycled Aggregate Concrete
8.3. Modulus of Elasticity and Damping Capacity
8.4. Creep
8,5. Drying Shrinkage
8.6. Tensile and Flexural Strength
8.7. Other Mechanical Properties
8.8. Reinforced Concrete
9. Durability of recycled aggregate concrete
9.1. Permeability and Water Absorption
9.2. Frost Resistance
9.3. Carbonation and Reinforcement Corrosion
9,4. Alkali-Aggregate Reactions
10. Properties and mix design of fresh recycled aggregate
concrete
10.1. Water Requirement and Workability
10.2. Free Water-Cement Ratio
10.3. Cement Content
10.4. Density and Natural Air Content
10.5. Ratio of Fine to Coarse Aggregate
10.6. Mix Design of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Mixes
11. Production of recycled aggregate concrete
12. Use of crushed concrete fines for other pruposes than
product/on of new concrete
13, Codes, standards, and testing method for recycled
aggregate concrete
13.1. United States
13.2. Japan
13.3. The Netherlands
13.4. United Kingdom
13.5. U,S.S.R.
13.6, Federal Republic of Germany
14. Economic aspects of concrete recycling
15. Energy aspects of concrete recycling
16. Practical case h/stories
17. Recycling of fresh concrete waste
18. Conclusions and recommendations
19. Acknowledgments
20. Literatures references
21. Appendix A. Literature reviewed in first state-of-the-
art report 1945-77
202
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
It has been estimated that approximately 50 million tons
of concrete are currently demolished each year in the
European Economic Communities [1], Equivalent figures
are 60 million tons in the United States ([2], [3]), and in
Japan [12] the total quantity of concrete debris available
for recycling on some scale is about 10 to 12 million tons.
Very little demolished concrete is currently recycled or
reused anywhere in the world. The small quantity which
is recovered is mainly reused as unstabilized base or sub-
base in highway construction. The rest is dumped or dis-
posed of as fill.
For environmental and other reasons the number of
readily accessible disposal sites around major cities in the
world have decreased in recent years. Both disposal
volume and maximum sizes of wastes have been restricted.
In Japan disposal charges from USD 3 to 10 per ton are
not uncommon. Moreover, distances between demolition
sites and disposal areas have become larger and transpor-
tation costs higher.
At the same time critical shortages of good natural"
aggregate is developing in many urban areas, and distan-
ces between deposits of natural material and sites of new
construction have grown larger, and transportation costs
have become correspondingly higher,
It is estimated that between now and year 2,000, three
times more demolished concrete will be generated each
year than is today. For these reasons it can be foreseen
that demolition contractors will come under considerable
economic and other pressure to process demolished
concrete for reuse as unscreened gravel, base and sub-
base materials, aggregates for production of new concrete
or for other useful purposes.
Large-scale recycling of demolished concrete will
contribute not only to the solution of a growing waste
disposal problem. It will also help to conserve natural
resources of sand and gravel and to secure future supply
of reasonably priced aggregates for building and road
construction purposes within large urban areas of the
world.
It is the purpose of this report to examine the current
state-of-the-art for what concerns recycled aggregate and
recycled aggregate concrete and to point out areas where
research is needed in order to promote the safe and econo-
mical use of such concrete.
2. FIRST S T A T E - O F - T H E - A R T REPORT 1945-1977
On behalf of RILEM Technical Committee 37-DRC,
Nixon [5] prepared a state-of-the-art report on recycled
concrete as an aggregate for concrete, covering the period
1945-1977. A list of literature reviewed by Nixon is pre-
sented in Appendix A.
In 1977 Nixon concluded that a number of workers
have examined the basic properties of concrete in which
the aggregate is the product of crushing another concrete.
Most have concentrated on uncontaminated material,
often old laboratory test specimens, and there is good
agreement on most aspects of the behavior of this recycled
concrete.
The most marked difference in the physical properties
of the recycled concrete aggregate is the higher water

absorption, and it seems likely that this is due to
absorption by cement paste adhering to the old aggregate
particles. There is general agreement that the compressive
strength (and judging from limited evidence, the flexural
strength) is somewhat lower (up to about 20% lower in
some cases, but usually less) compared with control mixes,
but there does not seem to be any correlation between
the loss in strength and the water-cement ratio of the
final concrete. There is only limited evidence (and some
disagreement) on the effect of the strength of the original
concrete on the strength of the new concrete made with
it as aggregate, but it seems probable, however, that when
the concrete fails, it is the mortar adhering on the crushed
concrete aggregate that is the weakest link. The use of
crushed concrete fines does not seem to have any great
effect on the compressive strength of the concrete, but it
does seem to reduce the workability significantly. When
only crushed concrete coarse aggregate is used, the
workability is little different from control mixes. Again,
when using recycled coarse aggregate, there is little differ-
ence in the modulus of elasticity; there is no information
on the effect of fines on this property.
The durability of the recycled concrete has been exami-
ned mostly with respect to the freeze/thaw resistance of
the concrete, and the results suggest that with uncontami-
nated concrete there is no problem. In fact with concrete
containing a highly porous frost susceptible aggregate
there may actually be an improvement probably because
the cement paste blocks up. the pores. The drying
shrinkage has been found to be somewhat greater in the
recycled concrete. There is no information on the creep,
wetting expansion or resistance to aggressive solutions
such as sulfates of recycled concrete.
Less work has been carried out on the effect of impuri-
ties in the crushed concrete on the properties of the final
concrete. Most of what has been done has been devoted
to sulfate impurities, presumably originating from gypsum
plaster. This would certainly be a major proble.m with the
recycling of mixed demolition rubble. The results published
suggest that for concrete placed in a position where it is
likely to be wet much of the time, a limit on the total
soluble sulfate content of the aggregate of between 0.5
and 1% is advisable if ordinary Portland cement is used.
Most workers have used finely powdered gypsum in their
experiments. What little evidence there is on the effect of
particle size has suggested that larger sized pieces of
gypsum cause less expansion. There is some conflict of
evidence on the effect of pozzolanic cements including fly
ash, and more work is needed.
In 1 977 Nixon concluded: There seems to be a reasona-
ble knowledge of the basic engineering properties of the
recycled concrete, and the main penalty in its use is a
slightly lower compressive strength compared with a
control mix made with the same original aggregate. A
more thorough investigation of the effect of the strength
of the original concrete would seem to be needed, howe-
ver, and also a fundamental investigation of the mode of
failure of the recycled concrete which may enable the
reason for the lowered strength to be understood and
counteracted.
The main field in which more information on the beha-
vior of the recycled concrete is required is its durability.
Creep, wetting expansion, and porosity all need to be
examined as does the effect of aggressive solutions.
37-RDC State of the art report
The above remarks apply to uncontaminated concrete
from a known source. If, however, recycled concrete
aggregate is to be used on any scale, then the rubble from
general building demolition would have to be exploited.
Here there is a basic lack of knowledge of what might be
expected to occur in the output from a particular method
of processing the rubble. Possible methods of controlling
impurities, e.g. magnetic separation of metal rein-
forcement, means of reducing the amount of gypsum, need
to be explored and the effect of the remaining contami-
nants examined. Once identified, there is some knowledge
of the behavior of common contaminants, but much inves-
tigation will be needed to deal with all the possibilities,
for example the effects of mixtures of cement other than
Portland cement in the crushed concrete.
3. S E C O N D STATE-OF-THE-ART REPORT 1978-
1985
The purpose of this report is to review developments
which have taken place from 1978 to 1985 concerning
the use of crushed concrete as recycled aggregates for
production of new, plain and reinforced, normal-weight
concrete in building and road construction.
By crushed concrete is meant concrete made with
Portland cements, Portland-Pozzolan cements or Blast
Furnace Slag cements, and with natural or manufactured
sand or a combination thereof and with coarse aggregates
consisting of natural gravel, crushed gravel, crushed stone,
air-cooled blast furnace slag or combinations thereof.
Crushed concretes made with high-alumina cements or
with lightweight aggregate, masonry-waste aggregate, or
aggregates made from other waste products are not dealt
with in this review. Crushed concretes which contain more
than 5% of other substances than concrete are also exclu-
ded from this review. Masonry-waste concretes and
concretes made with mixed demolition rubble are dealt
with in another state-of-the-art report which is being pre-
pared by RILEM TC-37-DRC [53] and which will be
published in this journal at a later date.
4. T E R M I N O L O G Y
Based on a Japanese proposed standard on "Recycled
Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate Concrete" which was
prepared by the Building Contractors Society of Japan in
1977, BCSJ [6], the following terminology is suggested:
Waste concrete
(~oncrete debris from demolished structures as well as
fresh and hardened concrete which has been rejected
by ready-mix or site-mix concrete producers or concrete
product manufacturers.
Original c o n c r e t e
Concrete from reinforced concrete structures, plain
concrete structures or precast concrete units which can
be used as raw material for production of recycled aggre-
gates (or for other useful purposes). Original concrete is
occasionally referred to as old concrete or demolished
concrete.
203
Vol. 19 - N ~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
Recycled aggregate concrete
Concrete produced using recycled aggregates or combi-
nations of recycled aggregates and other aggregates.
Recycled aggregate concrete is sometimes referred to as
new concrete.
Original mortar
Hardened mixture of cement, water, and conventional
fine aggregate less than 4-5 mm in original concrete. Some
original mortar is always attached to particles of original
aggregate in recycled aggregates. Original mortar is occa-
sionally referred to as old mortar.
Original aggregates
Conventional aggregates from which original concrete is
produced. Original aggregates are natural or manufactured,
coarse or fine aggregates commonly used for production
of conventional concrete. When no misunderstanding is
possible, original aggregates may also be referred to as
virgin aggregates.
Recycled concrete aggregates
Aggregates produced by the crushing of original
concrete; such aggregates can be fine or coarse recycled
aggregates. Fine recycled aggregate is sometimes referred
to as crushed concrete fines. When no misunderstanding
is possible, recycled concrete aggregates may be referred
to as recycled aggregates. This is the case in the present
state-of-the-art report.
5, O R I G I N A L CONCRETE
Demolition methods for plain and reinforced concrete
have been dealt with extensively in another state-of-the-
art report which was prepared by RILEM TC-37-DRC (see
aef. [78]).
Demolished concrete may be mixed with soil or other
building materials, or it may be contaminated by impurities.
However, by observing a few simple precautions during
the demolition process, the potential for recycling of the
demolished concrete can be improved and the value of
the debris increased.
5.1. S e p a r a t i o n of different q u a l i t i e s of o r i g i n a l
concrete
Records of composition, quality, and history of the origi-
nal concrete are valuable documents in determining the
recycling potential of any concrete structure. Even when
such records are not available, but it can be shown that
mix proportions and strengths of original concretes are
different, such concretes should not be treated as equal
during demolition.
5.2. D e m o l i t i o n o f o r i g i n a l c o n c r e t e and r e m o v a l of
r e i n f o r c i n g steel a n d o t h e r f o r e i g n m a t t e r
Concrete in structures to be demolished may have
various types of finishes, cladding materials, lumber, dirt,
steel, and hardwares attached to them. It is an advantage
204
if such concrete w h i c h is to be used for production of
recycled aggregates is made free from foreign matter
before demolition.
Early concern that steel reinforcement in waste concrete
would ball up and jam crushers has apparently been
somewhat exaggerated. It has proved to be fairly easy to
separate steel reinforcement from concrete, at least for
what concerns lightly reinforced concrete pavements. This
is best demonstrated by describing a set of operations
used in the successful break-up, removal, processing, and
rehabilitation of the concrete pavement of Edens
Expressway in the midst of the metropolitan area of Chi-
cago, Illinois, [Dierkes (7a) and Krueger (7b)].
The 25 cm mesh reinforced pavement was broken by
two large mobile diesel hammers. This equipment fractured
the old slab into pieces about 60 cm maximum size at a
rate of between 460 and 600 m of 11 m wide pavements
during a twelve-hour work shift. Each diesel hammer had
an enclosed bounce cylinder and a 1,750 kg piston to
yield a maximum impact on the breaking shoe. The ham-
mer cycled at over 100 strokes per minute and broke the
mesh effectively in one pass. The diesel hammers were
towed at about 15 m/min, so as to strike the pavement at
15 cm intervals.
The next operation used a rubber tired hydraulic excava-
tor with a large curved, pointed hard-steel picker tooth (a
so-called "rhino-horn") mounted where the bucket
usually is. The excavator was positioned along the side of
the pavement. By reaching to the opposite side of the
pavement with the hoe arm, the tooth could be pulled
transversely up and through the shattered concrete. This
pulled the concrete pieces towards the center line and
separated most of the reinforcement. The operation was
repeated at given intervals from both sides of the old
pavement.
Workers could follow this operation along with
hydraulic shears, cutting and pulling out loose reinforcing
steel and putting it on the shoulder for pick-up and sal-
vage. The hydraulic shears could also be used to cut the
reinforcing once on the shoulder into shorter length for
easier handling and better salvage value. From 90-95% of
the reinforcing could be removed this way. The remainder
was still embedded in the concrete and had to be removed
by crushing.
When the reinforcing in the old pavement was mesh
rather than bars, it was somewhat more difficult to handle.
More cutting was required to separate the concrete pieces
after the tooth had gone through, than was necessary for
bar reinforcing. However, nearly the same percentage of
reinforcing could be removed on grade.
The broken pavement was then loaded on to trucks for
hauling to a crusher and screening plant which was set
up at a clover-leaf type interchange. If the concrete was
properly sized when it was shattered, it was put in a
stockpile. When an inordinate number of large pieces of
broken concrete came from the grade, a wrecking ball was
used to break these into a size that the crusher could
accommodate.
Concrete was then fed into a primary jaw crusher. 30-40
cm pieces were reduced to 64-76 mm top size. A smaller
jaw crusher plus a hammer mill was used for secondary
crushing which reduced the top size to 19-25 mm and
produced an aggregate which met specifications, with less
than 2% passing the ASTM No. 200 sieve.

Remaining reinforcement and dowel bars presented no
problems to the primary crusher. A large self-cleaning
electromagnet was placed over the belt coming from the
primary crusher to collect any reinforcing that had
remained embedded in the concrete. About two semi-
loads of wire per shift were removed from the broken
concrete. It is reported that the proceeds from the sale of
salvaged steel from a pavement recycling job usually more
than pay for recovery and for loading and hauling it away.
Several other projects where steel reinforcement has
successfully been removed from recycled pavement
concrete are reported in [7] and by Chase and Lane [59],
McCarthy and MacCreery [67], and Strand [68].
While most projects in the U.S. employ conventional
pavement breakers such as diesel hammers or wrecking
balls, the Europeans have tried other types of equipment.
The Wirtgen machine, made in Germany, was used for
two major recycling projects on Autoroutes in Paris,
France. This guillotine-type machine drops a 7-ton steel
blade almost 5 feet to shatter the pavement.
The newest machine to show considerable promise as
a recycling tool is the Resonant Pavement Breaker. This
self-propelled 50-ton machine employs a 12-feet beam
that vibrates approximately 1 1/2 inches 44 times a
second. This huge "tuning fork" is equipped with a special
knife-like tool that shatters the concrete without transmit-
"ting vibrations to the subgrade, underground utilities, or
adjacent slabs. One of the more interesting uses for this
new machine was in the reconstruction of the San Fran-
cisco cable car tracks where it shattered the concrete
around the tracks and cableway. In North Dakota the
same machine was used to recycle 12 miles of two-lane
pavement on Interstate-94 [20].
Strand [68] concluded that machines which are used to
break up concrete pavements are either impact or resonant
breakers.
Impact breakers consist of diesel hammers, mechani-
cally, pneumatically or hydraulically activated falling
weights, or swinging hammers. Each type has unique cha-
racteristics. Diesel hammers impact the greatest energy and
are the fastest; their disadvantage lies in the depressing of
the broken pavement into a yielding base. The mechani-
cally, pneumatically or hydraulically activated falling
weights seem to be generally slower, however the braking
patterns are finer, resulting in easier removal of reinforcing
steel.
The resonant breaker is perhaps the slowest in produc-
tion although its use has resulted in more efficient and
effective removal of reinforcing steel and less base distur-
bance. The resonant breaker is probably most effective
where the sub-base is deteriorated and no longer provides
good support. The diesel hammer appears to perform best
on pavement where the sub-base is still firm.
Although the presence of steel reinforcement in concrete
does not represent a major problem in recycling of pave-
ments, it does slow down operations. When attempting to
recycle heavily reinforced structural concrete, the problem
is more severe as reinforcement bars and mesh tend to
ball up and jam crushers. The problem was overcome on
pavement projects in Michigan and Iowa ([67], [59])
where reinforcement was effectively separated from
concrete by means of impact crusher hammers and self-
cleaning magnets.
37-RDC State of the art report
Practical experience has shown that very large jaw
crushers [8] and even better impact crushers [9] are capa-
ble of handling heavily reinforced chunks of concrete
without excessive difficulties, provided each chunk can be
accommodated by the respective crusher. After primary
crushing most steel can be removed from the product on
its way to the secondary crusher by means of self-cleaning
electromagnets which are placed over the conveyor belt.
De Pauw [10] reported that 0.30x0.30x0.90 m heavily
reinforced chunks of concrete were fractionated by means
of explosives. Steel was cleanly separated from concrete
and the resulting recycled aggregate had a particle size
distribution which is suitable for concrete production.
Although this process is still in the experimental stage, it
could become a desirable alternative to mechanical
crushing of concrete.
De Pauw [11] also reported that up to 1.2x1.2x2 m
reinforced concrete blocks were successfully fractionated
using a type of equipment which is commonly used to
crush discarded aircraft engines and other large machinery.
Hafemeister [54] reports on an impact roll crusher, pro-
duced by KI6ckner Becorit in West Germany, which-is
capable of processing 300-500 t/h of 1,100 mm maximum
size reinforced concrete debris, s e e also [61].
Zagurskij and Zhadanovskij [83] report that a crushing
device has been developed by SKTB Glavmospromstroy-
materials and is currently being used in 18 recycling plants
in the USSR. The device is capable of crushing the
concrete and sorting out the reinforcement from up to 24
m long, 3.5 m wide and 0.6 m thick precast concrete units.
The units to be demolished are placed on a stationary
bar-type grizzly by a lifting device, and a hydraulic press
which is equipped with a lever knife is moved along the
grizzly. Periodically the knife is lowered and crushes the
concrete unit. Crushed concrete is discharged through the
bar grate of the grizzly onto a belt conveyor which takes
it to a primary jaw crusher. The clean reinforcement cage
is lifted from the grizzly by means of a magnet and reused
as scrap for the production of new reinforcing steel.
6. PRODUCTION OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE
6.1. Layout of p r o d u c t i o n plants
Plants for production of recycled aggregates are not
much different from plants for production of crushed
aggregate from other sources. They incorporate various
types of crushers, screens, transfer equipment, and devices
for removal of foreign matter. Boesman [62] has discussed
problems associated with the design of recycling plants
for demolition waste.
A number of different processes are possible for the
crushing and sieving of demolition waste which mainly
consists of concrete, such as would be the case for exam-
ple on a pavement rehabilitation project.
Some of these possibilities are illustrated in the flow
diagrams which are shown in figures 6.1 a and b, from
Ref. [62]. Installations working according to the principles
of one of these schemes are regarded as first generation
processing plants. They are characterized by the fact that
there are no facilities for removing contaminants, with
the possible exception of a magnet for the separation of
reinforcement and other ferrous material. Such plants are
205
 V01. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
0em01itionmcfericl
O-600mm
I a maxim~ size of 0.4-0.7 m
I
I ~176 eqummentI separate storage of concrete, brick
rubble, and mixed demolition debris
which is heavily contaminated with
wood, iron, plastics, and gypsum
14ommscreen ~ Pn.~ry crusher J I
~ removal o f large pieces
m ~ u a l OF mechanical of wood, iron, paper,
/,0-2000-~ I pre-separatlon plastics, etc.
I
by-pass of ~ removal of all minus
0~40 10 ~=~ < d < 40 ~ primary 10 mm fine material such
screening as soil, gypsy, etc.

~176
I
I Screen in frcctions J product primary
crushing
I I I I I O-~,Omm I /
magnetic ~ removal of remaining
Fig. 6.1 a. - - Flow chart of typical plant for production separation | ferrous matter
of recycled aggregate from concrete debris which is I
by-pass of
free from foreign matter, from Ref. [62]. Closed system. d < 40 mm secondary
screening

0-600mm I
manual or mechanical removal of | removal of lightweight
remaining contaminants ~ matter such as plastics,
paper, and wood
I Oo, ing e| ]
secondary
cruahing

I ~Ornmscreen Primary crusher I |

~ removal of remaining con-
0-2~ washing, screening, taminants such as plastic

1
I~mm screen . ~ Secondarycrusher I
or ~ir-si ftlng
I
I fraceion of concrete de~lition waste
a n d brick rubble < 40
paper, wood, and g y p s ~

0-~0
o-~oI I I
finish screening into size fractions
[ Screen in fi'octions ] prod~t according to customer's wishes

I I ~ [ I o-4o~

Fig. 6.1 b. - - Flow chart of typical plant for production

of recycled aggregate from concrete debris w h i c h is free Fig. 6.2, - - Processing p r o c e d u r e f o r building and d e m o l i -
from foreign matter, from Ref. [62]. Open system. tion w a s t e .

frequently used on pavement rehabilitation and recycling
projects.
Figure 6.1 a illustrates the closed system which is gene-
rally recommended. The open system of figure 6.1 b is
advantageous in one way only because the capacity is
greater than that of the closed system even though the
same basic equipment is used. However, the maximum
particle size is less well defined when an open than when
a closed system is used, and this can lead to larger
variations in the size of the end product, particularly when
the input flow varies.
However, clean concrete cannot always be supplied
from the demolition site. Demolished concrete often
contains foreign matter in the form of metals, wood,
hardboard, plastics, cladding, and roof coverings of various
kinds. On the basis of first generation plants, the process
scheme can be adapted for small amounts of contaminants
by removing larger pieces of foreign matter mechanically
or manually before crushing, and by cleaning the crushed
product by means of dry or wet classification. Installations
working according to such principles are regarded as
second generation processing plants. Incidentally, a pilot
study which was carried out in Denmark [79] showed
that, when properly organized, sorting of demolition rubble
on the site and sale of reusable items can be done as
economically as straight dumping of demolition rubble.
All second generation plants are similar in basic design,
as shown in principle in figure 6.2. Large pieces of debris
arriving from demolition sites are typically reduced to 0.4-
0.7 m maximum size, for example by means of a wrecking
ball and hydraulic shears to cut reinforcement. Large
pieces of steel, wood, plastics, and paper are removed by
hand. Incoming material is then crushed in a primary
crusher which is usually of the jaw or impact type.
Products from the primary crusher are screened on a
deck typically consisting of a 10 mm scalping screen.
Minus 10 mm material is wasted in order to eliminate fine
contaminants such as dirt and gypsum. Plus 40 mm mate-
rial is passed through a secondary jaw-, cone-, hammer-
or impact crusher in order to reduce all products to 40
mm maximum size. 40-10 mm material from the primary
crusher bypasses the secondary crusher. All material is
then washed or air-sifted in order to remove remaining
lightweight matter such as wood, paper, and plastics, and
the clean product isscreened into various size fractions
according to customer specifications. All iron and steel is
removed by self-cleaning magnets which are placed at
one or more critical locations above conveyor belts.
Recycled and processed aggregates which are made
from mixed building rubble will usually contain less than
1 percent of impurities, w h i c h may be good enough for
road construction.purposes, but not necessarily acceptable
for concrete aggregates. However, when recycled aggre-
gates are made from raw materials which contain more
than 95 percent of old concrete, the end product will
usually be clean enough to meet specifications for
concrete aggregates without being washed.
In future third generation plants all demolished material
will be supplied to the installation, processed and sold
without there being any need to transport large quantities

206
 37-RDC State of the art report

of residual matter to dumping sites either from the demoli-
tion site or from the processing installation. This would
be an ideal situation both from an environmental and an
economic point of view. The first third generation recycling
plant in the world where both rubble and wood wastes
are processed is operating in Rotterdam, the Netherlands
[81 ].
6.2. Crushers
A number of different crushers were studied in a Dutch
investigation [11] in order to determine how well they
performed when crushing old concrete. The results can be
summarized as follows:
Jaw crushers provide the best grain-size distribution
of recycled aggregate for concrete production. The cone
crusher is suitable for use as a secondary crusher with
200 mm maximum feed size. Swing hammer mills are sel-
dom used. Impact crushers provide better grain-size distri-
bution of aggregate for road construction purposes, and
they are less sensitive to material which cannot be crushed
such as reinforcing bars. The first use of an impact crusher
on a pavement rehabilitation project in the US was in
Michigan in 1984 [59]. Mesh was effectively removed
from concrete by means of two revolving magnetized
drums after the crusher. When it comes to other properties
of recycled concrete aggregate than grain-size distribution,
jaw .crushers perform better than impact crushers because
jaw crushers which are set at 1.2-1.5 times the maximum
size of original aggregate will crush only a small proportion
of the original aggregate particles in the old concrete.
Impact crushers, on the other hand, will crush old mortar
and original aggregate particles alike and thus produce a
coarse aggregate of lower quality. Another disadvantage
of impact crushers is high wear and tear and therefore
relatively high maintenance costs.
All crushers investigated produced approximately the
same percentage of cubical particles in recycled aggrega-
tes.
A large amount of the end product less than 40 mm
from a crushing and sieving plant comes directly from the
primary crusher. This can cause problems if the primary
crusher supplies a product which does not satisfy the
requirements laid down by the customer. Therefore, it
should be possible to adjust the primary crusher so that
the ratio between coarse and fine products can be reduced
in the end product. This implies that the secondary crusher
should have a relatively large capacity.
Economy of coarse aggregate production can be optimi-
zed by balancing the crushers. The primary crusher should
be set to reduce material to the largest size that will fit
the secondary without requiring tertiary crushing.
TABLE Vl.1.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF RECYCLED AGGREGATES PRODUCED BY VARIOUS KINDS OF CRUSHERS, FROM REF. {1 2].
A similar investigation of crusher efficiencies was carried
out by BCSJ [12]. Table VI.1 shows that except for grain-
size distribution the physical properties of recycled aggre-
gates such as specific gravity, water absorption, sulfate
soundness, and Los Angeles abrasion loss percentage
were not significantly affected by different types of
crushers and crusher settings.
Although the results are difficult to compare because
experiments were made with different types of original
concretes, it appears that there is a large difference in
percentage of sands produced by different crushers. For
the same maximum size of coarse recycled concrete aggre-
gate (25 mm) shredders produced twice as much or 40%
of the undesirable crusher fines below 4.8 mm, compared
with 20% for jaw crushers.
It may be concluded that jaw crushers should be used
for the processing of plain or lightly reinforced concrete,
while heavy impact crushers of various designs appear
to be the best choice for normal or heavily reinforced
concrete.
If demolition waste is to be recycled, methods of demoli-
tion should be used which will reduce individual pieces
of debris on the site to a size which will be accepted by
the primary crusher in the recycling plant. This is 1200
mm at most for large stationary plants and not more than
400-700 mm for mobile plants. Thus the recycling of
demolition waste requires careful planning on the part of
all parties involved in such an enterprise.
6.3. Sorting Devices and Screens
In line with specifications for natural aggregate and
crushed stone, recycled aggregate is also required to be
free from dirt, clay lumps, gypsum (from plaster), asphalt,
wood, paper, plastics, paint, cloth, lightweight concrete,
and other impurities.
In recycling plants larger objets such as pieces of metal
sheeting, wooden boards and beams, pieces of asphalt,
loose reinforcing bars, and sheets of paper, cloth, and
plastics are removed by hand before primary crushing of
the debris. After primary crushing, dirt, gypsum, plaster,
and other fine impurities are eliminated by passing the
crushed materials over a set of scalping screens and wast-
ing all material below 10 mm. Self-cleaning magnets
which are positioned in various patterns of strategic loca-
tions over conveyor belts effectively separate bits of rein-
forcing bars and other pieces of iron and steel from the
stream of crushed aggregate.
Nix [55] reports that most lightweight matter can be
removed from crushed building debris and the aggregate

Grain Size Specific Density ir water Sulphate S o u n d n e s s L.A. Abrasion

of Crusher SSD Condition Absorption Loss Percent Loss Percent
Type of Type of
Product kg/m ~ Percent by W e i g h t by W e i g h t
Crusher Concrete
max. minus fine coarse fine I coarse I fine ~ coarse i coarse
size, mm 5 mm a~@. agg. a~q. agg. a~@. a~g.
Jaw Crusher w/c=0.45 25 ]9.2 2100 2350 Ii.0 5.8 15.5 58.9 30.5
w/c=0.55 25 18.2 2100 2350 11.3 6.2 20.8 48.4 31.0
w/c=0.68" 25 20.8 2t00 2330 11.1 6.4 18.8 60.8 31.2

Horizontal unknown 30 33.1 2040 2260 10.5 5.3 12.3 40.9 unknown
Shredder

continUOus
25 41.7 2130 2340 8.7 4.6 9.9 29.9 unknown
Mill

207
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat6riaux et Constructions
brought to specifications by wet classification. Heimsoth
[56] claims that the same can be achieved by dry proces-
sing when impurities are heavier than water.
In principle, fine-grained and lightweight contaminants
can be removed from rubblewith the aid of air classification
processes. The most frequently used of these techniques
is dry-sifting, a process which can be carried out both
vertically and horizontally. An important condition for
obtaining a sufficient degree of separation is that the
crushed product must be divided into fractions. This
implies that when the product is of a size between 0 and
40 mm, four or five sieved fractions must be obtained;
each of which is sifted separately, then remixed. It is a
distinct disadvantage that dry-sifting produces an excess
of dust which must be controlled.
Alternatively, lightweight contaminants can be separated
from heavier bulk material by the use of directly applied
water jets in combination with a float-sink technique. The
so-called "'Aquamator" is based on this principle. It is
produced by U B A / B M F T in West Germany, and it is briefly
described by Pietrzeniuk [72].
By the application of wet classification techniques,
wood, hardboard, plastics, straw, and roofing felt as well
as suspended sulfates and asbestos fibers can be effecti-
vely removed from the size range of 10-40 mm. Sieving
on a 10 mm screen prior to washing is recommended,
because the 0-10 mm fraction produces large quantities
of undesirable sludge in the washing water.
Efficiency of various types of screens was studied by
BCSJ [12]. It was found that inclined vibrating screens
working at low frequencies and large amplitudes were
most efficient in separating coarse material. Horizontal
vibrating screens working at high frequencies and small
amplitudes were more effective in separating fine material.
6.4. E n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s in t h e recycling o f
concrete
Recycling of Portland cement concrete presents both
environmental advantages and disadvantages. The advan-
tages are that substances are reused which would
otherwise be classed as waste, reduction of fuel use,
reduction of trucking, and reduction of the use of non-
renewable resources. The disadvantages include the intru-
sion of trucking into locations where this is undesirable,
aesthetic concerns, and potential noise and dust control
problems.
Operation of a crushing and screening plant is always
accompanied by the generation of noise and dust. There-
fore, in the selection of plant location, environmental
conditions of the vicinity and legal requirements must be
carefully studied and necessary countermeasures taken.
However, the early concern about noise and dust problems
when crushing concrete in mobile plants in urban areas
has apparently been exaggerated.
Dierkes [7a] reports on a mobile plant which was set
up near a local commercial and residential area in Chicago,
Illinois. The only complaints received concerned night-
time operations, the banging of tailgates to clean trucks,
and the noise from back-up alarms on mobile equipment.
Such practices were stopped, and stockpiles and earth
berms were built around the perimeter to reduce the noise.
The hoppers of the primary crushers were lined with rubber
pads to reduce the impact noise, and diesel generator
engines were equipped with quieter mufflers, and sound
208
absorbing panels were placed around the generator
trailers.
Copple [7 c] reports on a crusher which was set up on
a busy urban street in a suburb of Grand Rapids, Michigan,
where no complaints were received about either dust or
noise from the plant.
Environmental concerns in recycling of concrete are dis-
cussed in great detail by M u n r o [7 dJ who concludes:
(1) A single purpose job site installation, for example
for the purpose of recycling a pavement, is easier to locate
than a permanent commercial type installation, but a
permanent site has the great advantage of being able
to recycle concrete from building demolition as well as
pavement.
(2) To recycle the aggregates into concrete, the best
location of a permanent plant is adjacent to a ready-mix
concrete batch plant in an area of heavy industrial zoning.
Also the recycling plant should be located on a road which
is already used for heavy commercial or industrial trucking:
Once located, there must be sufficient control exercised
over the trucks to ensure that they are always using accep-
table heavy duty roads.
(3) Emission of dust should be limited to Number 1
Ringlemen (which is about 20% opacity) for a period not
exceeding three minutes in any one hour. Any discharge
less than this is essentially not visible and can be measured
only with sophisticated devices.
The easiest control is water. Roads around the site
should be continuously watered as should be stockpiles
of broken concrete. Fine mist water should be used at the
crusher feed and screens. This spray must be very fine or
the material will be too wet and the fine screens will blind.
A wetting agent added to the water will give better dust
control with less water. Also watering the material at
the head pulley of the stockpiling conveyor is helpful in
controlling dust as the product is loaded into trucks.
(4) The plant should be screened from view. A combina-
tion of grade difference and mature scrubs can almost
totally shield the view of a plant and its stockpiles.
(5) Personnel noise exposure should be limited to 90 db
for an 8-hour day. In the case of front-end loaders, bulldo-
zers, and the like this can be done by installing noise
attenuated cabs. Plant operators can likewise have well
located enclosed operating positions. Personnel which
must be around the plant during operation must be
protected either by administrative or engineering controls.
Administrative controls involve rotation of personnel
during the working day from noisy to quiet environments.
Engineering control involves enclosing the crushers and
screens. Ear muffs should be used only as a last resort.
(6) Community noise, i. e. noise at the receiving pro-
perty, should be limited to no more than 55 db for daytime
hours or 50 db during the evening. This limit should be
exceeded for no more than one minute by no more than
15 db.
The simplest way of controlling noise is distance. Noise
impact will be reduced by 6 db for each doubling of the
distance, but distance is not a very practical means of
noise control in urban areas, considering the noise level
of a typical crushing and screening plant which is serviced
by front-end loaders. It may be necessary to enclose the
machines or to shield the receiving property from the
machines by means of noise attenuating walls.
 37-RDC State of the art report

TABLE Vl.2 recycled aggregate below 5 mm is produced when old

OVERALL GRADING OF CRUSHER PRODUCTS, FROM, REF. [1 3]. concrete is crushed in a jaw crusher with an opening of
33 ram, also independent of concrete quality (see table
Measured Weight Percent Estimated Weight VI.1 ). With jaw openings of 60, 80, and 120 mm, corres-
Size Percent of Total
Fraction
of Total Crusher Product
Crushed Product
ponding percentages of fine recycled aggregate produced
in mm H M L According to were 14.1, 10.6, and 7.0%. With a jaw opening of 20 mm
w/c=0.40 w/c=O.70 w/c=l.2O Figure 6.4
Ravindrarajah and Tam (65) found the amounts of fine
> 30 3.0 4.2 3.2 material below 5 mm to be 23.1, 25.7, and 26.5% by
30-20 27.4 31.9 27.6
weight for 37, 30 and 22 M Pa concretes, respectively.
20-10 35.9 33.2 33.5
10- 5 14.7 13.4 13.2 In order to be cohesive and workable, fresh concrete
< 5 19.1 i7.3 22.5 requires between 25 and 35% of fine aggregate by weight
of total aggregate, depending on sand fineness, concrete
consistency, water-cement ratio, and maximum size of
coarse aggregate. Thus, it may be concluded that by the
TABLE Vl.3 crushing of old concrete in one pass through a jaw crusher
OVERALL GRADING OF CRUSHER PRODUCTS. EXPERIMENTAL DATA, FROM
there is not enough fine recycled aggregate generated to
REF. [7e]. produce new concrete of good quality when the maximum
size of crusher output is between 32 and 40 ram.
I Estimated Weight Per-
Size Measured Weight cent of Total Crusher The normal procedure in current American practice is to
Fraction Percent of Total Product According to
in mm Crusher Products Figure 6.3 proportion the fresh recycled aggregate concrete mix so
that coarse and fine recycled aggregate may be consumed
> 38 3
38 29
in the same ratio that they are produced. However, due
25 15
to the fact that insufficient fine recycled aggregate is pro-
19 19 duced by the jaw crusher in order to make new concrete
12.5 8 of good workability, it is necessary to add a certain amount
9.6 13 of conventional fine aggregate.
4.8 13
At a recycling project in Iowa [7f] it was found that
optimum finishing properties and workability of fresh recy-
cled aggregate concrete was obtained when 25% of natu-
Controlling the exterior noise from bulldozers and ral sand was mixed with 75% of fine recycled aggregate
front-end loaders is extremely difficult until manufacturers in a standard pavement mixture which contained a 50-50
of this equipment realize that their equipment must meet mixture of fine and coarse aggregate of 38 mm (1 1/2
the noise standards, and act accordingly. Until then the inches) maximum size.
most effective system is to restrict the operating time to It is interesting that the recycling of an existing pave-
reasonably convenient daytime hours. ment will produce about 50% more recycled aggregate
than is needed to produce the quantity of new concrete
6.5 Grading o f C r u s h e r Products which is required to replace the same section with a
pavement of equal thickness [7a]. However, it will be
Table VI.2 shows a typical grading of the total output
seen later in this state-of-the-art report that, for reasons
of recycled aggregate from a laboratory jaw crusher which
of durability, it may not be advisable to use fine recycled
was set at an opening of 25 mm with the jaws in a closed
aggregate less than ASTM n ~ 8 (2.8 ram) for production
position [13], of new concrete.
The crusher was fed three original concretes of different
quality in the form of old 15x15x30 cm test cylinders
3O
which had been split in halves. For all practical purposes
the overall grading of the crusher products are indepen- /
dent of the concrete quality in the entire range of water- E 2r CRUSHER SETTING AT 25m111 /
i= /
cement ratios from 0.40 to 1.20. _z
It is generally assumed that natural rock when fed to a JN
20 , m
crusher will break according to a "straight-line distribu-
5 /
tion" [14] where 15 percent of the crusher product will
be of a size above the crusher setting as shown in figure ' L/
6.3.
15
,
I
/
It will be seen from table VI.2 that the actual particle ,I /
10 : -- I
size distributions of crushed concretes are in reasonably
good agreement with the predictions that can be made on / I

I
the basis of figure 6.3. Similar results have been obtained - - I I
by Fergus [7 e] as shown in table VI.3. Usually grain-size
distributions of crusher outputs approximate Fuller curves.
Thus, it may be concluded that the crushing characteristics o ~o
9

' zo
II ~

~o ' ~o sG +o
rl

~o 8o
1

~o 100
of hardened concrete are similar to those of natural rocks tHUS.E. GOTPOT.,. PE,c~,r
and not significantly affected by the grade of original 1,7% o-s-=l,7",, s-lo--I n,-]. ,o-zo=. I "% 2o-3o.. I
concrete.
Japanese studies which have been reported by BCSJ Fig. 6.3. - - Correlation between crusher setting and parti-
[12] confirm that approximately 20% by weight of fine cle size distribution of crusher products, from Ref. [14].

209
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - MatOriauxet Constructions

the abscissa, the crusher characteristic (labelled 3) is

obtained as shown in figure 6.5 for the impact crusher
which was used in our numerical example. For purposes
of comparison, typical examples of crusher characteristics
are also shown in figure 6.5 for a jaw crusher labelled 1,
a cone crusher labelled 2, and a swing-hammer mill label-
led 4. It will be seen from figure 6.5 that impact crushers
and swing-hammer mills which both affect crushing by
means of different kinds of impact have greater reduction
factors than jaw or cone crushers, which affect crushing
by the application of pressure.

6.6 S t o r a g e a n d handling o f recycled aggregates

The Japanese proposed standard for the "Use of Recy-

cled Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate Concrete" [6]
includes the following recommendations for storage and
handling of recycled aggregates:
(a) Recycled aggregates produced from original concre-
tes of distinctly different quality, and recycled aggregates
produced by means of different production methods shall
be stored separately.
(b) Recycled coarse aggregate and recycled fine aggre-
gate shall be stored separately.
(c) Recycled aggregate shall be stored and transported
in a manner to prevent breakage and segregation or
otherwise cause change in quality of the recycled aggre-
0 20 ~) ~ 60 80 100 gate concerned.
SIEVE RESIDUE,IN WEIGHT PERCENT (d) Water absorption capacity of recycled coarse aggre-
gates is large; therefore, such aggregates should normally
Fig. 6.4, - - Grain size distribution of crusher input and be used in a saturated and surface dry condition. For
output for determination of crusher characteristic of this reason recycled aggregate storage yards should be
impact crusher (example).
provided with water sprinkling facilities so that recycled

Dutch investigators have developed a concept which

they call crusher characteristics as a useful tool for control
15(
of the crushing and sieving processes of old concrete.
Crusher characteristics are graphic representations of the I0C
relations between a so-called reduction factor, R, and the
sieve residues of the crusher output on various size sieves.
The reduction factor, R, is defined as the ratio between 6O
the particle size of crusher input and crusher output for 5O
the same weight percentage of residue on a given size ~0
sieve. Different types of crushers yield different crusher
3O
characteristics. If for a specific plant the crusher characte- 25
ristic is known, the grading of the crusher output can be o 2(1
forecast when the grading of the crusher input is known.
The use of crusher characteristics can best be shown by
means of a numerical example as follows: Z
0
In order to determine the crusher characteristic for a
given crusher, the particle size distributions of crusher
~ 7
input and crusher output must be determined. For the 6
fragmentation of concrete demolition waste in a specific 5
impact crusher, these are plotted in one and the same l.
graph as shown in figure 6.4.
In our example the reduction factor, R, for a sieve resi-
due of 35% equals a 59.5 mm grain size of the crusher
input, divided by a 9.9 mm grain size of the crusher output, 2
or 1,5
R3s = 59.5/9.9 = 6.0,
0 20 ~0 50 80 100
By calculating the reduction factor R for a number of
SIEVE RESIDUE,N WEIGHT PERCENT
sieve residues and plotting them in another graph with
reduction factor along the ordinate and sieve residue along Fig. 6.5. - - Crusher characteristics (example).

210
 37-RDC State of the art report

100
ASTM C33 g r a d i n g requirement for 25 mm
max. size coarse aggregate

!~:..-.
8O
Range of gradings of 25 mm max. size
coarse recycled a g g r e g a t e s p r o d u c e d
O
_z by jaw crusher in one pass

60

'!l'
~<
p-

L)
t~
/
2O

Fig. 7.1. - - Range of gradings of 25 mm coarse recycled

2.Z, L,-8 9-6 19 38 aggregates produced by j a w crusher in one pass (from
SIEVE SIZE, IN mm. literature reviewed).

coarse aggregates can be maintained at the required moist
condition. However, some unhydrated Portland cement
and hydrated lime is present in fine recycled aggregates,
and there is danger that such fine aggregates in time shall
become caked. Therefore, fine recycled aggregates should
not be kept in storage for a long period of time.
(e) Recycled aggregates shall be stored separate from
other types of aggregates.
In addition, it may be recommended that if different
types and qualities of recycled aggregate are produced,
the plant should not process colored material such as brick
rubble together with concrete rubble because of the extra
cost which is involved in the cleaning of processing units
when changing from brick to concrete rubble.
7. Q U A L I T Y OF RECYCLED A G G R E G A T E S
7.1. Grading, particle, shape, and surface texture
of recycled aggregates
After screening on an ASTM No. 4 (5 ram) sieve, the
grading of crusher products is compared with ASTM C-33
grading requirements for a 1" (25 mm) maximum size
aggregate in figure 7.1. Data are from Danish [t3] and
Japanese [15] investigations. Both coarse aggregates
were produced by the crushing of original concrete in a
jaw crusher.
It is evident that both aggregates could have been
brought within ASTM grading requirements by slight
adjustments of the opening of the crusher. Apparently it
is easy to produce reasonably well-graded coarse recyclec]"
aggregate by means of a jaw crusher.
The grading of fine crusher products below 5 mm from
three different investigations ([13], [15], and [7el) are
compared in figure 7.2. All gradings fall within the shaded
area of the sieve diagram in figure 7.2. All were produced
by the crushing of old concretes in a jaw crusher. It will
be seen that all gradings are somewhat coarser than the
lower limit of ASTM grading requirements for fine aggre-
gates. Some gradings are even lower than the lowest
permissible grading limit of Zone 1 sand in British Stan-
dard 882, 1201, which is considered to be the coarsest
grading of sand from which concrete of reasonable quality
can be produced.
It may be concluded that fine recycled aggregates as
they come from the crusher are somewhat coarser and
more angular than desirable for production of good
concrete mixes. As fine recycled aggregates also consist
of angular particles, it is not surprising that concretes
which are produced exclusively with coarse and fine recy-
cled aggregates tend to be harsh and unworkable [7fJ.
However, by adding a certain amount of a finer natural
blending sand it is possible to bring fine recycled aggrega-
tes within the grading limits of ASTM C-33. At the same
time, concrete workability is greatly improved [7f].

100 Fig. 7.2. - - Range of gradings

of crusher fines < 4 mm (fine
aggregate) obtained w h e n
/
8O 25-30 mm max. size coarse
recycled aggregates are pro-
duced by j a w crusher in one
pass.
~< 60 ,
. . . . ASTM C33 g r a d i n g require-
I--
Z
N ~o /
/ ii!!ii!:iii!ii!iiiiiii:
....~;i;:y
ment for fine aggregate

IX:
W / ~i:iiiiiii
20
i :!i!~::;~i:i::!~!?ili ~ Range o f ' g r a d i n g s of
c r u s h e r fines < 4 mm
o b t a i n e d w h e n 25-30 mm

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: max. size coarse re-

cycled a g g r e g a t e s are
p r o d u c e d by jaw crusher
in one pass

0,075 0,125 025 0,5 1,0 2,0 Z, B

SIEVE SIZE, IN mm

211
Vol. 19 - N ~ 1 11 - Mat~riaux et Constructions

70

03 i O~- =0'68
w, 60
O A.~ =055
o ~- :0.45
~<~ 50,,,

ixlo

o .... ,.

'" 20

Wo Z

gW
e<w lO l
0
0 0-3 0.6 1.2 2-5 5 10 20 30
PARTICLE SIZE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE,INmm

Fig. 7.3. - - W e i g h t p e r c e n t of c e m e n t paste a d h e r i n g to original a g g r e g a t e particles in r e c y c l e d a g g r e g a t e p r o d u c e d f r o m

original c o n c r e t e s m a d e w i t h d i f f e r e n t w a t e r - c e m e n t ratios.

Gerardu and Hendriks [70] report that the best recycled
aggregate for concrete production is obtained when it is
graded within the limits specified in the German standard
DIN 4163 for the recycling of rubble [71] which was in
force in the 1950's, but which has now been withdrawn.
Fergus [7 e] found that material finer than 75 micron in
1 1/2" (38 ram) maximum size coarse recycled aggregates
ranged from 0.3 to 0.5% In fine recycled aggregate below
the No, 4 sieve, material finer than 75 micron ranged
from 4.1 to 6.6% depending on concrete quality. In one
particular case where original concrete consisted essen-
tially of cement mortar, the corresponding value was 9.1%.
Hasaba et al. [16] found 25 mm maximum size coarse
recycled aggregate to contain between 1.3 and 1.7% parti-
cles finer than 88 I~m, depending on the quality of
concrete.
Hansen and Narud (13) found that material finer than
75 p,m in fine recycled aggregates below 4 mm ranged
from 0.8 to 3.5%, depending on concrete quality.
Considering that ASTM C-33 allows 1.5% dust of frac-
ture in coarse aggregate and 5% dust in fine aggregate in
concrete which is subject to abrasion, and 7% in all other
concrete, it may be concluded that recycled aggregates in
most cases can be used for production of concrete without
being washed.
7,2. A t t a c h e d m o r t a r and c e m e n t paste
When old concrete is crushed, a certain amount of mor-
tar from the original concrete remains attached to stone
particles in the recycled aggregates. Table VII.1 shows the
volume percentage of old mortar which remained attached
to original gravel particles in recycled aggregate, as repor-
ted by Hansen and Narud [13] on the basis of an investi-
gation by Hedegaard [17].
A representative sample of various grades and size frac-
tions of recycled aggregates was mixed with red-colored
cement and cast into cubes. After hardening, the cubes
were cut into slices and the slices polished. Mortar

TABLE VII.1
PROPERTIES OF NATURAL GRAVEL AND RECYCLED AGGREGATES ACCORDING TO REF. [1 3].

Type Size Specific Water Los Angeles LOS Angeles B.S. Aggregate Volume percent of
of Fraction Gravity Absorption Abrasion Loss Uniformity Crushing Value mortar attached to
Aggregate in mm SSD cond. in percent Percentage Number in natural gravel
{L500) LIOO/L500 Ratio percent particles

Original 4- 8 2500 3.7 25.9 0.28 21.8 0

natural 8-16 2620 1.8 22.7 0.22 18.5 0
gravel 16-32 2610 0.8 18.8 0.20 14.8 0

Recycled 4- 8 2340 8.5 30.1 0.30 25.6 58

aggregate (H) 8-16 2450 5.0 26.7 0.25 23.6 38
(w/c = 0.40) 16-32 2490 3.8 22.4 0.24 20.4 35

Recycled 4- 8 2350 8.7 32.6 0.31 27.3 64

aggregate (M) 8-16 2440 5.4 29.2 0.28 25.6 39
(w/c = 0.70) 16-32 2480 4.0 25.4 0.25 23.2 28

Recycled 4- 8 2340 8.7 41.4 0.38 28.2 61

aggregate (L) 8-16 2420 5.7 37.0 0.39 29.6 39
(w/c - 1.20) 16-32 2490 3.7 31.5 0.38 27.4 25

Recycled
aggregate (M) < 5 2280 9.8
(w/c = 0.70)

212
 37-RDC State of the art report

TABLE VII.2 immersing the particles in a dilute solution of hydrochloric

SSD-DENSlTIES AND WATER ABSORPTIONS OF ORIGINAL MORTARS REFE- acid at 20 ~ C. It will be seen that the amount of cement
RING TO RECYCLED AGGREGATES IN TABLE VII.1 (ADDITIONAL INFORMA- paste attached to sand or stone particles, as determined
TtON, NOT REPORTED IN REF, [ 1 3 ] ) . from the weight loss due to dissolution of cement during
Water the test, increases with decreasing particle size of aggre-
Size of Densitz Absorption
Water/Cement Fraction
in mm
in kg/m 3
in Percent
gate. Approximately 20% of cement paste is attached to
20-30 mm aggregate, while the 0-0.3 mm filler fraction
0.40 4- 8 2036 17.0
8-16 2060 17.0 of recycled fine aggregates contains 45-65 percent of old
16-32 . 2148 15.6
cement paste.
0.70 4- S 2041 17.0
8-16 2060 16.2 It will be seen later that old cement paste and mortar
16-32 2091 15.8
in many cases unfavorably affect the quality of recycled
1.20 4- 8 2070 16.5
16.6
concretes.
8-16 2068
16-32 2081 16.5

7.3. Density

Hansen and Narud [13] found densities of coarse recy-

attached to natural gravel particles in recycled aggregates
could be clearly distinguished both from the original gravel
particles and from the red cement matrix.
The volume percentage of old mortar, which was
attached to gravel particles in each grade and size fraction
of recycled aggregates, was determined on a representative
number of samples by means of a linear traverse method,
similar in principle to the method which is described in
ASTM C-457.71, "Standard Recommended Practice for
Microscopical Determination of Air-Void Content and
Parameters of the Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete".
Hansen and Narud [13] found the volume percent of
mortar attached to natural gravel particles to be between
25 and 35% for 16-32 mm coarse recycled aggregates,
around 40% for 8-16 mm coarse recycled aggregates, and
around 60% for 4-8 mm coarse recycled aggregates (see
Table VII.1 ). However, it appears that for the same cement
and original aggregates the volume percent of old mortar
in recycled concrete aggregates does not vary much even
for widely different water-cement ratios of original
concrete.
Hasaba et aL [t6] found 35.5% old mortar attached to
natural gravel particles in 25-5 mm coarse recycled aggre-
gate produced by the crushing of original concrete having
a compressive strength of 24 MPa. Corresponding figures
were 36.7% mortar for 41 MPa concrete and 38.4% for
51 MPa concrete.
Figure 7.3 shows the results of a Japanese investigation
reported by BCSJ [12] where the hydraded cement paste
adhering to recycled aggregates was determined by
cled aggregates in saturated surface dry condition ranging
from 2,340 kg/m 3 (for 4-8 mm material) to 2,490 kg/m 3
(for 16-32 mm material), independent of the quality of
original concrete, see table VII.I. Corresponding s.s.d.
densities of original coarse aggregates ranged from 2,500
to 2,610 kg/m 3. Narud [18] found an s.s.d, density o f
2,279 kg/m 3 for fine recycled aggregates produced from
one original concrete which was made with a water-
cement ratio of 0.70.
Table VII,2 shows densities of old mortars in original
concretes which were used to produce the coarse recycled
aggregates, the properties of which are shown in table
VII.I. It will be seen that densities around 2,000 kg/m 3
are obtained for such mortars. This is much lower than
the densities of corresponding hardened concretes which
ranged from 2,380 to 2,401 kg/m 3.
Hasaba et aL [16] found the s.s.d, density of 25-5 mm
coarse recycled aggregates to be around 2,430 kg/m 3,
independent of the quality of original concrete, see table
VII.3. The density of corresponding fine recycled aggrega-
tes below 5 mm was 2,310 kg/m 3. The density of corres-
ponding original coarse aggregates was 2,700 kg/m 3 and
2,590 kg/m 3 for original fine aggregates.
In another Japanese investigation reported by BCSJ
[12] dry densities of coarse recycled aggregates varied
between 2,1 20 kg/m 3 and 2,430 kg/m 3, corresponding to
s.s.d, densities between 2,290 kg/m 3 and 2,510 kg/m 3 for
recycled aggregates from a wide range of original concre-
tes. Dry densities of corresponding fine recycled aggrega-
tes ranged from 1,970 kg/m 3 to 2,140 kg/m 3, and s.s.d.
densities ranged from 2,190 kg/m 3 to 2,320 kg/m 3.

TABLE VII.3
~ROPERTIES OF NATUREL GRAVEL AND RECYCLED AGGREGATES. FROM. [16],

B.S. Sodium
Type Density Water Aggregate B.S. 10% Sulphate Content of
of (SSD) Absorption Fineness Soundness Old Mortar
% ;rushing value
Aggregate kglm ~ Value, kN Vol. %
in percent % Loss

15 tam max. size[ 2700 1.14

natural gravel

25 mm max. size
recycled 2430 6.76 23.0 133 23.9 38.4
w/c = 0.42

25 ~ max. sizel
recycled 2430 6.93 23. I 130 23.1 36.7
w/c = 0.53

25 m m m a x , size
recycled 2430 7.02 24.6 $13 28.6 35.5
w/c J 0.74

Unspec.
fine recycled
2310
aggregate 10.9 I
< 5 mm

213
Vol. 19 - N ~ 111 - Mat6riaux et Constructions
In essence, the above mentioned results were confirmed
by Ravindrarajah and Tam [65].
It may be concluded that the density of recycled aggre-
gates is somewhat lower than the density of original
aggregates due to a relatively low density of the old mortar
which is attached to original aggregate particles. However,
for the same cement and original aggregate the density of
recycled concrete aggregates does not vary much even for
widely different water-cement ratios of original concrete.
S.s.d. densities of recycled aggregate must be determined
in the laboratory before any mix design of recycled aggre-
gate concrete can be carried out. This may be done accor-
ding to ASTM designation C-127 (or C-128), "Standard
Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse
(or Fine) Aggregate". However, it must be kept in mind
that any subsequent variation in density of recycled aggre-
gates during concrete production will give rise to
variations, not only in mix proportions and therefore
concrete properties, but also in the yield of concrete pro-
duced.
7.4 W a t e r a b s o r p t i o n
In an earlier review paper, Nixon [5] concluded that the
most marked difference in physical properties of recycled
concrete aggregates compared with conventional aggrega-
tes is higher water absorption.
Hansen and Narud [13] found water absorptions of
coarse recycled aggregates ranging from 8.7% for 4-8 mm
material to 3.7% for 16-32 mm material, regardless of the
quality of original concrete, see table VII.I. Corresponding
water absorptions of original aggregates ranged from 3.7
to 0.8%. In table VII.2 are shown the water absorptions
of old mortars in original concretes, which were used to
produce recycled concrete aggregates, the properties of
which are shown in table Vtl.I. It will be seen that water
absorptions around 17% are obtained for such mortars,
which is much higher than overall water absorptions for
recycled aggregates. Narud [18] found a water absorption
of 9.8% for a fine recycled aggregate produced from an
original concrete with a water-cement ratio of 0.70 corres-
ponding to designation M in table VII.1.
Hasaba et aL [16] found water absorptions around 7%
for 25-6 mm coarse recycled aggregates, independent of
the quality of original concretes. Corresponding water
absorptions for fine recycled aggregates below 5 mm were
around 11%, see table VII,3. Both values are in good
agreement with results obtained by Hansen and Narud
which are presented in table VII.1. In another investigation
reported by BCSJ [12] water absorptions of recycled
coarse aggregates between 3.6 and 8.0% were found for
coarse recycled aggregates, and absorptions between 8.3
and 12.1% were found for fine aggregates.
In essence, the above mentioned results were confirmed
by Ravindrarajah and Tam [65].
It may be concluded that the water absorption of coarse
recycled aggregates is much higher than the water
absorption of original aggregates. This is due to the higher
water absorption of old mortar attached to original aggre-
gate particles.
According to the Japanese proposed standard for the
use of "Recycled Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate
Concrete" [6], recycled aggregates should not be used
for concrete production when water absorption is more
214
than 7% for coarse aggregates and more than 13% for fine
aggregates. It would appear from what is said above that
most recycled aggregates would meet the requirements.
As is the case for density, the water absorption of recy-
cled coarse and fine aggregates must also be determined in
the laboratory before any mix design of recycled aggregate
concrete can be carried out. This may be done according
to ASTM C-127 (C-12•), "'Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate".
Incidentally, Kreijger [63] found a parabolic relation
between water absorption and density of recycled aggre-
gates as shown in figure 7.4.
/
~_20
/.
Z
/
/
.......
w lz /
12L
,.=, /
I
o' I
2400 2200 2O00 1800 1600 1400 1200
DENSITY,IN kg/m~
Fig. 7.4. - - W a t e r absorption as a function of density of
recycled concrete a g g r e g a t e [63].
Due to high water absorption of recycled aggregates, it
is sometimes suggested to use presoaked aggregates for
production of recycled aggregate concretes in order to
maintain uniform quality during concrete production. Prac-
tical ways of presoaking aggregates are discussed by Goeb
[85]. It has not been studied how fully saturated recycled
aggregate will affect freeze-thaw resistance of new
concrete.
7.5. Los A n g e l e s abrasion loss a n d BS crushing
value
It will be seen from table VII.I. that Hansen and Narud
[13] found Los Angeles abrasion loss percentages ranging
from 22.4% for 16-32 mm coarse recycled aggregate from
a high strength original concrete, to 41.4% for 4-8 mm
coarse recycled aggregate from a low strength original
concrete. Corresponding LA uniformity numbers
L100/L500 were 0.24 and 0.38. BS aggregate crushing
values were 20.4 and 28.2%, respectively.
In table VII.3, Hasaba et aL [16] report B.S. aggregate
crushing values ranging from 23.0% for a 25-5 mm coarse
recycled aggregates from an original high strength
concrete to 24.6% for a 25-5 mm coarse recycled aggrega-
tes from an original low strength concrete. Corresponding
BS 10% fineness values were 13,3 and 11.3 tons,
BCSJ found Los Angeles abrasion loss percentages ran-
ging from 25.1 to 35.1% for coarse recycled aggregates
from 15 different concretes of widely different strengths,
which were crushed in different ways.

Similarly, Yoshikane [19] (table VII.4) found Los Ange-
les loss percentages ranging from 20.1 for a 13-5 mm
coarse recycled aggregate produced from an original high
strength (40 MPa) concrete to 28.7 for a 13-5 mm recy-
cled aggregate produced from an original lower strength
(16 MPa) concrete.
TABLE VII.4
RELATIONSHIPBETWEENCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTHSOF ORIGINALCONCRE-
TESAND LOS ANGELESLOSSPERCENTAGESOF CORRESPONDINGRECY-
CLEDAGGREGATES,FROM[19].
Sample C A B E F D
Compressive Strength
MPa
15 16 2t 3Q 38
L.A. Abrasion LOSS
28.7 27.3 28.0 25.6 22.9 20.1
Percentage
tn essence, these results were confirmed by Ravindrara-
jah and Tam [65].
According to ASTM designation C-33, "Standard Speci-
fication for Concrete Aggregates", aggregates may be used
for production of concrete when the Los Angeles abrasion
loss percentage does not exceed 50%. Crushed stone for
road construction purposes is usually required to have L.A.
loss values not exceeding 40%.
According to British Standard 882, 1201, Part 2, 1973,
"Specifications for Aggregates from Natural Sources",
aggregates may be used ~for production of concrete
wearing surfaces when the aggregate crushing value does
not exceed 30, or 45% for other concrete, as determined
according to BS 812, "Methods for Sampling and Testing
of Mineral Aggregates". Alternatively BS 882 specifies
that the BS 10% fines values should be more than 5
for normal concrete, more than 10 for concrete wearing
surfaces, and more than 15 for granolithic floor finishes.
Considering the results reported above, it may be
concluded that recycled concrete aggregates produced
from all but the poorest quality concrete can be expected
to pass ASTM and BS requirements to LA abrasion loss
percentage, BS crushing value, as well as BS 10% fines
value even for production of concrete wearing surfaces,
but probably not for granolithic floor finishes.
7.6. Sulfate soundness
ASTM C-33, "Standard Specification for Concrete
Aggregate", limits the loss in weight when aggregate is
subjected to five cycles of alternate soaking and drying in
a sulfate solution. The test is carried out according to
ASTM C-88, "Standard Test Method for Soundness of
Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sul-
fate". When magnesium sulfate is used, ASTM C-33 limits
the weight loss of coarse and fine aggregate to 18 and
15%, respectively. Corresponding weight losses are 12 and
10% when sodium sulfate is used.
Strand [68] found a sulfate soundness loss of 3% for
coarse recycled concrete aggregate compared with 5% for
corresponding virgin aggregates.
BCSJ [12] found sodium sulfate soundness loss per-
centages after five cycles ranging from 18.4 to 58.9% for
coarse recycled aggregates from 15 original concretes of
different compressive strengths and crushed in different
37-RDC State of the art report
ways. Sulfate soundness loss percentages for correspon-
ding fine recycled aggregates ranged from 7.4 to 20.8%.
Thus, Japanese results indicate that most recycled
aggregates would be less durable than original aggregates,
and that recycled aggregates would fail to meet ASTM
C-33 requirements to a sodium sulfate soundness of not
more than 12% loss for coarse aggregate.
Contrary to this, Fergus (7 e) found magnesium sulfate
soundness losses ranging from 0.9 to 2.0% for coarse
recycled aggregates produced from concrete, which was
derived from a number of different pavements. Correspon-
ding loss values of fine recycled aggregates ranged from
6.8 to 8.8%. 3.9 and 7.1% losses were measured for origi-
40 nal coarse and fine aggregate used to produce original
concretes.
On the basis of these and other results, Fergus (7e)
concluded that coarse recycled aggregates were superior
to the control natural gravel in those tests designed to
evaluate the possible effect of aggregate properties with
respect to the durability of concrete. Fergus (7e) also
concludes that the durability of fine recycled aggregate
was comparable to the durability of the control natural
sand.
Thus, American results indicate that the durability cha-
racteristics of recycled aggregates generally are improved
over those of natural aggregates, while Japanese results
indicate that the opposite may be true. However, Kasai
[66] concludes that the sulfate soundness test is unsuita-
ble for evaluation of the durability of recycled concrete
aggregates. As durability properties of exposed recycled
aggregate concretes are of utmost practical importance, it
is suggested that additional studies be made of the durabi-
lity characteristics of recycled aggregates versus original
aggregates.
7.7. Contaminants
7. 7. 1. General
BCSJ [12] and in an English translation Mukai et aL
[4] report the results of a study of the effect on concrete
strength of various contaminants which were added inde-
pendently and in various quantities to a natural and a
recycled aggregate.
Table VII.5 shows the volume percentage of each of six
contaminants which, when added to the aggregate, gave
15% reduction of compressive strength compared to
control concretes.
From the results of the BCSJ [12] study it may be
concluded that impurities in the form of tiles and window
glass have little influence on the compressive strength of
recycled aggregate concrete. However, blast furnace slag
aggregate may give slightly lower concrete strength.
Concrete with 3% by weight of gypsum laster reduced
strength by 15% when concrete was dry cured and by up
to 50% when concrete was wet cured. This is because
gypsum plaster is softened and weakened by water
immersion. Clay, acetic vinyl paint, asphalt, and wood also
reduced concrete strength.
On the basis of such results, the Japanese "Proposed
Standard for the Use of Recycled Aggregate and Recycled
Aggregate Concrete" [6] limits the amount of injurious
impurities contained in recycled aggregates to the values
shown in table VII.6.
215
 Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat6riaux et Constructions

TABLE Vtl.5 It would appear from the results of these investigations

VOLUME PERCENTS OF IMPURITIES WHICH GAVE 1 5 PERCENT REDUCTION that bituminous aggregate particles in recycled aggregate
OF COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH COMPARED TO CONTROL CONCRETES, FROM concrete reduce concrete strength in the same way as any
[6]. other low strength lightweight aggregate particles would
reduce concrete strength. As such strength reductions will
Wood Paint Made
become apparent during the process of trial mixing, and
i
Hydrated
Impurities Lime
Plaster
Soil (Japanese Asphaltl of Vinyl as bituminous aggregate particles almost certainly are frost
cypress) Gypsum Acetate
resistant, there are no obvious reasons why very stringent
Volume limits should be imposed upon the allowable contents of
percent of 7 5 4 3 2 0.2
aggregate bituminous aggregate particles.
Even so, it must be considered good practice to remove
bituminous concrete overlay materials from concrete pave-
TABLE VII.6 ments for example by cold-milling before recycling the
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AMOUNTS OF INJURIOUS IMPURITIES, ACCORDING concrete. This will probably be done anyway because it
TO [6]. is economically advantageous to recycle bituminous
concrete separately in an asphalt plant. Any bitumen which
Asphalt, Plastics, Paints,
Cloth, Paper, Wood, and
remains on the concrete surfaces after removal of the
Type
of
Piasters, Clay Lumps
and Other Impurities of
Similar Material Particles overlay is probably without much importance for the
Aggregate Densities < 1950 kg/m ] Retained on a 1.2 .unSieve.
Also Other Impurities of quality of recycled aggregate concrete.
Densities < 1200 kg/m 3
7. 7.3. Gypsum
Recycled
10 kg/m 3 2 kg/m 3
Coarse
Nixon [5] reviewed several systematic studies of the
Recycled 10 kg/m 3 2 kg/m 3 deleterious effects on recycled aggregate concrete of
Fine
gypsum plaster in recycled aggregates due to sulfate
expansions.
TABLE Vll.7 On the basis of these and many later investigations it
REDUCTION IN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE
may be concluded that stringent limits on the gypsum
CONCRETE AS A FUNCTION OF VOLUME PERCENT BITUMINOUS CONCRETE content should be included in standard specifications for
IN RECYCLED AGGREGATES, FROM EERGUS [7el. recycled aggregates.
In many countries in the Middle East, codes and stan-
Bituminous Concrete Bituminous Concrete Compressive Percent dards limit the sulfate content of aggregate either to 0.5%
in Vol. Percent of in Vol. Percent of Strength Reduction
Coarse Recycled Fine Recycled
(psi) in Strength
by weight of both the fine and the coarse aggregate frac-
Aggregate Aggregate
tion or to 4% by weight of cement including sulfate in
0 (control) 0 (control) 4910 0 cement. However, attention is called to the much larger
143 0 4790 2.4 amount of sulfate considered to be acceptable by Samarai
17.0 0 4390 10.6 [60].
21.7 0 4130 15.8
Both percentages should be calculated as equivalent
30.8 0 4130 t5.8
3110 36.6
S03-contents. It is suggested to apply the same limits to
30.8 30.8
I00 100 1t 00 77.5
recycled aggregates and recycled concrete. Furthermore,
it is recommended to use sulfate resistant Portland cement
for production of recycled aggregate concrete whenever
7. 7.2. B i t u m e n recycled aggregates may be contaminated by gypsum.

According to Japanese results obtained by BCSJ [12], 7. 7.4. Organic substances

the presence of asphalt in aggregates seriously reduces
concrete strength. Addition of 30 volume percent of
asphalt to recycled aggregate reduced concrete compres-
sive strength by approximately 30%.
Similar results obtained by Fergus (7e) are presented
in table VII.7. Here an addition of 30 volume percent of
bituminous concrete to recycled aggregate resulted in a
37% reduction of concrete compressive strength which is
in good agreement with Japanese findings.
Fergus (7 e) also found that recycled aggregate concrete
containing bituminous concrete reacts normally to the
addition of air-entraining admixtures. Ray [20], on the
other hand, reports on a case where a mixture of recycled
aggregates from concrete and asphalt produced lean
concrete with so much entrained air that a detraining agent
had to be used to keep the amount of entrained air within
specified limits.
Gerardu and Hendriks [70] state that recycled aggrega-
tes should not contain more than 1% asphalt because
asphalt greatly reduces the compressive strength of
concrete.
Many organic substances such as wood, cloth, paper,
and plastics are unstable in concrete when submitted to
drying and wetting or freezing and thawing. Other organic
substances such as paint may entrain considerable
amounts of air in concrete.
As a consequence, stringent limits on the content of
organic particles should be imposed in standard specifica-
tions for recycled aggregates and recycled aggregate
concrete.
Until more experience has been gained, it would seem
reasonable to apply a limit value of 2 kg/m 3 for particles
lighter than 1,200 kg/m 3, such as it is suggested in the
Japanese proposed standard [6]. 2 kg/m 3 corresponds to
approximately 0.151 of organic particles by weight of
aggregate. It should be kept in mind that organic impurities
are usually relatively light, which increases the content in
concrete in terms of parts per volume.
7.7.5. Chlorides
Chlorides in concrete can give rise to severe reinforce-
ment corrosion. Original concretes can be contaminated

216

by chlorides in several ways. Chloride ions can penetrate
from outside, as is the case in marine structures or highway
bridges and pavements which have been exposed to
deicing salts. Chlorides can also be entrained in the origi-
nal fresh concrete by accelerating admixtures or poorly
washed marine aggregates or desert sands.
On a Michigan pavement restoration project, Fergus
[7 e] measured up to 1.12 kg/m 3 NaCI in recycled aggre-
gates from 20-year old 23 cm thick pavement sections
which had been removed and were to be replaced due to
mechanical failure, and which had been exposed to
deicing salts for many years. 1.1 2 kg/m 3 NaCI corresponds
to 1.12 x 35.45/58.44=0.68 kg/m 3, or approximately
0 . 6 8 x 1 0 0 / 2 , 3 0 0 = 0 . 0 3 % of chloride ion by weight of
concrete. As the original concrete was produced with 335
kg/m 3 cement, the overall chloride ion content in the old
pavement was approximately 0.03 x 2 , 3 0 0 / 3 3 5 = 0 . 2 % by
weight of cement.
Peterson [21] measured 12 kg/m 3 of chloride ion at the
top of a 12-year old 27.5 cm thick flat slab of a parking
structure, decreasing to approximately 1.3 kg/m 3 of chlo-
ride ion at the bottom of the slab. Assuming that the
concrete was produced with a cement content of 350
kg/m 3, this would correspond to 3.4% of chloride ion by
the weight of cement at the top of the slab and 0.37% at
the bottom.
Strand [68] measured 2.4 to 3.0 kg/m 3 of sodium chlo-
ride in samples of concrete from pavements with various
years of service in Wisconsin. Concern about rapid steel
corrosion due to chloride content of the salvaged concrete,
as well as from future winter maintenance, led to the
decision to epoxy-coat all steel in the new recycled aggre-
gate concrete pavement.
Bergholt and Hansen [22] found chloride ion contents
as high as 7.5% by the weight of cement in a structure
located on Bahrain in the Arabian Gulf, where the original
concrete had been produced with chloride contaminated
desert sand.
Hansen and Hedegaard [23] added 4% of water-free
calcium chloride, corresponding to 2.56% of soluble chlo-
ride ion by the weight of cement, as an accelerating admix-
ture to an original concrete. After 38 days of accelerated
curing, the original concrete was crushed. It was found
that the 30-20 mm fraction of crushed concrete contained
0.21% of chloride ion, the 20-10 mm fraction contained
0.22% of chloride ion, and the 5-10 mm fraction contained
0.23% of chloride ion, all by weight of recycled aggregate.
Crushed concrete fines below 5 mm contained 0.39% of
chloride ion. On the basis of these results, it was estimated
that 1.41% of soluble chloride ion by weight of'cement
would be introduced into a recycled aggregate concrete,
similar in composition to the original concrete, by way of
recycled coarse and fine aggregates.
It is recommended that standard specifications for recy-
cled aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete should
impose stringent limits on chloride contents of such aggre-
gates and concretes. However, the threshold chloride
concentration, below which there is no risk of reinforce-
ment corrosion, remains a controversial issue. Therefore,
no specific limits to chloride concentration in recycled
aggregates shall be recommended in this report.
ACI Committee 201 [27] currently recommends the fol-
lowing limits for chloride ion in concrete prior to service
exposure, expressed as a percent by weight of cement:
37-RDC State of the art report
(1) Prestressed concrete: 0.06%.
(2) Conventionally reinforced concrete in a moist envi-
ronment and exposed to chloride: 0.10%.
(3) Conventionally reinforced concrete in a moist envi-
ronment but not exposed to chloride: 0.15%.
(4) Above ground building construction where concrete
will stay dry: No limit.
The proposed Japanese standard for the use of recycled
aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete [6] suggests
that essentially the same maximum limits should apply to
recycled aggregates.
It may be concluded that new concrete, produced from
recycled coarse aggregate which has been derived from
old chloride-contaminated concrete in many cases would
fail to meet current recommended limits for chloride ion
in concrete.
For winter concreting purposes it has been common
practice in the past to use 2% of flaked calcium chloride
dihydrate (CaCI2.2H20) by weight of cement as an accele-
rating admixture to concrete. 2% of calcium chloride dihy-
drate corresponds to approximately 1% of chloride ion in
concrete by weight of cement. It should be studied
whether there is any risk of exceeding current ACI recom-
mended limits when such concretes are recycled as coarse
aggregate for production of new concrete.
7. 7.6. Chemical and mineral admixtures
Hansen and Hedegaard [23] studied the properties of
recycled aggregate concretes as affected by chemical
admixtures in original concretes.
They concluded that as long as plasticizing, air-
entraining, and retarding admixtures are used in quantities
not exceeding manufacturers" recommended dosages, the
presence of such admixtures in recycled aggregates has
no significant effect on slump, air content, or setting time
of fresh recycled aggregate concrete, or on compressive
strength of hardened recycled aggregate concrete. Appa-
rently, such admixtures need not be considered as delete-
rious contaminants in standard specifications for recycled
aggregate. Effects of chloride-containing accelerators are
discussed in Section 7.7.5.
It remains to be studied how the lack of air-entrainment
in original concretes may affect the frost resistance of
recycled aggregate concretes.
Although no studies have been made, it is not believed
that the presence of common mineral admixtures such as
agricultural lime, pulverized fuel ash or condensed silica
fume in original concretes will have any deleterious effect
on recycled aggregate concretes.
7.7.7. Soil
Demolished concrete is frequently contaminated by
organic soil or clay. There are no reasons to believe that
recycled aggregates which are contaminated by soil should
behave any differently in recycled aggregate concrete than
ordinary aggregates which are similarly contaminated
would behave in conventional concrete.
Therefore, the usual requirements to cleanness, which
form part of standard specifications for concrete aggrega-
tes in most countries, can also be applied to recycled
aggregates. Such requirements include maximum allowa-
ble limits on content of organic impurities, clay lumps,
coal and lignite, and material finer than the ASTM No.
200 (0.075 p,m) sieve.
217
Vol. 1 9 - N ~ 111 - M a t ~ r i a u x et Constructions
7. 7.8. Metals
Small amounts of reinforcing steel or bits of wire in
recycled aggregates may cause staining or surface damage
due to rusting when close to the surface of recycled aggre-
gate concrete, particularly if chlorides are present. Pieces
of zinc and aluminum from flashings, frames, and conduits
may cause problems due to release of hydrogen in fresh
concretes or give rise to cracking due to internal expan-
sions.
However, it is unlikely that significant quantities of steel
or other metals will remain in recycled aggregate. Steel
can be readily removed by magnetic separation, and this
will always be done to the greatest extent possible because
of possible damage to crushers used to process the old
concrete. The salvage value of most other metals is so
high that flashings, frames, conduits, plumbing compo-
nents and fixtures will be removed before crushing of
building rubble. As most metals are ductile materials, they
will probably not be fragmented in the crushers and larger
pieces of metal will therefore be screened out at an early
stage of the processing procedure.
7.7.9. Glass
Plate glass from windows may contaminate demolished
concrete, but no figures are available as to the levels that
might be expected in such debris. Since the density of
glass is similar to that of concrete or aggregates, separation
would be very difficult.
Plate glass could be a potentially dangerous contami-
nant because it can take part in alkali-silica reactions.
Such glass is reactive because it is non-crystalline metas-
table silica; in addition, the usual presence of abundant
alkali in such glass could lead to deleterious alkali-silica
reactions even if low-alkali cement were used.
7. 7.10. Fragmented brickwork and lightweight concrete
When recycled aggregate concrete is contaminated by
less than 5 weight percent of fragmented brick rubble or
lightweight concrete, changes in mechanical properties of
recycled aggregate concretes are probably insignificant.
However, from the point of view of durability, the situation
may be different.
A serious problem with certain types of crushed bricks,
more specifically refractory bricks with a high content of
periclase, MgO, has been reported in ENR [25]. The pro-
blem involved concrete from six ready-mix concrete plants,
provided to more than 100 objects in the San Francisco
Bay area in California. The plants used aggregate from a
35,000 tons pile on which 4 tons of discarded refractory
bricks had accidentally been dumped. Damage amounting
to USD 25,000 or more was suffered by each of 20
projects although the refractory bricks were present in a
concentration as low as 0.01%. The refractory brick
fragments expanded when the periclase particles slaked,
causing "pop-outs" in the concrete ranging up to 35 cm
in diameter and 5 cm deep.
This may be an unusual case, which probably could n o t
have been avoided, no matter how stringent specifications
had been imposed. Rather, it stresses the need for rigorous
plant supervision when recycled aggregates are produced.
It is not difficult to envision that similar problems may
be encountered if recycled aggregates were used which
contain unslaked lime (CaO) or brick rubble susceptible
to frost damage.
218
The density of cement mortar and therefore recycled
aggregate is seldom below 2,000 kg/m 3, and the density
of common bricks is seldom above 1,900 kg/m 3. Thus, it
should be possible t o separate most brick rubble,
lightweight concrete, and other potentially deleterious par-
ticles from recycled concrete aggregate in a heavy medium
at a density of approximately 1,950 kg/m 3, such as is
suggested in the Japanese proposed standard for the "Use
of Recycled Aggregate and Recycled Aggregate Concrete"
[6].
It is suggested that standard specifications on recycled
aggregate should include maximum limit on content of
brick rubble and fragmented lightweight concrete below
1,950 kg/m 3, similar to the maximum limits on other
potentially deleterious particles below 2,400 kg/m 3 which
is common in standard specifications for conventional
aggregate to be used in the production of concrete which
will be exposed to severe or moderately severe weather
(see for example ASTM C-33).
Aggregates which are produced from fragmented
concrete which contains more than 5 weight percent of
fragmented bricks or other rubble is not considered recy~
cled aggregate in the context of this report. So-called
masonry rubble aggregates, aggregates produced from
sand lime bricks, and mixed concrete and masonry rubble
aggregates are treated separately in another RILEM TC-
37-DRC state-of-the-art report [53].
7. 7.11. Particles damaged by weathering or fire
Recycled aggregates may be produced from original
concrete which is so severely damaged by alkali- or sulfate
reactions, frost or other weathering agents, fire or other
deleterious physical or chemical agents that the resulting
aggregate is unsuitable for production of recycled aggre-
gate concrete from the point of view of mechanical proper-
ties. Such mechanical defects may show up in standard
tests for friable particles, in the Los Angeles abrasion test,
or in the sulfate soundness test. However, no practical
experience or experimental results are available, and it is
recommended that research should be carried out to clarify
possible unfavorable effects on concrete properties. In
principle, the detection of such mechanically weak parti-
cles in recycled aggregate would be no different from the
detection of other mechanically soft or weak particles in
natural aggregates.
It is an entirely different question whether the same
physical or chemical mechanisms which may have
destroyed an original concrete will continue to destroy a
corresponding recycled aggregate concrete due to intro-
duction of some of the physically or chemically unsound
aggregate particles from the original concrete in the recy-
cled aggregate concrete. Such problems are dealt with in
Sections 7.7.12 and 7.7.13.
7. 7. 12. Particles susceptible to frost damage
Mechanically strong, but physically or chemically
unsound aggregate particles which may not have caused
any problems in an original concrete, for example because
of mild exposure, could be introduced into recycled aggre-
gate concrete through the recycled aggregates. This might
give rise to problems if the new concrete were to be
severely exposed. In particular, it is problems concernin'g
frost damage and alkali reactions which attract attention.
When original concretes were made with chert sand a n d
gravel which was highly susceptible to frost damage, Buck

[26] found that the freeze-thaw resistance of correspon-
ding recycled aggregate concretes was greatly improved.
Table VII.8 shows an improvement from a durability factor
of 3 according to ASTM C-666 after 300 cycles to a factor
of 23. It is usually considered that a durability factor below
40 means that the concrete is unsatisfactory with respect
to frost resistance. 40 to 60 is the range for concrete
with doubtful performance, and above 60 the concrete is
probably satisfactory. Frequently durability factors above
80 are required in specifications. Thus, it may be conclu-
ded that although recycling improved the freeze/thaw
resistance, it by no means rendered the recycled aggregate
concrete frost resistant.
TABLE VII.8
FROST RESISTANCEOF RECYCLEDAGGREGATE CONCRETE, BUCK [26].
No. of Durability
Type of Aggregate Used Cycles Factor
New chert gravel and sand (1) 300 3
Coarse recycled aggregate 300 23
and natural sand (1)
Coarse and fine recycled
aggregate (1)
300 28
Yrjanson (7g) and Nelson (7h) report on laboratory
research and field performance which indicate that the
crushing of a potentially "'Di'-cracking aggregate to a
smaller size substantially reduces the "D"-cracking poten-
tial of concrete made with the aggregates. With this in
mind, the Minnesota Department of Transportation speci-
fied crushing of the original concrete to a 19 mm maximum
size on a recycling project.
Thus, it may be concluded that coarse recycled aggrega-
tes do benefit from the crushing operation. This is probably
due to the elimination of porous and weak particles in the
crusher. In addition there is a dilution effect, as a relatively
smaller volume percentage of unsound particles from the
original concrete are introduced into the recycled aggre-
gate concrete.
Both crushing and dilution should improve frost resist-
ance of recycled aggregates beyond that of original aggre-
gates. However, such beneficiation may not in itself be
sufficient to ensure frost resistance of recycled aggregates,
as will be seen from Section 9.2 on frost resistance of
hardened concrete. It is evident that more research on
frost resistance of recycled aggregates is required to clarify
matters.
7. 7.13. A/karl-reactive aggregate particles
No experimental data are available which make it possi-
ble to evaluate the effect on recycled aggregate concrete
of potentially alkali reactive particles in recycled aggrega-
tes. The problem of alkali reactions is probably even more
difficult to deal with than the problem of frost resistance
because both crushing and dilution may bring the concen-
tration and gradation of reactive particles in the recycled
concrete closer to the pessimum content than in the origi-
nal concrete. More research is required to clarify these
ma~ers.
7. 7.14. Industrial chemicals and radioactive substances
Recycled aggregate concrete should not be contamina-
ted by malodorous, toxic, or radioactive substances in
37-RDC State of the art report
recycled aggregates. Neither should recycled aggregates
contain oil- or water-soluble chemicals to such an extent
that normal setting, hardening, or strength development
of recycled aggregate concrete is reduced or concrete
durability is endangered.
Standard specifications for concrete aggregates normally
take into account a relatively few contaminants, commonly
found in natural aggregates such as humus, chlorides, and
sulfates. However, when demolished concrete is taken
from chemical plants or other industrial plants where che-
micals have been employed, recycled aggregates may be
contaminated by a wide variety of substances which, if
soluble, could affect the properties of recycled aggregate
concrete [27], or which could pose health hazards. No
standard specifications could possibly include maximum
limits on contamination of recycled aggregates by the wide
range of chemicals which is used in modern industry
today.
In most cases it will probably be found that only surface
layers of old concrete are affected, so that no more than
traces of potentially harmful contaminants will be found
in the bulk of recycled aggregate concrete. Under other
circumstances potentially harmful contaminants may not
be water-soluble, which in reality makes them harmless in
recycled aggregate concrete.
Even so, original concrete from any plant where chemi-
cals or radioactive material have been used should be
considered suspect until proved innocuous.
7. 7. 15. High Alumina Cement
Recycled aggregates from structures where high alumina
cement has been used in lieu of Portland cement should
not be used for production of recycled aggregate concrete
for structural purposes.
7.8. Repeated recycling of recycled aggregate
concrete
Fergus (7 e) investigated a case where aggregates were
produced from a recycled aggregate concrete which had
experienced 300 cycles in a freeze/thaw chamber, com-
monly used for durability tests. In this investigation, Fergus
was concerned with a "repeatedly recycled aggregate
concrete". Test results for both aggregate properties and
concrete properties proved such repeatedly recycled
aggregate concrete to be durable and of good quality in
all respects.
Thus, one may project that existing concrete structures,
in addition to providing an aggregate source for the imme-
diate future, may continue to generate an adequate supply
of aggregates for concrete construction in the more distant
future after once being recycled.
8. M E C H A N I C A L PROPERTIES OF RECYCLED
A G G R E G A T E CONCRETE
8.1. Compressive strength and rate of strength
development
8.1.1. Recycled aggregate concrete made with coarse
recycled aggregate and natural sand
On the basis of his review of earlier research, Nixon
[5] concluded that the compressive strength of recycled
aggregate concrete is somewhat lower (in some cases up
219
 Vol. 19 - N ~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions

to 20% lower, but usually less) compared with the strength through a laboratory jaw crusher. The crusher products
of control mixes of conventional c o n c r e t e . were screened and recombined into three qualities of
Later, BCSJ in Japan [12] arrived at the same c o n c l u - coarse recycled aggregate, H, M, and L, of approximately
s i o n on the basis of experimental results which showed the same grading as the original conventional aggregate.
compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete to be High-strength, medium-strength, and low-strength
between 14 and 32 percent lower than that of conven- concretes were then prepared with the same mix propor-
tional concrete. tions as the three original concretes, but with all nine
possible combinations of aggregates. All nine recycled
Wesche and Schulz [28] compiled earlier results
aggregate concretes were cured in water at 40 ~ C and
obtained by Buck [26], Malhotra [29], Schulz ([30],
tested for compressive strength after 38 days.
[31]), and Frondistou-Yannas [32]. Apparent correlation
was found between compressive strengths of conventional It will be seen from the results which are presented in
and recycled aggregate concretes. It will be seen from table VIII.1 that in three independent series of experiments,
figure 8.1 that recycled concretes consistently had 10% recycled aggregate concretes obtained approximately the
lower compressive strength than control concretes made same strength as corresponding control concretes which
with conventional aggregate. Later Ravindrarajah and Tam were made with the same mix proportions, but with natural
[65] found recycled aggregate concretes to have between aggregates (H/H versus H, M / M versus M, and L/L versus
8 percent and 24% lower compressive strength than cor- L in table VillA). Similar results were obtained by Malier
responding concretes made with conventional aggregates. and Mazars [84]. However, when high-strength concrete
(H) was produced from low-strength recycled coarse
"3-
aggregate (L), the compressive strength of the correspon-
ding control mix (H/L) was 39% lower than the compres-
To
Z

~z
ft.
70

60 I
/ sive strength of the corresponding control mix (H/H)
which was produced with high-strength recycled coarse
/'~ (-i aggregate. Presumably, strength differences would have
__ W been even larger if both coarse and fine recycled aggregate
~g
U.,l Z
40 had been used.
n Hansen and Narud [13] concluded that the compressive
x 30 I
0 -.1 strength of recycled concrete depends on the strength of
~n~ 20
G o 10 / / ~
/, "~/
~.
oBuck(25)
9Schulz [ 30) ond [ 31)
~ Malhotra (25}
the original concrete, and that it is largely controlled by
a combination of the water-cement ratio of the original
~o LL concrete and the water-cement ratio of the recycled
r~O 9 Frondistou-Yannas
I I I I concrete when other factors are essentially identical. If the
0 10 20 30 L0 50 60 70 80 90 100 water-cement ratio of the original concrete is the same as
28 DAYSCOMPRESSIVE STRENGHOF RECYCLED or lower than that of the recycled aggregate concrete, then
AGGREGATE CONCRETES,IN MPa the new strengths can be as good as the strength of the
original concrete.
Fig. 8.1. - Compressive strengths of r e c y c l e d a g g r e g a t e
concretes as a f u n c t i o n of the strengths of original Hansen and Narud [13] also found it quite feasible to
concretes, from [28]. make recycled aggregate concrete with a water-cement
ratio of 0.40 having a 34 MPa compressive strength both
Gerardu and Hendriks [70] report the compressive after 14 days of standard curing and after 38 days of
strength of recycled aggregate concretes made with coarse accelerated curing using recycled aggregate from an origi-
recycled aggregate and natural sand to be 95% of the nal concrete with a water-cement ratio of 1.20 having a
strength of conventional concretes or more. Such results compressive strength of 14 MPa at crushing, see table
have given recycled aggregate concrete the reputation of VIII.1. This confirmed earlier results by Buck [26] which
being somewhat inferior to conventional concrete, and showed that it is possible to make recycled aggregate
perhaps unfit for production of high strength structural concretes which are stronger than corresponding original
concrete. However, this is not always so. concretes from which the recycled aggregates are derived.
Hansen and Narud [13] prepared one high-strength ( H : It will be seen from table VIII.2 that BSCJ [12] obtained
w/c = 0.40), one medium-strength (M: w/c = 0.70), somewhat similar results using coarse recycled aggregate
and one low-strength (L: w/c = 1.20) concrete which and natural sand.
were cured in water at 40~ and tested for compressive Results obtained by Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52] also
strength after 38 days. The three concretes were passed confirm these general conclusions. These researchers

TABLE VIII.1
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ORIGINAL AND RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETES AFTER 3 8 DAYS OF ACCELERATED CURING. SYMBOLS H, M, AND L INDICATE
ORIGINAL HIGH-STRENGTH, MEDIUM-STRENGTH. AND LOW-STRENGTH CONCRETES MADE WITH NATURAL GRAVEL. SYMBOL HIM INDICATESA HIGH-STRENGTH,
RECYCLED CONCRETE MADE WITH COARSE RECYCLED AGGREGATE PRODUCED FROM MEDIUM-STRENGTH CONCRETE, ETC, FROM [13].

Compressive Strenqth of Oriqinal and ReCyCled A~qreqate Concretes, in MPa

Series
s sis sis xt5 M M/~ M/M M/L L Ltx I.,/M L/L

1 56.4 61.2 49.3 34.6 34.4 35.1 33.0 26,9 13.8 14.8 14.5 13.4

2 61.2 60.7 36.0 36.2 14.5 13.6

3 58.5 60.6 33.2 36.0 I 15.0 12.8

I

220

100~~ C ~ - - < 1 < 2"5 mm
E with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand,
N -
211 , , , i
0 20 40 60 80 100
% NATURAL SAND REPLAEED BY FINE RECYCLED AGGREGATE
Fig. 8.2. - - Compressive strength of recycled aggregate
concretes made w i t h a w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio of 0.65
w h e r e various volume percentages of natural sand w e r e
replaced by fine recycled aggregate, from [33].
attempted to produce high-strength concrete (40 MPa or
higher) from medium-strength (23 MPa) coarse recycled
aggregate. They found the strength of recycled aggregate
concretes to be lower than that of corresponding control
concretes made with the same water-cement ratio, but
with natural aggregate, when the strength of such control
concretes exceeded the strength of the original concrete
(23 MPa). For water-cement ratios below 0.40, no
increase in compressive strength of recycled aggregate
concretes was observed with decreasing water-cement
ratios. When recycled aggregate concretes were produced
with water-cement ratios giving compressive strengths at
or below 23 MPa, there was no difference in strength
between such recycled concretes and corresponding
control concretes,
These observations are explained by Rasheeduzzafar and
Khan [52] on the basis of photomicrographs of the fracture
patterns of recycled aggregate concrete. When the strength
of control concretes made with conventional aggregate
was above the strength of the old concrete, the strength
of the new mortar and the new mortar-aggregate bond in
corresponding recycled aggregate concretes is higher than
the strength of the recycled aggregate or the bond
between the old mortar and the original aggregate, thereby
making the recycled aggregate the weaker and, therefore,
the strength-controlling links of the composite system. On
the other hand, when the strength of control concretes
made with conventional aggregate was below the strength
of the old concrete, the inferior quality of the new mortar
in corresponding recycled aggregate concretes or its bond
TABLE VIII.2
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ORIGINAL CONCRETES AND RECYCLED AGGRE-
GATE CONCRETES MADE FROM THE SAME ORIGINAL CONCRETES USING
RECYCLED COARSE AGGREGATE AND VARIOUS PROPORTIONS OF RECYCLED
FINE AGGREGATE AND NATURAL SAND, FROM [1 2],
Compressive Strength of Concrete
Re.~ycled
Natural coarse
W/C
and fine aggre-
Recycled coarse
iggregace and i00%
gate (original
c~ncrete)
natural sand
50% natural sand
0.45 37.5 37.0
0.55 28.9
O.&8 22.0 21.0
37-RDC State of the art report
UJ with the recycled aggregate form the weaker link, and
,o hence control the failure.
<
Malhotra [47], Buck [46], and Ravindrarajah and Tam
[65] found the strength development with age to be simi-
~0 lar for conventional and recycled aggregate concrete made
8. 1.2. Recycled aggregate concrete made with coarse and
fine recycled aggregates
- All size fractions
replaced
.... Only size Etactions Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52] found no significant dif-
below indicated sizes
replaced ference in compressive strength between a recycled aggre-
gate concrete made with recycled coarse aggregate and
natural sand and a corresponding recycled aggregate
concrete made with both coarse and fine recycled aggre-
gates.
This is in sharp contrast to the results obtained by de
Pauw [10], Bernier, Maimer, and Mazars [84], and BCSJ
[12]. It will be seen from table VIII.2 (from [12]) that
the compressive strength of recycled aggregate concretes
made with coarse recycled aggregates and a blend of 50%
fine recycled aggregate and 50% natural sand was 10-20%
lower than the strength of a corresponding recycled
concrete made with coarse recycled aggregate and 100%
natural sand. When recycled aggregate concretes were
made with coarse recycled aggregate and 100% fine recy-
cled aggregate, the compressive strength was 20-40%
lower than the strength of corresponding recycled aggre-
gate concrete made with coarse recycled aggregate and
100% natural sand.
Gerardu and Hendriks [70] report the compressive
strength of recycled aggregate concrete made with both
coarse and fine recycled aggregates to be 85% of the
strength of conventional concrete or more, while that of
recycled aggregate concrete made with coarse recycled
aggregate and natural sand is 95% of the strength of
conventional concrete or more.
Soshiroda [33] reports on other investigations made
by BCSJ [12] where various proportions of fine natural
aggregate were replaced with fine recycled aggregate in
recycled concretes and where the effect on concrete
compressive strength was determined. It will be seen from
figure 8.2 that one particular recycled aggregate concrete
lost half its compressive strength when all natural sand in
the mix was replaced by fine recycled aggregate. It will
also be seen from figure 8.2 that loss of strength is much
more severe when a certain part of natural sand is replaced
by fine recycled aggregate of the entire grading spectrum
(lower curve in figure 8.2) than when replacement takes
place in coarser fractions only (upper curve). In other
words, it appears to be the fractions finer than perhaps 2
mm of recycled aggregate which bring about the largest
strength reductions of recycled aggregate concretes.
As fine recycled aggregate has a tendency to reduce
also the frost resistance of recycled aggregate concrete, it
is recommended to screen out and waste all material below
perhaps 2 mm in recycled aggregates.
(MPa)
McCarthy and MacCreery [67] report that the Michigan
Recycled coarse
aggregate, 50%
aggregate and 100% Department of Transportation has limited the allowable
recycled fine
aggregate, and
recycled fine
aggregate
amount of recycled fines to 25 or 30% of total sand on
interstate highway rehabilitation projects and plan comple-
34.0 30.0 tely to prohibit the use of recycled fines on some future
work. This is because tests showed some recycled aggre-
25.0 21.5
gate concretes to have unsatisfactory strengths where a
17.5 13.0 high proportion of crushed concrete was used in the
concrete fines. No further details are reported.
221
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
6~6 ,
6.5
3 concrete
U3
LU
z 6.4
Z
6-3
0 1 2 /. 8 16
DRY NIXING TIME,IN rain.
8.1.3. Effect of dry mixing of aggregate
It is perhaps not surprising that Kasai et al. [51] found
the fineness modulus of recycled aggregates to be reduced
with increasing time of dry mixing in the concrete mixer
before cement and water was added (see fig. 8.3).
It is more surprising that in the same investigation Kasai
et al. [51] found the compressive strength, tensile
strength, and modulus of elasticity of recycled aggregate
concretes, made with recycled aggregates which had been
dry-mixed prior to production of concrete, to be considera-
bly higher than the strengths and modulus of elasticity of
corresponding concretes made with recycled aggregates
which had not been dry-mixed prior to addition of water
and cement (see table VIII.3).
In table Vlll.3 results for concretes produced with dry-
mixed aggregates are shown in percent of results for
concretes produced with recycled aggregates which had
not been dry-mixed prior to addition of cement and water.
Before dry-mixing, recycled aggregates were crushed in
an impact crusher to a grading between 5 and 25 mm.
Kasai et al. [51] suggest that the effects observed after
dry-mixing may be due to one or more of the following
reasons:
(1) the shape of coarse aggregates is improved by dry-
mixing.
(2) old mortar which is attached to the surface of recy-
cled aggregate particles is removed by dry-mixing.
(3) fine particles of old cement which are generated
during dry-mixing of recycled aggregates accelerate the
hydration of fresh cement similar to a chemical nucleating
agent.
8.2. C o e f f i c i e n t of variation for compressive
s t r e n g t h of r e c y c l e d a g g r e g a t e c o n c r e t e
BCSJ [12] found the coefficient of variation for
compressive strength of recycled concrete in the laboratory
not to be much different from that of conventional
concrete when one and the same recycled aggregate was
used throughout production. This was later confirmed by
Hansen and Narud [13] and Coquillat [38].
This may well be so under controlled conditions in the
laboratory, but in practice larger variations will probably
be found because of difficulties in maintaining a uniform
222
w/c = 0.5 of
original
. . . . w/c = 0.6 of
original
concrete
Fig. 8.3. - - Reduction of fineness modulus
18
of coarse recycled aggregate as a func-
tion of dry mixing time, from [51].
free water-cement ratio in recycled aggregate concretes
which are produced with aggregates of high water
absorption capacity. Even when recycled aggregates are
presoaked, larger strength variations will probably persist.
When recycled aggregate concretes are produced from
original concretes of different qualities, the coefficient of
variation for compressive strength is much larger than
when the same recycled aggregate is used in all batches.
Typical results illustrating this point are presented by de
Pauw [34] in table Vllt.4.
De Pauw [34] found variations in 28-day compressive
strength from 32.0 to 49.1 MPa when concretes of identi-
cal mix proportions were produced with recycled aggrega-
tes from twelve 15-year old concretes of widely different
quality. The mean compressive strength of all recycled
concretes in table VIII.4 is 41 MPa, and the standard
deviation is 5 MPa, giving a coefficient of variation of
12%.
High coefficients of variation must be expected by
ready-mix plants attempting to produce concrete with
recycled aggregate from processing plants which in an
indiscriminate way use mixed concrete rubble as raw
materials, whether from old buildings, pavements, side-
walks, driveways, curbs, or gutters.
As an example, let us assume that a ready-mixed
concrete plant were to produce and test 12 batches of
medium-strength concrete from recycled aggregate of
unknown origin. If by accident six batches were of type
M / H (i. e. medium-strength concrete produced with high-
strength recycled aggregate) in table VIII.1 and the rest
were of type M/L (i.e. medium-strength concrete produ-
ced with low-strength recycled aggregate), then the coef-
ficient of variation would be approximately 14% based on
the results in table VIII.1. If the exercise was repeated
for concretes of type H / H (i.e. high-strength concrete
produced with high-strength recycled aggregate) and H/L
(i.e. high-strength concrete produced with low-strength
recycled aggregate), the coefficient of variation would be
25% for the 12 test results presented in table VIII.1.
Hendriks [64] reports variations in compressive strength
between 41 and 50.6 MPa for concretes of identical mix
proportions, but produced with recycled concrete aggre-
gates manufactured by various Dutch producers.
 37-RDC State of the art report

TABLE VIII.3 8.3. Modulus of elasticity and damping capacity

EFFECTS OF DRY MIXING OF RECYCLED AGGREGATES PRIOR TO ADDITION OF Due to the large amount of old mortar with a comparati-
CEMENT AND WATER, ON STRENGTHS AND MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF
vely low modulus of elasticity which is attached to original
RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETES, FROM [51].
aggregate particles in recycled aggregates, the modulus of
Tensile Modulus
elasticity of recycled aggregate concretes is always lower
Compressive Strength
Dry w/c Slump in % of controls Strength
Elasticity
in %
than that of corresponding control concretes made with
Mixing (cm) in %
3 Da Z 7 Da Z 28 Day 28 Day 28 Day conventional aggregate.
No 0.5 6.5 100 100 IO0 100 100 Frondistou-Yannas [32] found up to 33% lower modu-
Yes 0.5 6.5 177 130 111 136 96 lus of elasticity for recycled aggregate concretes made
with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand compared
NO 0.6 18.1 I00 100 i00 I00 i00 to the modulus of elasticity of corresponding control
Yes 0.6 19. 1 162 156 135 123 108 concretes made with conventional aggregate.
Coquillat [38] found 28% lower dynamic modulus of
elasticity for a recycled aggregate concrete made with
TABLE VIII.4 both fine and coarse recycled aggregates compared with
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS OF ONE AND THE SAME RECYCLED CONCRETE
a corresponding conventional concrete.
PRODUCED WITH RECYCLED AGGREGATE FROM OLD CONCRETES OF DIFFE- Gerardu and Hendriks [70] report a maximum of 15%
RENT QUALITY (FROM [34]). lower modulus of elasticity of recycled aggregate concre-
Recycled Aggregate
tes made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand
Original Concrete
Water-Cement Ratio
when crushed after Water-Cement Ratio
Concrete compared with corresponding conventional concretes.
15 years. at 28 days.
of Original
Compressive
of recycled
aggregate concrete
Com[ When the sand was also replaced with crushed concrete
Concrete Strength
Strength
MPa
~a fines, a maximum of 40% reduction in modulus of elasticity
was observed.
0.53 75. I 0.57 49. I
0.67 51.5 0.57 40.3 Wesche and Schulz [28] found up to 19% lower modu-
0.65 59.3 0.57 43.1
0.80 38.9 0.57 38.0 lus of elasticity for recycled aggregate concretes made
with the same water-cement ratio and coarse recycled
0.50 73.1 0.57 47.4
aggregates containing two different natural aggregates
0.59 62.4 0.57 43.3
0.65 67.9 0.57 41.8
32.0
compared to the modulus of elasticity of conventional
0.81 42. I 0.57
control concretes.
O. 50 61.9 0.57 39.8 Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52] found up to 18% lower
O. 50 84.8 0.57 36.8
0.53 73.4 0.57 44.0 static modulus of elasticity in recycled aggregate concretes
35.2
0.50 64.1 0.57
made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand
compared to the modulus of elasticity of corresponding
control concretes made with conventional aggregates,
Zagurskij and Zhadanovskij [83] and BSCJ [12] report
Large standard deviations and correspondingly high
between 10% and 30% lower modulus of elasticity of
coefficients of variation always make it expensive in terms
recycled aggregate concretes made with coarse recycled
of cement consumption to meet requirements to characte-
aggregate and natural sand, compared to the modulus of
ristic strength in modern concrete codes and
elasticity of corresponding original control concretes.
specifications; and for technical reasons, compliance crite-
When recycled aggregate concretes were made with
ria for a high characteristic concrete strength cannot be
coarse recycled aggregate and 100% fine recycled aggre-
met at all if the coefficient of variation is above a certain
gate, the modulus of elasticity was 25 to 40 % lower
level. compared to the modulus of elasticity of corresponding
original control concretes. Japanese results are presented
in figure 8.4.
"E

4"0 I Ns- Ng = "natural

..... 1 ,gravel
. ~ ~.d

z 3-5 '-s~ n l -, ~: ' - " Ns- Cg = , coarse

...... ~recycled
.......
~ ~ aggregate

~ fine
53"0 9 ~ s - f-g - j [ s - C g : ~Tg~L:~ ......

~I , I2 " 5
Y I-- 9
C s - Cg . . . . --"
2-0
--J
1-5
8
Fig. 8.4. - - Modulus of elasticity as a func-
1"0 tion of water-cement ratio of original
1"4 1-6 1.8 2-0 2"2 and recycled aggregate concrete, from
Cement-~afer Rofio (C/w) [1 61.

223
Vol. 19 - N ~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
Hansen and Boegh [35] prepared one high-strength (H:
w/c = 0.40), one medium-strength (M: w/c = 0.70),
and one low-strength concrete (L: w/c = 1 . 2 0 ) which
were cured in water at 40~ and tested for modulus of
elasticity ~fter 47 days.
The three concretes were passed through a laboratory
jaw crusher. The crusher products were screened and
recombined into three qualities of coarse recycled aggre-
gate, H, M, and L, all of the same grading as the original
aggregate. High-strength, medium-strength, and low-
strength concretes were then prepared with the same mix
proportions as the three original concretes, but with all
nine possible combinations of coarse recycled aggregates.
All nine concretes were cured in water at 40 ~ C and tested
for modulus of elasticity after 47 days of curing in water
at 40 ~ C.
It will be seen from the results in table VIII.5 that both
dynamic and static modulus of elasticity are from 14 to
28% lower for recycled aggregate concretes than for
control concretes made with the same conventional aggre-
gate. However, it is evident that differences in modulus of
elasticity would have been much larger if the high-strength
concrete (H) had been made with a stiffer aggregate (such
as quartz) and the low-strength (L) concrete had been
made with a softer aggregate (such as soft limestone)
than the natural aggregate which was used in the experi-
ment. Also in one particular case, Hansen and Boegh
found the modulus of elasticity of a recycled aggregate
concrete which was made with recycled aggregate that
consisted of a low quality crushed-mortar to be 45% lower
than the modulus of elasticity of a corresponding control
concrete made with conventional aggregates.
Presumably, differences in modulus of elasticity would
also have been larger if recycled aggregate concretes had
been made with both fine and coarse recycled aggregate
instead of coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand, as
was the case in Hansen and Boegh's experiments.
In essence, the above mentioned results are confirmed
by Ravindrarajah and Tam [65]. In addition, Ravindrarajah
and Tam [65] found the relationship between the
compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity for
recycled aggregate concrete to be different from that for
conventional concrete proposed by various authorities
such as CEB, FIP, and the British Concrete Code, CP-110.
Bernier, Mailer, and Mazars [84] found the ultimate
strain at compressive failure to be 2.67 x 10-3 for recycled
aggregate concrete made with both coarse and fine recy-
cled aggregate while it was 1.75 x 10-3 both for an origi-
TABLE VIII.5
STATIC AND DYNAMIC MODULUS OF ELASTICITYOF ORIGINAL AND RECYCLEDAGGREGATE CONCRETESAFTER 47 DAYS OF ACCELERATED CURING. SYMBOLS H,
M, AND L INDICATE ORIGINAL HIGH-STRENGTH, MEDIUM-STRENGTH, AND LOW-STRENGTH CONCRETES MADE WITH NATURAL GRAVEL. SYMBOL H/M
INDICATES A HIGH-STRENGTH,RECYCLED CONCRETEMADE WITH COARSEAGGREGATE PRODUCED FROM MEDIUM-STRENGTH CONCRETE.ETC, FROM [35].
Modulus of Elasticity of Original and Recycled Aqgregate C~ncretes,
Type
H H/H H/M H/L M M/H
Dynamic ModuLus 46.7 40.3 37,6 39. i 42.3
% Reduction below
controls 0 13,7 19,5 16.3
Static Modulus 43.4 37.0 36.3 34.8 38.5
% Reduction below
controls O 14.7 16.4 19.8
224
nal control concrete and for a recycled aggregate concrete
made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand.
Ravindrarajah and Tam [65] found the damping capa-
city expressed in terms of the logarithmic decrement to be
between 16 and 23% higher for recycled aggregate
concrete than for conventional control concretes made
with virgin aggregates. The damping capacity for both
types of concrete increased w i t h the decrease in compres-
sive strength.
8.4. C r e e p
Wesche and Schulz [28] found creep of two recycled
aggregate concretes, made w i t h coarse recycled aggregate
and natural sand, to be 50% higher than creep of corres-
ponding control concretes made with conventional natural
and crushed aggregate, see figure 8.5.
This is not surprising, considering the fact that the recy-
cled aggregate concretes contained 50% more mortar than
control mixes. Creep of concrete is proportional to the
content of cement paste or mortar in concretes.
Ravindrarajah and Tam [65] found creep of recycled
aggregate concretes made w i t h coarse recycled aggregate
and natural sand to be 30-60% higher than creep of
conventional control concrete.
Kasai [66] reports that Nishibayashi found creep of
recycled aggregate concrete made with coarse recycled
concrete aggregate and natural sand to be 20-30% higher
than for conventional control concretes.
Gerardu and Hendriks [70] state that in the laboratory,
creep of recycled aggregate concrete may be up to 40%
larger than for conventional concrete made with virgin
aggregates.
It can be expected that the creep of recycled concrete
could be much larger if such concretes were produced
with both fine and coarse recycled aggregate, but more
research is needed to confirm this expectation.
8.5. Drying shrinkage
According to figure 8,6, Hasaba eta/. [16] found drying
shrinkage of recycled aggregate concrete (Ns-Cg) made
with a cement content of 300 kg/m 3, with coarse recycled
aggregate (Cg), and with natural sand INs) to be 50%
larger than drying shrinkage of original concrete (Ns-Ng)
made with natural fine INs) and natural coarse aggregate
(Ng). When both coarse (Cg) and fine (Cs) recycled
aggregates were used, drying shrinkage of recycled aggre-
in GPa
M/M ~IL L Lla LIM LIL
36.4 35.8 35.0 36.6 31.0 28.8 28,0
0 13.9 15.4 17.2 0 15.3 21.3 23.4
33.0 32.0 30.0 30.8 27.5 22.3 22.6
0 14.3 16.9 22. i 0 10.7 27.6 26.6
 37-RDC State of the a~ repo~
Recycled aggregate concrete made w i ~ coarse
r e . c l a d aggr~ate from (I) and natural sand

~ / ~ 126-7

120 / / /~ 118.9
/ / I Recycled aggregate concrete
110
I
O-
LU
LU 100
/ ~ / / /
! made w i ~ coarse recycled
aggregate from (~I) and
natural sand

{3.
s 90
7~o
<o 80

7O
b. ....... l .......... de
<,
UJ

_~o
~
s0

4O

3O
10 100
~
1000
Original concrete made
with crushed basalt and
naturai sand (If)

TIME UNDER LOAD,IN DAYS

Fig. 8.5. - - T o t a l d e f o r m a t i o n o f o r i g i n a l and recycled concretes (per M P a ) versus t i m e under load, f r o m [28].

gate concrete (Cs-Cg) was 70-80% larger than that of a and a low-strength concrete ( L : w / c = l . 2 0 ) from the
control concrete (Ns-Ng) made with natural fine and same conventional aggregates. Original concretes were
coarse aggregate. cured in water at 40 ~ C. After 47 days the three concretes
were passed through a laboratory jaw crusher. The crusher
Coquillat [38] found 73% higher drying shrinkage for a
products were screened and recombined into three quali-
recycled aggregate concrete made with both fine and
ties of coarse recycled aggregate, H, M, and L, of approxi-
coarse recycled aggregate than for a corresponding
mately the same grading as the original conventional
conventional concrete.
aggregates. High-strength, medium-strength, and low-
Wesche and Schulz [28] found drying shrinkage of two strength concretes were then prepared with the same mix
recycled aggregate concretes made with coarse recycled proportions as the three original concretes, but with all
aggregate and natural sand to be 40% larger than drying nine possible combinations of aggregate. All nine concre-
shrinkage of control concretes made with conventional tes were cured in water at 40 ~ C. Four 10 x 10 x 80 cm
aggregates. This is not surprising considering that the beams from each of the nine recycled aggregate concretes
recycled aggregate concretes contained 50% more mortar were dried at 40% RH and 25~ for six months, and drying
than controls, and that drying shrinkage increases with shrinkage was measured.
the contents of cement paste or mortar in a concrete.
It .will be seen from the results which are presented in
Zagurskij and Zhadanovskij [83] report 20 to 30% higher table VIII.6 that the drying shrinkage of all recycled
shrinkage for recycled aggregate concrete made with concretes (except for one erratic result for L/M) was
coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand compared to approximately 50% higher than for corresponding control
corresponding control concretes made with conventional concretes made with the same conventional aggregates,
aggregates. regardless of mix proportions and type of recycled aggre-
Hansen and Boegh [35] prepared a high-strength gate used. In one particular case Hansen and Boegh found
(H : w/c=O.40), a medium-strength ( M : w/c=O.70), the drying shrinkage of a recycled aggregate concrete
which was made with recycled aggregate that consisted
A
~,0 8
/ Fig. 8.6. - - D r y i n g s h r i n k a g e o f o r i g i n a l and recycled
7 aggregate concretes as a function of t i m e o f d r y i n g ,
LLJ
L~ f r o m [16].
<k.- 6
Z
~"
7-- 5
U3
4
L~
Z
~- 3 Ns - Ng =' ...... ~ ~ d a~d
natural gravel
O
2 = : Ns- Ca . . . . . . . l ~ d ~n~
coarse recycled
aggregate

-" -" Cs-C0 =~ . . . . d ......

jr recycled aggre-
gates

1 2 4 12
TIME OF DRYING,IN W E E K S

225
Vol. 19 - N o 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
SHRINKAGE AFTER DRYING FOR 13 WEEKS AT 40% RH AND 25~ OF ORIGINAL AND RECYCLEDAGGREGATE CONCRETES. SYMBOLS H, M, AND L INDICATE
ORIGINAL HIGH.STRENGTH,MEDIUM-STRENGTH,AND LOW-STRENGTHCONCRETESMADE WITH NATURALGRAVEL. SYMBOL HIM INDICATESA HIGH.STRENGTH.
RECYCLED CONCRETEMADE WITH COARSE RECYCLEDAGGREGATE PRODUCED FROM MEDIUM-STRENGTHCONCRETE, ETC. FROM [35].
Item
S ~IH
Total shrinkage 3.4 5.|
x 10 ~
% increase in
shrinkage above 0 50
controls
of a low quality crushed mortar to be three times that of
a corresponding control concrete made with conventional
aggregate.
On the basis of the results obtained by Hasaba [16],
Wesche and Schulz [28], Coquillat [38], and Hansen and
Boegh [35], it may be concluded that drying shrinkage of
recycled aggregate concrete made with coarse recycled
aggregate and natural sand is approximately 50% higher
than shrinkage of corresponding control concretes made
with conventional aggregate. When both coarse and fine
aggregates are used, drying shrinkage of recycled aggre-
gate concrete is somewhat higher, perhaps 70% higher
[16], than shrinkage of corresponding control concretes
made entirely with conventional aggregates.
Similar experiments which were carried out by Ravindra-
rajah and Tam [65] resulted in shrinkage values between
14 and 95 percent higher for~recycled aggregate concretes
than for conventional concretes. At the end of 70 days
of drying, the difference between original and recycled
aggregate concretes was greater for higher-grade concre-
tes than for lower-grade concretes.
8.6. Tensile and f l e x u r a l s t r e n g t h
BCSJ [12], Mukai et aL [37], and Ravindrarajah and
Tam [65] found the indirect tensile strength of recycled
aggregate concrete made with coarse recycled aggregate
and natural sand not to be significantly different from that
of conventional concrete. However, when both coarse and
fine recycled aggregates were used, the tensile strength
of recycled aggregate concretes was up to 20% lower than
that of conventional concrete. On the other hand, Coquillat
[38] found no significant difference in tensile strength
between conventional concretes and recycled aggregate
concretes when both coarse and fine recycled aggregates
were used.
Gerardu and Hendriks [70] report at most 10 percent
lower indirect tensile strength for recycled aggregate
concrete made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural
sand compared with conventional control concretes made
with virgin materials. If the sand is also replaced with
crushed concrete fines, the reduction is at most 20%.
BCSJ [12] found that the flexural strength of recycled
aggregate concrete is somewhere between 1/5 and 1/8
of its compressive strength, similar to what is the case
for conventional concrete, but no experimental data are
presented.
Ravindrarajah and Tam [65] found no significant differ-
ence in flexural strength of conventional concrete and
recycled aggregate concrete made with coarse recycled
aggregate and natural sand.
226
TABLE VIII.6
Shrinkage after 13 weeks of drying at 40% RH and 25~ C
of original and recycled aggregate concretes
~IM nil S SIN MIM MIL L LI~ LIM LIL
4.9 5.3 3.5 4.9 5.3 5.2 4.5 6.8 5.7 6.8
44 56 0 40 51 49 0 51 27 51
These results are in contradiction to those reported by
Malhotra [47] who found lower flexural strengths for
recycled aggregate concretes than for conventional
concretes.
8.7 Other mechanical properties
Gerardu and Hendriks [70] report that in highway cons-
truction the resistance to polishing of coarse recycled
concrete aggregates is higher than for many conventional
crushed aggregates.
No information was found in the literature on other
properties of hardened recycled aggregate concrete such
as surface hardness, abrasion resistance, impact Or fatigue
strength, thermal properties, fire resistance, acoustic pro-
perties or susceptibility to cracking.
8.8 Reinforced concrete
Mukai et al. [36] found that the bond strength of
recycled aggregate concrete to reinforcing steel was equi-
valent to that of conventional concrete both under static
and fatigue loading, when coarse recycled aggregate was
used with natural sand. However, when both fine and
coarse recycled aggregates were used, cracks appeared at
15% lower flexural load than when conventional aggregate
was used, and the ultimate flexural strength of reinforced
concrete was 30% lower due to bond failure. Shear
strength followed a similar pattern.
It is concluded that coarse recycled aggregate can be
used in reinforced concrete without much inconvenience,
but that fine recycled aggregate should be avoided. It
appears that up to 30% of natural coarse aggregate or
crushed stone can be replaced by coarse recycled aggre-
gate without any negative effects at all.
9. DURABILITY OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE
CONCRETE
9.1. P e r m e a b i l i t y and w a t e r absorption
The rate of most kinds of concrete deterioration depends
on concrete permeability. This is because water absorption
is indirectly related to permeability of hardened concrete,
and penetration of water into concrete is required for most
deterioration mechanisms to be effective.
Kasai [66] reports that BCSJ [12] conducted water
permeability tests on concretes .which were made with
water-cement ratios of 0.5-0.7 and with slump values
around 21 cm. The results show that the water permeabi-
lity of recycled aggregate concrete is 2-5 times that of

6"8
oRecycled Aggregate Concrete
~E
aJ
6"0 A Convenfiona[ Concrete
0..
9=-- 5-2
m"
O
~q
3"6
r
5= 2-8
m
2"0
1"2
; i i i i i
0"35 0"/,0 0-45 0-50 0"55 0-60
Water/Cement Ratio
Fig. 9.1, - - 30 minutes w a t e r absorption for recycled
a g g r e g a t e concretes and conventional concretes made
w i t h d i f f e r e n t w a t e r - c e m e n t ratios, f r o m [52]. All recy-
cled a g g r e g a t e concretes w e r e m a d e w i t h recycled
aggregates f r o m an original Concrete w h i c h w a s produ-
ced w i t h a w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0.55.
conventional control concretes with results showing a
large scatter.
Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52] compared water
absorption of recycled aggregate concretes made with
different water-cement ratios and with coarse recycled
aggregate and beach sand to water absorption of corres-
ponding control concretes made with the same water-
cement ratios but made entirely with conventional aggre-
gate. The old concrete from which the coarse recycled
aggregates were derived had a compressive strength of
approximately 23 MPa. It may be inferred from the results
which are presented by Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52]
that a concrete compressive strength of 23 MPa corres-
ponds to a water-cement ratio of approximately 0.55 when
concrete is produced with natural materials from Saudi
Arabia. 30-minute water absorption was measured accor-
ding to British Standard Methods of Testing Hardened
Concrete for Other than Strength, BS 1881 - Part V.
It may be inferred from figure 9.1 that there will be no
significant difference between the water absorption (and
thus presumably permeability) of recycled aggregate
concretes and corresponding control concretes made with
conventional aggregate when such concretes are produced
with water-cement ratios higher (and therefore lower
compressive strengths) than that of the original concrete
from which the recycled aggregate is derived.
However, the situation is different when recycled aggre-
gate concretes and corresponding control concretes are
produced with water-cement ratios lower (and therefore
compressive strengths .higher) than that of the original
concrete from which the recycled aggregate is derived.
In such cases, water absorption (and thus presumably
permeability) of recycled aggregate concretes may be up
37-RDC State of the art report
to three times that of corresponding conventional concre-
tes. This is not surprising when considering that such
recycled aggregate concretes contain a large volume frac-
tion of more porous coarse recycled aggregate which is
distributed in a relatively dense matrix, while control
concretes contain original coarse and comparatively dense
natural aggregate a similar and relatively dense matrix.
In the particular case which was studied by
Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52], it appears that the low
strength and correspondingly high water absorption (and
thus presumably the high permeability) of the recycled
coarse aggregate could be compensated for by producing
recycled aggregate concretes with 0.05 to 0.10 lower
water-cement ratios than conventional concretes. If the
original concrete had been produced with a lower water-
cement ratio and thus a higher strength, it is evident that
less of a decrease in water-cement ratios of recycled
aggregate concretes would have been required to achieve
equal water absorption in recycled aggregate concretes
and corresponding control concretes.
It may well be that in situations where recycled aggre-
gate concretes and concretes made with conventiol~al
aggregates are made to have equal strength, they may have
equal permeability. However, this remains to be shown.
9.2. F r o s t r e s i s t a n c e
Malhotra [29] and Buck [26] compared frost resistance
of original and recycled aggregate concretes, which were
produced with a variety of water-cement ratios. Their
results were reviewed in some detail by Nixon [5]. Neither
of the two authors found the freeze-thaw resistance of
recycled aggregate concrete to be significantly lower than
that of corresponding control concretes, and in many cases
it was higher. Coquillat [38] arrived at essentially the same
conclusion.
McCarthy and MacCreery [67] report that freezing and
thawing tests were made on recycled aggregate concretes
following the provisions of ASTM C-666. Water-soaked
beams were frozen in air and thawed in water through
3000 cycles. Both elongation and sonic modulus were
used to evaluate changes in concrete. Although no details
are given, it is reported that test results showed recycled
aggregate concrete to have very high durability.
Strand [68] reports results of tests on concrete speci-
mens cast with coarse recycled aggregate and natural
sand which indicate that recycled aggregate concrete is as
durable as concrete made with virgin aggregates. Many
of the recycled mixes tested exhibited better durability
than concrete made with virgin materials.
Hendriks [64] reports no significant difference in frost
resistance of cores drilled from two concrete pavements
near Helmond in the Netherlands. One pavement was
made with conventional concrete and the other from recy-
cled aggregate concrete.
BCSJ [12] found that air-entrained recycled aggregate
concrete made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural
sand had almost the same resistance towards freezing and
thawing as corresponding original concretes. However,
when both coarse and fine recycled aggregates were used,
the freeze-thaw resistance of recycled aggregate concretes
was much reduced.
Hasaba et aL [16] found the freeze-thaw resistance
of air-entrained concretes made with recycled concrete
227
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
100
~>-" 80 x aggregate
~_~ x -"
.J< 70
t~ ._/
e,- ,,,
60
0 60 120 180 2/,0
NUMBER OF FREEZING AND
THAWING CYCLES
aggregates always to be inferior to that of control concre-
tes made with natural sand and gravel. This was true
whether recycled aggregate concretes were made with
coarse recycled aggregates and natural sand or with both
coarse and recycled aggregates, see figure 9.2. But recy-
cled concretes made with both fine and coarse recycled
aggregates deteriorated much faster than recycled concre-
tes made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand.
By visual inspection, Hasaba et al.' [16] observed that it
was the cement mortar adhering to the original aggregate
particles in the recycled aggregates which deteriorated due
to freezing and thawing.
Kawamura et al. [15] also found somewhat lower frost
resistance for air-entrained recycled concretes than for
air-entrained control concretes made with natural aggre-
gates. Moreover, it was found that the frost resistance from
recycled aggregate concretes was lower when a recycled
aggregate from comparatively low quality structural
concrete was used than when higher quality recycled
aggregate from a pavement was used.
While American, French, and Dutch results on frost
resistance of recycled aggregate concrete are encouraging,
Japanese results are less conclusive. It is recommended
that more research should be carried out to clarify under
what circumstances recycled aggregate may be regarded
as frost resistant and under what circumstances there may
be problems. The difference between Japanese and Ameri-
can results may be due to the fact that the Japanese
results in general were obtained on recycled aggregate
concretes made of fairly low quality original concretes,
while original concretes in American experiments were
high strength pavement grade concretes.
At the time when this report was written, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation [7h] was involved in an
extensive investigation of the durability of recycled
Portland cement concrete using crushed material from an
actual state highway rehabilitation project. When
published, results from this project should be carefully
studied.
9.3. C a r b o n a t i o n , c h l o r i d e p e n e t r a t i o n
cement corrosion
BCSJ [12] studied the rate and extent of carbonation
of recycled aggregate concrete in air at 20~ and 60%
relative humidity. The air contained 20% carbon dioxide.
It was found that the rate of carbonation of a recycled
aggregate concrete made with recycled aggregate from
228
X OISINTEfiRATION
: '"
"~l~S-~l'~-" ..... 1,,~ aod
-- n a t u r a l g r a v e l
Natural sand and
N S - L 9 ..........yc~.d
_" Cs --
Fine and
Cg _--graetceysc l e d
coarse
aggre-
300 Fig. 9.2. - - Frost resistance of air-entrained concretes
made w i t h 300 k g / m 3 c e m e n t and natural as well as
recycled aggregates, from [16].
concrete which had already suffered carbonation was 65%
higher than that of a control concrete made with conven-
tional aggregate. Rust was observed after two months on
reinforcement bars with 2-3 cm of cover.
BCSJ [12] concluded that reinforcement in recycled
aggregate concrete may corrode faster than reinforcement
in conventional concrete. However, such increased risk of
corrosion can be offset by producing recycled concrete
with a lower water-cement ratio than conventional
concrete.
These conclusions are supported by Rasheeduzafar and
Khan [52] who monitored corrosion of 25 mm reinforce-
ment bars cast into 305 by 203 by 38 mm concrete slabs
subjected to 40 ponding and drying cycles. Each cycle
consisted of two days' ponding with 5% sodium chloride
solution followed by four days of drying. Reinforcement
bar corrosion was monitored using a copper-copper sul-
fate half cell according to ASTM C-876, "Test for Half
Cell Potentials of Reinforcing Steel in Concretes". Two
recycled aggregate concretes w i t h water-cement ratios of
0.55 and 0.40 and two corresponding control concretes
were tested. It will be seen from figure 9.3 that for the
same water-cement ratio, reinforcement bars corroded
slightly more in recycled aggregate concretes than in cor-
responding control concretes. However, it will also be
seen from figure 9.3 that such increased corrosion can be
compensated for by producing recycled aggregate concre-
tes with slightly lower water-cement ratios than concretes
made with conventional aggregates.
BCSJ [12] concluded that carbonation rates were 1.2 to
2 times higher than those of control mixes when recycled
aggregate concretes were produced with recycled aggre-
gate from original concrete made with blast furnace slag
as original aggregate, or when recycled aggregates were
contaminated with lime plaster or wood particles.
Risk of reinforcement corrosion in recycled aggregate
concrete made with chloride contaminated concrete was
dealt with in Section 7.7.5. The rate of penetration of
chlorides into recycled aggregate concrete has not been
studied.
and reinfor-
9.4, Alkali-aggregate reactions
No studies have been reported in the literature to clarify
the effects of producing concrete with recycled aggregates
from old concrete which has deteriorated due to alkali-
aggregate reactions. It is recommended that such research
should be carried out.

In a personal communication Ray [69] reported that the
Portland Cement Association (US) is in the process of
conducting some research on this subject over a fairly
long period of time in order to assist highway officials in
the State of Wyoming in deciding whether or not to recycle
pavements suffering from alkali-aggregate reactions. When
published, results from this project should be carefully
studied.
10. P R O P E R T I E S AND MIX DESIGN OF
RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE
10.1, Water r e q u i r e m e n t and workability
Rasheeduzzafar and Khan [52] found the workability of
recycled aggregate concretes made with coarse recycled
aggregate and beach sands to be somewhat improved
compared with the workability of corresponding original
concretes made with crushed limestone coarse aggregate
and beach sands. However, substitution of fine, poorly
graded beach sand by well graded, fine recycled aggregate
markedly reduced workability.
Mukai et al. [36] found that recycled concretes produ-
ced with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sands
required approximately 10 I/m 3 or 5% more free water than
control concretes produced with corresponding natural
aggregate in order to achieve the same slump. Approxima-
tely 25 I/m 3 or 15% morefree water was required when
both fine and coarse recycled aggregates were used. Simi-
lar results were found by Buck [26], Frondistou-Yannas
[32], Malhotra [29], Hansen and Narud [13], and by
Ravindrarajah and Tam [65].
H. Lambotte and C. de Pauw [39] found addition of
finely ground gypsum to reduce the slump of recycled
aggregate concretes compared to control mixes.
Kasai [66] reported the results of experiments which
show that the fineness modulus of recycled concrete
aggregates gradually decreases with the time of mixing in
the concrete mixer. This is probably due to some of the
0"60
m,l
t/3
0"50
,J,y" ...>.11_
0"40
,'7'
0
> 0"30
hZ
iI
/J
jJ
_J
0"20
I--
Z
t,l
0 "I0
t i
0
0 5 10 15
Fig. 9.3. - - Half cell potentials of steel bars embedded in specimens made from recycled aggregate concrete and concrete
made from conventional aggregates, from [52].
37-RDC State of the art report
old mortar being rubbed off the recycled aggregate parti-
cles. Thus, it is to be expected that the content of fines in
fresh recycled aggregate concrete mixes will increase and
that the slump of the fresh concrete therefore will decrease
with the time of mixing in the concrete mixer.
Concrete mixes which are made exclusively with coarse
and fine recycled aggregates tend to be very harsh and
not suitable for placing with a slipform paving machine.
This can be corrected by adding up to 25% natural sand.
But mixes containing coarse recycled aggregate and natu-
ral sand produce the most desirable characteristics [7 f].
FRESH
10.2, Free w a t e r - c e m e n t ratio
In an extensive series of investigations, Mukai et aL [37]
found excellent straight-line relationships to exist between
the ratio of cement to free water and compressive as well
as tensile strength of recycled aggregate concretes made
with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand, as well
as with coarse and fine recycled aggregate, see figure
10.1.
It may be concluded that the basic water-cement ratio
rule, which is fundamental to all concrete mix design,
applies without modification to all types of recycled
concretes. Only the level of strength may in some cases
be lower for recycled aggregate concrete than for conven-
tional concrete.
10.3, C e m e n t c o n t e n t
Assuming, according to the findings in Section 8.1, that
the compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete
made with coarse recycled aggregate and natural sand at
best is equivalent to the compressive strength of a similar
concrete made with corresponding conventional aggregate
and the same free water-cement ratio; further, assuming
that 5% more water is required to achieve the same slump;
it may be concluded that recycled aggregate concretes
require at least 5% extra cement and probably more when
produced with coarse recycled aggregate in order to obtain
the same strength as corresponding conventional concre-
tes.
W/C = 0"55
--~-- W/C=0-55
// w/c=o-4o
.-" T / :o.4o
..,'2"
i///
//
-
~ -- --
Conventiono[ Concrete
------ Recycled Aggregofe Concrete
i i I I I
20 25 30 35 ~0
CYCLES OF PONDING AND DRYING
229
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat6riaux et Constructions

I
f
Q_ I
;E

_z , , ~ . ~ t / j
z 30 r -~ /

cu I /
nr" .

~_ 29 ..~--"
0 oJ

9 O Ng-Ns = Natural gravel and

natural sand
-- • - - -- CG- N$ = Recycled aggre-
D gate and natural sand
~3 - - ~ CQ-Cs = Coarse and fine
recycled aggregates

10 I
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2-2
CEMENT -WATER RATIO, c/w
Fig. 10,1. -- Relationship between cement-water ratio and compressive strength of concretes made with natural and
recycled aggregates, f r o m [37].

Under similar assumptions at least 15% more cement uneconomical in terms of cement consumption to use fine
would be required if new concrete is produced with both recycled aggregate in concrete production.
coarse and fine recycled aggregate. However, in reality
much more than 15% extra cement may be required to 10.4. Density and air c o n t e n t
maintain the same compressive strength when both coarse Mukai et aL [4] found that the natural air contents of
and fine recycled aggregates are used as for a correspon- fresh recycled aggregate concretes were higher and varied
ding conventional concrete which is made with natural more than natural air contents of fresh control mixes made
aggregates. This is because fine recycled aggregate in with conventional aggregate. Densities of fresh recycled
itself is known to lower concrete strength by up to 50%. aggregate concretes varied from 2,020 to 2,210 kg/m 3,
Thus, it may be concluded that recycled aggregate which was between 85 and 95% of control mixes.
concrete made with recycled aggregates always requires On the basis of systematic investigations, the results of
more cement than conventional concrete for equivalent which are reported in table X.1, Hansen and Narud [13]
strength and slump. It may also be concluded that it is concluded that natural air contents of recycled aggregate
concretes may be up to 0.6% higher than natural air
contents of fresh control mixes made with conventional
TABLE X.1 aggregate. Densities of fresh recycled aggregate concretes
varied from 2,200 to 2,250 kg/m 3, which is more than
DENSITY AND AIR CONTENT OF FRESH ORIGINAL AND RECYCLEDAGGREGATE
95% of control mixes.
CONCRETES. SYMBOLS H, M, AND L INDICATE ORIGINAL HIGH-STRENGTH
( w / c : 0.40), MEDIUM-STRENGTH (w/c=O.70), AND LOW-STRENGTH In an additional series of experiments Hedegaard [17]
CONCRETES (W/C= 1.20) MADE WITH NATURAL SAND AND GRAVEL. found no significant difference in entrained air contents
SYMBOL H/M INDICATESA HIGH-STRENGTH, RECYCLED CONCRETE MADE between control concretes and recycled aggregate concre-
WITH COARSE RECYCLED AGGREGATE PRODUCED FROM MEDIUM- tes made with coarse recycled aggregate from an original
STRENGTH CONCRETE, ETC. (INFORMATION ADDITIONAL TO [ 1 3 ] ) . concrete with 6.5% entrained air.
It is concluded that the natural air content of recycled
aggregate concrete may be slightly higher than that of
Type
Density
kg/m 3
Air Content
%
control concretes made with conventional aggregate. The
density of recycled aggegate concretes is always lower
H 2360 1.3 than that of control mixes. Reduction in density may vary
H/H 2250 1.5
B/M 2250 1.6 from less than 5% to more than 15%. How much the
HIL 2250 1.9 natural air content is increased and how much density is
decreased in any particular case depends on mix design
M 2350 1.1
MIH 2250 0.9
and efficiency of compaction. But it is certainly possible
2250 1.2 to produce recycled aggregate concrete in the laboratory
M/L 2240 1.6
with no significant increase in air content and less than
5% lower density, compared with control mixes.
L 2290 1.9
L/H 2210 1.5 Kreijger [63] found linear relations to exist between
2200 2.2
L/L 2200 2.2 compressive strength and density of recycled aggregate
concretes as shown in figure 1 0.2.

230

10.5. Ratio of f i n e t o coarse a g g r e g a t e
From the point of view of both economy and cohesion
of fresh concrete, BCSJ [12] found the optimum ratio of
fine to coarse aggregate to be approximately the same for
recycled aggregate concrete as for conventional concrete.
10.6. M i x d e s i g n of recycled a g g r e g a t e c o n c r e t e
mixes
In principle, mix design of recycled aggregate concrete
is no different from mix design of conventional concrete,
and the same mix design methods can be used. In practice
slight modifications are required.
Assuming for example that one were to use the DOE-
method [40], which is widely used in the UK, to design
of recycled aggregate concrete mixes. In that case the
following modifications would be necessary.
(1) In order to determine a target mean strength on the
basis of a required characteristic strength, a higher stan-
dard deviation must be employed when designing a recy-
cled aggregate concrete made with recycled aggregates of
variable quality than when recycled aggregate of uniform
quality or conventional aggregate is used.
(2) At the design stage, it may be assumed that the free
water-cement ratio for a required compressive strength
will be the same for recycled aggregate concrete as for a
conventional concrete when coarse recycled aggregate is
used with natural sand. If subsequent trial mixes show
that the compressive strength is lower than assumed, an
adjustment of the water-cement ratio must be made.
(3) It can be assumed that for the same slump, the free
water requirement of recycled coarse aggregate concrete
is 10 I/m 3 higher than for conventional concrete.
(4) A maximum recycled aggregate size of 16-19 mm
may be required for reasons of frost resistance.
(5) Because of higher free water requirements of recy-
cled concrete mixes, the calculated cement contents will
be somewhat higher for recycled aggregate concretes than
the cement contents for corresponding conventional
concretes.
(6) Mix design must be based on the measured density
of recycled aggregate at hand.
(7) When estimating the ratio of fine to coarse aggre-
gate, it can be assumed that the optimum grading of
8O
:E
~.00 kg cement/m 3
z. 60 / , i cr27
tj
~,0 320 kg ce'ment/m3 . ~
180 kg cement/m 3
+~ : .-ok7
0 production of recycled aggregate concrete, fine recycled
1L~O 1600 1800 2000 2200
DENSITY OF HARDENEDCONCRETE,iN kg/m3
Fig. 10.2. - - Compressive strength as a function of density
of hardened concrete [63].
37-RDC State of the art report
recycled aggregate is the same as for conventional aggre-
gate.
(8) It is imperative that trial mixes should be made in
order to adjust the free water content necessary to obtain
the required slump, the water-cement ratio necessary to
obtain the required strength, and the ratio between fine
and coarse aggregate necessary to achieve the best eco-
nomy and cohesion of the fresh mix. Larger deviations
from values estimated according to the DOE-method can
be expected for recycled aggregate concretes than for
conventional concretes, but in the author's experience, it
is nevertheless possible and convenient to use the DOE-
method for design of recycled aggregate concrete mixes.
11. P R O D U C T I O N OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE
CONCRETE
Practical experience [7] has shown that recycled aggre-
gate concrete is as easy to batch, mix, transport, place,
compact, and finish as conventional concrete. Howeve3,
because of the relatively high water absorption of recycled
aggregate, it is recommended to batch recycled aggregates
in a presoaked state and as close to a saturated surface
dry condition as possible.
For technical as well as economical reasons it is recom-
mended to produce recycled aggregate concrete with
coarse recycled aggregate down to no less than 2 mm and
a fine natural sand. Use of crushed concrete fines below
2 mm has a detrimental effect on economy as well as on
many technical properties of concrete.
Mukai et aL [4] and Hansen and Narud [13] found
bleeding of recycled aggregate concretes to be slightly
less than that of control mixes, probably due to the fact
that some of the old mortar rubs off recycled aggregates
during mixing and creates a slight excess of fines in the
mix.
When coarse recycled aggregate was used with natural
sand, Mukai et al. [4] found little difference between
the compressive strength of recycled aggregate concretes
which had been low-pressure steam-cured at elevated
temperatures and strength of conventional control concre-
tes which had been cured in the same way. When both
coarse and fine recycled aggregates were used, concrete
compressive strengths were greatly reduced compared to
controls.
No information on the susceptibility of fresh recycled
aggregate concrete to plastic shrinkage cracking was
if O'k,Z8 found in the literature reviewed.
I 12. U S E O F C R U S H E D C O N C R E T E F I N E S FOR
Ok28 OTHER PURPOSES THAN PRODUCTION OF NEW
I
CONCRETE
(7k7
It has been shown in this report that the use of fine
recycled aggregate below 2 mm has a detrimental effect
on economy as well as on many technical properties of
recycled aggregate concrete. From the point of view of
2t~ 2(:~ aggregate below 2 mm should be wasted. For this reason
it has been studied whether crushed concrete fines can be
used for other purposes than production of new concrete.
Hansen and Narud [41] have shown that any unhydra-
ted cement which may remain in crusher fines below 2
231
Vol. 19 - N ~ 111 - Mat6riaux et Constructions
mm is so diluted that the fines have virtually no hydraulic
properties.
Unpublished results obtained by the author show that
when crusher fines below 0.5 mm which may contain up
to 65% of old cement paste are mixed with water, the
paste will set slightly, but that it will not harden even
.when cured at 50~ for prolonged periods of time. Howe-
ver, when such fines are mixed with water and left to dry
in the laboratory, the product will gradually harden much
like a weak lime mortar. Such hardening is probably due
t o formation of calcium carbonate when calcium hydroxide
in the fines reacts with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Han-
sen and Narud [41] found that crusher fines below 4 mm
may contain up to 4% of calcium hydroxide.
Hansen and Narud [41] also found that calcium hydro-
xide in fine crushed concrete, which is formed by hydration
of original cement in old concrete, by autoclaving can be
brought to react with mineral particles in the fines or
with pulverized fuel ash or condensed silica fume to yield
reaction products of a certain strength, similar to what is
the case in the production of calcium silicate bricks, see
table XlL1.
TABLE XlI.1
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS OF PRODUCTS MADE WITH CRUSHED CONCRETE
FINES.FROM[41] AND [42].
I
Material
Compresss Strength, in MPa (psi) after Curing
28 days at 20~ C 28 days at 40~ C
autoclave ac 8 Arm
!Crusher Dust
!only 0 (01 0 (0)
L asphaltic concrete shall be removed before the Portland
Fly Ash only 0.I (14) 1.3 (188)
Crusher Dust
4.2 (609) 9.7 (1406)
- Fly ASh
Cr~mher DUSt
§ Silica Fume
Hansen and Angelo [80] showed that when crusher
fines below 2 mm are blended into a plastic and wet clay,
the soil is modified and somewhat improved beyond what
can be explained by the pure mechanical effect of blending
the fine-grained clay with the coarser grained crusher
fines. Such improvement is probably due to calcium hydro-
xide from the crusher fines reacting with the clay minerals
t o form clots. However, the improvement is so slight that
it is not considered to be of any practical value.
Other possible uses, for which crushed concrete fines
have been suggested, include trickling filters for waste
water treatment, poultry grits, acid soil or waste water
neutralization, substitution for ground limestone in SO2-
scrubber filters in coal burning power plants, for stabiliza-
tion of sewage sludge, or as a source of available silica in
highly leached lateritic soils. However, it should be kept
in mind that the concentration of calcium hydroxide in
crusher fines from old concrete is very small, 4 weight
percent at the most. Because of the low concentration of
calcium hydroxide, use of crusher fines may be unecono-
mical, even if it can be shown that beneficial effects do
indeed exist.
232
Hansen [88] found that crushed concrete fines may be
used as cat litter due to its liquid absorption capacity and
a deodorizing effect of the calcium hydroxide.
13. CODES, STANDARDS, A N D TESTING METHOD
FOR RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE
13.1. United States
Since 1982, ASTM "Standard Specification for Concrete
Aggregates", C33-82, Paragraph 8.1, defines coarse
aggregate as including crushed hydraulic-cement
concrete, and ASTM C125-79 a "Standard Definitions of
Terms Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates'"
defines manufactured sand as including hydraulic-cement
concrete. Similarly, the US Army Corps of Engineers has
changed its specifications and guides to encourage the
use of recycled concrete as aggregate (Buck [43]). Thus
it may be concluded that there are no longer any national
barriers to the use of recycled Portland cement concrete
as concrete aggregate in the United States, and that the"
US is on the path to acceptance of recycled aggregate
concrete pavement as a standard aggregate and routine,
rather than requiring special testing of it as aggregate.
Some state highway departements in the United States
have developed their own specifications for recycled
aggregate concrete in pavements. More specifically, Iowa
Department of Transportation [7 f] requires:
(1) The existing pavement to be crushed and used as
24 hours in
aggregate must be thoroughly evaluated by the contracting
agency.
9. 2 (1348) (2) Where asphaltic concrete resurfacing is present, the
cement concrete is removed. However, isolated areas of
adhering asphaltic concrete up to one inch in thickness is
12.5 (1812)
considered acceptable.
(3) During removal of the existing Portland cement
pavement, care must be taken to assure minimum contami-
24.4 (3538)
nation of the salvaged concrete with underlying sub-base
material or soil.
(4) Processing equipment shall include a means by
which excessive fines can be controlled so that the maxi-
mum material passing the ASTM No. 200 sieve in the total
product does not exceed 5%. Washing the finished product
is not normally considered necessary.
(5) Reinforcing steel, if any, removed from existing
pavement shall become the property of the contractor and
shall be disposed of off the project.
(6) Crushed concrete in the processed form may be
suitable for use without the addition of virgin fines; howe-
ver, finishing and workability will generally be enhanced
by adding natural fine aggregate in amounts of approxima-
tely 25%.
(7) Normal procedure is to proportion the mix so that
coarse and fine crushed concrete may be consumed in the
same ratio that they are produced; however, it may be
necessary to add a certain amount of natural fine aggregate
t o produce acceptable workability.
(8) Freeze-thaw durability of recycled concrete should
be evaluated in accordance with ASTM C-666, Method
B, modified to provide a 90-day moisture period. Durability
factors from ASTM C-666, Method B, as modified, are
considered acceptable if they are 80 or above.
 37-RDC State of the art report

TABLE XlII.1 13.2, Japan

QUALITY REQUIREMENTS TO RECYCLED AGGREGATES ACCORDING TO
The Building Contractors' Society of Japan has issued
JAPANESE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE USE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE
AND RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE, FROM [6].
a proposed "Standard for the Use of Recycled Aggregate
and Recycled Aggregate Concrete" [6].
Test Item R e c y c l e d Coarse R e c y c l e d Fine The proposed standard introduces and defines the terms:
Aggregate Aggregate
original concrete, recycled aggregates, and recycled aggre-
I Oven-Dry specific Not less than Not less than gate concrete as explained in Chapter 4 of this report.
Gravity 2200 kg/m 3 2000 kg/m 3
Although much of the Japanese standard is no different
from what can be found in codes and standards for
Percentage of
Water A b s o r p t i o n
N o t more than 7% N o t more than 13%
conventional concretes in other countries, there are a num-
ber of requirements which are specific to recycled aggre-
Lost Substances in
N o t more than I% Not more than 8%
gates. Some of the more interesting are mentioned below:
W a s h i n g Test
(a) Original concrete shall be sound, hard normal-
Percentage of
weight concrete.
Not less than 53%
S o l i d Volume (b) As a rule, concrete of distinctly different qualities
shall be used separately.
(c) Finishing materials, reinforcements, dirt on original
TABLE Xlll.2
concrete shall be removed the best they can.
ALLOWABLE AMOUNTS OF INJURIOUS IMPURITIES ACCORDING TO THE JAPA-
(d) Oven-dry specific gravity, percentage of water
NESE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE USE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE AND
RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE FROM [6]. absorption, lost substances in a washing test, and percen-
tage of solid volume of recycled aggregates shall conform
Type of Aggregate Impurity ~ Impurity II
to qualities given in table Xlll.1.
(e) Recycled aggregates shall not contain injurious
Recycled Coarse 10 kg/m 3 2 kg/m 3
amounts of foreign matter which may adversely affect
recycled aggregate concrete and steel used therein. Allow-
Recycled Fine I0 k g / m 3 2 kg/m 3
able amounts of injurious impurities are shown in table
XIII.2.
TABLE XlII.3 Impurities are classified in two groups:
TYPE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE AND MAXIMUM VALUES OF I. Gypsum plaster, shikkui (Japanese plaster), and other
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, FROM [6]. plaster material, clay lumps < 1,950 kg/m 3.
I1. Asphalt, plastics, paint, cloth, paper, wood having a
Type of Aggregate
MaXimum Allowable Value o f density less than 1200 kg/m 3, and similar material particles
Type o f Compressive Strength
Recycled which can be retained on a 1.2 mm sieve.
Aggregate Specified Proportioning
Concrete
Coarse
Aggregate
Fine
Aggregate Design Strength Injurious impurities can be determined in accordance
Strength
with a proposed standard test method, which is based on
I
Recycled Conventional t80 300 (2) visual inspection or separation in two heavy liquids at
aggregate (|) aggregate
densities of 1,200 and 1,950 kg/m 3. It is interesting that
ReCycled Mixture of this is the only testing method found in any country which
aggregate ([) conventional
aggregate and 150 270 (2)
has been specifically developed for recycled concrete
recycled aggregates.
aggregate
(f) Recycled aggregate concrete shall be classified
IIl
Recycled Recycled 120 240 (2) according to types of aggregate used, as shown in table
aggregate (i) aggregate
XlII.3.
Note: (I) Including that mixed with normal weight aggregate (g) Specified design strength of recycled aggregate
(2) Provided the cement content will not become excessive, larger
values may be used, for example if the slump is reduced.
concrete shall be determined according to the type of
recycled aggregate concrete and shall be below the maxi-
mum value given in tabie XlII.3.
TABLE XlII.4 (h) Table XIII.4 lists typical uses for which recycled
SUGGESTED USES OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE ACCORDING TO THE aggregate concretes are considered suitable.
JAPANESE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE USE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE (i) An air-entraining agent or an air-entraining and
AND RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE, FROM [6]. water-reducing admixture shall be incorporated into any
fresh recycled aggregate concrete mix. The air content of
Type of recycled aggregate concrete shalt always be between 3
Recycled
Aggregate
Principal Object o f Usage and 6%.
Concrete
(/) Required slump of recycled aggregate concrete shall
Low-rise buildings in general, low-rise apartment
buildings, single family houses, single storey com-
not exceed 21 cm.
mercial buildings, heavy foundations, etc. (k) Water-cement ratio shall not exceed 0.70.
Fou~datLons for precast concrete block construction,
(/) Cement content shall not be less than 250 kg/m 3.
non-residential light construction, machinery
foundation, etc.
(m) The smallest possible water content and ratio
between fine and coarse aggregate content shall be used
Foundations for wooden buildings, gates, fences, which will produce a concrete with the required slump
simple machinery foundations, slabs on grade, etc.
and having proper cohesion.

233
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions

TABLE Xlll.5 (3) The producer of recycled concrete aggregate must

REQUIRED GRADING FOR RECYCLED AGGREGATES ACCORDING TO THE record the origin of the material. The record must include
DUTCH PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE USE OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE information on location and type of the demolished struc-
AND RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE [11]. ture.
(4) In order to arrive at a better understanding of the
Size
Fraction
Percent retained on sieve (mm)
composition, specimens of the rubble must be screened
in mm of
Recycled > 31.5
on the 8 mm sieve. For what concerns the fraction above
)' 16 > 8 9 4 9 2 > i > 250~ 9 63~
Aggregate 8 mm, the weight percentages of the following consti-
O- 4 O- 10 25- 31 50-62 80-87 96-100
tuents must be determined by visual analysis and
weighing:
4-16 0- 5 55-57 85-100 95-100 99-200 - - concretes made with natural aggregate;
- - lightweight aggregate concretes and aerated concre-
4-31.5 0-5 32-44 70-75 90-I00 99-100
tes, or both;
- - clay bricks;
TABLE Xlll.6 - - sand-lime bricks ;
- - lime mortar or cement mortar;
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONTENTS OF WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDES ( C I ' ) IN
- - ceramic products;
RECYCLED AGGREGATES ACCORDING TO [1 lJ.
- - natural stones;
- - glass;
Fraction Unreinforced Reinforced Pre-stressed - - rubber;
~m Concrete Concrete Concrete
- - wood ;
0-4 0, i% 0.015% - - synthetic materials;
- - asphalt;
> 4 0,05% 0,007% - - other materials.
The composition of the fraction above the 8 mm sieve
is considered to be representative of the composition of
the entire mass of aggregate.
1 3 . 3 T h e N e t h e r l a n d s

(5) The following requirements apply for grain size

A proposed Dutch product standard for recycled distribution of the aggregates (table XlII.7).
concrete as aggregate for production of plain, reinforced, (6) The amount of soft and friable material which is
and prestressed concrete has been developed by CUR ground to powder by hand as determined by the method
[11]. These standard specifications apply if more than 20 given in the Dutch standard specification for sand and
percent by weight of total coarse or fine aggregate consists gravel, NEN 3542, should not exceed 0.1 weight percent
of recycled concrete aggregate. If less than 20% by weight of the dried material.
of coarse or fine aggregates consist of recycled concrete
(7) The amount of organic materials in fine recycled
and the remaining part consists of natural sand and gravel
aggregates must be such that the addition of sodium
or crushed natural materials, the total aggregate is consi-
hydroxide, in accordance with the method described in
dered to be natural aggregate and the standard specifica-
NEN 3542, does not give rise to a darker color than the
tions do not apply. The following main points are of
standard color given in the above-mentioned standard,
interest:
unless it can be shown that the impurity which gives rise
(1) Definitions. to the color is harmless (see Item [14]).
(a) Concrete rubble is defined as demolition waste (8) The weight percent of water-soluble chlorides in
which is derived from hydraulic-cement concrete, reinfor- recycled aggregates as determined according to the
ced or otherwise, and which has a dry density of not less method presented in NEN 3542 should not exceed the
than 2,100 kg/m 3. values given in table XlII.6.
(b) Stony materials are defined as: (9) The content of calcium carbonate in recycled aggre-
- - concrete made with natural gravel ; gate as determined according to the method presented in
- - brick; NEN 3542 should not exceed 25% by weight of the 0-4
- - sand-lime brick ; mm fraction and 10% by weight of the fraction above 4
- - lightweight concrete; mm.
- - aerated concrete; (10) The content of sulfate in recycled aggregates, as
- - c e r a m i c materials (such as roof tiles, tiles, pottery, determined according to the method presented in NEN
and sewage ware) ; 3542, should not exceed 1 weight percent of particles
- - glass; dried'at 98oC.
- - natural stone;
(11) For some applications, such as exposed concrete
- - masonry mortar (excluding plaster or plaster-contai-
surfaces, recycled aggregates must be free from consti-
ning mortars).
tuents which are objectionable from an aesthetic point of
(2) Composition view (for example asphalt, water-soluble iron or vanadium
By definition, concrete rubble should contain at least compounds).
95 weight percent of concrete. The remaining 5 weight (12) The content of wood and other matter of organic
percent may consist of other stony materials such as natu- origin in recycled aggregates, as determined according to
ral stone, lightweight concrete, ceramic materials, bricks or DIN 4226 (Test for Lightweight Particles), should not
mortar and a maximum of 1 weight percent of bituminous exceed 0.5% by weight of the 0-4 mm fraction and 0.1%
material. by weight of the fraction above 4 ram.

234

TABLE XlII.7
Size
fraction
(mm) 31.5 mm 16 mm 8 mm
0-4.
4-16. 0-5 57-67
4-31.5. 0-5 32-44 70-75
(13) Certain requirements and limit values are introdu-
ced concerning dimensional stability, retardation, staining,
cubicity, and frost resistance of recycled concrete aggrega-
tes.
(14) On the basis of information on the origin of the
demolition rubble and the visual analysis, it must be
determined whether there are impurities in the rubble
which may give rise to internal expansion of the concrete
(for example particles of calcium or magnesium oxide, as
determined by the autoclave method for detection of lime
instability (as 1047), iron instability ( a s 1047) or alkali-
reactive materials (ASTM C-586, C-295, C-289, and
C-227).
(1 5) If the origin, the visual analysis or the result of the
test which is described under Item 7 gives rise to doubt,
a water extraction of the rubble must be made in order to
determine whether the material contains water-soluble or
acid-soluble compounds which could adversely affect set-
ting or hardening of concrete. Adverse effects on setting
time are determined by preparing two sets of cement paste
specimens, one with the extracted water, and one with
distilled water. Any difference in setting time as determi-
ned by the standard Vicat test is assumed to be due to
contaminants in the extracted water. Similarly, the
compressive strength is determined on two sets of speci-
mens made from the same standard mortar, but with
extracted water, respectively distilled water. Differences in
setting time and compressive strength of specimens prepa-
red from extracted water and distilled water should not
exceed 15% for the recycled aggregate to be accepted.
(16) The content of flat pieces in coarse recycled aggre-
gates as determined according to the vibration table test
of the Organization for Applied Scientific Research in the
Netherlands (TNO) should not exceed 30% by weight of
total coarse aggregate.
(17) If the rubble is to be used in asphaltic concrete,
the requirements laid down in 5, 7 to 11, 13, 14, and
15 shall be waived. If used for construction of highway
sub-bases, recycled aggregate must satisfy the require-
ments under 3.8 of the Dutch 1978 Requirements. For use
in base courses or surface layers, the rubble must satisfy
the requirements under 3.7 of the Dutch 1978 Require-
meats.
(18) A proof of origin must be supplied with the rubble.
The certificate must state:
(a) date of dispatch by the supplier;
(b) name of the haulage contractor;
(c) type of aggregate;
(d) size fraction ;
37-RDC State of the art report
Percentages passing sieve size
4 mm 2 mm 1 mm 250 I~m 63 I~m
0-10 25- 31 50-62 80-87 96-100
85-100 95-100 99-100
90-100 99-100
(e) standard requirements which the material is guaran-
teed to satisfy;
(f) location and type of origin.
13.4, U n i t e d K i n g d o m
The new British Standard Guide 6543, "Use of Industrial
By-Products and Waste Materials in Building and Civil
Engineering", covers the use of demolition waste and other
waste materials in both road construction and buildings.
While not up to date in terms of technology, it does
consider crushed concrete to be suitable for a wide range
of sub-base and base course applications. It even goes as
far as approving, in principle, the use of clean concrete
and brick rubble for use as aggregate for concrete subject
to minimum strength requirements. This is a considerable
step forward for recycling in the UK.
13.5. USSR
In 1984, NlIZbh of the USSR Research Institute for
Concrete and Reinforced Concrete published the first Rus-
sian "Recommendations on the Recycling of Sub-Standard
Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Products".
According to the recommendations, coarse recycled
concrete aggregates can be used for:
1, macadam bases for the floors and foundations of
buildings and structures and for asphalt pavements of all
grades,
2, production of 5-15 MPa concrete and reinforced
concrete,
3, for production of up to 20 MPa concrete and reinfor-
ced concrete when mixed with 50 percent conventional
crushed aggregate.
It is recommended that the crushed concrete fines be
used as filler in the production of asphalt concrete. It
is not recommended to use crushed concrete fines for
production of new concrete.
It is not allowed to use recycled concrete aggregates
for production of prestressed concrete due to high
shrinkage and creep as well as low modulus of elasticity.
13.6. Federal Republic of G e r m a n y
In the Federal Republic of Germany it is not allowed to
use recycled concrete aggregate for production of new
concrete. With a density of 2,300 kg/m 3, such aggregates
are too heavy to be classified as lightweight aggregates;
and with a crushing strength of less than 100 MPa, they
are too weak to be classified as natural or crushed aggre-
235
Vol. 19 - N~ 1 1 1 - Mat6riaux et Constructions
gate for production of conventional concrete. At the pre-
sent time permission is required for every single project to
use recycled concrete aggregate for production of new
concrete, but no permissions have yet been granted.
14. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CONCRETE RECY-
CLING
Economic aspects of recycling of concrete have been
analyzed by Frondistou-Yannas ([44], [45], [50]) for
what concerns the United States and by CUR [11] for
what concerns the Netherlands. The following conclusions
can be drawn on the basis of these two studies.
Conditions which are conducive to successful operation
of recycled aggregate plants include:
(1) Abundant and constant supply of demolition rubble.
(2) High dumping costs for demolition rubble.
(3) Easy access for heavy trucks.
(4) Suitable industrial land available, preferably next to
a sanitary land fill.
(5) Inaccessibility or scarcity, and therefore high cost
of good quality natural sand and gravel or crushed stone.
(6) Ready market for products.
Considering these factors, it is not surprising that one
of the largest recycling plants in thee world is located in
West Berlin [54] and that densely populated countries
such as parts of the United States, the Netherlands, Bel-
gium, West Germany, and Japan are among the first to
promote large-scale recycling of demolition waste.
More generally, pavements and runways present very
favorable cases for recycling of concrete because large
quantities of relatively clean concrete rubble are generated
over a short period of time. It is generated within a very
limited area, and transportation along still existing parts
of pavements presents no problem. Moreover, such rubble
can be processed in simple plants (see fig. 6.I) without
washing or elaborate sorting and cleaning.
In almost all practical cases where concrete pavements
or runways have been crushed and recycled, considerable
savings have been achieved compared to the combined
cost of dumping the old concrete and hauling in new base
or sub-base material from pits and quarries or producing
new concrete from conventional aggregate [7]. Obviously,
the largest savings have been achieved where conven-
tional aggregate was locally unavailable, and for that very
reason most of the recycling projects that have been car-
ried out so far have been located in areas with a shortage
of natural aggregates.
However, concrete used in streets and highways typi-
cally accounts for only about 15-20% of total concrete
consumption in industrialized countries ([44], [45]). In
order to operate recycling plants at high capacities, thereby
realizing economics of scale, the large quantities of
concrete rubble generated from the demolition of old buil-
dings, pavements, sidewalks, driveways, curbs, gutterS,
etc. are also required, and it must be processed into aggre-
gate for production of new concrete which can be accep-
ted by the construction industry as an acceptable alterna-
tive to conventional aggregate.
The economy of large-scale recycling in metropolitan
areas of mixed concrete rubble is very much different from
the economy of recycling of pavements and runways. For
one reason it introduces the problem of contamination as
the demolition rubble is mixed with gypsum, wood, plas-
236
tics, and steel [49] which must be removed before the
recycled product can be used for production of new
concrete. Thus, much more elaborate plants are required
to process mixed demolition rubble than clean concrete
from highway pavements. A flow chart illustrating the
design of a plant which is capable of producing concrete
aggregate from mixed demolition debris is shown in figure
6.2.
The macro-economics of plants capable of processing
mixed concrete debris in the United States were studied
by Frondistou-Yannas ([44], [45], [50]).
Frondistou-Yannas found that a prerequisite for the eco-
nomic justification of concrete rubble recycling is the pre-
sence of sufficiently large quantities of concrete debris so
that a recycling plant of optimal size can be operated at
high utilization factors. Accordingly, several researchers
([48], [49]) have assessed the quantities of concrete
debris produced locally in the United States. It has been
found that, on the average, 0.27 tons of concrete rubble
per capita are generated each year in the United States. It
follows that in urban areas with a population greater than
half a million people, the amount of concrete debris gene-
rated annually is of the order of a few hundred thousand
tons. By contrast, a single highway demolition project
produces only a few tens of thousand tons of debris.
On the basis of an economic analysis, Frondistou-
Yannas found that in order to realize economics of scale,
a plant should process at least 110-275 tons of debris per
hour, and in order to produce a reasonable return on
investment, the plant should process and sell no less than
200,000 tons of recycled aggregate per year. This implies
that urban areas of at least one million people are needed
to support the operations of a concrete recycling plant in
the United States. There are no reasons to believe that
this requirement would be substantially different in other
industrialized countries.
Frondistou-Yannas suggests for economical and other
reasons that the most favorable location of a recycling
plant would be at a fixed position near a large city, prefera-
bly next to a sanitary land fill so that trucks that bring in
debris on their way back will carry aggregate. The adjacent
sanitary land fill additionally reduces transportation costs
as concrete contaminants do not have to be transported
to a distant dump. Portable units should be used so that
the plant can be relocated to a different site next to a
new sanitary land fill when the capacity of the old fill is
exhausted. However, recycled concrete aggregate can be
sold only if it compares favorably with its competitor,
natural aggregate.
CUR [11] has analyzed economic aspects of recycling
of concrete in the Netherlands and attempted to make a
comparison between two types of aggregate on the basis
of two concrete members of equal performance, one made
with recycled concrete aggregate and the other with natu-
ral aggregate.
Table XIV.1 shows the main factors adding up to the
total cost of recycled aggregates.
CUR [11] found that:
(1) The extra work on the demolition site which is
required in order to prepare demolition debris for recycling
is equivalent to 25% of the regular demolition costs ($1)o
(2) Dumping charges ($2) depend very much on local
circumstances. In the Netherlands in 1982 they varied
from 3 Dfl (Dutch guilders) to 30 Dfl per cubic meters.
 37-RDC State of the art report

TABLE XlV.1 competitive because crushed natural rock which is

COMPARISON OF COST ELEMENTS IN THE PROCESSING AND HANDLING OF required for road construction is more expensive than
NATURAL AGGREGATES AND RECYCLED AGGREGATES (D.fl.= Dutch natural gravel. In 1982 nearly two million tons of demoli-
Guilders). tion rubble were processed into recycled aggregates and
used for unstabilized road bases in the Netherlands.
Natural Aggregates D.fl. R e - U s e of Rubble Granules D.fl. In order to be competitive for concrete production it
Excavation costs nI Extra treatment of debris sI appears from table 14.2 that in the Netherlands, recycled
at the d e m o l i t i o n site
aggregates would have to sell for at least 5 Dfl a ton or
Production costs (in- n2 Dumping charges (negative) s2 approximately 25% less, instead of currently 50% more
cluding interim storage) for d e m o l i t i o n debris
than natural gravel in order to compete with natural gravel
Bulk transport costs n3 Costs Of transport of de- s3 for concrete production. For comparison, Frondistou-
m o l i t i o n debris to dump
(negative) Yannas found that in the United States recycled aggrega-
Costs of transport to n4 Costs of transport of s4
tes would have to sell for at least 50% less than natural
b u i l d i n g site debris to p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t gravel in order to compete on equal terms with natural
P r o c e s s i n g costs for re- s5 gravel for concrete production. Even at this price an unpre-
cycled aggregate judiced person would be indifferent to natural aggregate
Costs of transport o f re- s6 or recycled aggregate.
cycled aggregate to
b u i l d i n g site However, there are good reasons why a person could be
Extra costs for inspection, s7
prejudiced against recycled aggregate. For one, experience
storage, and sale of re- with it is limited and uncertainties remain concerning the
cycled aggregate
m performance of recycled aggregates in concrete. Secondly,
4 7
extra costs and inconveniences are involved in the use-of
Total ~n
! i
Total ~s i
t
recycled aggregates for concrete production such as for
example costs of presoaking, extra inspection, and costs
Requirement fos recycled aggregate to be competitive p r o v i d e d the of compensating for lower strength and higher creep,
buyer is unbiased: Z s i ~ ~ n i
shrinkage, and elastic deformation of recycled aggregate
concrete. Some of these costs may be offset by lower
TABLE XlV.2 density or better thermal insulation of recycled aggregate
concrete. Even so, the price of recycled aggregates will
COST COMPARISONBETWEENCONCRETI:SMADEWITH NATURALGRAVEL. have to come down from today's level in order for the
RECYCLEDCONCRETEAGGREGATE,BRICKRUBBLE.AND MIXEDCONCRETE material to be competitive with conventional aggregate.
AND BRICKRUBBLEAGGREGATEIN (THE NETHERLANDS,1982).
There are two ways in which this can come about.
(1) No doubt the extra cost of 12 Dfl/ton, which is
i. Natural gravel concrete with 1080 kg of Dfl 23.76/ton
gravel at Dfl 22/ton currently charged in the Netherlands for the processing of
old concrete and building rubble into recycled aggregate,
2. Concrete made with recycled concrete
aggregate can be lowered once the initial developing phase is over.
900 kg of recycled concrete aggregate Dfl 15.30/ton Already in 1982 this would have brought the price of
(4-32 ~ ) at Dfl 17/ton (production
and processing costs) recycled aggregate down to a level where it would have
40 kg of cement at Dfl 125/ton Dfl 5.00/ton been competitive with natural gravel provided the custo-
- Extra costs for inspection, storage, Dfl 12.00/ton mer was unbiased,
and sale) at Dfl 12/ton
(2) Undoubtedly the price of conventional aggregates
Total Dfl 32.30/ton
will continue to rise as raw materials get scarcer and
transportation costs higher. More important, dumping
charges for demolition debris are expected to rise steeply
(3) The extra costs for preparation, processing, inspec- as the quantity of demolition debris and particularly that
tion, storage, and sale of recycled aggregates, $7--12 Dfl, of concrete debris will continue to increase rapidly
which appear in table XIV.1 and later in table XlV.2, are throughout the next decades. Without crushing, concrete
based on an average of estimates made in 1982 by a debris packs very poorly and tends to render sanitary fills
number of Dutch companies actually engaged in commer- unsuitable for future use as building sites.
cial processing and sale of recycled aggregates.
All in all it can be expected that the use of recycled
Table XlV.2 gives the Dutch cost comparison betwen aggregate for concrete production will increase in the
concretes of equal strength, produced with natural gravel future as both the demand for road-base material and the
and recycled concrete aggregate. All costs quoted are price of recycled aggregate is foreseen to decrease in most
based on experiences from real productions in the industrialized countries.
Netherlands, and they are quoted in 1982 prices in Dutch
guilders. Costs of transportation are assumed to be equal
for all four concretes. 15. ENERGY ASPECTS OF CONCRETE RECYCLING
It will be seen from table XIV.2 that when dumping
charges for demolition debris are left out of consideration, Copple [7 e] compared the energy required for produc-
recycled building rubble was not competitive for concrete tion of recycled aggregate concrete with the energy
production in the Netherlands in 1982 as compared to required for production of conventional concrete with vir-
natural gravel. gin aggregate. Energy requirements which are common to
The 1982 market prices which are quoted in table XlV.2 both types of concrete as well as energy requirements
for recycled aggregates apply to rubble aggregates used as which are unique to each type of concrete were conside-
road-base materials. For such purposes rubble aggregate is red.

237
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat6riaux et Constructions

25 lean concrete sub-base for a keel strip at the Jacksonville,

10 MILE HAUL TO
/
/
Florida, International Airport.
The first successful use of recycled aggregate for pro-
duction of new concrete was in Iowa in 1976. A 41-year
old concrete pavement was crushed and used as aggregate
20 DISPO5E OF OLD /
in production of concrete for a new one-mile long and
z
L.U 22.5 cm thick highway pavement.
LU In another project in Iowa in 1978, crushed old concrete
(3-
was used as aggregate for production of a new 17-mile
long and 20 cm thick highway pavement. The mix design
Uq called for 638 kg/m 3 of recycled coarse aggregate, 375
Z
ED kg/m 3 of recycled fine aggregate, 551 kg/m 3 natural fine
LJ
>- aggregate, and 369 kg/m 3 of cement.
In Connecticut in 1980, a 1000-feet long section of a
24-year old reinforced concrete pavement was recycled
z into a new 22.5 cm thick reinforced concrete pavement.
The resulting mix showed flexurat strengths over 3.5 MPa
! .o.o.o CO ETE at 28 days.
N
LL,
5 Also in 1980, the Minnesota Department of Transporta-
Lt.
tion recycled a 16-mile plain concrete pavement into a
new concrete pavement on a trunk highway. The pave:
ment was suffering severe distress from "D"-cracking. Stu-
I I t I dies in the Department laboratories proved that concrete
10 20 30 50 made with the recycled concrete would provide suitable
-HAUL 131STANs FOR VIRGIN durability if the maximum aggregate size was set at 19
AGG~GATES, MILES mm. The use of recycled concrete in the new pavement is
established to have saved the Minnesota Department of
Fig. 1 5 . 1 . - Energy savings (percent) of recycled as c o m - Transportation in excess of USD 600,000.
pared to conventional concrete, from Ref. [7e].
The largest concrete pavement recycling project to date
is the Edens Expressway reconstruction job in Illinois. Here
Energy requirements which are unique to conventional 15 miles of six-lane pavement was recycled and placed
mixes include hauling and disposal of old concrete, pro- as new sub-base material in 1979 and 1980.
duction of virgin aggregates, and hauling of virgin aggre-
gates. Energy requirements which are unique to recycled
aggregate concrete include moving crusher to the job site, TABLE XV.1
crushing and screening of concrete, and transporting old CONCRETE RECYCLING PROJECTS IN THE US IN 1984 AND 1 985,
concrete to crusher and from crusher to plant if machines
are at different sites. State Route Location Length in Quantity in
miles square yards
Results are plotted in figure 15.1. It will be seen that
energy savings are realized for recycled aggregate concre- 1984
tes even when virgin aggregates must be hauled only a
few miles. As haul distances increase, so do savings. wisonsin 1-90/94 Madison S. 31.70 798500.00
Wy~ing 1-80 Evanston 4.50 200000.00
Oregon I-5 N.Albany 7.00 210250.00
M~chigan 1-75 NB Monroe Co. 6.00 211134.00
16. P R A C T I C A L CASE HISTORIES Michigan 1-94 Van 8uren 9.20 402312.00
Michigan 1-75 Wayne Co. 10.00 301977.00
Illinois E%wy 412 Macon CO. 3.34 100220.00
Ray [20] has traced developments in recycling of Mannesota 1-90 Austen Z.50 62196,00
concrete pavements through current demonstration pro- Minnesota 1-90 M.D. line 3.80 122663.00
jects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in North Dakota 1-94 s Eckelston ! 3.10 311634.00

the United States. Projects discussed include highways

and airports. The use of recycled concrete in sub-bases, 1 985

cement-treated sub-bases, lean concrete bases, and

Wyoming 1-80 Green Ri. 5.90 263000.00
concrete pavements is also described.
Wyoming 1-80 Pine Bluff 7.10 315000.00
At Love Field, Dallas, Texas, a new runway was placed North Dakota 1-29 N8 Blanchaard 10.40 84400.00
on a 15 cm cement-treated sub-base in 1964. The mix Michigan 1-94 Kalamzoo 8.66 443976.00

used 72% of crushed concrete from the old pavement on Kansas 1-70 Abilene 9.30 420000.00

the site of the new runway, 28% natural sand, and 4% Kansas 1-235 Wichita 15.50 700000.00
Wyoming 1-80 Rock Springs 9.50
cement by weight.
The first use of recycled concrete in a lean concrete
(Econocrete) sub-base for a new concrete pavement was tn 1983 the Minnesota DOT awarded two adjoining
in California. The lean mix concrete which used a mixture projects on Trunk Highway 15 - - a total of 11 miles.
of recycled concrete and asphalt required 8% cement. The These were also on " D " cracked pavement - - similar to
average 28-day compressive strength was 5 MPa. the 1980 project. The equipment and techniques for these
In 1977 crushed concrete was used as aggregate in a projects corresponded to those used before.

238

Oklahoma became the first state to recycle a full-size
project on the Interstate System. They took alternate bids
on a 7.7-mile, 4-lane project on Interstate-40 east of
Oklahoma City. The base bid called for three layers of
asphalt totaling 8 3/4 inches. The alternate was for remo-
val and recycling of 220,382 square yards of the existing
9-inch plain concrete using the crushed "'D'" cracked pave-
ment as the aggregate in a new 10-inch slab. As in Minne-
sota, the maximum size specified for the coarse aggregate
was 1 inch (90 to 100% passing the 3/4-inch sieve) to
prevent "D'" cracking in the new pavement. This work was
carried out by paving alternate roadways in two 4-mile
sections while traffic used the opposite side.
Michigan also awarded a major Interstate recycling pro-
ject in 1983. 5.7 miles of four-lane divided pavement
(again "D"-cracked 25-year old concrete) was replaced
in less than five months. The bid prices on this project
were so good that Michigan advertised a second project
on Interstate-75. The new 10-inch pavement with tied
shoulders was built one roadway at a time to accommo-
date traffic. (Information on developments in the United
States was received from Gordon K. Ray [20] who also
provided a list of additional pavement recycling projects
in the US in 1984 and 1985, see table XV.1 .)
As a result of these and other pioneering efforts, the
Federal Highway Administration has set up several two
or three-man teams to travel around the United States
contacting state highway departments to encourage them
to recycle old pavements and offering to underwrite part
of the costs involved. Also; as mentioned in Chapter 13,
the ASTM and the US Army Corps of Engineers have
removed all national barriers to the use of recycled
Portland cement concrete as concrete aggregate.
With barriers removed, the many concrete recycling
plants which operate in and around major cities in the
United States are brought into focus. Here old concrete
salvaged from old buildings, pavements, sidewalks or
curbs, and gutters is crushed, stockpiled, and sold to
contractors. Most of this material is used as unstabilized
base or sub-base at the present time, but as concrete
aggregate becomes scarcer and more expensive, its use
may be extended to new concrete. Tests by many agencies
on recycled concrete as aggregate for new pavement show
excellent strength and durability.
The numerous commercial concrete recycling plants in
major metropolitan areas around the United States are
of greater economic significance than concrete pavement
recycling projects.
The economic feasibility of concrete recycling is discus-
sed in Chapter 14.
There is a paucity of published information on recycling
projects in the rest of the world. Yrjanson [7g] reports
that an urban expressway north of Paris, France, recently
has been recycled and used in a lean concrete base and
porous concrete shoulders. In Belgium concrete from an
old lock wall is being recycled into concrete aggregate for
construction of a new and larger lock at the same location.
Hendriks [64] reports that in Europe by far the largest
quantities of demolition debris are recycled in the
Netherlands. It is estimated that 0.43 tons of debris is
generated each year per person, and more than 60 sta-
tionary and mobile recycling plants have been established
in the Netherlands. The largest stationary plant with a
yearly capacity of 200,000 tons is located in Rotterdam.
Van Eck [81] reports that wood is sorted out from concrete
37-RDC State of the art report
and masonry rubble which is then crushed, washed,
screened, and sold for road construction purposes. In the
future 50,000 tons of wood waste a year from the Rotter-
dam plant will be processed in a pyrolysis plant which
will generate charcoal, tar, and wood gas.
From 1 January 1985 it has also been allowed .to use
recycled aggregates for production of concrete for general
construction purposes in the Netherlands. Hendriks [57]
reports that the first use of recycled aggregate concrete in
the Netherlands was in Amersfoort where such concrete
was used for partition walls in an apartment building.
The concrete was produced with the same cement
content as regular concrete and met requirements to a
characteristic strength of 22.5 M Pa. The water requirement
was slightly higher than would have been the case for
conventional concrete, and the concrete required vibration
for a somewhat longer time. Relatively high drying
shrinkage of recycled aggregate concrete did not result in
any cracking of walls.
Hendriks [64] also reports that at the Volkel Airfield in
the Netherlands coarse recycled aggregate concrete was
used for a lean concrete base course and concrete pave-
ment. The compressive strength was 10 to 20% lower
than what would have been expected for a conventional
concrete of the same mix proportions. At Maastricht Air-
port, also in the Netherlands, a concrete pavement was
made with recycled aggregate concrete. The concrete met
requirements to a characteristic strength of 37.5 MPa. At
the Copenhagen International Airport in Denmark recycled
concrete aggregate has been used as base course for a
new runway and on an experimental basis in the concrete
for new aprons [79].
Schulz [82] reports that there are 60 recycling plants in
the Federal Republic of Germany with a total capacity of
10 million tons a year or more than two-thirds of all
available structural rubble. However, only 2.7 million tons
a year of recycled aggregate is used primarily as sub-base
material, so the plants are working way below their full
capacity. In the Federal Republic of Germany it is not
allowed to use recycled concrete aggregate for production
of concrete. With a density of 2300 kg/m 3, such aggrega-
tes are too heavy to be classified as lightweight
aggregates; and with a crushing strength of less than 100
MPa, they are too weak to be classified as natural or
crushed aggregate for production of concrete.
Kasai [66] reports that recycled aggregate is used for
road construction in Japan. There is no production of
recycled aggregate for concrete production because the
authorities have not yet approved the Japanese proposed
standard for the "Use of Recycled Aggregate and Recycled
Aggregate Concrete" [6]. However, Kasai [66] reports
that the Building Research Institute of the Ministry of
Construction in Japan has constructed a small house as
part of its technological development work on reusing
construction waste for construction activities. In this test
recycled concrete aggregate was used for the ready-mixed
concrete, and no problems developed regarding slump, air
content, workability or compressive strength. The behavior
of the concrete in the structure is currently under observa-
tion.
Zagurskij and Zhadanovskij [83] report that in the
USSR, recycling plants with a total yearly capacity of
720,000 m3 are currently in operation. The plants are 10ca-
ted at 18 different precast concrete factories located in
various parts of the country, including four in Moscow.
239
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
Coarse recycled concrete aggregate is used for foundation
purposes and for production of new structural concrete
up to a characteristic strength of 20 MPa. Crushed
concrete fines are used as mineral filler in asphalt.
17. RECYCLING OF FRESH CONCRETE WASTE
Recycling of alkaline waste waster and waste aggregate
from ready-mix concrete plants are important from the
point of view of preventing public nuisance and the saving
of natural resources.
About 50 million cubic meters of ready-mixed concrete
is produced in the Federal Republic of Germany each year.
Roughly 3% of this quantity (i. e. 1.5 million cubic meters)
arises as waste concrete, which at the present time is
largely disposed of by dumping. Riker ([73], [74]) and
Friesenborg et aL [75] describe in detail how fresh waste
concrete can be recycled. It is beyond the scope of this
state-of-the-art report to deal with these problems.
If waste water was recycled in all of the ready-mix
concrete plants in Japan with an annual production of
150 million cubic meters of concrete, over 25 million of
fresh water and more than 2.5 million cubic meters of
aggregate could be saved annually. The Japanese standard
specifications for ready-mixed concrete, JISA 5308, has
been modified to make this possible, and at the present
time 52% of all Japanese plants are recycling clarified
water and 17% successfully recycle slurry water. Results
of investigations which led to this development are
reviewed by Kasai [76].
Culuknoise [77] has studied the recycling of rebound
from shotcrete.
18. CONCLUSIONS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
1. Numerous laboratory experiments, field tests, and full
scale pavement rehabilitation projects have shown that it
is possible to recycle concrete to produce aggregate for
drainage material, shoulders, stabilized as well as unstabili-
zed base courses, bituminous concrete, lean mix, and eco-
nocrete sub-bases as well as new concrete pavements.
Recycling of concrete to produce structural grade
concrete for other purposes than pavements is technically
feasible provided certain precautions are taken. Giving
contractors the option to recycle will determine the econo-
mic feasibility of such operations.
2. Plants for production of recycled concrete aggregates
are not much different from plants for production of
crushed aggregate from other sources.
First generation processing plants incorporate various
types of crushers, screens, and transfer equipment. With
the possible exception of a magnet for the separation of
reinforcement and other ferrous matter, they have no facili-
ties for removal of contaminants. Such plants are frequen-
tly used on pavement rehabilitation and recycling projects.
In most cases uncontaminated recycled concrete aggre-
gate can be used for production of new concrete without
being washed.
Second generation plants incorporate various kinds of
sorting devices for dry or wet removal of foreign matter
from concrete. Such plants were in commercial Operation
at the time when this document was prepared.
In the third generation processing plants of the future
all demolished material is supplied to the installation and
processed into saleable products without there being any
need to transport residual matter to dumping sites either
from the demolition site or from the processing installation.
3. Operation of a crushing and screening plant is always
accompanied by the generation of noise and dust. There-
fore, in the selection of plant location, environmental
conditions of the vicinity, and legal requirements must be
carefully studied and necessary countermeasures taken.
However, the early concern about noise and dust problems
when crushing concrete in mobile plants in urban areas
has apparently been somewhat exaggerated.
4. Plain as well as reinforced concrete can be crushed
in various types of crushers to provide a crushed aggregate
with an acceptable particle shape. When crushed in one
pass, the grain size distribution of recycled concrete aggre-
gate frequently approximates a Fuller curve.
5. Impact crushers provide the best grain size distribu-
tion of recycled concrete aggregate, and they are less
sensitive than jaw crushers to material which cannot be
crushed such as reinforcing bars.
When it comes to other properties of recycled concrete
aggregates, jaw crushers perform better because they
crush a smaller proportion of original aggregate particles
in the old concrete than impact crushers.
6. There was some concern expressed initially about
the removal of steel from reinforced concrete, particularly
pavements with heavy mesh. Through the innovation of
contractors in developing breaking, removal and crushing
equipment and procedures, this problem has been to some
extent overcome.
7. Approximately 30% by volume of old mortar is
attached to 16-32 mm coarse recycled aggregate. Corres-
ponding figures are 40% for the 8-16 mm fraction and
60% for the 4-8 mm fraction. Fine recycled aggregate
below 4 mm contains approximately 20% by weight of
old cement paste, while the filler fraction 0-0.3 mm may
contain as much as 65% of old cement paste.
8. Because of the large content of old mortar in the
crushed material, the density of recycled concrete aggrega-
tes are from 5 to 10% lower than the density of correspon-
ding original aggregates.
Water absorptions of 5-10% are typically found for recy-
cled aggregates. Relatively high values are found for fine
recycled aggregate. Relatively low values are found for
coarse recycled aggregates. Due to high water absorption
of recycled aggregates, it is sometimes recommended to
use presoaked aggregates for production of recycled
aggregate concretes in order to maintain uniform quality
during concrete production. However, it has not been
studied how fully saturated recycled aggregate will affect
freeze-thaw resistance of new concrete.
Because the density is lower and the water absorption
is higher, and because the range of densities and water
absorption is higher for recycled concrete aggregates than
for conventional aggregates, it is imperative that density
and water absorption of recycled concrete aggregates be
carefully determined before it is attempted to design a mix
of recycled aggregate concrete. Moreover, it is important
that the two properties be carefully monitored during
concrete production. This must be done in order to avoid
large variations in properties of hardened concrete as well
as in yield of fresh concrete.

9. Recycled concrete aggregates, produced from all but
the poorest quality of concrete, can be expected to pass
ASTM and BS requirements to LA abrasion loss percen-
tage, BS crushing value as well as BS 10% fines value,
even for production of concrete wearing surfaces, but
probably not for granolithic floor finishes.
10. American results indicate that the sulfate soundness
of recycled concrete aggregates generally is lower than
ASTM maximum allowable limits. Japanese results indi-
cate that the opposite is true. Further research is required
in order to determine whether the sulfate soundness test
is suitable for evaluation of the durability of recycled
concrete aggregates.
11. In standard specifications on recycled concrete
aggregates it is recommended to impose maximum limits
on the allowable content of contaminants such as bitumen,
gypsum, organic substances, soil, chlorides, metals, and
glass. See Section 7.7.
12. Compressive, tensile, and flexural strength of recy-
cled aggregate concrete may be equal to or higher than
of original concrete when the recycled aggregate concrete
is made with the same or lower water-cement ratio than
the original concrete. However, in practice strengths of
recycled aggregate concretes are often found to be lower
than those of corresponding orig!nal concretes. This is
particularly so when it is attempted to produce structural
grade or high-strength recycled aggregate concrete from
original low strength concrete or when recycled fine
aggregate is used with recycled coarse aggregate. In such
cases the compressive strengths of conventional structural
concrete and corresponding recycled aggregate concrete
made with the same water-cement ratio may vary by as
much as 50% or more depending on the quality of the
recycled concrete from which the recycled aggregate is
derived. More commonly the compressive strength of recy-
cled aggregate concretes is found to be 5-10% lower than
that of corresponding concretes made with conventional
aggregate.
Differences in strength between the two types of
concrete are smaller and less important when lower
strength foundation grade recycled aggregate concretes
are produced, However, it is recommended always to make
trial mixes in order to determine the strength potential of
any recycled aggregate before it is used in production.
13. When a recycled concrete aggregate of uniform
quality is used, the coefficient of variation of compressive
strength between mixes of recycled aggregate concrete is
not different from that of original concrete.
When recycled aggregates of non-uniform quality are
used, the coefficient of variation of compressive strength
between mixes may be very high for structural grade
concretes, but lower for foundation grade concretes. This
may be the cas~ when recycled aggregates are delivered
from a central crushing plant in a urban area which accepts
concrete rubble from many different demolition sites
simultaneously.
Considering that acceptance criteria for structural
concrete in modern concrete codes frequently are based
on the standard deviation or the coefficient of variation of
compressive strength test results, it may not be economi-
cal, though technically feasible, to produce structural
grade concrete from recycled aggregates of non-uniform
quality. Thus, in the future such recycled aggregates may
be limited to production of lower grade concretes, if only
for economic reasons.
37-RDC State of the art report
14. There is some evidence that coarse recycled aggre-
gates can be used in reinforced concrete without any
inconvenience. However, the use of both coarse and fine
recycled aggregates may lower bond strength by 15% and
ultimate flexural strength of reinforced concrete by as
much as 30% due to bond failure, when compared to
flexural strength of corresponding reinforced concrete
made with conventional aggregates. Further investigations
into this matter are recommended.
15. Due to the large amount of old mortar which is
attached to original aggregate particles in recycled aggre-
gates, the modulus of elasticity of recycled aggregate
concretes is always lower than that of corresponding
control concretes. Values from 15 to 40% lower are report-
ed. Relatively high values of elastic modulus are reported
for recycled aggregate concretes produced with coarse
recycled aggregate and conventional sand. Relatively low
values of elastic modulus are reported when both coarse
and fine recycled aggregates are used.
16. Due to the large amount of old mortar which is
attached to original aggregate particles in recycled aggre-
gates, drying shrinkage and creep of recycled aggregate
concrete are always from 40-80% higher than for corres-
ponding control concretes which are made with conven-
tional aggregates. Relatively low drying shrinkage is
reported for recycled aggregate concretes produced with
coarse recycled aggregate and conventional sand. Relati-
vely high drying shrinkage is reported when both coarse
and fine recycled aggregates are used.
As the effects of high drying shrinkage and high creep
tend to cancel out in restrained structural members which
are made from recycled aggregate concrete, such members
are probably no more prone to cracking due to drying
shrinkage than members which are made from conven-
tional concrete.
17. It is generally accepted that when natural sand is
used, up to 30% of natural crushed aggregate can be
replaced with coarse recycled aggregate without signifi-
cant changes in the mechanical properties of concrete.
18. When new concrete is produced from coarse recy-
cled aggregates, the presence of plasticizing, retarding,
and air-entraining admixtures in the old concrete has no
significant effect on the properties of the new concrete.
However, when calcium chloride has been added to the
old concrete as an accelerating admixture, approximately
30% of the original chloride content can be traced as
chlorides in the new concrete. This may significantly acce-
lerate strength development of the recycled concrete. Also,
when parking or bridge structures have been submitted to
de-icing chloride containing salts or when marine structu-
res have been exposed to sea water for long periods of
time, fairly large amounts of chlorides can be traced in
recycled concrete aggregates.
Considering the fact that specification limits on chloride
content in concrete for the purpose of protecting reinfor-
ced structures against corrosion tend to become ever stric-
ter, chloride contamination may eventually turn out to be a
serious obstacle towards more widespread use of recycled
aggregates in concrete production.
19. On a more positive side it appears that small amounts
up to 1% by weight of bitumen from asphaltic concrete
surfacing which remains in coarse recycled aggregate will
not seriously affect the properties of recycled aggregate
concrete.
241
Vol. 19 - N~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
20. Surprisingly perhaps, there is evidence to support
the fact that when recycled aggregate concrete is produ-
ced with coarse recycled aggregate which originates from
structural grade concrete, frost resistance of the recycled
aggregate concrete will be as good as, or better than the
frost resistance of the original concrete.
There is also some evidence that repeated recycling of
such concrete may continue to improve frost resistance.
Therefore, one may project that existing concrete structu-
res, in addition to providing an aggregate source for the
immediate future, may continue to generate an adequate
supply of aggregates for concrete construction in the more
distant future after once being recycled.
However, when both coarse and fine recycled aggrega-
tes are used, or when low-grade recycled aggregates are
used, frost resistance of a recycled aggregate concrete
may be lower than that of corresponding control concretes
made with conventional aggregates.
Frost resistance of recycled aggregate concrete is report-
ed to be improved when 16-19 mm maximum size coarse
recycled aggregate is used rather than 32-38 mm maxi-
mum size.
Further studies of the frost resistance of recycled aggre-
gate concretes are recommended, particularly the use of
air-entrained recycled aggregate concrete made with recy-
cled aggregates which originate from original concretes of
different qualities and which have not been air-entrained.
21. No studies have been reported on the susceptibility
to alkali reactions of recycled-aggregate concrete produced
from recycled aggregates which originate from original
concrete that has been damaged by alkali reactions. Such
studies are urgently needed.
22. For equal water-cement ratio, the water permeability,
the rate of carbonation and therefore the risk of reinforce-
ment corrosion seems to be somewhat higher for recycled
aggregate concretes compared to conventional concretes.
However, it appears that these undesirable effects can be
offset if recycled aggregate concretes are produced with
somewhat lower water-cement ratios than corresponding
conventional concretes.
23. No attempts have been made to compare rates of
chloride penetration into recycled aggregate concretes and
corresponding conventional concretes. Such studies are
urgently needed.
24. In principle, mix design of recycled aggregate
concrete is not different from mix design of conventional
concrete, and the same mix design procedures can be
used. In practice, slight modifications are required as
shown in Section 10.6. Slightly more water and cement
may be required for recycled aggregate concretes than for
corresponding concretes made with conventional aggre-
gates in order to obtain the same workability and strength.
25. For technical as well as economical reasons it is
recommended to produce recycled aggregate concretes
with coarse recycled aggregate down to no less than
perhaps 2 ram, and conventional sand for what concerns
the rest. Use of crushed concrete fines below 2 mm
appears to have a detrimental effect on economy as well
as on many technical properties of concrete.
Fortunately, when there is a shortage of aggregate in a
region, shortage of coarse aggregate is more common than
shortage of fine aggregate.
26. Practical experience has shown that recycled aggre-
242
gate concrete is as easy to batch, mix, transport, place,
compact, and finish as conventional concrete. However,
because of the relatively high water absorption of recycled
aggregate, it is generally recommended to batch recycled
aggregates in a presoaked condition, and in a state which
is as close to saturated and surface dry as possible.
27. Susceptibility to plastic shrinkage cracking of fresh
recycled aggregate concretes remains to be studied.
28. Crushed concrete fines contain so little unhydrated
cement that such fines do not qualify as hydraulic cements.
When mixed with water, a slight setting, but no real harde-
ning of the concrete is observed. This is so even when
pastes are cured in water at 50 ~ C for prolonged periods
of time.
On the other hand, crusher fines below 4 mm may
contain up to 4% by weight of calcium hydroxide which is
formed by hydration of original cement in the old concrete.
When mixed with water and left to dry in the laboratory,
the product will gradually harden much like a weak lime
mortar would do. Such hardening is probably due to the
formation of calcium carbonate when calcium hydroxide,
in the fines reacts with atmospheric carbon dioxide.
29. When mixtures of crusher fines, water, and pulveri-
zed fly ash, or condensed silica fume are compacted and
autoclaved, calcium hydroxide from the fines can be
brought to react with mineral particles in the crusher fines,
with fly ash or with silica fume to form reaction products
of considerable compressive strength, much like what is
the case for calcium silicate bricks.
30. In principle, crusher fines may also be used for soil
stabilization or soil modification purposes. Other possible
uses include trickling filters for waste water treatment,
poultry grits, acid soil or waste water neutralization, substi-
tution for ground limestone in S02 scrubber filters in coal
burning power plants, stabilization of sewage sludge, cat
litter or a source of available silica in highly leached lateri-
tic soils. However, because the concentration of calcium
hydroxide in the crusher fines is very low, use of crusher
fines for most of these purposes may be uneconomical,
even if it can be shown that beneficial effects do exist.
31. Recycling of alkaline waste water and waste aggre-
gate from ready-mix concrete plants is possible. For envi-
ronmental reasons this will probably be required in many
countries in the future.
Recycling of rebound from shotcrete is also possible,
but probably not economical.
32. Codes, standards, and testing methods for recycled
aggregates and recycled aggregate concretes have been
prepared in the United States, Japan, the Netherlands, and
the United Kingdom. See Chapter 13.
33. At the time when this document was prepared,
practical experience had shown that the use of recycled
concrete aggregate is economical for pavement
reconstruction purposes under all but extreme circumstan-
ces, when compared with the use of conventional aggre-
gates.
However, the use of recycled concrete aggregate for
general construction purposes still remained more costly
than the use of conventional aggregate even in the
Netherlands, where there is a shortage of conventional
aggregate. In most countries this situation is expected
gradually to change in favor of recycled aggregates. For
one thing, it is expected that the extra cost which is now

c o m m o n l y charged for the processing of old concrete and
mixed demolition rubble can be lowered once the initial
developing phase is over. Also, the price of conventional
aggregates w i l l probably continue to rise in the future as
raw materials get scarcer and transportation costs continue
to rise. Moreover, d u m p i n g charges are certain to rise
steeply over the next decade as the quantities of demoli-
tion debris continue to increase at the same time as the
number of accessible d u m p i n g sites continues to decrease.
34, This state-of-the-art report spells a bright future for
the recycling of concrete, provided that all parties involved
proceed w i t h reasonable prudence and caution in order to
avoid major set-backs w h i c h may reflect in unfavorable
ways on the reputation of recycled aggregate concrete.
19. A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
The author w a n t s to express his thanks to all members
of RILEM Technical Committee 37-DRC, w i t h o u t the help
of w h o m it w o u l d not have been possible to prepare this
document.
In particular, the author is indebted to Dr. Stamatis
Frondistou-Yannas of Newton, .Massachusetts, for her
contribution to Chapter 14 on economic aspects of
concrete recycling, to Mr. Gordon K. Ray, Concrete Pave-
ment Consultant, Arlington Heights, Illinois, and Mr. Alan
D. Buck, Research Geologist, US Army Engineering
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, for
keeping me informed about developments in the United
States; to Dr. Ch.F. Hendriks of Rijkswaterstaat, Delft, The
Netherlands, for his assistance w i t h Dutch documents,
and to Professor Y. Kasai of Nihon University, Japan for
valuable material from Japan w h i c h he and his coworkers
have reviewed and translated in order to facilitate prepara-
tion of this state-of-the-art report.
20. L I T E R A T U R E REFERENCES
[1 ] E.R.L. - - Demolition waste - - an examination of the arisings,
end-uses and disposal of demolition wastes in Europe and
the potential for further recovery of material from these was-
tes, report prepared for the Commission of the European
Communities, DG-12. environmental resources limited, Lon-
don, april 1979. the Construction Press, Lancaster, London,
1980.
[2] WILSON D. G., FOLEY P., WIESMAN R. FRONDISTOU-YANNASS.
- - Demolition debris: quantities, composition and possibili-
ties for recycling, Proceedings, 5th mineral waste utilization
symposium, Chicago, april 1976. ALESHIN E. Ed., U S bureau
of mines, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.
[3] WILSON D. G., DAVIDSON T. A., Ng, H.T.S. - - Demolition
wastes: data collection.and separation studies. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of mechanical engi-
neering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.
[4] MUKAI T., et aL ~ Study on reuse of waste concrete for
aggregate of concrete. Paper presented at a seminar on
"energy and resources conservation in concrete technology",
Japan-US cooperative science programme, San Francisco,
1979.
[5] NIXON P. J. - - Recycled concrete as an aggregate for
concrete ~ a review. First state-of-the-art report RILEM
TC-37-DRC. Materials and Structures (RILEM), no. 65,
september-october 1978, pp. 371-378.
37-RDC State of the art report
[6] BCSJ. - - Proposed standard for the "use of recycled aggre-
gate and recycled aggregate concrete': Building Contractors
Society of Japan. committee on disposal and reuse of cons-
truction waste, may 1977 (english version published in june
1981 )
[7] FHWA. - - Proceedings of the National Seminar on PCC
pavement recycling and rehabilitation, St Louis, Missouri,
USA, 27-30 september 1981. Federal Highway Administra-
tion report FHWA-TS-82-208. (a) DIERKESJ. H. - Urban
recyling of portland cement concrete pavement - edens
expressway, Chicago,///inois, ibid. ref. [7], pp. 172-176; (b)
KRUEGER O. - - Edens expressway pavement recycling - -
urban pavement breakup, removal and processing, ibid., ref.
[7] pp. 165-169; (c) COPPLEF. w Costs and energy conside-
rations, ibid. ref. [7], pp. 134-139; (o') MUNRO R. R . -
Environmental concerns in recycling, ibid. ref. [7], pp.
161-164; (e) FERGUS,J.S. - - Laboratory investigation and
mix proportions for utilizing recycled portland cement
concrete as aggregate, ibid. ref. [7], pp. 144-160; (f)
HUISMAN C.L., BRITSON R . A . - Recycled portland cement
concrete - - specifications and control, ibid. ref. [7], pp.
140-143 ; (g) YRJANSONW. A. ~ Recycling portland cement
concrete, ibid. ref. [7], pp. 128-133; (h) NELSON L . A . -
rural recycling., ibid. ref. [7], pp. 176-185. -_
[8] McGEE M. - - Recycling of reinforced concrete, TDH 4623
Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs,
England, 1981.
[9] ANON. - - Eentrapsverkleining van Baton. rapport 82-07639
MT TNO, Apeldorn, the Netherlands, 1982.
[10] PAUW, C. de - - Kringloopbeton, Wetenschappelijk Teknisch
Centrum Bouwbedrijf, Brussels, 1980.
[11] CUR. - - ~ranulaat van Betonen Metse/werkpuin als
Toeslagsmateriaal van Baton. Commissie voor Uitvoering van
Research ingesteld door de Betonvereniging, 1983 (in
Dutch).
[12] BCSJ. - - Study on recycled aggregate and recycled aggre-
gate concrete, Building Contractors Society of Japan. Com-
mittee on disposal and reuse of concrete construction waste.
summary in Concrete Journal, Japan, vol. 16, no. 7, july
1978, pp. 18-31 (in Japanese).
[13] HANSEN m.c., NARUD H. - - Strength of recycled concrete
made from crushed concrete coarse aggregate, Concrete
International - - design and construction, vol. 5, no. 1,
january 1 983, pp. 79-83.
[14] ANON. - - Plant design. Pit and quarry handbook 1976-
1977, chapter 1, p. AIO. Pit and quarry publications, 105 W.
Adams street, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
[15] KAWAMURA M., TORIIK K., TAKEMOTOK., HASABA S. - - Proper-
ties of recycling concrete made with aggregate obtained from
demolished pavement, Journal of the Society of Material
Science, Japan, vol. 32, no. 353, february 1983 (in
Japanese; abstract, tables, and figures in English).
[16] HASABA S., KAWAMURA M., TORIIK K., TAKEMOTOK. - - Drying
shrinkage and durability of the concrete made of recycled
concrete aggregate, trans, of the Japan Concrete Institute,
vol. 3, 1981, pp. 55-60 (additional information obtained
from background report in Japanese.)
[17] HEDEGAAROS. - - Recycling of concrete with additives, M.Sc.
thesis, technical report 116/82. Building materials laboratory,
Technical University of Denmark, june 1981 (in Danish).
[18] NARUO H. - - Recycled concrete in low-strength concrete
with fly ash, technical report 110/82. Building materials labo-
ratory, Technical University of Denmark, 1982 (in Danish).
[19] YOSHIKANE T. - - Present status of recycling waste cement
concrete in Japan. private communication from Touru Yoshi-
kane, Director, Research laboratory, Taiyu Kensetsu co. ltd.,
Japan.
243
 lo4. 1 9 - N ~ 111 - M a t 6 r i a u x et Constructions
:20] RAY G. - Recycling portland cement concrete, Paper pre-
sented at the 6th National Institute on recycling of pave-
ments, university of Wisconsin-extension, Madison, Wis-
consin, 30 april 1982 (updated in 1984).
~'~] PETERSON C.A. - - Survey of parking structure deterioration
and distress, Concrete International - - design and cons-
truction, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 53-61, march 1980.
i22] 8ERGHOLTK., HANSEN T.C. - - Cracking andrepair of a reinfor-
ced concrete structure following reinforcement corrosion due
to chloride contamination of aggregate, Colloquium inter-
association (IABSE, FIP, CEB, RILEM, lASS) on "Behavior
in service of concrete structures", Liege, 4-6 june 1975,
preliminary report, vol. 2, pp. 807-819.
~23] NANSEN T.C., HEDEGAARD S.E. - - Properties of recycled
aggregate concretes as affected by admixtures in original
concretes. ACI journal, january-february 1984, pp. 21-26.
I24] ACI committee 201. - - Guide to durable concrete, (ACI
201.2R-77), ACI journal, december 1977, p. 594.
f25J ENR; - - Engineering news record, 20 november 1980, p.
13.
I26J BUCK A.D. - Recycled concrete as a source of aggregate.
ACI journal, may 1977, pp. 212-219 (1977).
12"/J STEINOUR H.H. - - Concrete mix water - - h o w impure can it
be ?, Skokie, II1., Journal of the PCA research and deve-
lopment laboratories, september 1960, pp. 32-50.
I28] WESCHE K., SCHULZ R. - - Beton aus aufbereitetem Altbeton
Technologie und Eigenschaften, Beton, vol. 32, nos. 2
and 3, february and march 1982.,
129J MALHOTRA V.M. - - Use of reCycled concrete as a new aggre-
gate, proc. of symposium on energy and resource conserva-
tion in the cement and concrete industry, CANMET, report
no. 76-8, Ottawa, 1978.
[30J SCHUt.Z R.R. - - Wiederverwendung von altem Beton als
Zuschlag fur neuen Beton, VII. internationale Baustoff - -
und Silikattagung (IBAUSlL). Weimar, 1979.
131 ] SCHULZ R.R. -- Das Verformungsverhalten von
Betonsplittbeton (Beton aus wiederverwendetem Altbeton).
XIII Konferenz der Silikatindustrie und Silikatwissenschaft - -
Siliconf., Budapest, june 1981.
f32] FRONDISToU-YANNAS S. - - Waste concrete as aggregate for
new concrete, ACI journal, august 1977, pp. 373-376.
I33J SOSHIRODA T. - - Recycled concrete, proc. 9th congress of
CIB, Stockholm, 1983.
134J PAUW C. de - - Fragmentation and recycling of reinforced
concrete - - some research results, chapter 5.3.2, in P. Kreij-
ger: "Adhesion problems in the recycling of concrete", NATO
conference series IV (materials science), plenum press, New
York, 1981, pp. 311-317.
135J HANSEN T.C., BOEGH E. - - Elasticity and drying shrinkage of
recycled aggregate concretes, ACI journal, september-
october 1985.
136J MUKAI T., KIKUCHI M., KOIZUMI H. - - Fundamental study on
bond properties between recycled aggregate concrete and
steel bars, Cement Association of Japan, 32nd review, 1978
(in English).
137} MUKAI T., KIKUCHI M., ISHIKAWA N. - - Study on the properties
of concrete containing recycled concrete aggregate, Cement
Association of Japan, 32nd review, 1978 (in english).
138] COQUlLLAT G. - - Recyclage des mat6riaux de d6molition
dans la confection du b~ton. CEBTP - - service d'6tude des
mat6riaux unite: technologie des b6ton (in French). Marche
no. 80-61-248, S a i n t R e m y les C h e v r e u s e , a u g u s t - s e p t e m b e r
1982.
1301 LAMBOTTE H., PAUW C. de - - The influence of contaminants
244
on the quality and behavior o f recycled concrete, in "Adhe-
sion problems in the recycling of concrete", P.C. Kreijger,
NATO conference series IV (materials science), plenum press,
New York, 1981, pp. 379-384.
[40] TEYCHENNE D.C., FRANKLIN R.E., ERNTROY H.C. - - Design
of normal concrete mixes, Department of the Environment,
Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford, 1975.
[41 ] HANSENT.C., NARUD H. - - Recycled concrete and silica fume
make calcium silicate bricks, Cement and Concrete Research,
vol. 13, no. 5, 1983, pp. 626-630.
[42] NANSEN m.c., NARUD H. - Recycled concrete and fly ash
make calcium silicate bricks, Cement and Concrete Research,
vol. 13, no. 4, 1 983, pp. 626-630.
[43] BUCK A.D. - - Department of the army, waterways experiment
station, corps of engineers, P.O. box 631, Vicksburg, Missis-
sippi 39180 (private communication).
[44] FRONDISTOU-YANNASS., Ng H.T.S. - - Use of concrete demo-
lition waste as aggregates in areas that have suffered destruc-
tion. A feasibility study, report R77-37, Department of Civil
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, november 1977 (NTIS no.
PB275888/AS).
[45] FRONDISTOU-YANNAS S. - - Economics of concrete recycling
in the United States, in Adhesion problems in the recycling
on concrete, P.C. Kreijger ed, NATO conference series IV
(materials science), plenum press, New York, 1981, pp.
163-186.
[46] BUCK A.D. - - Recycled concrete, Highway research record,
no. 430, 1973.
[47] MALHOTRA V.M. - - Use of recycled concrete as a new aggre-
gate, report 76-1 8, Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy
Technology, Ottawa, Canada, 1976.
[48] WILSON D.G., FOLEY P., WIESMAN R., FRONDISTOU-YANNAS S.
- - Demolition debris: quantities, composition, and possibili-
ties for recycling, proceedings, 5th mineral waste utilization
symposium (Chicago, april 1976), Aleshin E. ed., US Bureau
of Mines, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.
[49] WILSON D.G., DAVIOSON T.A., Ng H.T.S. - - Demolition was-
tes: data collection and separation studies, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Department of mechanical engi-
neering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.
[50] FRONOISTOU-YANNASS. T. - - Economic feasibility of concrete
recycling, Journal of the structural division, ASCE, 103: 885,
1977.
[51] KASAI Y., et al. - - Some tests on recycled aggregate
concrete, summaries of technical papers of annual meeting,
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), october 1973 and
october 1974 (in Japanese).
[52] RASHEEDUZZAFAR, KHAN A. - - Recycled concrete - - a source
of new aggregate, Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates
(ASTM), vol. 6, no. 1, 1984, pp. 17-27.
[53] RILEM TC-37-DRC. - - Recycled masonry rubble as an
aggregate for concrete. RILEM TC-37 DRC State-of-the-Art
Report. to be published in Materials and Structures (RILEM),
Paris, 1986 or 1987.
[54] HAFEMEISTER D. - - Bauschutt-recycling in Berlin (west),
proc. 4th international recycling congress, Berlin, 30 october
- - 1 november 1984, pp. 1009-1013.
[55] Ntx H. - - Erfahrungen m i t einer nassen Bauschutt-
Aufbereitungsanlage, Proc. 4th international recycling
congress, Berlin, 30 october - - 1 november 1984, pp. 1028-
1032.
[56] HEIMSOTH W. - - Erfahrungen mit einer trockenen
Bauschutt-Aufbereitungsanlage, proc. 4th international recy-
cling congress, Berlin, 30 october - - 1 november 1984,
pp.1033-1037.

[57] HENDRIKS C . F . - Wiederverwendung von Stressenaufbruch
und Bauschutt in den Niederlanden, proc. 4th international
recycling congress, Berlin, 30 october - - 1 november 1984,
pp. 972-977.
[58] HURD K. - - Pavement rehabilitation with portland cement
concrete, Concrete Construction, vol. 30, no. 5, may 1985,
pp. 413-423.
[59] CHASE G.W. LANE J. - - Rehabilitation of a portion of
interstate 35 with pavement inlay using recycled concrete for
sub-base. Third international conference on concrete pave-
ment design and rehabilitation, 23-25 april 1985, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.
[60] SAMARAI M.A. - - The disintegration of concrete containing
sulphate-contaminated aggregates. Magazine of concrete
research, vol. 28, no. 96, 1976, pp. 130-140.
[61] ANON. - - Bauschutt- Wiederaufbereitung in Berlin, Stein-
bruch und Sandgrube, Heft 1, january 1985, pp. 4-6.
[62] BOESMAN, B. - - Crushing and separating techniques for
demolition material, EDA/RILEM demo-recycling confe-
rence, proc. II "re-use of concrete and brick materials", Rot-
terdam, 3 june 1 985, European Demolition Association, Was-
senaarseweg 80, 2596 CZ, den haag, the Netherlands.
[63] KREIJGER P.C. - Hergebruik van Bouw-en Sloopafval als
Toeslagmateriaal in Beton. TH-Eindhoven, Afdeling
Bouwkunde, Rapport M83-1, January 1983.
[64] HENDRIKS C.F. - - The use of concrete and masonry waste
as aggregates for concrete production in the Netherlands.
EDA/RILEM demo-recycling conference, proc. II "'re-use of
concrete and brick materials", Rotterdam, 3 june 1985, Euro-
pean Demolition Association, Wassenaarseweg 80, 2596 CZ
Den Haag, the Netherlands.
[ 6 5 ] RAVINDRARAJAH R.S., TAM T.C. - - Properties of concrete
made with crushed concrete as coarse aggregate. Magazine
of Concrete Research, vol. 37, no. 130, march 1985.
[66] KASAI Y. - - Studies into the reuse of demolished concrete
in Japan. EDA/RILEM demo-recycling conference, proc. 22
"re-use of concrete and brick materials", Rotterdam, 3 june
1985, European Demolition Association, Wassenaarseweg
80, 2596 CZ, Den Haag, the Netherlands.
[67] MCCARTHY G.J., MACCREERY W . J . - Michigan department
of transportation recycles concrete freeways. Proc. third inter-
national conference on concrete pavement design and reha-
bilitation, 23-25 april 1985. Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.
[68] STRAND D.L. - - Designing for quality, concrete pavement
rehabilitation and recycling on Wisconsin's interstate
highways, proc. third international conference on concrete
pavement design and rehabilitation, 23-25 april 1985, Pur-
due University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.
[69] GORDON Concrete pavement consutant, 11 N. Wilshire
K. - -
lane, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004, (personal communi-
cation).
[70] GERARDU J.J.A., HENDRIKS C.F. - - Recycling of road pave-
ment materials in the Netherlands, rijkswaterstaat communi-
cations no. 38, the Hague, 1985.
[71] ANON. - - Concrete made with broken brick - - specifications
for production and use. German standard DIN 4163, february
1951 (in German).
[72] PIETRZENIUK H.J. - - Aspekte des Umweltschutzes bei der
Verwendung yon Industriellen Nebenprodukten in Strassen-
bau, Steinbruch und Sandgrube, Heft 7, July 1984, p. 351.
[73] HIKER Die Behandlung yon Restbeton, Beton, Heft 7,
R. - -
July 1978, pp. 235-240 (in German).
37-RDC State of the art report
[74] HIKER R. - - New methods for processing leftover and retur-
ned concrete, Betonwerk und Fertigteil Technik, Heft 9, sep-
tember 1983, pp. 569-573, and Heft 10, october 1983, pp.
634-63~/.
[75] FRIESENeORG B., GENENGER R., ORLOWSKI F. - - Recycling of
waste concrete, Betonwek und Fertigteil Technik, Heft 12,
december 1984, pp. 830-836.
[76] KASAI Y. - - Recycling waste water and cement slurry dispo-
sal at ready mixed concrete plants. Proc. seminar on "energy
and resources conservation in concrete technology" under
the Japan-US cooperative science program, 10-13 septem-
ber 1979, San Francisco, USA.
[77] CULUKNOISE G.A. - - Wiederverwendung des I~uckpralls in
Spritzbe-tonmischungen sowie Eigenschaften des so herges-
tel/ten Spritzbetons. Grubenbau (Moscow), Vol. 20, No. 7,
pp. 25-26 (in Russian), Reviewed in Betonwerk und
FertgteiI-Technik, Heft 10, october 1982 (in German).
[78] EDA. - - Demolition techniques, state-of-the-art report.
RILEM TC-37-DRC. task force 1. European Demolition
Association. Wassenaarseweg 80, NL 2596 CZ, Den Haag,
the Netherlands, may 1985.
[79] HARTMANN L., JAKOBSEN J.B. - - Cowiconsult, Teknikerbyen
45, DK-2830 Virum, Denmark, (private communication).
[ 8 0 ] HANSEN T.C., ANGELO, J. - -Crushed concrete fines recycled
for soil stabilization purposes, submitted for publication in
ACI journal.
[81] VAN ECK H. - - Recycling of demolition wood, EDA/RILEM
demo-recycling conference, proc. 22, "reuse of concrete and
brick materials", rotterdam, 3 june 1985, European Demoli-
tion Association, Wassenaarseweg 80, 2596 CZ, Den Haag,
the Netherlands.
[82] SCHULZ R.R. - - Recycling of masonry waste and concrete
in west Germany, EDA/RILEM demo-recycling conference,
proc. II, "reuse of concrete and brick materials", Rotterdam,
3 june 1985. European Demolition Association, Wasse-
naarseweg 80, 2596 CZ, Den Haag, the Netherlands.
[83] ZAGURSKIJ V.A., ZHADANOVSKIJ B.V. - - Breaking reinforced
concrete and recycling crushed materials, special technical
report, research, Institute for Concrete and Reinforced
Concrete (GOSSTROY), Moscow, 1985, english translation
available from European Demolition Association, Wasse-
naarseweg 80, 2596 CZ, Den Haag, the Netherlands.
[84] BERNIER G., MALIER Y., MAZARS J. - - New material from
concrete demolition waste - - the bibeton. Proc. international
conference on the use of by-products and waste in civil
engineering, Paris, 28-30 november 1978, pp. 157-162 (in
French).
[85] GOEe E. - - Pumping structural lightweight concrete,
Concrete Construction vol. 30, no. 6, june 1985, pp. 505-
510.
[86] ANON. - - Recommendations for recycling sub-standard
concrete and reinforced concrete products, special technical
report, Research Institute for Concrete and Reinforced
Concrete", (NIIZhB) GOOSTROY, 2nd institutskaja str. 6,
109389 Moscow, 1984.
[87] BERGEN R.L., CARPENTER S.H. - - Recycling of concrete into
new applications. Chapter 6.1 in P. Kreijger: Adhesion pro-
blems in the recycling of concrete. NATO Conference series
IV (Materials Science). Plenum Press. New York, 1981, pp.
325-339.
[88] HANSEN T.C. - - Cat litter and a method for production of
cat litter on the basis of crushed hardened concrete. U.K.
Patent application no 850659. 4 March 1985.
245
Vol. 19 - N ~ 111 - Mat~riaux et Constructions
21. A P P E N D I X A. LITERATURE REVIEWED IN FIRST
S T A T E - O F - T H E - A R T REPORT 1945-77. N i x o n [5]
NIXON P.J. - - The use o f materials from demolition in cons-
ttuction, resources policy, december 1976, pp. 276-283.
BUCK A.D. - - Recycled concrete as a source o f aggregate. Prec.
of symposium on energy and resource conservation in the Cement
and concrete industry, canada center for Mineral and Energy
Technology, Ottawa, 1976.
GLUSHGE P.I. - - The work o f the Scientific Research Institute.
Gidrotskhnicheskoge Stroiteistvo no. 4, april 1946, pp. 27-28
(USSR). brief english summary in engineers digest, vol. 7, no.
10, 1946, p. 330.
GRAF O. ~ Uber Ziegelsplittbeton, Sandsteinbeton und TrSm-
merschuttbeton. Die Bauwirtschaft, no. 2, january, no. 3, february,
no. 4, march 1948 (Germany). crushed brick concrete, sandstone
concrete and rubble concrete, trans, no. 73-1, january 1973. U.S.
246
Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, C.E. Vicksburg,
Miss.
PLOGER R.R. - - A n investigation o f the compressive strength o f
concrete in which concrete rubble was used as an aggregate.
unpublished thesis. Cornell university, 1947.
MALHOTRA V.M. - - The use o f recycled concrete as a new
aggregate, proc. of symposium on energy and resource conserva-
tion in the cement and concrete industry, Canada Center of Mine-
ral and Energy Technology, Ottawa, 1976.
BUCK A.D. - - Recycled concrete. Highway research record no.
430, 1973.
FRONDISTOU-YANNAS S. - - Waste concrete as aggregate for new
concrete, ACI journal, August 1977, pp. 373-374.
GAEDE K. - - Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton 109, 1952,
and 126, 1957.
NEWMAN A.J. - - The utilization o f brick rubble from demolished
shelters as aggregate for concrete, inst. mun. eng. j. 1946, vol.
73, no. 2, pp. 113-121.