Rheological and Mechanical Behavior of Concrete Mixtures

with Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Adam M. Knaack1, S.M.ASCE and Yahya C. Kurama2, M.ASCE
1

Univ. of Notre Dame, Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences,

156 Fitzpatrick Hall of Engineering, Notre Dame, IN, 46556; email: aknaack@nd.edu
2
Univ. of Notre Dame, Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences,
156 Fitzpatrick Hall of Engineering, Notre Dame, IN 46556; email: ykurama@nd.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the behavior of concrete mixtures that use recycled concrete
aggregates (RCA) as replacement for virgin coarse natural aggregates. The direct
weight, equivalent mortar, and direct volume replacement methods utilizing varying
amounts of replacement are compared based on concrete workability, compressive
strength, and elastic modulus. A total of 144 mixtures with 16 different RCA sources
are used in the experimental program. It is found that the direct volume and
equivalent mortar replacement methods result in the best and worst workability of
fresh concrete, respectively. Regardless of the replacement method, the compressive
strength of RCA concrete is moderately reduced as compared with the strength of
concrete with virgin aggregates. There is a greater loss in the elastic modulus as the
amount of RCA is increased. The results suggest that the material properties that most
affect the mechanical behavior of RCA concrete are the aggregate water absorption
and the deleterious content.
INTRODUCTION
This paper focuses on the use of recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) as replacement
for virgin coarse natural aggregates in normal strength concrete mixtures. About half
of the construction and demolition waste in the U.S. consists of old concrete rubble.
At the same time, the mining, processing and transportation of natural aggregates
(e.g., crushed stone, gravel) for the construction and maintenance of our civil
infrastructure consume large amounts of energy and adversely affect the ecology of
forested areas and riverbeds. By recycling demolished concrete as replacement for
virgin coarse aggregates in new construction, it may be possible to substantially
reduce the demand for new aggregates.
Most recycled concrete aggregates readily pass the requirements for coarse
aggregates in structural concrete (ASTM 2009a); however, the use of recycled
concrete as aggregate in U.S. construction has been largely limited to non-structural
applications such as sidewalks and sub-base for roadways (FHWA 2008).
Furthermore, almost all of the existing research on RCA concrete was conducted
outside the U.S., limiting the applicability of the findings domestically because of
variations in materials and quality control. To advance the use of RCA in structural
reinforced concrete applications, it is necessary to determine the effects of RCA on
the rheological and mechanical properties of concrete. With this objective in mind,
1

this paper provides an experimental evaluation of three aggregate replacement

methods: (1) direct weight replacement; (2) equivalent mortar replacement; and (3)
direct volume replacement utilizing varying amounts of RCA determine concrete
workability, compressive strength, and elastic modulus. Sixteen different RCA
sources from the Midwestern U.S. are included in the study to determine the
variability of RCA properties.
BACKGROUND
Previous research on the material properties of RCA and the mechanical
behavior of RCA concrete dates back to the late 1970s, with the majority being
completed outside the U.S. (Buck 1977; Corinaldesi 2010; Dhir et al. 1999;
Etxeberria et al. 2007; Fathifazl et al. 2009; Hansen 1986; Nishibayashi et al. 1984;
Obla et al. 2007; Topcu and Sengel 2004; Yamato 1998). In a state-of-the-art paper,
Hansen (1986) reported that mortar left adhered to the original natural aggregate in
RCA was a cause for decreased specific gravity, increased water absorption, and
increased L.A. abrasion loss. The most notable of these differences was the
absorption, which was found to range between approximately 3.6% and 8.7%, as
compared to the absorption of between 0.2% and 4.0% for natural aggregates
(Kosmatka et al. 2002).
As a result of the increased aggregate water absorption, RCA concrete tends
to be less workable and have greater water demand (ACI 555 2001), which can be
resolved by using water-reducing admixtures and fly-ash. Hansen (1986)
recommended presoaking the aggregate and using RCA with less than 7% absorption.
Similarly, Obla et al. (2007) suggested using 5% more mixing water for RCA
concrete to produce equally workable material as natural aggregate (NA) concrete.
Generally, RCA concrete has been shown to have decreased compressive strength
and lower modulus of elasticity, depending on the amount of aggregate replacement
and the quality of the RCA. While Yamato (1998) found strength losses as much as
45% at full aggregate replacement, the majority of the previous research found
smaller losses ranging from 10% to 20%. In comparison, the effect of RCA on the
elastic modulus of concrete is generally greater, with losses ranging from 10% to
33% at full replacement (ACI 555 2001).
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Aggregates. As listed in Table 1, one type of natural fine aggregate (FA), two types
of virgin coarse natural aggregates (NA), and 16 sources of recycled concrete
aggregates (RCA) were used in the experimental program. INDOT (2012) No. 23
concrete sand was used as the natural fine aggregate (FA). The fineness modulus of
the fine aggregate was determined as 2.54 according to ASTM C 136 (2009a). For
virgin coarse natural aggregate, moraine pea gravel (NA-PG) and crushed limestone
(NA-CL) from a local ready-mix concrete plant were used. These fine and coarse
natural aggregates are typical in ready mix-concrete construction.
To provide a regional geographical representation of the variability in material
quality and properties, the 16 RCA sources used in this research were located across
2

Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. Out of these sources, 15 were construction and
demolition recycling plants. Since these facilities take debris from many sources (e.g.,
sidewalks, pavements, buildings, bridges), the properties of the original concrete are
not known. Furthermore, the RCA from the recycling plants had gradations typical
for road sub-base use in each respective state (including significant fine fraction), and
also contained varying amounts of deleterious substances (e.g., brick, asphalt, wood).
The other source of RCA was a 0.4-scale precast concrete shear wall laboratory
specimen previously tested to failure under reversed-cyclic lateral loading (Smith et
al. 2011). After the testing of the wall, the precast panels were crushed at a mobile
recycling facility, and then sieved and combined into two different gradations (RCAND and RCA-ND1 in Table 1). The reason for crushing a test specimen into RCA
was the availability of detailed information on the mix design as well as the fresh and
hardened properties of the source concrete. In addition, since the RCA from the test
specimen was not mixed with other material (i.e., it contained one concrete mix and
little deleterious substances), it served as a benchmark for the RCA from the other 15
sources.
Table 1. Natural and recycled concrete aggregate properties
Specific Gravity
Aggregate
ID

Type/
Source Location

FA
Concrete Sand
NA-PG Pea Gravel
NA-CL Limestone
RCA-RR 1. Mishawaka, IN
RCA-R 2. Chicago, IL
RCA-W 3. Indianapolis, IN
RCA-P 4. Chicago, IL
RCA-GT 5. South Bend, IN
RCA-L 6. Chicago, IL
RCA-A 7. Cleves, OH
RCA-EL 8. Cincinnati, OH
RCA-EG 9. Elk Grove, IL
RCA-HP 10. Highland Park, MI
RCA-ND 11. Notre Dame, IN
RCA-ND1 11. Notre Dame, IN
RCA-S 12. South Bend, IN
RCA-T 13. Taylor, MI
RCA-SB 14. South Bend, IN
RCA-E 15. Elkhart, IN
RCA-G 16. Goshen, IN

Bulk
SSD App.
Dry
2.59
2.47
2.71
2.31
2.27
2.26
2.33
2.29
2.34
2.32
2.31
2.33
2.28
2.28
2.30
2.18
2.24
2.13
2.14
2.1

2.63
2.55
2.73
2.41
2.37
2.36
2.45
2.41
2.46
2.44
2.43
2.46
2.41
2.41
2.43
2.32
2.38
2.28
2.32
2.29

2.69
2.70
2.76
2.56
2.53
2.52
2.64
2.61
2.67
2.64
2.65
2.68
2.62
2.63
2.66
2.52
2.61
2.49
2.61
2.59

Water Res. Mortar Deleterious

LA
Absorption, Content, Mat. Cont.,
Gradation Abrasion
!!" or !!"#
RM
!!"#
Loss
(%Weight) (%Weight) (%Weight)
1.39
INDOT #23
3.48
ASTM #8
23.2
0.74
INDOT #8 21.0
4.33
26.1
22.1
INDOT #8 35.6
4.59
23.6
10.2
INDOT #8 31.3
4.70
18.8
3.27
INDOT #8 32.3
5.07
34.9
5.70
INDOT #8 32.7
5.30
37.4
4.84
INDOT #8 35.4
5.31
36.9
4.00
INDOT #8 30.9
5.31
37.6
1.99
INDOT #8 35.2
5.55
32.4
5.12
INDOT #8 35.2
5.68
22.2
4.45
INDOT #8 30.5
5.69
42.1
1.91
INDOT #8 36.4
5.69
60.5
0.00
ASTM #8
29.8
5.85
63.6
<1.00
INDOT #8 38.0
6.06
30.4
5.68
INDOT #8 37.8
6.29
46.5
3.55
INDOT #8 38.9
6.73
51.5
0.00
ASTM #7
36.7
8.44
35.1
1.25
INDOT #8 39.6
8.94
34.3
2.03
INDOT #8 40.5

Table 1 shows the type/source location, specific gravity [bulk dry, saturated
surface dry (SSD), and apparent], water absorption (!!" for NA, !!"# for RCA),
residual mortar content (RM), deleterious material content (!!"# ), gradation, and LA
abrasion loss (ASTM 2009a) of the aggregates (with the RCAs listed in order of
increasing absorption). Since significant variations in aggregate size can produce
different fresh and hardened concrete properties (e.g., workability, strength)
3

(Kosmatka et al. 2002), it was necessary to use aggregates with a consistent gradation.
The three target gradations used were ASTM C33 (2009a) No. 8, ASTM C33 No. 7,
and INDOT (2012) No. 8 [corresponding to nominal maximum aggregate sizes of 9.5
mm (3/8 in.), 12.5 mm (1/2 in.), and 19.0 mm (3/4 in.), respectively]. To achieve
these gradations, each coarse aggregate was sieved into individual size fractions and
then recombined as necessary. The details of the specific gravity, absorption, residual
mortar content, and deleterious content testing are described in Knaack and Kurama
(2011). Lastly, the LA abrasion loss, which measures the change in aggregate mass
due to mechanical degradation through tumbling and falling, was determined
according to ASTM C 131 (2009a).
NA Concrete Mix Designs. As listed in Table 2, three target virgin natural aggregate
concrete (NAC) mix designs formed the basis for the RCA concrete mixes in this
research. The original NAC mix (Smith et al. 2011) for the laboratory wall test
specimen (i.e., the
source for RCA- Table 2. Dry weight proportions of NAC target mix designs
Water Cement NA
FA
HRWR
AEA
ND and RCAName
(lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (lb/yd3) (fl oz/yd3) (fl oz/yd3)
ND1) served as NA-PG Target 253
574
1733
1140
48.5
8.1
one of the target NA-CL Target 253
574
1916
1140
48.5
8.1
mixes. This mix
NA-PG-Wet
324
726
1249
1308
21.8
Target
used NA-PG as the
Note: 1 lb/yd3 = 0.5933 kg/m3; 1 fl oz/yd3 = 38.67 mL/m3
coarse aggregate
and was designed with a water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.44 for a target 28-day
strength of 41.4 MPa (6.0 ksi), slump of 12.72.54 cm (51 in.), and air content of
51.5%. From previous data (Smith et al. 2011), the average measured 28-day
strength of the concrete was 44.1 MPa (6.4 ksi). Because the original mix was
designed for precast concrete construction (which requires high early concrete
strength for removal of formwork), ASTM C 150 (2009) Type III portland cement
was used. Keeping all of the volumetric mix proportions the same, a second target
mix design using NA-CL with Type I cement was also determined. For both the NAPG and NA-CL target designs, Sika AEA-14 and Sikament 686 were included as
air-entraining agent (AEA) and high range water reducer (HRWR), respectively.
The third target mix (NA-PG-Wet) contained NA-PG coarse aggregate,
ASTM C 150 Type III portland cement, Sika AEA-14 air entraining agent, and no
water reducer. The mix was designed with a w/c ratio of 0.45 for a target 28-day
strength of 31.0 MPa (4.5 ksi) and slump of approximately 17.8 cm (7 in.). While the
w/c ratio of this mix and the other two target mixes were nearly equal, the volumetric
ratio of fresh mortar to coarse material for the third mix was greater (2.23 compared
to 1.38), resulting in a much wetter mix.
RCA Concrete Mix Designs. Three different aggregate replacement methods are
explored in this paper as the direct weight replacement method (DWR), equivalent
mortar replacement (EMR), and direct volume replacement method (DVR). A
detailed comparison of these replacement methods is given by Knaack and Kurama
(2011). By replacing the NA in the mix designs above, a total of 144 RCA mixes
were made. The aggregate replacement ratio, ! was used to quantify the amount of
4

NA replaced by RCA as given by Equations 1, 2, and 3 for the DWR, EMR, and
DVR methods, respectively.
!"#
!"#
! = 1 !!"
/!!"
(1)
!"#
!"#
! = 1 !!" /!!"
(2)
!"#
!"#
! = 1 !!" /!!"
(3)
!"#
!"#
where, !!"
= weight of NA in DWR mix; !!"
= weight of NA in NAC mix;
!"#
!"#
!!"
= volume of NA in EMR mix; !!"
= volume of NA in DVR mix; and
!"#
!!" = volume of NA in NAC mix. Sample RCA mix designs utilizing the DWR,
EMR, and DVR methods are shown in Table 3, with the footnotes at the bottom of
the table listing all of the remaining RCA mixes studied.
Table 3. Dry weight proportions of sample RCA-ND mix designs (with NA-PG target)
Water
Cement
NA
RCA
FA
HRWR
AEA
!
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(kg/m3)
(mL/m3) (mL/m3)
(%) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
21
150
341
812
216
657
1876
313
41
150
341
607
421
640
1876
313
DWR1,2
61
150
341
401
627
623
1876
313
81
150
341
195
833
606
1876
313
100
150
341
1028
590
1876
313
4
142
322
987
110
640
1775
298
9
132
301
940
235
597
1659
279
EMR3,4,5
14
122
276
887
380
549
1520
255
20
109
248
824
549
492
1365
228
21
150
341
815
203
676
1876
313
41
150
341
606
404
676
1876
313
DVR1,6,7,8
61
150
341
400
600
676
1876
313
81
150
341
198
787
676
1876
313
100
150
341
971
676
1876
313
Note: 1 lb/yd3 = 0.5933 kg/m3; 1 fl oz/yd3 = 38.67 mL/m3
1
Similar mixes also made at ! = 10, 30, 50, 70, and 90%.
2
Mixes repeated with RCA-SB at ! = 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, and 100%.
3
Mixes repeated with RCA-SB at ! = 5, 10, 15, and 20%.
4
Using NA-CL target, similar mixes made with RCA-G at ! = 20, 40%, and with RCA-RR at ! = 20, 40, 60%.
5
Using NA-PG-Wet target, similar mixes made with RCA-ND at ! = 10, 20, 30, 36, 40, 50%.
6
Mixes also repeated with RCA-SB at ! = 10, 20, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100%.
7
Using NA-CL target, similar mixes made with RCA-RR, RCA-R, RCA-W, RCA-P, RCA-GT, RCA-L, RCA-A,
RCA-EL, RCA-EG, RCA-HP, RCA-S, RCA-T, RCA-E, RCA-G, RCA-ND1 at ! = 20, 40, 60, 80, 100%.
8
Using NA-PG-Wet target, similar mixes made with RCA-ND at ! = 10, 20, 30, 36, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100%.
Name

For the DVR and DWR methods, the water reducer was batched
proportionally to the amount of cement (per HRWR manufacturers specifications) so
as to maintain a consistent composition for the fresh mortar. For the EMR mixes, this
approach resulted in a decrease in water reducer (since the amount of cement
decreases as ! increases in EMR mixes). To explore this effect, the maximum
amount of water reducer recommended by the manufacturer was used in the EMR
mixes based on the NA-CL target while the water reducer was varied proportionally
to the amount of cement in the EMR mixes based on the NA-PG target.
Aggregate Preparation. Following dry sieving, the recycled and virgin natural
coarse aggregates were washed with water over a No. 8 (2.36 mm) sieve to further
5

remove excess fines. All coarse and fine aggregates were then dried in an oven at
110 C (230 F) for at least 24 hours. To ensure that the aggregates did not absorb
mix water (in turn pulling water from the cement paste and leading to decreased
workability and cement hydration), the material was removed from the oven, batched
according to the dry weights in Tables 2 and 3, blended (as necessary) according to
the gradations in Table 1, and then soaked in water for a period of 18 to 24 hours.
After soaking, the excess water was decanted from the aggregates, which were then
weighed to determine the amounts of absorbed and residual water. Using the
absorption values from Table 1, the amount of residual water beyond the saturated
surface dry (SSD) condition of the aggregates was subtracted from the required mix
water for each concrete batch.
Mixing. Following aggregate preparation, each concrete batch was mixed in a
rotating drum mixer [with a wet material capacity of 0.02 m3 (0.80 ft3)] according to
ASTM C 192 (ASTM 2009b). The fresh concrete was immediately removed from the
mixer and placed in a non-absorbent metal pan for slump testing and cylinder
molding. In removing the fresh concrete from the mixer, some mortar adhered to the
inside of the drum. This mortar loss was accounted for by adding an estimated
amount of mortar left inside the drum to the original mix design. To determine this
estimated amount, three batches each were made for the NA-PG and NA-CL target
mixes. The average amount of mortar loss for each set of three batches was
determined by subtracting the total material removed from the mixer from the total
weight of the material placed in the mixer. The amounts of fine aggregate, water,
cementitious material, and liquid admixtures were adjusted proportionally to account
for this loss in all subsequent mixes.
Concrete Slump. To determine the workability of each mix, a variation of the ASTM
C 143 (2009a) slump test was conducted. The ASTM test requires a slump cone with
a concrete volume of 5663 cm3 (0.20 ft3). However, because of the relatively small
amount of RCA available from each source, the volume of each batch was limited to
3398 cm3 (0.12 ft3) to make four 7.6 x 15.2 cm (3 x 6 in.) cylinders. To allow for
slump measurement, the dimensions of the ASTM slump cone were scaled by half,
thus reducing the required concrete volume to 721 cm3 (0.03 ft3). The correlation
between the full slump cone and the scaled mini slump cone is described in Knaack
and Kurama (2011) and is given by Equation 4 as:
!"## !"#$% = 2.13 !"#" !"#$%
(4)
Curing. Following slump testing, four 7.6 x 15.2 cm (3 x 6 in.) cylinders were made
from each batch. Three cylinders were used to determine the compressive strength
and stiffness of the concrete, while the fourth cylinder was left unbroken for future
reference and analysis. The cylinders were made using plastic disposable molds,
which were capped and stored at room conditions for approximately one day. The day
after casting, the cylinders were removed from the molds and were cured for 27 days
in water at room temperature, bringing the total curing duration to 28 days. In
accordance with ASTM C 511 (2009a), high-calcium hydrated lime (calcium

hydroxide) was added to the curing water to prevent the leaching of lime from the
concrete.
Testing. After curing, the specimens were hand dried using paper towels and tested
in a moist state according to ASTM C 39 (2009a). Each cylinder was capped using
unbonded steel caps with rubber bearing pads to help maintain an even load
distribution during testing. A servo-controlled hydraulic universal testing machine
was used to apply a constant stress rate of 241 kPa/s (35 psi/s) and the concrete axial
strain was measured using an Epsilon 3542RA rock averaging extensometer with
5.1 cm gauge length. So as to not damage the extensometer, each test was briefly
paused (for less than 10 s) to remove the sensor at a stress of 20.7 to 37.9 MPa (2.5 to
5.5 ksi), depending on the expected strength of the concrete, after which the loading
continued at the same stress rate until specimen failure.
The compressive strength was determined from the
peak stress, !!" reached in each test, and the secant
modulus, !!"# was determined from the slope between
two points on the measured stress-strain curve, first
point at a strain of !!! = 0.00005 and the second point
second at a stress of !!! = 0.40!!" .
RESULTS

(a)

The results of the slump, compressive strength,

and secant modulus of elasticity for the mixes shown
in Tables 2 and 3 are discussed below.
Slump. The DVR method should not result in a
significant decrease in workability provided that
similar aggregate gradations are used and the
absorption of the aggregates is accounted for.
Conversely, since the DWR and EMR methods
decrease the fresh mortar to coarse material ratio, the
workability of these mixes is expected to decrease.
Figs. 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c) show the mini slump results
from the DWR, EMR and DVR mix design methods.
It can be seen that the DVR method provides similar
workability to the target NA mix designs (cases with
!=0%). In comparison, for large !, the DWR method
tends to result in smaller slump values than the target
mix design. The EMR mixes perform the worst and
become unworkable at small amounts of replacement,
with the slump reaching zero between !=14% and
!=60%, depending upon the RCA source and the
target mix design used.

(b)

(c)
Figure 1. RCA concrete
mini slump: (a) DWR
mixes; (b) EMR mixes;
and (c) DVR mixes

As stated previously, for the EMR method,

the proportion of HRWR to cement was held constant
in the NA-PG mixes, but was increased in the NA-CL
mixes to the maximum recommended by the HRWR
manufacturer. The NA-PG-Wet mixes did not have
any HRWR. While the increased HRWR in the NACL mixes and the increased fresh mortar in the NAPG-Wet mixes resulted in increased slump, the DVR
and DWR methods still resulted in significantly more
workable concrete than the EMR method. Note that
the mixes using RCA with higher residual mortar
content (RM, see Table 1) tended to have less
workability, because the EMR method dictates less
fresh mortar for higher RM in the mix. It is
concluded that in order to achieve high levels of
replacement in EMR mixes, the target mix should
have a relatively high fresh mortar to coarse material
ratio. Further, the RCA should have low RM so that
only a small reduction in fresh mortar is needed to
achieve equivalent volumes of total mortar in the
RCA and target mix designs.

(a)

(b)

Compressive Strength. Fig. 2 shows the 144

average (from a minimum of 3 samples for each
batch) 28-day compressive strength, !!" , results for
the RCA mixes designed based on the NA-PG, NAPG-Wet, and NA-CL target mixes. The !!" data is
based on a total of 602 cylinders designed using the
(c)
DVR, DWR, and EMR methods. A significant
Figure
2.
RCA
concrete
distinction cannot be made between the DWR, DVR,
and EMR mixes; and thus the replacement design compressive strength: (a)
method does not seem to be an important factor for all target mixes; (b) NA-PG
and NA-PG Wet target
strength. Depending on the RCA source, it is possible
mix;
and (c) NA-CL target
to produce concrete with a comparable strength as the
mix
target NA concrete. On average, the mixes using the
NA-CL target mix show a decrease in strength with increased R, whereas the mixes
using the NA-PG and NA-PG-Wet target mix tend to have a slight strength increase.
It is interesting to note that RCA-ND and RCA-ND1 did not result in the
strongest RCA concrete even though these materials were obtained from a known
source with known properties and little or no deleterious inclusions. The three
aggregates that consistently produced the weakest concrete are: 1) RCA-RR, which
had the highest deleterious material content, !!"# (see Table 1); and 2, 3) RCA-G and
RCA-E, which had the highest absorption, !!"# . It is also important to point out that
there is a significant amount of variability in the compressive strength results based
on the source of the RCA material.

Modulus of Elasticity. Fig. 3 shows 111 average

secant modulus, !!"# results (from a minimum of 3
samples for each case) for the RCA mixes designed
based on the NA-PG, NA-PG-Wet, and NA-CL target
mixes. Note that the number of data for !!"# is smaller
than the number of data for !!" in Fig. 2 because an
extensometer was not available for some of the tests.
In general, the !!"# findings are consistent with those
for !!" that the mix design method does not seem to
(a)
have a large effect on the results. For mixes based on
the NA-PG and NA-PG-Wet target mixes, there is no
discernable change in !!"# as ! is increased; whereas,
for mixes based on the NA-CL target, a significant
decrease in !!"# is observed (the decrease is more than
30% at !=100%).
One possible explanation for the above trends
is the effect of aggregate water absorption on the
elastic modulus of concrete. As shown in Table 1, the
(b)
absorption of NA-PG (!!" =3.48%) is closer to the
absorption of the RCA ( !!"# =4.33% to 8.94%)
whereas NA-CL has a much lower absorption
( !!" =0.74%). Since according to ASTM C 192
(2009a), all aggregates are added to the mixer in a
fully saturated condition, the water stored in the
aggregate pore space can migrate into the surrounding
cement paste during hydration, thus resulting in a
higher water-to-cement ratio (i.e., weaker cement
(c)
paste) in the interfacial zone adjacent to the aggregate
Figure
3.
RCA
concrete
as compared to the bulk paste away from the
elastic modulus: (a) all
aggregate. This interfacial transition zone (ITZ)
target
mixes; (b) NA-PG
surrounding the aggregate has long been considered
and NA-PG Wet Target
the weak link (Maso 1996), and therefore it is
mix; and (c) NA-CL
possible that aggregates with higher absorption (i.e.,
Target mix
increased porosity) can add to that weakness by
locally increasing the w/c ratio.
Similar to the concrete strength in Fig. 2, RCA with larger absorption and
deleterious content tend to result in smaller secant modulus in Fig. 3. However, there
is much less variability in the secant modulus data than in the strength data. For
example, for the DVR mixes based on the NA-CL target mix at !=100%, the
coefficient of variation in !!"# is only 5.4% as compared with 9.8% for !!" . One
explanation for this difference may be that !!" is a failure property (which is a
relatively unstable event for concrete) and therefore inherently experiences a
significant amount of variability even between concrete cylinders of the same batch,
whereas !!"# is a linear-elastic property and is measured during a stable portion of the
stress-strain behavior.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This paper investigates the rheological and mechanical properties of concrete
mixtures that use recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) as replacement for coarse
virgin natural aggregates. Three mix design methods utilizing direct volume
replacement (DVR), direct weight replacement (DWR), and equivalent mortar
replacement (EMR) are compared based on concrete workability, compressive
strength, and elastic modulus. The important conclusions from the study are given
below. In interpreting these conclusions, it should be noted that the results are limited
to the materials and mix designs tested.
1) The workability of fresh concrete is affected by the aggregate replacement
method. The DVR method produced concrete with similar slump as the target natural
aggregate concrete mixes. While the DWR mixes had somewhat decreased slump, the
concrete was still easily placed and finished in the cylinder molds. In comparison, the
decreased fresh mortar in the EMR mixes resulted in significantly reduced slump
such that replacement ratios greater than R=60% were not possible even with the
maximum amount of water reducer.
2) The compressive strength, !!" and elastic modulus, !!"# of concrete do not
seem to be significantly affected by the mix design method.
3) Generally, RCA with larger water absorption, !!"# and deleterious material
content, !!"# tend to result in smaller !!" and !!"# . The use of RCA has a greater
effect on !!"# than on !!" . However, there is much less variability in !!"# than in !!" .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Danny Atkinson of Concrete Recycling Center and Mark
Zeltwanger of American Mobile Aggregate Crushing for their help in acquiring some
of the RCA. Additional materials were provided by ACT Recycling, Aggregate
Industries, Buzzi Unicem, Evans Landscaping, Great Lakes Aggregates, Green Tech
Transfer and Recycling, Lindahl Brothers, INC., Reliable Asphalt Corporation, R &
R Excavating, Sika Corporation, Transit Mix South Bend, Vulcan Materials
Company, and Walsh Construction Company. The authors acknowledge Dave
Schelling of the LaPorte district INDOT office for his help in conducting the LA
Abrasion testing. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations in the
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the
individuals or organizations above.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 555. (2001). Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete. American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ASTM. (2009). Annual Book of ASTM Standards. V. 4.01, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM. (2009a). Annual Book of ASTM Standards. V. 4.02, Philadelphia, PA.
Buck, A.D. (1977). Recycled Concrete as a Source of Aggregate. ACI J., 74(5),
212-219.

10

Corinaldesi, V. (2010). Mechanical and Elastic Behaviour of Concrete Made of

Recycled Concrete Coarse Aggregates. Construction and Building Materials,
24(9), 1616-1620.
Dhir, R.K., Limbachiya, M.C., and Leelawat, T. (1999). Suitability of Recycled
Concrete Aggregate for use in BS 5328 Designated Mixes. Proceedings of ICE:
Structures & Buildings, 134(3), 257-274.
Etxeberria, M., Mari, A.R., and Vazquez, E. (2007). Recycled Aggregate Concrete
as Structural Material. Materials and Structures, 40(5), 529-541.
Fathifazl, G., Abbas, A., Razaqpur, A.G., Isgor, O.B., and Foo, S. (2009). New
Mixture Proportioning Method for Concrete Made with Coarse Recycled
Concrete Aggregate. J.of Materials in Civil Engineering, 21(10), 601-611.
FHWA.
(2008).
Recycled
Concrete
Aggregate.
Pavements,
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/rca.cfm> (May 4, 2011).
Hansen, T.C. (1986). Recycled Aggregates and Recycled Aggregate Concrete
Second State-of-the-Art Report Developments 1945-1985. Materials and
Structures, 19(3), 201-246.
INDOT. (2012). Standard Specifications. Indiana Department of Transportation,
821-827.
Knaack, A.M., and Kurama, Y.C. (2011). Design of Normal Strength Concrete
Mixtures with Recycled Concrete Aggregates. Proceedings of the ASCE
Structures Congress, Las Vegas, NV.
Kosmatka, S.H., Kerkhoff, B., and Panarese, W.C. (2002). Design and Control of
Concrete Mixtures. Portland Cement Association, 14th Edition, Skokie, IL.
Maso, J. (1996). Interfacial Transition Zone in Concrete. E & FN Spon, London,
114-128.
Nishibayashi, S., Yamura, K., and Hayashi, A. (1984). Elastic-Plastic Properties and
Durability of Concrete Made from Recycled Concrete Aggregate Prepared by
Crushing Concrete. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 6, 127-132.
Obla, K., Kim, H., and Lobo, C. (2007). Crushed Returned Concrete as Aggregates
for New Concrete. RMC Research and Education Foundation, Project 05-13.
Smith, B., Kurama, Y., and McGinnis, M. (2011). Design and Measured Behavior of
a Hybrid Precast Concrete Wall Specimen for Seismic Regions, J. of Struct. Eng.,
(preprint article may be accessed from http://ascelibrary.aip.org/).
Topcu, I.B. and Sengal, S. (2004). Properties of Concretes Produced with Waste
Concrete Aggregate. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(8), 1307-1312.
Yamato, T. (1998). Mechanical Properties, Drying Shrinkage and Resistance to
Freezing and Thawing of Concrete using Recycled Aggregate. ACI SP-179, 105121.

11