See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248465487

A study of concrete properties using phyllite as

coarse aggregates
ARTICLE in MATERIALS AND DESIGN OCTOBER 2010
Impact Factor: 3.17 DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2010.03.041

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

12

429

102

2 AUTHORS:
Mark Adom-Asamoah

Russell Owusu Afrifa

Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and

10 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

28 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Mark Adom-Asamoah

Retrieved on: 28 June 2015

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

A study of concrete properties using phyllite as coarse aggregates

Mark Adom-Asamoah*, Russell Owusu Afrifa.
Department of Civil Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, College of Engineering,
Kumasi, Ghana

*Corresponding author: Tel. +2335160226, Fax +2335160235

Email: markadomasamoah@gmail.com; madom-asamoah.coe@knust.edu.gh
(Dr Mark Adom-Asamoah)

ABSTRACT
Nowadays, industrial activities generate a huge amount of waste. One such activity is underground
mining which generates phyllite wastes that are recycled as coarse aggregates for use in concrete
production. Aggregate use in concrete is dependent on availability. This paper reports of an
experimental study on some of the physical and mechanical properties of phyllite aggregate concrete
as compared to granite (conventional) aggregate concrete. The obtained physical and mechanical
properties of both aggregates for specific gravity, water absorption (%), dry density, aggregate
impact value (%), aggregate crushing value (%), 10% fines, elongation index (%), flakiness index (%)
and Los Angeles abrasion values satisfied minimum requirements for aggregates suitable for concrete
production. Five mixes of concrete mix pro-portions designated M1, M2, M3, M4 and M5 were cast
using phyllite and granite aggregates. A total of 400 concrete cubes and 210 modulus of rupture
beams were cast and cured by total submerging in water for ages 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 90, 180 and 360
days before compression and bending tests were performed. The results show that the trends in the
development of compressive and bending strengths of plain phyllite concrete were similar to those in
granite (conventional) aggregate concrete. However the compressive and bending strengths of
phyllite concrete mixes were on the average 1520% lower than those of the corresponding granite
concrete mixes at all ages. The same concrete mix proportions gave lower concrete classes for
phyllite compared to granite with the exception of the lowest grade. This was probably because the
flakiness and elongation properties coupled with reactive materials in phyllite aggregates affect the
absorption and bond characteristics of its concrete.

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

1.0 Introduction
Concrete is the most predominantly used construction material, and in view of sustainable
development, the use of other sources of concrete components has acquired particular interest in civil
construction. One major component of concrete whose availability may control the use of concrete is
the coarse aggregate. In recent times many researchers have dedicated their work to various materials
used as coarse aggregates and how some material could be improved for concrete production in
diverse lines of thought [15]. The type of aggregate to produce concrete must conform to certain
standard for acceptable and optimum engineering use.

Generally, it is important that coarse aggregates have good strength, durability and weather resistance,
that its surface be free from impurities such as loam, silt and organic matter, durable particle free from
absorbed chemicals in permissible amount that will not affect hydration of cement and water, and
bond of cement paste. Aggregates could be classified by their weight, rock type and their shape. The
first and most important issue in choice of aggregate for concrete works is availability. Often the field
engineers have to produce concrete from the aggregate generally avail-able and close to the
construction sites. When availability is no problem, then the choice of aggregate extend to factors
which can influence the performance of concrete produced from these aggregates.
In Ghana, concrete is popular as basic construction material be-cause of available technical knowhow of production, its economy of use, good durability and ease with which it can be manufactured at
site. Because of its plasticity, concrete has the ability to mold into any shape and size and
subsequently hardens to achieve useful strength. Coarse aggregate is a major component of concrete
as it takes the highest percentage of 7075% either by mass or volume of concrete based on any
standard mix design.

Phyllite, a naturally occurring aggregate is produced as a by-product of underground mining activities

of AngloGold Ashanti mines at Oboes, in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The geographical location of
the Oboes mines is latitude 6.1 N and longitude 1.4 W. Phyllite is formed as an intermediate rock
between slate and schist. Under high pressure and compactive stresses, a foliated metamorphic rock is
formed. This low grade rock which can split into thin pieces is called slate. When further severe
compaction is experienced under high temperature and pressure slate proceeds to form phyllite.
Phyllite belongs to the foliated and platy group composed of tabular and elongated minerals. The
laminations and foliation make it break along planes and they are thinly bedded. Granite is an igneous
rock formed from magma which has originated well be-low the surface, has ascended towards the
surface, and has crystalised as solid rock either on the surface or deep within the earths crust as it is
temperature fell [6].
2

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

1.1. Justification for research

The very common and mostly used aggregates are granite and sandstone, yet the sources of these
materials are facing the problem of depletion and substitute for granite as coarse aggregate has been a
challenge whereas conservation of natural resources is very essential in any modern development.
Since aggregate use and cost of concrete production is related to availability and haul-age distance,
the use of phyllite aggregates is one of such attempt to substitute for crushed granite as coarse
aggregates in concrete production. Moreover the continuous accumulation of phyllite aggregates is an
environmental issue if no use is found for this waste material. One of construction sectors major
contributions to the preservation of the environment and sustainable development is the reuse and
recycling of the waste materials generated by industry [7]. The closest commercial quarry which
produces crushed granite aggregates is about 120 km away from the mines. Therefore, artisans and
small-scale contractors use the phyllite aggregate for pavement and building construction.
Reports indicate that the volumes of phyllite aggregates used annually for construction is on the
increase and that buildings constructed with phyllite as coarse aggregates in concrete in Oboes show
extensive cracks with partial or total collapse of structural elements. Not much research has been
reported on the properties of concrete using phyllite aggregate. This research work characterises the
physical properties of phyllite aggregates to determine its suitability as coarse aggregates for
structural concrete. It also undertakes a parametric study of the compressive and bending (modulus of
rupture) strengths of different concrete grades with age. Granite aggregates and concrete made from
granite aggregates obtained from the commercial quarry situated 120 km away were used as control.

2.0 Experimental program

2.1. Materials
Ordinary Portland cement conforming to BS12:1989 [8] was used for concrete works. Natural river
sand was used as fine aggregates whilst two types of coarse aggregates; normal granites and phyllites
were obtained from a commercial quarry and under-ground mining activities respectively. The
aggregated sieve distribution of both fine and coarse aggregates was done as per the requirements of
BS812 [9]. From the grading analysis for coarse aggregates, as shown in Fig. 1a and b, the sieve on
which most of the granite and phyllite aggregates were retained was sieve size 12 mm (1/2 in.) and
passed 19 mm (3/4 in.). Therefore the particle size distribution of both aggregates fall within the range
of 20 5 mm. It is obvious that both aggregates had similar grading characteristics; hence all things
being equal similar concrete properties were expected to develop. The fine aggregate used was graded
according to BS882 [10] (Fig. 1c).

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

2.2. Experimental procedure
Samples were taken from the phyllite and granite stock piles at the laboratory for testing. The samples
were oven dried and physical properties such as water absorption (%), dry density, aggregate impact
value (%), aggregate crushing value (%), 10% fines, elongation index (%), flakiness index (%) and
Los Angeles abrasion value were determined per the BS specifications [10].
Five different concrete mix proportions; M1, M2, M3, M4 and M5 (Table 2) were considered all
based on the DOE [11] mix design method. The concrete mix proportions were made for 28 days
target compressive cube strengths from 20 to 40 N/mm2. Concrete cube moulds of 100 100 100 mm
were used for compression tests and modulus of rupture moulds of 100 100 500 were used for
modulus of rupture (bending strength of plain concrete) tests. Mixing was done using an electrically
operated concrete (drum) mixer. Concrete placed in moulds were compacted using an electric vibrator
to ensure minimum amount of voids. Concrete slump tests were performed as per the specifications of
BS1881:1983 [12].

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

Fig. 1 Aggregates grading curves

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

A total of 400 No 100 100 100 concrete cubes, 200 each of granite and phyllite were cast and cured
by total submerging in water for ages 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 90, 180 and 360 days before compression tests
were performed. For each mix and concrete type, five standard 100 mm cubes were tested at each age.
The densities of all the 400 concrete cubes were calculated. Concrete designed to the same mix
proportion of concrete for the compressive tests were cast to prepare beams for the flexure strength
test. A total of 210 modulus of rupture (MOR) beams, 105 each of phyllite and granite were cast and
cured by total submerging in water for the ages 7, 14, 28, 56, 90, 180 and 360 days. Three modulus of
rupture beams were tested at each age for each concrete mix proportion and aggregate type. Testing of
concrete was carried out in accordance with BS1881:1983 [12] for compressive and flexural
strengths. Testing for compression strength of concrete cubes at various ages was done using a
Universal Compression Testing Machine of maximum capacity 500 kN. The flexural strength of the
modulus of rupture beams were measured by a three-point test using a Universal Flexural Testing
Machine with a maximum load capacity of 20 tons.

3. Experimental results and discussion

3.1. Physical and mechanical properties
Physical properties of aggregates have relevant effect on the behavior of aggregates in concrete.
Higher strength aggregates produce higher concrete strength [13]. Table 1 shows results of the
physical and mechanical property tests conducted on the phyllite and granite aggregates that were
used for this research work.
Table 1 Experimental aggregate strength indices

Physical property
Specific gravity
Water absorption (%)
Aggregate impact (%)
Aggregate crushing (%)
Ten (%) fines (kN)
Flakiness index (%)
Elongation index (%)
Los Angeles abrasion

Phyllite aggregates
2.72
1.80
9.80
18.64
255.75
28.00
25.00
17.50

Granite aggregates
2.64
2.30
10.50
16.42
278.45
15.00
2.00
16.25

3.1.1. Specific gravity

The specific gravity of phyllite and granite aggregates is 2.72 and 2.64 respectively. These values
are within the 2.53.0 range of specific gravity for normal weight aggregates.
3.1.2. Water absorption and porosity
The presence of pores in rocks makes it possible for aggregates crushed from their natural source to
6

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

retain similar properties. Some of the pores are wholly within the solid aggregate, whilst others are
open onto the surface of the particle. Water is able to penetrate the pores, the amount and the rate of
penetration de-pends on the continuity of the pore and the total volume of aggregates. Most rocks
have porosity varying from 0% to 50% of the aggregates volume [11] and since aggregate volume
covers about 7075% of concrete volume it is obvious that aggregates contributes much to the entire
porosity of concrete. The relevance of this property is the fact that porosity and water absorption of
aggregates affect the amount of water allowable in the concrete mix which controls the workability
and the strength of concrete. Bulking of sand is drastically affected by the amount of water absorbed
and the moisture content. It determines the mass of aggregates occupying a fixed volume, which
makes it necessary when batching by volume. The water absorption of the phyllite and granite
aggregates was determined according to the BS812:1990 [9] by measuring the decrease in mass of a
saturated and surface dry sample after oven drying for 30 min. The ratio of the decrease on mass to
the mass of the dry sample, expressed as percentage gives the water absorption. The water absorption
of the granite aggregates (2.3%) was greater than that of the phylite (1.8%), both of which are within
the acceptable limits for aggregates that can be used for concrete.
3.1.3. Aggregates shape and texture
The shape and texture of aggregates influence its water absorption capacity. Whilst well rounded
aggregates require less water for a specific workability due to less surface area, flaky and elongated
particles possess larger surface area hence absorb more water. BS812:1990 [9] classifies aggregate
particles by means of simple gauges. The method is based on the assumption that a particle is flaky if
its thickness (least dimension) is less than 0.6 times the mean sieve size fraction which the particle
belongs. A particle is likewise elongated if its length (largest dimension) is more than 1.8 times the
mean sieve size. With respect to this work, the phyllite and granite aggregates were sampled from
portion which passed 14 mm sieve size and retained on the 10 mm sieve size. The flakiness index of
the phyllite and granite aggregates is ex-pressed as percentage of the mass of sample used to be 28
and 15 respectively (Table 1). The elongation index followed a similar trend where phyllite recorded
about 25 but granite recorded only 2. Phyllite aggregate can be classified to be both flaky and
elongated. The code [8] specifies a limit of 50 for crushed rock and less than 40 for uncrushed. It is
therefore expected that the phyllite aggregate produce concrete of lower strength since the increased
surface area by virtue of the fact that it is flaky and elongated, will increase the watercement ratio
which affects the compressive strength development.
3.1.4. Aggregate impact value (AIV)
The oven-dry AIV was determined per the requirements of BS812:1990 [9]. Resistance of aggregate
to sudden impact greatly influences the load capacity of concrete made from that particular aggregate.
A means to measure the relative resistance of aggregates to impact loads expresses the AIV. During
impact loading, the aggregate turn to break into particles and this can change the original grading of
7

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

the aggregate used for the concrete mix. Since aggregate grading and maximum aggregate particle
size influence the mechanical properties of concrete, the quantity of particles passing 2.36 mm sieve
size is obtained to evaluate the AIV. The AIV is directly proportional to the concrete strength. The BS
code [13] sets a maximum limit of 25% (i.e. amount of particles passing 2.36 mm after the impact
loading should not exceed this limit). The AIV for the granite and phyllite aggregate which pass 14
mm and retain on 10 mm recorded 10.5 and 9.8 respectively. Within the range of values recorded the
phyllite aggregates will have good absorbance to shock [14].
3.1.5. Aggregate crushing value (ACV) and 10% fines
Aggregate response to gradually applied compressive load can differ from sudden load impact in
concrete. Therefore ACV which is a relative measure of the aggregate resistance to crushing under a
gradually applied load is conducted on both aggregates to check their individual resistance.
Technically when the ACV of the aggregate sample exceeds 30% the results may be unusual and
therefore the 10% fines test is carried out. The ACV is obtained by conducting four aggregate
crushing tests for different compressive loads and plotting a graph of the load against the percentage
of fines. The average percentage ACV for the granite aggregate used as control was 18.42% and that
of phyllite was 16.42% under the compressive load 450 kN. The results indicated that both aggregates
passed the British Standards ACV specified requirement to be not more than 35%. The phyllite
aggregate produced more fines after crushing than the granite. This might be as result of the flakiness
of the phyllite aggregates. All the same the difference was not that great to compare. The 10% fines
test also revealed the resistance of phyllite to be less than that of the granite aggregate. Values
obtained were 255.75278.45 kN for phyllite and granite respectively.
3.1.6. Los Angeles abrasion
The wearing property (hardness) and the breaking property (toughness) of aggregates associated
together are carried out in the Los Angeles test. Results present percentage wear due to relative
rubbing action between aggregates and steel bars used as an abrasive charge. The abrasion values in
Table 1 are 17.5 and 16.25 for phyllite and granite aggregates respectively. This indicates that,
phyllite aggregates do not differ much from the granite aggregates used in terms of wear. For such a
range of values, concrete made from these two types of aggregates (all things being equal) possess a
high degree of resistance to wear and be used in the production of concrete intended for floors and
pavements expected to be subjected to heavy human traffic [7,15].
3.2. Concrete mix design and workability
The results of the DOE mix design method [11] with target 28-day compressive strengths are
presented in Table 2. Concrete made using phyllite aggregates and granite aggregates were designed
for different mix proportions M1, M2, M3, M4 and M5 with target 28-day cube compressive strengths

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

of 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 N/mm2 respectively. The concrete mix proportions (cement: fine aggregates:
coarse aggregates: watercement ratio) as extracted from the mass per unit volume of concrete
constituents in Table 2 are M1 (1:1.8:4.0:0.56), M2 (1:1.5:3.6:3.6:0.52), M3 (1:1.3:3.2:0.47), M4
(1:1.17:3:0.44) and M5 (1:1:2.6:0.4). It is worthy of note that as expected the watercement ratio
reduced as the target 28-day compressive strength increased. Even though the target slump selected
from the mix design method was of medium degree of workability (between 10 and 30 mm) for
normal to heavy reinforced concrete work, the actual slump recorded (Table 2) for the granite
concrete (GC) was higher than those of the phyllite concrete (PC). This is unexpected because the
greater water absorption of the granite aggregates shown in Table 1 gave the impression that the
slump of GC would be lower than that of PC given that all other conditions remain the same. Upon
several similar tests, it was observed that the flakiness of the phyllite made its surface washed with
particles dissolve in the decanted water hence reducing the weight of the saturated phyllite aggregates.
Moreover, during the batching and mixing it was noticed that the phyllite aggregates disintegrated
into smaller particles and absorbed more water to the extent of reducing the workability of the
concrete than that of the granite. It was concluded by observations and inspection that this peculiar
behavior of the phyllite aggregates during mixing caused more fines to be produced, culminating in
more water absorbed and lower slump values in phyllite concrete.
Table 2 Concrete mix proportions and slump values
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5

(1:1.8:4.0)
(1:1.5:3.6)
(1:1.3:3.2)
(1:1.1:3.0)
(1:1:2.6)

20
25
30
35
40

0.56
0.52
0.47
0.44
0.40

340
365
405
430
475

612
560
530
505
490

1360
1310
1300
1300
1270

15
15
15
15
10

10
10
10
5
5

3.3. Concrete density

A total number of 200 concrete cubes made from phyllite aggregates (M1M5) recorded densities
ranging from 2300 kg/m3 to 2850 kg/m3. An average density of 2660 kg/m3 was obtained with a
standard deviation and coefficient of variance of 0.172% and 6% respectively. The same number of
concrete cubes made from granite aggregates (M1M5) an average density of 2710 kg/m3 with a
standard deviation and coefficient of variance of 0.14% and 5% respectively. The above results reveal
that phyllite aggregates pro-duce normal weight concrete.
3.4. Compressive strength
Fig. 2 represents the compressive strength development with age. The rate of gain of strength for
early ages can give some useful idea of formwork removal schedule. With respect to this work, at day
7, the GC had gained an average of above 60% and PC gained 45% of the 28 day compressive
strength of all concrete mix proportion classes. Test results (Table 3) show that for low strength
9

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

concrete mix M1, granite concrete (GC) achieved a compressive strength of 17 N/mm2 and phyllite
concrete (PC) achieved a compressive strength of 15.2 N/mm2 at 28 days. In this case, M1 for both
aggregate types were essentially of concrete grade C15. Table 3 further indicates that concrete grade
classes of C25 and C30 were achieved at 28 days for GC whilst PC achieved corresponding concrete
grade classes of C20 and C25 for nominal concrete mixes M2 and M3 respectively. Both mixes M4
and M5 were classified as C35 for GC whereas the same mixes were both classified as C30 for PC.
The rate of strength gain for the first 28 days was the fastest for GC (Fig. 2). This confirms the reason
why many codes of practice clearly states that design of concrete should be based on the 28 day
characteristic strength. The rate of compressive strength gain of GC was higher than that of PC
especially at higher water cement ratio. However the trend of compressive strength development in
GC and PC were similar. This is as a result of similar relative compressive strengths of concrete at
different ages. For an example, the compressive strengths relative to the 28-day strengths of both GC
and PC for M3 were 0.6, 1.0, 1.06, 1.11 and 1.18 for 7, 28, 90, 180 and 360 days respectively. After
365 days (1 year) of curing, the compressive strength of the GC was between 15% and 30% higher
than the corresponding for PC.

Table 3 Concrete grades for granite and phyllite concrete.

Concrete
mix

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5

Granite

Concrete

Phyllite

Concrete

28 days
compressive
strength (N/mm2)
17.6
25.6
31.96
36.56
39.52

Concrete
class

28 days
compressive
strength (N/mm2)
15.2
20.82
26.10
31.26
32.04

Concrete
class

C15
C25
C30
C35
C35

C15
C20
C25
C30
C30

10

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

Fig. 2 Compressive strength of concrete cubes with age

11

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

Fig. 3 Bending strength of concrete beams

12

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

3.5. Bending strength
Bending strength (modulus of rupture) is an important property in structural concrete design since
it affects the bond strength, shear strength, brittleness ratio and flexural cracking [9].
Fig. 3 shows that bending strength development for each of the concrete classes increased with age.
The bending strength of the early age (7 days) PC for M1 and M2 were 17.3% and 10.1% respectively
higher than that of GC. However the early age strength of M3, M4 and M5 for GC recorded bending
strengths that are 10.1%, 17.8% and 19.4% respectively higher than PC. This indicates that PC of the
poor mixes obtained better predictions of early age bending strength. The bending strength of PC was
on the average about 1520% lower than those of the corresponding GCs at all ages.
4.0 General discussions
The obtained physical and mechanical properties of both aggregates shown in Table 1 for specific
gravity, water absorption (%), dry density, aggregate impact value (%), aggregate crushing value (%),
10% fines, elongation index (%), flakiness index (%) and Los Angeles abrasion values satisfied
minimum requirements for aggregates suitable for concrete production. Even though the properties of
phyllite aggregates satisfied the minimum requirements for aggregates suitable for concrete, they were
generally a shade lower than those measured for granite aggregates. Results show that on the average
the bending (flexural) strength of the PC was 7.82% of the compressive strength and this compares to
that of GC which recorded an average of 6.76%. Figs. 2 and 3 also show that the compressive and
bending strengths of PC were generally 1520% lower than those of corresponding GC for all ages.

Since mix designs were made based on same w/c ratios which in effect standardized the quantities
of the various component of a concrete grade, the differences in strengths (bending and compression)
could be attributed to the aggregate type. This observation is similar to those reported by other
researchers [16]. As discussed, flakiness and elongation properties of the phyllite affect the strength of
concrete. These properties of phyllite increases total surface area of aggregates and as such demands
more water for better mortar bonding to aggregates. Flakiness reduces the cohesion of mortar to
aggregates and this result in bond failure under compressive and bending loads. Reactive forms of
silica found in phyllites may react with alkalis in cement to form an alkalisilicate gel in planes of
weakness or pores in aggregates. This results in the destruction of the bond between the aggregate and
the surrounding hydrated cement paste which may also explain the reason for low compressive and
bending strengths in PC. The reduced watercement ratio in the higher strength grades ensured better
performance of GC than PC in bending strength. This is due to bonding effect of rich mix to the rough
textured granite aggregate that rendered it stronger. Therefore, the influence of aggregate on the
strength of concrete is not dependent only on the mechanical strength of the aggregate but also to an
extent on its absorption and bond characteristics [17]. A more extensive investigation is needed to
13

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

characterise the strength and durability behavior of phyllite concrete in terms of reinforced concrete
design of its structural concrete elements.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In this research work, the physical properties and mechanical properties of raw phyllite aggregates
have been determined. Concrete made using phyllite aggregates and granite aggregates were designed
for different mix proportions (M1M5) with target 28-day cube compressive strengths between 20
and 40 N/mm2.
The major conclusions and recommendations made are with respect to:
1. The grading of phyllite aggregates is similar to that of the conventional (granite) aggregates,
however the coarse phyllite aggregates contained more fines due to its flakiness and needs to be
cleaned before use.
2. The specific gravity of the phyllite aggregates is averaged 2.72 which is within the limits of normal
aggregates used in conventional concrete.
3. The physical and mechanical properties of phyllite aggregates satisfied the minimum requirements
for aggregates suitable for concrete.
4. Phyllite aggregate concrete becomes less workable when the fines on the coarse aggregates are not
properly removed before mixing. The presence of more fines due to disintegration of phyllite
aggregates during mixing increased water absorption, reducing the watercement ratio and thus
rendering the concrete less workable.
5. The compressive and flexural strengths of PC with age followed expected trends of conventional
concrete. However, the rate of strength development in PC was lower than GC.
6. The compressive and bending strengths of PC were generally 1520% lower than those of
corresponding GC mix ratios for all ages. The same concrete mix proportions gave lower concrete
classes for phyllite compared to granite with the exception of the lowest grade.

14

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 31(9), 4561-4566

References
[1]
Chen HJ, Yen T, Chen KH. Use of building rubbles as recycled aggregates. Cem Concr Res
2003;33:12532.
[2]
Topcu IB, Sengel S. Properties of concretes produced with waste concrete aggregate. Cem
Concr Res 2004;34:130712.
[3]
Senthamarai RM, Devadas Manoharan P. Concrete with ceramic waste aggregate. Cem Concr
Res 2005;27:9103.
[4]
Xiao J, Li J, Zhang Ch. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial
loading. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:118794.
[5]
de Brito J, Pereira AS, Correia JR. Mechanical behaviour of non-structural concrete made
with recycled ceramic aggregates. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27:42933.
[6]
McLean AC, Gribble CD. Geology for civil engineers. 2nd ed. London: Spon Press; 1990.
[7]
Gonzalez-Fonteboa B, Martinerz Abella F. Concrete waste aggregates from demolition waste
and silica fumes materials and mechanical properties. Build Environ 2007.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.008 (2006).
[8]
British Standard Institute. Specifications for ordinary Portland cement. BS12; 1989.
[9]
British Standard Institute. Specification for aggregates from natural sources for concrete.
BS882; 1992.
[10]
British Standard Institute. Testing aggregates. BS 812; 1990.
[11]
Department of Environment (DOE). Concrete mix design. UK; 1988.
[12]
BS 1881 British Standard Institute. Testing concrete. BS1881; 1983.
[13]
Lo Tommy Y, Tang, Cui HZ. The effect of aggregate properties on light weight concrete.
Build Environ 2007;42:30259.
[14]
Teo DCL, Mannan MA, Kurian VJ, Ganapathy C. Lightweight concrete made from oil palm
shell (OPS): Structural bond and durability properties. Build Environ 2007;42:261421.
[15]
Olanipekun EA, Olusola KO, Ata O. A Comparative study of concrete properties using
coconut shells and palm kernel shells as coarse aggregates. Build Environ 2006;41:297301.
[16]
Walker S, Bloem DL. Studies of flexural strength of concrete. Part 1: effects of different
gravels and cements. Washington, DC: Nat. ready-mixed Concr. Association Joint Research
Laboratory Publ. No. 3; 1956.
[17]
Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. London: Longman Group UK Limited Press;
1995.

15