Toward the Development of Sustainable Concretes

with Recycled Concrete Aggregates: Comprehensive

Review of Studies on Mechanical Properties
Tianyu Xie 1; Aliakbar Gholampour 2; and Togay Ozbakkaloglu 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In recent years, the increased rate of urbanization has led to the generation and release of large amounts of construction and
demolition (C&D) waste. From the viewpoint of environmental preservation and effective utilization of resources, it is beneficial and neces-
sary to reuse C&D waste. Recycled concrete aggregate, which is obtained from C&D waste, is currently being considered as an alternative
aggregate for structural concrete. Recycled aggregate concrete (RAC), an ecofriendly concrete produced by partial or full substitution of
natural aggregates with recycled concrete aggregates in a concrete mix, has drawn much attention recently. Over the last decade, a significant
volume of studies has been reported in the literature on the behavior of RACs. This paper summarizes the literature dealing with the mechani-
cal properties (and the parameters affecting them) of RACs produced using coarse recycled concrete aggregates published between 1978 and
2017. In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the behavior of RAC, this review takes into account more than 200 published
studies. The review also discusses the less understood influences of aggregate surface treatment, aggregate moisture state, and concrete
mixing on the behavior of RAC. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review dealing with all the potential influential
factors affecting the mechanical properties of RAC. Hence, this review is expected to help researchers better understand the behavior
of this construction material. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002304. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Recycled concrete aggregate; Recycled aggregate concrete (RAC); Compressive strength; Elastic modulus; Flexural
strength; Splitting tensile strength.

Introduction environmental impact of C&D waste, recycled concrete aggregate,

Because of its favorable material properties and cost benefits, con-
crete is the most commonly used construction material in the world.
Recently, the increased rate of industrialization and urbanization
has led to a great global demand for concrete materials. Every year,
around 20 billion tons of concrete is used globally (Mehta and
Meryman 2009). This increasing demand for concrete has in-
creased the consumption of coarse and fine natural aggregates,
which account for around 70% of the total concrete volume in a
concrete mix (Torgal and Jalali 2011; Mefteh et al. 2013; Behera
et al. 2014). Meanwhile, the rapid urbanization witnessed in recent
years has also resulted in an extensive increase in the rate of dem-
olition of old structures, prompted by the limited availability of new
construction sites. This in turn has led to the generation and release
of large amounts of construction and demolition (C&D) wastes.
These wastes account for a large part of solid waste in most coun-
tries across the world and are commonly and ineffectively disposed
of in landfills at significant cost, resulting in the depletion of land-
fill space (Torgal and Jalali 2011; Behera et al. 2014; Dilbas et al.
2014). To conserve natural aggregate resources and to minimize the
1
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil, Environmental, and Mining
Engineering, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
2
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil, Environmental, and Mining
Engineering, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
3
Senior Lecturer, School of Civil, Environmental, and Mining Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia (corresponding
author). Email: togay.ozbakkaloglu@adelaide.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 13, 2017; approved on
December 6, 2017; published online on June 27, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 27, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
which is obtained from C&D waste, has been considered as an al-
ternative to natural aggregates in structural concrete over the last
two decades (Gholampour et al. 2017). It is currently recognized
that the use of recycled concrete aggregates for the production of
recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) is a highly attractive and prom-
ising technology for conserving natural resources and reducing the
environmental impact of the construction industry.
In the last three decades, much research has investigated the per-
formance of RACs, producing a large number of valuable exper-
imental results. A few reviews (Nixon 1978; Hansen 1986; Xiao
et al 2006a; Li 2008; Xiao et al. 2012a, b, c; McNeil and Kang
2013; Safiuddin et al. 2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Behera et al.
2014; Silva et al. 2014; Gonzalez-Taboada et al. 2016) have
investigated the physical, mechanical, and durability-related prop-
erties of RAC containing coarse recycled aggregates. Tables 1–3
summarize the properties that these review studies investigated.
Evangelista and de Brito (2014) reviewed the properties of RAC
made up of fine recycled aggregates. Only Xiao et al. (2006a)
reviewed the mechanical properties of RAC. However, Xiao et al.’s
(2006a) review covered only studies carried out before 2005. More
than 150 reports on RAC were published between 2005 and 2017.
Moreover, all the parameters affecting the mechanical properties of
RAC (Table 3) were not specifically analyzed and reported by Xiao
et al. Therefore, an up-to-date critical review of the mechanical
properties of RAC is necessary to better understand the behavior
of this material. In addition, the previous reviews in this context
did not discuss the effect of some important factors such as the
aggregate surface treatment, aggregate moisture state, and method
of concrete mixing on the mechanical properties of RAC.
This paper provides an in-depth review of the studies focusing
on the mechanical properties of RAC. Over 200 studies investigat-
ing the mechanical properties of RAC such as the compressive

© ASCE 04018211-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211

 Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) reported in previous review studies
Physical property
Reference Slump Compressive strength
Nixon (1978) X X
Hansen (1986) X X
Xiao et al. (2006b) — X
Li (2008) — X
Xiao et al. (2012a, b, c) — X
McNeil and Kang (2013) — X
Safiuddin et al. (2013) X X
Srivastava et al. (2013) — X
Behera et al. (2014) X X
Silva et al. (2014) X X
Gonzalez-Taboada et al. (2016) — X
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
strength, elastic modulus, splitting tensile strength, and flexural
strength are reviewed here. To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
this is the first review discussing the effect of aggregate surface
treatment, aggregate moisture state, and method of concrete mixing
on the mechanical properties of RAC.
Review of Existing Studies of Mechanical Properties
of RAC
The following sections review four mechanical properties of RAC,
namely the compressive strength, elastic modulus, splitting tensile
strength, and flexural strength. Table 4 summarizes the studies
reviewed in this paper.
Compressive Strength of RAC
Compressive strength (f cm ) is widely recognized as the most
important mechanical property of concrete. The following subsec-
tions review the influence of the water-to-binder ratio, aggregate-
to-cement ratio, recycled concrete aggregate replacement ratio
(RCA%), parent concrete strength, adhered mortar content and
particle size of recycled concrete aggregates, moisture state of re-
cycled concrete aggregates, RAC density, mixing method, curing
condition, chemical admixture, pretreatment of recycled concrete
aggregate, and mineral admixture on the compressive strength of
RAC. Where relevant, possible interactions among these parame-
ters are also discussed in these subsections.
Influence of Water-to-Binder Ratio
Water-to-binder ratio (w=b) is recognized as the most important
parameter influencing the f cm of concrete. The effect of w=b on
the f cm of hardened RAC has been widely studied (Table 4). Some
of these studies also considered the effect of the total water-to-cement
ratio (wtotal =c). The total water is the sum of the effective water and
saturation water that is absorbed by fine and coarse aggregates. Fig. 1
shows the influence of wtotal =c on the fcm of RAC. The f cm of a
concrete with RCA% ¼ 100% increases with a decrease in
wtotal =c. However, because of the porous nature of RACs, which
is due to the large amount of mortar attached to the aggregate surface
(Topcu 1997; Wardeh et al. 2014), the total water added in a RAC mix
does not accurately represent the actual amount of water hydrated
with a binder because a significant proportion of the total water
is absorbed by the recycled aggregates in the mix. For instance,
the tests conducted by Limbachiya et al. (2012b), Gayarre et al.
(2014), and Butler et al. (2014) showed that for the same wtotal =c,
RAC can exhibit a fcm comparable to or even higher
than that exhibited by natural aggregate concrete (NAC). This
© ASCE 04018211-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Mechanical properties
Elastic modulus Tensile strength Flexural strength Bond strength
X — X —
X X X —
X X X —
X X X X
X X X X
X X X —
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X —
— — — —
unexpected observation can be explained by the reduction in the
actual water content of RAC mixes during hydration because of
the higher water absorption by recycled aggregates. Consequently,
most studies available on RAC have specifically dealt with the effec-
tive water-to-binder ratio (weff =c) in concrete mixes, which is calcu-
lated from the amount of water that is available for reaction with the
binder. Figs. 2(a and b) show the influence of weff =c on the f cm of
RAC. In these figures the solid lines represent the trendlines obtained
from the data sets in different segments of the database. For a given
RCA%, the concrete prepared using a lower weff =c exhibited a higher
fcm . For a given weff =c, the f cm of RAC decreased with an increase
in its RCA%. The following section discusses influence of RCA% on
the fcm of concrete.
Influence of Aggregate-to-Cement Ratio
The aggregate-to-cement ratio by weight (a=c) of concrete mixes is
considered to be an important factor affecting the f cm of NAC.
However, few studies have systematically investigated the effect
of this ratio on the f cm of RAC. Fig. 3 illustrates the results ob-
tained by Duan and Poon (2014) for a RAC with RCA% ¼
100%. For a given weff =c, the fcm of RAC decreased with an
increase in its a=c. Poon and Chan (2007) and Poon and Lam
(2008) reported that f cm of RAC decreased consistently with an
increase in a=c from 3 to 6. Bairagi et al. (1990) compared
RAC and NAC mixes with the same a=c and found that the
RAC mix required approximately 8–13% lower a=c than did
the NAC mix to reach a comparable f cm .
Influence of RCA%
The effect of RCA% on the f cm of concrete has been widely studied
(Table 4). Figs. 4(a and b) show the corresponding results obtained
from the studies summarized in Table 4. For a given weff =c, the f cm
of the RAC mixes obtained from either cubical or cylindrical spec-
imens decreased with an increase in RCA%. This can be explained
on the basis of the RAC microstructure. Fig. 5 shows that the mi-
crostructure of RAC is different from that of NAC. RAC has an
additional interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between the aggregate
and the old mortar attached (i.e., old ITZ) to the surface of recycled
concrete aggregates. ITZ is generally regarded as the weak link in
concrete. Therefore, the presence of an additional ITZ in RAC leads
to a lower f cm. Moreover, because of the porous nature of the old
mortar attached to the surface of recycled concrete aggregates, the
ITZ between the old and new mortar (new ITZ) has a lower
strength, and it forms another weak link in the concrete, which
in turn results in a lower fcm (Medina et al. 2015). According
to some previous studies, for the same weff =c, concretes with a
RCA% of less than 30% show only a slight decrease in f cm com-
pared with NAC (Limbachiya et al. 2000; Etxeberria et al. 2007b;
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. Durability-related properties of RAC reported in previous review studies

Carbonation Chloride ion

© ASCE
Drying Water Frost Freeze-thaw and reinforcement penetration Sulfate Alkali-aggregate
Reference Creep shrinkage Permeability absorption Porosity resistance resistance corrosion resistance resistance reactions
Nixon (1978) X X — — X — — — — — —
Hansen (1986) X X X X — X — X — — X
Li (2008) — X X — — — X X X X —
Xiao et al. (2012a, b, c) X X — — — — — X X — —
Safiuddin et al. (2013) — X X X X X X X X X —
Behera et al. (2014) X X X X X X X X X X —
Gonzalez-Taboada et al. (2016) — — — X — — — — — — —

Table 3. Parameters assessed in previous review studies

04018211-3
Mineral
Total Effective Aggregate-to- Parent Attached Moisture RAC Concrete Concrete
admixture
Stress-strain water-to-cement water-to-cement cement concrete mortar content state bulk mixing curing Chemical RCA
Reference behavior ratio ratio ratio RCA% strength aggregate size of RCA density method condition admixture pretreatment SF FA GGBS

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211

Nixon (1978) — X — X X — — — — — — — — — — —
Hansen (1986) — X — X X — — — — X — — — — — —
Xiao et al. — — — — X — — — X — — — — — — —
(2006b)
Li (2008) X — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
Xiao et al. X — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
(2012a, b, c)
McNeil and Kang — — — — X — — — — — — — — — — —
(2013)
Safiuddin et al. — — X X X X X — — — — — X X X
(2013)
Behera et al. — — X — X X X — — — X X — X X X
(2014)
Silva et al. (2014) — — X — X X — — — — X X — X X X
Gonzalez- — — — — — — X — — — — — X — — —
Taboada et al.
(2016)
Note: SF = silica fume; FA = fly ash; and GGBS = ground-granulated blast-furnace slag.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. Summary of experimental test database of recycled aggregate concrete

Geometric Effective Water Water Splitting

© ASCE
Number shape of water-to- Aggregate- RCA Bulk Bulk absorption absorption Compressive Elastic Flexural tensile
of compressive cement to-cement replacement density density of RCA of NA strength modulus strength strength
different strength test ratio ratio ratio of RCA of NA (WARCA ) (WANA ) (fcm ) (Ec ) (fr ) (f st )
Year Source mixes specimens (weff=c ) (a=c) (RCA %) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (%) (%) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1988 Yoda et al. 4 C1 0.50 2.3–2.6 0–100 — — — — 41.3–42.8 31.2–32.1 — —
2000 Limbachiya et al. 12 S1 0.29–0.45 2.2–3.3 0–100 2,400 2,610 4.9 2.5 50.2–70.8 27.0–31.0 4.9–7.2 —
2002 Ajdukiewicz and 18 S2 0.36 2.2–2.7 0–100 — — — — 38.7–54.4 21.3–39.8 — 3.2–4.2
Kliszczewicz
2002 Gómez-Soberón 5 C2 0.38–0.47 2.3–2.5 0–100 2,410 2,590 5.8 0.9 34.5–39.0 26.6–29.7 — 3.3–3.7
2004 Gonçalves et al. 8 S2 0.35–0.60 2.3–4.6 0–100 2,450 2,670 5.6 0.5 38.2–74.4 — — —
2004a Poon et al. 12 S1 0.57 2.7–3.1 0–100 2,330 2,620 6.3 1.3 38.1–48.3 — — —
2004 Lin et al. 4 C1 0.50–0.70 2.3–3.3 100 — — — — 20.4–36.2 — — —
2006b Xiao et al. 5 S1 0.43 2.7–3.0 0–100 2,520 2,820 9.3 0.4 26.7–35.9 — — —
2006 Wei 5 S2 0.27–0.42 2.0–3.0 0–100 2,442 2,786 6.0 0.3 35.2–37.8 25.1–31.9 4.9–5.1 2.7–2.9
2007a Etxeberria et al. 4 C2 0.50–0.55 3.5–4.0 0–100 2,430 2670 4.4 0.9 40.0–42.0 27.0–33.7 — 2.7–3.2
2007b Etxeberria et al. 4 S2 0.50–0.55 3.5–4.0 0–100 2,430 2,670 4.5 0.9 35.5–39.4 27.1–32.4 — 2.8–3.4
2007 Evangelista and De Brito 6 S2 0.41–0.45 3.1–4.4 0–100 2,165 2,564 6.8 0.8 58.4–62.2 28.9–35.5 — 3.0–3.9
2007 Poon et al. 5 S1 0.45–0.51 2.5–2.6 0–100 2,570 2,620 3.5 1.1 37.1–48.6 — — —
2007 Ajdukiewicz and 12 C2 0.36–0.49 2.2–5.1 0–100 2,270–2,780 — — — 34.6–61.8 24.3–41.9 — 2.6–4.5
Kliszczewicz
2007 Hu 5 S2 0.32–0.47 3.0–3.3 0–100 2,449 2,788 6.0 0.3 27.2–31.2 23.3–30.3 4.2–4.6 2.3–2.5
2007 Kou et al. 8 S1 0.45–0.55 2.5–2.8 0–100 2,570 2,620 3.5 1.1 38.1–66.8 21.7–38.7 — 2.8–3.4
2007 Rahal 10 S1 0.40–0.65 2.4–3.1 0–100 2,390 2,860 4.4 0.7 21.8–33.7 11.3–17.8 — —
2007 Wang 9 S2 0.28–0.54 2.4–3.1 0–100 2,512–2,670 2,840 1.8–6.3 0.4 24.6–38.6 — — —
2008 Casuccio et al. 9 C1 0.34–0.70 1.9–4.3 0–100 2,510–2,520 2,700 3.8–3.9 0.5 15.4–48.4 22.6–39.9 — —

04018211-4
2008 Kou et al. 16 C1 0.40–0.55 2.5–2.9 0–100 2,580 2,620 3.5 1.1 38.1–72.3 24.2–33.5 — 3.3–4.2
2008 Yang et al. 7 C1 0.50 2.7–2.9 0–100 2,400–2,530 2,600 1.9–6.2 1.4 29.5–39.5 23.7–31.7 3.2–4.0 3.2–4.3
2008 Zhou et al. 7 S1 0.45–0.58 3.2 0–100 2,650–2,880 2,970 4.4–4.8 0.8 36.6–44.6 — — —
2009 Domingo-Cabo et al. 4 C2 0.32–0.41 2.3–2.6 0–100 2,338 2,647 5.2 1.0 42.3–54.8 30.3–33.5 — —
2009 Padmini et al. 10 S2 0.52–0.54 2.7–3.2 0–100 — — — — 20.5–50.8 32.1–36.2 2.9–3.1 —

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211

2009 Yang et al. 27 S2 0.41–0.76 2.2–4.5 100 — — — — 18.9–41.2 — — 1.1–2.2
2009 Ye 9 S2 0.24–0.54 3.0–3.3 0–100 2,512–2,670 2,840 1.8–6.3 0.4 24.6–38.6 22.2–32.5 4.2–5.1 2.1–3.0
2010 Corinaldesi 10 S1 0.40–0.60 3.1–3.3 50 2,400–2,420 2,570 6.8–8.8 3.0 31.6–46.1 22.9–33.3 — —
2010 Kumutha and Vijai 10 S1 0.50 3.5–4.8 0–100 2,400–2,630 2,870 — — 15.4–28.3 18.0–27.7 2.4–4.9 2.0–3.3
2010 Radonjanin et al. 3 C1 0.51–0.62 3.6 0–100 2,489 2,671 2.4 0.3 43.4–45.7 29.1–35.5 5.2–5.7 2.7–3.2
2011a Zega and Di Maio 8 S1 0.42–0.65 2.5–3.3 0–75 2,440 2,720 5.8 0.2 16.5–40.0 20.5–33.5 — 1.4–3.2
2011 Belén et al. 8 C1 0.50–0.68 2.1–3.4 0–100 2,400 2,730 5.0 2.5 30.1–44.8 24.0–33.9 — 2.4–3.1
2011 Fathifazl et al. 6 C2 0.45 1.9–3.4 0–100 2,420–2,500 2,740 3.3–5.4 0.9 34.1–45.9 — — —
2011 González-Fonteboa et al. 8 C2 0.50–0.65 2.1–3.4 0–100 2,400 2,720 5.0 2.0 30.1–44.8 24.0–33.9 — 2.4–3.1
2011 Rao et al. 4 C2 0.43 2.8–3.1 0–100 2,510–2,661 2,620 1.9–3.9 1.1 42.5–51.8 20.3–31.2 4.2–5.2 2.0–2.7
2012 Somna et al. 6 C1 0.45–0.65 2.3–3.5 0–100 2,490 2,730 4.8 0.45 24.8–44.4 — — —
2012 Abd Elhakam et al. 10 S2 0.45–0.60 2.5–4.6 0–100 — — — — 20.0–39.5 — — 1.2–3.4
2012 Cui et al. 5 S2 0.36–0.49 2.9–3.1 0–100 2,440–2,570 2,710 2.9–5.6 0.8 37.6–44.7 — — —
2012 Hoffmann et al. 9 C2 0.43–0.60 5.1–6.5 0–100 2,263–2,609 2,650 1.5–6.0 0.2 33.2–54.4 20.7–34.8 4.3–6.4 —
2012 Li and Xiao 4 S1 0.43–0.54 2.7–3.0 0–100 — — — — 29.7–34.8 25.6–26.6 — —
2012a Limbachiya et al. 16 C2 0.42–0.66 2.9–4.6 0–100 2,340 2,510 5.3 1.4 18.0–39.0 12.5–23.5 — —
2010 Marinković et al. 6 C1 0.47–0.60 2.7–4.3 0–100 2,264–2,276 2,381–2,387 2.0 — 33.6–48.6 — — —
2012a Pereira et al. 15 S2 0.42–0.70 3.0–5.0 0–100 2,010 2,720 10.9 0.6 37.6–65.4 29.9–43.9 — 2.5–4.5
2013 Barbudo et al. 12 C2 0.40–0.54 2.9–3.2 0–100 2,451 2,581 7.3 1.2 45.2–78.7 31.3–48.8 — —

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 4. (Continued.)
Geometric Effective Water Water Splitting

© ASCE
Number shape of water-to- Aggregate- RCA Bulk Bulk absorption absorption Compressive Elastic Flexural tensile
of compressive cement to-cement replacement density density of RCA of NA strength modulus strength strength
different strength test ratio ratio ratio of RCA of NA (WARCA ) (WANA ) (fcm ) (Ec ) (fr ) (f st )
Year Source mixes specimens (weff=c ) (a=c) (RCA %) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (%) (%) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
2013 Butler et al. 8 C1 0.19–0.48 1.5–4.1 0–100 2,220–2,360 2,670 4.7–7.8 1.5 38.1–62.8 27.4–35.4 4.4–5.8 3.1–4.4
2013 Chen 5 S2 0.52 2.9–3.1 0–100 2,440–2570 2,710 2.9–5.6 0.83 37.6–44.7 — — —
2013 Hou and Zheng 7 S1 0.52–0.58 3.2 0–100 2,650–2880 2,970 4.4–4.8 0.8 36.6–44.6 — — —
2013 Ismail and Ramli 40 S1 0.41 1.7 15–60 2,320–2400 2,600 3.5–4.6 0.7 40.0–56.9 — — —
2013 Manzi et al. 5 C1 0.48 4.9–5.1 0–64 2,250 2,570 7.0 1.2 41.3–51.4 24.9–31.4 4.8–6.4 3.0–4.1
2013 Matias et al. 10 C2 0.50 2.4–2.6 0–100 2,452 2,652 4.1 0.8 48.0–52.0 — — —
2013 Sheen et al. 20 C1 0.23–0.80 2.0–4.2 0–100 2,260 2,630 7.5 1.2 13.4–54.1 13.8–34.5 3.9–7.7 —
2013 Thomas et al. 24 C2 0.42–0.70 1.8–3.6 0–100 2,320 2,540 5.3 1.8 32.0–58.0 27.0–37.5 — 2.3–3.9
2013 Ulloa et al. 25 C2 0.41–0.62 2.3–2.6 20–100 2,320–2,360 2,590 3.9–6.1 1.2 26.0–48.5 — — —
2013 Xiao et al. 5 S2 0.31–0.41 2.6 0–100 2,578 2,820 9.3 0.4 36.7–47.2 26.5–33.1 — —
2013 Younis and Pilakoutas 5 S1 0.47 3.5–3.8 0–100 2,273–2,336 2,610 3.6 1.0 41.6–53.1 — — —
2014 Andreu and Miren 10 S2 0.29 2.5–2.9 0–100 2,300–2,470 2,680 3.7–5.9 2.1 91.2–108.5 37.1–50.4 6.3–8.0 4.2–6.3
2014 Beltrán et al. 10 C2 0.45–0.72 1.9–6.0 0–75 2,380 2,680 6.94 1.53 14.2–66.9 — 1.9–3.8 1.7–4.3
2014 Beltrán et al. 8 C2 0.50–0.60 2.4–3.5 0–100 2,380 2,680 6.9 1.9 40.9–51.6 25.1–30.0 4.7–5.3 —
2015 Çakır and Sofyanlı 4 C2 0.50 3.4 0–100 2,380 2,670 — — 46.4–48.6 — — 3.3–3.8
2014 Carneiro et al. 2 C1 0.49–0.52 2.1–2.2 0–25 2,500 2,810 6.6 0.4 29.9–32.6 31.1–32.1 3.3–3.6 3.2
2014 Dilbas et al. 2 C2 0.50 3.2–3.5 50 2,280–2,330 2,750 3.8–4.1 0.8 29.1–33.0 22.9–23.4 — 1.6–2.2
2014 Duan and Poon 16 S1 0.34–0.68 2.0–3.8 0–100 2,360–2,450 2,600 3.1–7.8 0.9 27.7–80.8 20.5–35.4 — 1.9–4.7
2014 Folino and Xargay 4 C1 0.50 2.8–3.1 0–100 2,570 2,730 2.7 0.3 29.1–36.5 20.7–31.7 — 3.3–4.0
2014 Gayarre et al. 8 C2 0.65 3.1–3.2 0–100 2,300 2,500 5.2–5.5 1.7 38.8–43.7 — — —
2014 Kang et al. 4 C1 0.36–0.42 2.2–2.7 0–52 2,200 2,570 5.4 1.1 29.0–38.6 25.3–29.2 8.9–10.2 2.7–3.3

04018211-5
2015 Pedro et al. 18 S1 0.40–0.87 2.8–4.9 0–100 2,362–2,496 2,537–2,665 3.6–7.8 1.0–1.3 19.7–72.3 25.2–47.6 — 2.0–5.5
2014 Pepe et al. 3 C1 0.64–0.77 3.0–3.4 0–100 1,946–2,268 2,634 4.9–11.9 1.3 27.5–33.0 24.4–24.9 — 3.4–3.9
2014 Thomas et al. 24 C1 0.42–0.70 1.8–3.6 0–100 2,320 2,730 5.3 0.5 47.5–72.9 26.8–38.7 — 2.3–5.0
2014 Wardeh et al. 4 S1 0.50 1.2–2.9 0–100 2,240 — 6.5 — 33.0–39.5 30.5–39.5 4.0–4.9 3.0–3.5
2014 Butler et al. 14 C1 0.37–0.6 1.9–4.1 0–100 2,220–2,360 2,670 4.7–7.8 1.5 31.6–69.5 26.0–35.4 — 3.2–4.4

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211

2015 Kim et al. 12 C2 0.33–0.51 — 0–100 2,480 2,690 — — 26.5–44.1 17.6–24.5 — 1.8–2.7
2015 Kabir et al. 15 C1 0.41–0.50 — 0–100 2,460 2,670 5.1 0.5 24.7–38.1 — — —
2015 Lotfi et al. 8 C2 0.45–0.60 — 0–100 2,424 2,610 6.1 1.2 27.1–62.5 — — —
2016 Guneyisi et al. 10 S2 0.27–0.32 3.7–5.8 0–100 2,540 2,720 5.1 1.5 12.9–20.0 — — 1.0–1.3
2016 Adams et al. 6 C1 0.40 2.7 0–100 2,240–2,400 2,520–2,570 4.3–5.7 2.61–3.15 39.1–48.1 27.2–32.6 — 3.7–4.4
2016 Zaetang et al. 6 C1 0.24 4.5 0–100 2,530 2,700 4.6 0.5 12.3–15.5 — 2.7–4.2 2.0–5.7
2017 Ozbakkaloglu et al. 14 C1 0.26–0.55 2.1–2.8 0–100 2,150–2,220 2,570–2,710 4.1–6.1 2.0 38.0–84.1 25.1–36.5 3.4–7.5 2.8–6.2
Note: C1 ¼ 100 × 200 mm cylinders; C2 ¼ 150 × 300 mm cylinders; S1 ¼ 100 mm cubes; and S2 ¼ 150 mm cubes.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 100

Compressive Strength (fcm) (MPa)

weff/c=0.4 weff/c=0.45 weff/c=0.46
weff/c=0.47 weff/c=0.5 weff/c=0.54
80 weff/c=0.55 weff/c=0.6 weff/c=0.65

60

40

20
0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) RCA%

Fig. 1. Influence of total water-to-cement ratio on compressive 100

Compressive Strength (fcm) (MPa)

weff/c =0.27 weff/c =0.32 weff/c=0.4
strength of recycled aggregate concrete. weff/c =0.42 weff/c =0.43 weff/c=0.45
80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

weff/c=0.47 weff/c=0.5 weff/c =0.55

weff/c=0.6 weff/c=0.65
60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
(b) RCA%

Fig. 4. Influence of RCA% on the compressive strength of RAC with

different weff =c: (a) cylindrical specimen; and (b) cubical specimen.

(a)
Aggregate
Old mortar

ITZ between
aggregate and old
mortar New mortar

ITZ between
old and new Sand particle
mortar

(b)
Fig. 2. Influence of effective water-to-cement ratio on compressive
strength of RAC: (a) cylindrical specimen; and (b) cubical specimen.
Fig. 5. Microstructure of RAC. (Reprinted from Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 40, G. C. Lee and H. B. Choi, “Study on inter-
facial transition zone properties of recycled aggregate by micro-
hardness test,” pp. 455–460, © 2013, with permission from Elsevier.)

Evangelista and De Brito 2007; Corinaldesi 2010; ChakradharaRao

et al. 2011; Zega and Di Maio 2011b; Abd Elhakam et al. 2012;
Limbachiya et al. 2012a, b; Mas et al. 2012; Saravanakumar and
Dhinakaran 2013; Barbudo et al. 2013; Mefteh et al. 2013; Sheen
et al. 2013; Wagih et al. 2013; Sivakumar et al. 2014; Adams et al.
2016). On the other hand, according to other reports, no significant
decrease is observed in the f cm of concretes with up to 50% RCA%
compared with NAC using the same weff =c (Bairagi et al. 1993; de
Juan and Gutiérrez 2004; Zega and Di Maio 2011a; Chen 2013;
Çakır 2014; Kabir et al. 2015; Zaetang et al. 2016). Most studies
have reported that for the same weff =c and a RCA% of 100%, RAC
shows approximately 20–30% reduction in f cm compared with
NAC (Hansen and Boegh 1985; Ravindrarajah et al. 1987; Chen
et al. 2003; Poon et al. 2004a; Tam et al. 2005; Etxeberria et al.
Fig. 3. Influence of aggregate-to-cement ratio on compressive strength
2007b; AbdElhakam et al. 2012; Martínez-Lage et al. 2012; Xiao
of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100%.
et al. 2012b; Butler et al. 2013; Çakır 2014; Pedro et al. 2014;

© ASCE 04018211-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211

 Kabir et al. 2015; Guneyisi et al. 2016; Adams et al. 2016). Other
studies have shown that for the same weff =c, concretes with a
RCA% of 100% show a decrease of as little as 10–15% (de Oliveira
and Vazquez 1996; Evangelista and De Brito 2007; Kim et al.
2015; Lotfi et al. 2015) and as much as 70% (Bairagi et al.
1993) in f cm compared with their NAC counterparts. This huge
variation in the extent by which the f cm of the concretes with a
RCA% of 100% decreases can be attributed to the differences in
the quality of recycled concrete aggregates, which are derived from
various C&D waste sources. Contradicting the findings of the other
studies in this context, the results by Yoda et al. (1988), Ridzuan
et al. (2001), Butler et al. (2014), Zaetang et al. (2016), and
Afroughsabet et al. (2017) showed that for a given mix design,
a RAC mix is likely to have a slightly higher fcm than its NAC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
counterpart. They attributed this to the better quality of recycled
concrete aggregates (used in RAC mixes) than that of natural ag-
gregates (used in NAC mixes).
Influence of Parent Concrete Strength
Only a few studies have focused on the influence of the parent
concrete strength on the f cm of RAC mixes. Fig. 6 illustrates the
results obtained from these studies (Hansen and Boegh 1985;
Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2002; Andreu and Miren 2014;
Kou and Poon 2015). For a given weff =c, the f cm of RAC increased
with an increase in the compressive strength of the parent concrete.
This influence was more significant in specimens with low and
moderate weff =c (i.e., weff =c ¼ 0.285–0.5), and only a minor in-
crease was seen in RAC mixes with a high weff =c (i.e., >0.7). This
phenomenon can be explained by different failure mechanisms of
RAC mixes having different weff =c values. In concretes with a low
or moderate weff =c, the strengths of new mortar and the ITZ be-
tween the new and old mortar regions are generally higher than
that of the recycled concrete aggregates. Therefore, the failure
of such concretes starts from the recycled concrete aggregates.
The overall compressive strength of these concretes is governed
by the strength of the recycled concrete aggregates. On the other
hand, in concretes with a high weff =c, the failure starts in the
new mortar region or in the ITZ between the new and old mortar
regions because of their lower strengths compared with that of re-
cycled concrete aggregates. Therefore, the influence of the parent
concrete strength decreases with an increase in weff =c (Medina
et al. 2015).
Some studies (i.e., Hansen and Boegh 1985; Kikuchi et al.
1998; Dhir 1999; Nagataki 2001; Otsuki et al. 2003; Hansen
2004; Nagataki et al. 2004; Poon et al. 2004a; Ajdukiewicz and
Kliszczewicz 2007; Tabsh and Abdelfatah 2009; Paine and Dhir
2010; Pedro et al. 2014; Andreu and Miren 2014) reported that
Fig. 6. Influence of parent concrete strength on compressive strength
of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100% and different weff =c.
© ASCE 04018211-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
the weff =c of a new concrete mix is similar to or higher than that
of its parent concrete mix. This suggests that for a given weff =c, a
RAC mix does not show any significant decrease or increase in f cm
as compared to its NAC counterpart. This is because the overall
strength of RACs depends on the new ITZ strength when the
new and old mortar strengths are nearly the same (Otsuki et al.
2003). However, when the weff =c of a new concrete is significantly
lower than that of the parent concrete (from which the recycled ag-
gregates are derived), RACs show a significant strength loss com-
pared with NACs. This is attributed to the fact that the weak link in
RACs in which the strength of new mortar is significantly higher
than that of old mortar is old ITZ (Otsuki et al. 2003). Recycled
concrete aggregate is a composite system whose property depends
on its constituents. Therefore, as reported by Akbarnezhad et al.
(2013), the effect of the parent concrete strength on the f cm
of RACs is related to the effects of other recycled concrete
aggregate–related parameters such as the attached mortar content,
size of natural aggregate, and number of crushing stages used to
obtain the recycled concrete aggregates.
Influence of Adhered Mortar Content and Particle Size
of Recycled Concrete Aggregate
Recycled concrete aggregate often has inferior mechanical proper-
ties compared to natural aggregate because of the large amount of
mortar attached to its surface (Montgomery and Sturgiss 1996;
Levy and Helene 2004; Nagataki et al. 2004; Abbas et al. 2008,
2009; Butler et al. 2011), which contributes to its high porosity
and low aggregate crushing and Los Angeles abrasion indices.
As discussed previously, the attached mortar content adversely af-
fects the fcm of RAC. Fig. 7 shows the effect of the attached mortar
content on the f cm of a RAC mix with 100% RCA% (Duan and
Poon 2014). For a given weff =c, the f cm of the mix decreased
with an increase in the attached mortar content. As discussed in
previous studies (Hansen 1986; Sagoe-Crentsil et al. 2001;
Etxeberria et al. 2007b; Berndt 2009; de Juan and Gutiérrez
2009; Kou and Poon 2009; Akbarnezhad et al. 2013; Manzi
et al. 2013) and shown in Fig. 8, there is a strong correlation be-
tween the particle size of recycled concrete aggregates (Φ) and the
amount of mortar attached to their surfaces. The amount of mortar
attached to the surface of recycled concrete aggregates decreases
with an increase in Φ. These observations provide important
insights into the often reported increase in the f cm of recycled con-
crete aggregate with an increase in Φ (Tavakoli and Soroushian
1996; Sagoe-Crentsil et al. 2001; Etxeberria et al. 2007b;
de Juan and Gutiérrez 2009; Sriravindrarajah et al. 2012; Manzi
et al. 2013; Dilbas et al. 2014).
Fig. 7. Influence of attached mortar content (in percentage of total ag-
gregate weight) on compressive strength of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100%.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Influence of RAC Density
As revealed by a comprehensive database assembled previously by
Lim and Ozbakkaloglu (2014), the bulk density (ρh ) of NAC in-
fluences its f cm . An increase in the bulk density of NAC results
in an increase in its strength. Fig. 9 shows the correlation between
the bulk density and f cm of RACs with 100% RCA%. For a given
weff =c, an increase in the ρh of RAC led to an increase in its f cm .
This is consistent with the trend exhibited by NACs (Ajdukiewicz
and Kliszczewicz 2002). This is because the ρh of a concrete mix
often reflects its homogeneity and uniformity, which in turn affects
the strength-related properties of the mix. In addition, this increase
Fig. 8. Correlation between attached mortar content and maximum size
in the f cm of concrete with an increase in its ρh can also be attrib-
of recycled aggregate.
uted to the higher density of its constituents, which may also con-
tribute to the higher overall strength of the concrete. Fig. 10 shows
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the correlation between the ρh and RCA% of RAC. For a given

weff =c, the ρh of RAC decreased with an increase in its RCA%.
Influence of Moisture State of Recycled Concrete Therefore, the decrease in the fcm of RAC with a decrease in
Aggregates its ρh can also be attributed to an increase in its RCA%, as
Because of their lower water absorption (typically <1.5%) (Poon discussed previously.
et al. 2007; Belén et al. 2011), natural aggregates are generally used Influence of Mixing Method
as received in concrete mixes, and very little additional water is Previous studies have established that the inferior mechanical prop-
needed to compensate for the water they absorb. However, the erties of RAC can be attributed to the poor quality of recycled
water absorption is higher (i.e., approximately 200–300% higher concrete aggregates. Therefore, with the aim of improving the
than that in natural aggregates) in recycled concrete aggregates be- mechanical properties of RAC, some special mixing techniques
cause of the large amount of mortar attached to their surfaces have been proposed in the past. The double mixing method, which
(Butler et al. 2011, 2014; Adams et al. 2013). A number of previous divides the mixing process into two stages and proportionally splits
studies have investigated the effect of the moisture state of recycled the required water into two parts, was first proposed by Tazawa
concrete aggregate on fcm of RAC. Hansen et al. (2004) suggested et al. (1989) for NAC mixes. Their experimental observations
that the use of recycled concrete aggregate in a saturated surface- showed that the double mixing method can significantly improve
dried (SSD) state can prevent the workability loss of the resulting the f cm of NAC (up to 17% higher than that of concrete pre-
concrete mix. Poon et al. (2004b) and Mefteh et al. (2013) inves- pared using the conventional mixing approach) by enhancing its
tigated the influence of three different moisture states of recycled
concrete aggregate, namely the oven-dried (OD), air-dried (AD),
and SSD states, on the f cm of RAC and found that for a given
weff =c, the concrete manufactured with SSD recycled concrete ag-
gregates exhibited a lower fcm than those prepared using OD and
AD recycled concrete aggregates. This is due to the bleeding effect
caused by the bleeding of excess water in the presaturated recycled
concrete aggregate during the concrete mixing, resulting in a slight
increase in weff =c. Brand et al. (2015) reported that for a given
weff =c, the concretes produced using 80 or 100% SSD recycled
concrete aggregates exhibited higher f cm than those produced us-
ing OD recycled concrete aggregates. They explained this observa-
tion as follows. The OD recycled concrete aggregates never reached
the SSD condition during mixing, resulting in a higher actual
weff =c of the OD mix compared with those of the partially and fully Fig. 9. Influence of concrete bulk density on compressive strength of
SSD mixes. A majority of the studies currently available on RACs RAC with RCA% ¼ 100% and weff =c ¼ 0.36.
either used presoaked (for 24 h prior to mixing) recycled concrete
aggregates or used a water compensation method by adding addi-
tional saturation water to the concrete mix. It has been reported that
both mixing methods can lead to the production of a RAC mix with
a workability similar to that of a NAC counterpart (Tazawa et al.
1989; Leite 2001; Evangelista and De Brito 2007; Sato et al. 2007;
Fonseca et al. 2011). Ferreira et al. (2011) compared the presoaking
and water compensation methods and noted that the water compen-
sation method can provide a more stable control of the water added
to the RAC mixes. As a result, the RAC mix prepared by the water
compensation method showed a slightly higher fcm than that of the
RAC mix prepared by the presoaking method. This improvement in
the f cm of the concrete prepared using the water compensation
method can be attributed to the nailing effect caused by the filling
Fig. 10. Correlation between concrete bulk density and RCA% with
of the surface pores of recycled concrete aggregates with cement
different weff =c.
paste.

© ASCE 04018211-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211

 aggregate–mortar ITZs. The improved properties of RACs prepared
using the double mixing method were first reported by Ryu (2002).
Tam et al. (2005) subsequently named the double mixing method
the two-stage mixing (TSM) approach and systematically investi-
gated the microstructure of RAC mixes prepared by this approach.
They also optimized the mixing proportion for this approach
(Tam et al. 2007b) and used silica fume (SF) as a RAC additive
(Tam and Tam 2008). Following Tam et al.’s research, several other
groups (i.e., Otsuki et al. 2003; Kou et al. 2012; Li et al. 2012;
Liang et al. 2015; Brand et al. 2015; Ozbakkaloglu et al. 2017)
investigated the difference between the properties of RACs pre-
pared using the TSM approach and the conventional mixing
method. These studies showed that the TSM approach can enhance
the aggregate–new mortar ITZ of RAC, thus improving its
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mechanical strength. In addition to the TSM approach, the literature
has reported several other mixing methods. Fathifazl et al. (2009)
proposed an equivalent mortar volume (EMV) method by using the
same total mortar volume for NAC and RAC mixes. They found
that for the same weff =c, the fcm of the RAC produced using the
EMV method increased by up to 14% compared with that of the
RAC produced using the conventional mixing approach. Liang et al.
(2015) proposed mortar mixing (MM) and sand enveloped mixing
(SEM) approaches, in which mortar is formed or sand is covered
(enveloped) by water during the initial mixing stage of RAC,
respectively. Liang et al. (2015) found that for the same weff =c,
the fcm of the RAC mixes prepared using the MM and SEM ap-
proaches improved by 39 and 15%, respectively, compared with
that of the RAC mixes prepared using the conventional mix ap-
proach. Kong et al. (2010) developed a triple mixing approach
by slightly modifying the TSM approach by introducing an addi-
tional stage in which the aggregate is coated by a chemical admix-
ture. Li et al. (2009) developed the coarse aggregates enveloped
with pozzolanic powder (SEPP) approach, in which the recycled
concrete aggregates in RAC mixes are initially enveloped using ei-
ther a pozzolanic material or conventional portland cement. They
found that the fcm of the RAC developed by the SEPP approach
was approximately 10% higher than that of the RAC mix obtained
by the conventional mix approach with the same weff =c. Wang et al.
(2013) proposed the W3T4 method, which involves water addition
in three parts and four stages of mixing procedures, to prepare their
RACs with superfine pozzolanic powders. They showed through
scanning electron microscopy that the recycled concrete aggregate
prepared by the W3T4 method had much denser ITZ and hence
better quality than the recycled concrete aggregate obtained by
the conventional mix approach. All the mixing approaches dis-
cussed thus far were aimed at enhancing the aggregate–mortar
ITZ to increase the f cm of RAC.
Influence of Curing Condition
Previous studies showed that the curing condition of RAC affects
its f cm . Buyle-Bodin and Hadjieva-Zaharieva (2002) cured their
RAC mixes using air storage (at 20°C and 65% humidity). They
found that the concrete cured by this technique showed a 2–7%
increase in the porosity and a 3–6% decrease in f cm compared with
concrete prepared using water storage. Sato et al. (2007) reported
that RACs cured under a wet condition (i.e., specimen sealed with
saturated paper) exhibited an approximately 8% higher fcm com-
pared with RACs cured under a dry condition (i.e., 0% moisture
condition). Pickel (2014) showed that the f cm of a RAC mix ex-
posed to dry conditions after 7 days of wet (moist) curing increased
by up to 16% compared with that of the RAC cured under a 0%
moisture condition. Gayarre et al. (2014) reported that the f cm of
RACs cured under an open-air (outdoor) environment was around
6% lower than that of the RAC cured at standard conditions, which
© ASCE 04018211-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
they attributed to the uncontrolled humidity and temperature under
the outdoor conditions. Brand et al. (2015) found that curing RAC
mixes exposed to partially saturated conditions for 28 days with
80% SSD resulted in 8% higher fcm than that of the RAC mixes
cured under a fully saturated condition. The results obtained in all
these studies suggest that the variations in humidity and tempera-
ture created in different curing conditions are the main factors
affecting the fcm of RAC. A curing condition with proper moisture
and temperature is beneficial for the hydration of RAC and leads
to an improvement in its f cm . Contrary to the aforementioned find-
ings, Yoda et al. (1988) and Fonseca et al. (2011) reported that the
properties of RAC are insensitive to curing conditions including the
laboratory conditions, outer environment, wet chamber, and water
immersion curing.
Influence of Chemical Admixture
Superplasticizers (SPs) have been widely used as chemical admix-
tures in conventional concrete to attain a workable mix with a lower
wtotal =c. Because of the higher water absorption of recycled con-
crete aggregate than that of natural aggregate, a fresh RAC usually
has lower slump than does a fresh NAC having the same wtotal =c.
A few studies have investigated the influence of superplasticizers
on the fcm of RACs (Pereira et al. 2012a, b; Matias et al. 2013; Rao
and Arun 2015). Fig. 11 shows the effect of the addition of two
types of superplasticizers on the fcm of RACs with 25, 50, and
100% RCA% (Matias et al. 2013). For a weff =c of 0.5, the addition
of 0.5% superplasticizer (of cement weight) led to a decrease of up
to 6% in f cm . This can be attributed to the fact that the addition of a
superplasticizer in a concrete mix results in an increase in the
amount of water trapped in the mixture, which gradually evaporates
and leads to the creation of voids in the concrete (Matias et al.
2013). Studies currently available in the literature do not allow
the investigation of the influence of superplasticizer on f cm of
RACs with a lower weff =c. Therefore, additional studies on spec-
imens with a lower weff =c are required to understand the influence
of superplasticizer on f cm under such conditions.
Recently, other types of chemical admixtures have also been
considered for use in RACs. Hani et al. (2015) investigated the
influence of the addition of micronized biomass silica (MBS) on
the f cm of RAC. They reported that the addition of 12% MBS
(by cement weight) to a RAC mix resulted in a 17% increase in
its f cm due to the higher pozzolanic reactivity imparted by MBS.
Sahoo et al. (2016) found that the addition of bacillus subtilis bac-
teria (106 cells=mL) in RAC resulted in an approximately 20% in-
crease in its fcm as a result of the formation of calcium carbonate
(CaCO3 ) precipitation in the mix.
Fig. 11. Influence of addition of superplasticizer on compressive
strength of RAC with weff =c ¼ 0.5. SP1 and SP2 denote standard
(lignosulfonate) and high-performance (polycarboxylate) superplastici-
zers, respectively.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Influence of Pretreatment of Recycled Concrete Aggregate
To date, several treatment methods have been developed to enhance
the mechanical properties of recycled concrete aggregate, which in
turn would make it a potential alternative to natural aggregate in
concrete. These methods can be generally divided into two catego-
ries: methods with the aim of improving the performance of
recycled concrete aggregate by removing the loose mortar attached
to its surface, and methods that modify the recycled concrete ag-
gregate surface using reactive or nonreactive fine mineral materials.
For the first approach, several physical and chemical methods
have been proposed. Katz (2004) reduced the mortar content at-
tached to the surface of recycled concrete aggregates by using
an ultrasonic bath and observed a 7% increase in the fcm of con-
crete. Murali et al. (2012) immersed recycled concrete aggregate in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
different acid solutions [nitric acid (HNO3 ), sulfuric acid (H2 SO4 ),
and hydrochloric acid (HCl)] to remove the attached mortar and
observed an increase of up to 12% in f cm with the nitric acid–
treated recycled concrete aggregate. Ismail and Ramli (2013) pre-
treated recycled concrete aggregate using HCl solutions with three
different concentrations (0.1, 0.5, and 0.8 mol) and found that the
0.8-mol HCl solution removed more attached mortar, resulting in
an increase of up to 21% in the fcm of the concrete compared to that
of the control specimen containing ordinary recycled concrete ag-
gregates. Purushothaman et al. (2014) conducted a comparative
study and found that for a 0.1-mol solution concentration, H2 SO4
removed more attached mortar than did HCl, and the fcm of the
concrete prepared using H2 SO4 -treated recycled concrete aggre-
gates improved by 16 and 39% compared to that of the concretes
prepared using HCl-treated and untreated recycled concrete aggre-
gates, respectively. Pepe et al. (2014) proposed an autogenous
cleaning process. In this process, recycled concrete aggregates are
placed in a rotating mill drum, where they collide against each other
while removing the pieces of the mortar attached to their surfaces.
Pepe et al. (2014) found that the concrete prepared using autog-
enously cleaned recycled concrete aggregates exhibited a 9%
higher fcm than the concrete prepared using as-received recycled
concrete aggregates. Tam et al. (2007a) evaluated the effect of pre-
soaked recycled concrete aggregates using three different types
of aggressive acid solutions [HCl, H2 SO4 , and phosphoric acid
(H3 PO4 )]. Their experimental observations indicated that all three
acid solutions could significantly reduce the amount of mortar at-
tached to the surface of recycled concrete aggregates, which in turn
improved the fcm of the RAC mixes. Tam et al. (2016) investigated
the effect of carbon-conditioned recycled concrete aggregates with
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) on the fcm of RAC. They found that the
RAC mix carbonized for 90 min showed a 7% higher f cm than
that of the RAC mix containing untreated recycled concrete aggre-
gates. Pandurangan et al. (2016) assessed the effect of different
treatment methods (acid, thermal, and mechanical treatments) on
the mechanical properties of RACs. They found that the fcm of
a RAC mix improved by 6, 7, and 8% when the constituent recycled
concrete aggregates were exposed to an acid treatment with
1 mol HNO3 , a thermal treatment at 500°C for 2 h in a furnace,
and a mechanical treatment with a Los Angeles abrasion machine
(for 300 revolutions), respectively.
The second approach involves the use of nonreactive fine min-
eral admixtures (as microfiller materials) and reactive fine mineral
admixtures to enhance the recycled concrete aggregate surface and
to strengthen the ITZ of recycled concrete aggregate through poz-
zolanic reactions, respectively. Katz (2004) studied the pretreat-
ment of recycled concrete aggregate by immersing the aggregate
in a silica fume solution. As expected, the silica fume reacted with
the calcium hydroxide generated by the hydration of the aggregate,
resulting in the formation of a dense layer covering the surface of
© ASCE 04018211-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
the recycled concrete aggregate. This improved the fcm of the
resulting concrete by 15%. Younis and Pilakoutas (2013) suggested
that nonreactive microfiller materials such as limestone powder can
provide a slightly better surface treatment of recycled concrete ag-
gregate than can reactive microfiller materials (i.e., pozzolans).
They found that the pretreatment of recycled concrete aggregate
with a nonreactive microfiller material increased the fcm of the re-
sulting concrete by up to 17%, whereas the fcm of the concretes
prepared using reactive microfiller materials increased by only
6%. Zhao et al. (2013) precoated recycled concrete aggregates with
cementitious pastes with different components and w=b ratios.
They reported that the fcm of RAC mixes containing recycled
concrete aggregates precoated with sulfoaluminate cement and
fly ash (FA) and with sodium silicate impregnation increased by
up to 34.8 and 32.4%, respectively.
In addition to the two treatment approaches mentioned previ-
ously, Ismail and Ramli (2014) proposed a recycled concrete
aggregate–pretreatment method involving both the chemical-
treatment and surface-modification approaches. They initially
soaked recycled concrete aggregates in a HCl solution to remove
the attached mortar and then subsequently coated the recycled
concrete aggregates with wollastonite (CaSiO3 ). The concrete
manufactured using the recycled concrete aggregates modified
by this method showed a 12% higher 28-day fcm compared to
the concrete prepared using untreated recycled concrete aggregates.
Influence of Mineral Admixture
Previous studies of NAC have reported that the pozzolanic
and microfiller effects related to mineral materials are beneficial
for both short-term and long-term properties of concrete (Neville
1995; González-Fonteboa and Martínez-Abella 2008). To date,
several studies have reported the use of FA, silica fume, ground-
granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), and a few other pozzolanic
materials [i.e., metakaolin (Corinaldesi and Moriconi 2009; Kou
et al. 2011), rubble powder (Corinaldesi et al. 2002), and munici-
pal solid waste ash (Kou et al. 2011; Somna et al. 2012)] as a
cement additive or an alternative to cement to improve the perfor-
mance of RACs. This subsection discusses the influence of three
commonly used mineral admixtures, i.e., FA, SF, and GGBS on
the f cm of RACs.
Silica Fume. Fig. 12 shows the effect of the addition of 5 and 10%
SF on the fcm of RACs with different RCA% values. The use of SF
as a cement replacement at a ratio of 5 and 10% by weight can
improve the fcm of a RAC mix by up to 7 and 11%, respectively
(Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2002; González-Fonteboa and
Martínez-Abella 2008; Dilbas et al. 2014; Çakır 2014; Çakır
and Sofyanlı 2015). This is because SF can offer a higher pozzo-
lanic effect than cement by producing additional calcium silicate
Fig. 12. Influence of silica fume replacement on compressive strength
of RAC with weff =c ¼ 0.36.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Fig. 13. Influence of fly ash replacement ratio on 28-day compressive
strength of RAC with 100% RCA% and different weff =b.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Influence of FA replacement on 28-day compressive strength
of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100%.
hydrate (C─S─H) in concrete while offering the microfiller effect
to fill the pores on the surface of recycled concrete aggregates,
which subsequently improves the mortar–aggregate ITZ bonding
(Çakır and Sofyanlı 2015).
Fly Ash. Fig. 13 shows the effect of the FA replacement ratio by
weight of cement (FA%) on the 28-day f cm of different RACs with
100% RCA%. For a given weff =b, an increase in FA% led to a de-
crease in the 28-day fcm of RAC. This can be attributed to the fact
that FA has a significantly lower CaO content (i.e., <5%) than
does ordinary cement (i.e., >60%). With an increase in FA%, the
CaO content decreases, which leads to a lower level of hydration
(Lima et al. 2013; Hassan et al. 2015). However, Berndt (2009),
Kou et al. (2007), and Somna et al. (2012) reported that for the
same weff =b, RACs with partial FA replacement exhibit a more sig-
nificant strength gain during the curing period of 28–90 days com-
pared to the RACs with no FA. This is because FA is not a hydraulic
material, i.e., its hydration does not take place on its own, and an
activator (e.g., ordinary cement) is needed to make it react with
calcium hydroxide. As a result, the contribution of FA toward
the densification of concrete during the early curing ages is limited.
Following the hydration of ordinary cement during the early curing
ages, FA starts to undergo a pozzolanic reaction with calcium
hydroxide, and the hydration of both cement and FA leads to a re-
duction in the porosity of the resulting concrete during the later
curing period (i.e., 28–90 days), resulting in a higher fcm
(Somna et al. 2012).
Kou et al. (2008) and Kou and Poon (2012) reported an opposite
effect on the 28-day fcm of RACs with 100% RCA% by the addi-
tion of 25% FA. For a given weff =b, the addition of FA resulted in
an increase in the 28-day fcm of the RACs (Fig. 14). This obser-
vation can be attributed to the microfiller effect offered by FA as
© ASCE 04018211-11
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Fig. 15. Influence of GGBS replacement on compressive strength of
RAC with w=b ¼ 0.5.
well as to the additional pozzolanic reactions caused by FA
(Kou et al. 2008; Kou and Poon 2012).
Ground-Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag. Fig. 15 shows the f ce-
ment (GGBS%) on the 28-day fcm effect of 30 and 60% GGBS
replacement ratio by weight o of RACs with different RCA%
values (Özturan and Çeçen 1997; Ann et al. 2008; Achtemichuk
et al. 2009; Berndt 2009; Du et al. 2010; Kou et al. 2011;
Sriravindrarajah et al. 2012; Çakır 2014; Hassan et al. 2015).
For a given RCA%, fcm of a RAC mix decreased with an increase
in the GGBS%. This is attributed to the fact that GGBS has a lower
CaO content (i.e., ∼40%) than does ordinary cement (i.e., >60%),
and an increase in the GGBS% decreases the CaO content, result-
ing in a lower level of hydration (Çakır 2014).
Elastic Modulus
Elastic modulus (Ec ) is an important mechanical property to de-
scribe the axial stress-strain behavior of concrete within the initial
linear elastic stage. This section discusses the findings of studies
investigating the effects of the density, RCA%, size, and attached
mortar content of RACs on their Ec along with the correlation be-
tween the Ec and fcm of RACs.
Influence of RAC Bulk Density
Fig. 16 shows the correlation between ρh and Ec of RACs analyzed
using the data in Table 4. For a given weff =c, a RAC mix with
higher ρh exhibits a higher Ec. This can be attributed to the increase
in the stiffness of the bulk matrix and fcm of RAC with an increase
in its density (Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2002).
Influence of RCA%
Previous studies showed that for a given concrete mix, an increase
in RCA% leads to a decrease in Ec . Fig. 17 demonstrates this
Fig. 16. Correlation between concrete bulk density and elastic mod-
ulus of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100% and weff =c ¼ 0.36.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Fig. 17. Influence of RCA% on the elastic modulus of RAC with
different weff =c.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
phenomenon with results obtained when weff =c was kept constant.
Previous studies on NAC (Alexander and Milne 1995; Etxeberria
et al. 2007b) reported that the elastic behavior of conventional con-
crete is strongly correlated with the elastic behavior of its constitu-
ent materials (i.e., aggregates and mortar) and the aggregate–mortar
matrix ITZ. Therefore, because coarse aggregates account for a
large volumetric proportion of a concrete mix, the properties of
coarse aggregates have a major influence on the overall elastic
behavior of concrete (Wu et al. 2001). Because of the porous nature
and lower stiffness of the mortar attached to the surface of recycled
concrete aggregates, the elastic modulus of recycled concrete
aggregate is generally lower than that of natural aggregate. Because
of this, RAC has a lower Ec than that of NAC. Fig. 17 shows that
for a given concrete mix, a RCA% of 100% results in an approx-
imately 20–25% reduction in the Ec of the mix. Li (2004) reported
under some circumstances a reduction of 45% in the Ec of RACs
with 100% RCA% at a fixed weff =c, whereas Topcu and Güncan
(1995) reported that this reduction can be high as 80%.
Influence of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Size and Attached
Mortar Content
A few previous studies investigated the influence of the attached
mortar content on the Ec of RAC (Padmini et al. 2009; Corinaldesi
2011; Manzi et al. 2013; Dilbas et al. 2014). Fig. 18 presents results
obtained from these studies, showing the influence of the attached
mortar content on the Ec of RACs with 100% RCA%. An increase
in the attached mortar content resulted in a lower Ec of RAC. This
can be attributed to the reduction in the elastic modulus of recycled
concrete aggregate with an increase in its mortar content, which is
due to the inherent porous nature of the attached mortar. These
studies also indicate that the Ec of RAC generally decreases with
a decrease in Φ. In addition to the correlation between Φ and the
attached mortar content, this observation can also be attributed to
the increase in the ITZ volume fraction with a decrease in the Φ of
recycled concrete aggregates. A decrease in the Φ of coarse aggre-
gate leads to an increase in the overall surface area of the aggregates
and the ITZ volume fraction, which in turn results in a reduction in
the Ec of concrete (Simeonov and Ahmad 1995; Vilardell et al.
1998; Li et al. 1999).
Correlation between Ec and f cm of RAC
Compressive strength is commonly used to predict the other
mechanical properties of NACs. The correlation between the f cm
and Ec of RAC has been investigated (Ravindrarajah and Tam
1985; Bairagi et al. 1993; de Oliveira and Vazquez 1996; Tavakoli
and Soroushian 1996; Corinaldesi 2010; Hoffmann et al. 2012;
Wardeh et al. 2014). Fig. 19 shows the relationship between Ec
and f cm obtained from the database of RACs. RAC with a higher
f cm exhibits a higher Ec. This observation is consistent with the
© ASCE 04018211-12
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Fig. 18. Influence of attached mortar content (in percentage of total
aggregate weight) on elastic modulus of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100%.
Fig. 19. Correlation between elastic modulus and compressive strength
of RAC.
trend shown by NAC. In addition, the trendlines in Fig. 19 show
that for a given fcm , the Ec of RAC decreases with an increase in
its RCA%. This observation suggests that the f cm of RAC is not
the only factor influencing its Ec . Previous studies (Limbachiya
et al. 2000; Etxeberria et al. 2007b; Butler et al. 2013; Beltrán
et al. 2014) reported that the Ec of the concretes with the same
fcm prepared using recycled concrete aggregate with different
qualities and RCA% values are also affected by other factors such
as the parent concrete strength, attached mortar content, size dis-
tribution of coarse aggregate, and Φ. Therefore, these factors need
to be considered along with the f cm for accurately predicting the Ec
of RACs.
Axial Compressive Stress-Strain Behavior of RAC
The structural analysis and designing of concrete requires a clear
understanding of its stress-strain behavior under compression. In re-
cent years, a number of studies have been conducted to investigate
the stress-strain behavior of RAC. These studies showed that RAC
and NAC behave differently under axial compression. Fig. 20 shows
that with an increase in the RCA%, the peak compressive strength of
RAC decreases, whereas its corresponding peak strain increases
(Bairagi et al. 1993; Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2002; Xiao
et al. 2005; Belén et al. 2011 González-Fonteboa et al. 2012;
Martínez-Lage et al. 2012; Medina et al. 2014; Folino and
Xargay 2014). However, the postpeak behavior of RAC is still con-
troversial. Xiao et al. (2005), Li (2008), and Chen (2013) reported a
decrease in the length and an increase in the slope of the second
branch of the stress-strain curve of RACs with a higher RCA
%, which decreases the ductility of such RACs. Fig. 21(a) shows
this postpeak behavior through the stress-strain curves reported by
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 20. Axial stress-strain curves of RAC mixes with different RCA%
values up to peak point and weff =c ¼ 0.6.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 21. Axial stress-strain curve of RAC with postpeak branch: (a) in-
creased slope of second branch with increasing RCA% for specimens
with weff =c ¼ 0.43 (data from Xiao et al. 2005); and (b) identical
slope of second branch with increasing RCA% for specimens with
weff =c ¼ 0.65 (data from Belén et al. 2011).
Xiao et al. (2005). However, Belén et al. (2011) and Pereira et al.
(2012b) observed a nearly identical slope and a slight increase in
the length of the second branch on the stress-strain curve of the
RACs with a higher RCA%. Fig. 21(b) shows this postpeak behavior
through the stress-strain curves reported by Belén et al. (2011).
Splitting Tensile and Flexural Strengths
According to previous reviews on RAC and NAC, the splitting ten-
sile (f st ) and flexural (f r ) strengths of RAC are generally lower
than those of NAC with the same concrete mix (Xiao et al.
2006b; Safiuddin et al. 2013; Behera et al. 2014). This section re-
views the influence of RCA%, the particle size of the recycled con-
crete aggregate, the RAC density, and the mixing method on the fst
and fr of RACs, along with the correlation between the f st and f cm
and that between the f r and fcm of RAC.
© ASCE 04018211-13
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Splitting Tensile Strength (fst) (MPa)
5
1 weff/c =0.27 weff/c =0.32 weff/c =0.33
weff/c =0.43 weff/c =0.48 weff/c =0.5
weff/c =0.53 weff/c =0.65
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RCA%
Fig. 22. Influence of RCA% on splitting tensile strength of RAC with
different weff =c.
Fig. 23. Influence of RCA% on flexural strength of RAC with different
weff =c.
Influence of RCA%
A number of previous studies have investigated the effect of RCA%
on f st and fr . Figs. 22 and 23 show the influence of RCA% on the
fst and f r of RACs, respectively. In most cases, an increase in RCA
% led to a decrease in both fst and fr . This is attributed to the lower
tensile strength of recycled concrete aggregates than that of natural
aggregates (Abd Elhakam et al. 2012; Sriravindrarajah et al. 2012).
Some studies reported that a concrete mix with a RCA% of 100%
had a decrease of up to 23% and approximately 10–13% in fst
(Wu et al. 2001; Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2002; Katz
2003; Hansen 2004; Kou et al. 2007; Kou et al. 2008; Tam and
Tam 2008; Kou and Poon 2009; Tabsh and Abdelfatah 2009;
Butler et al. 2014; Guneyisi et al. 2016; Adams et al. 2016) and
fr (Bairagi et al. 1990; Özturan and Çeçen 1997; Kheder and
Al-Windawi 2005; Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2007; de Juan
and Gutiérrez 2009; Mefteh et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2013), re-
spectively, compared with a NAC mix. However, the results of
other studies did not follow this trend and showed that the use
of recycled concrete aggregates in concrete resulted in a less sig-
nificant or even positive effect on its f st and fr . Liu et al. (2011),
McNeil and Kang (2013), and Kim et al. (2015) reported that for a
given weff =c, a RAC mix can have a f st comparable to that of a
NAC mix. Etxeberria et al. (2007b), Duan and Poon (2014),
Andreu and Miren (2014), Çakır and Sofyanlı (2015), and Zaetang
et al. (2016) reported that RACs had a marginally higher f st than
NACs with the same mix design. The previous experimental obser-
vations derived from the flexural tests of RACs (Rao et al. 2011;
Xiao et al. 2012b; Limbachiya et al. 2012a; Akbarnezhad et al.
2013; Andreu and Miren 2014) also indicated that RACs can have
a fr equal to or higher than that of NACs with the same weff =c. The
higher f st and fr of RACs compared to those of NACs may be due
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 (a)
Fig. 25. Correlation between bulk density and splitting tensile strength
of RAC with RCA% ¼ 100% and weff =c ¼ 0.36.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 24. Influence of recycled aggregate size (Φ) on (a) splitting tensile
strength and (b) flexural strength of RAC with weff =c ¼ 0.3. RAC1 and
RAC2 were produced with recycled concrete aggregates sourced from
crushed concrete pavements of US 23 Fenton and 1-75 Detroit, respec- Fig. 26. Correlation between bulk density and flexural strength of
tively. RAC with RCA% ¼ 100%.

to the dependence of these properties on the quality and surface As was well-established by several previous studies on both RAC
roughness of recycled concrete aggregates (Akbarnezhad et al. and NAC, the bulk density of concrete can serve as a measure of its
2013; Andreu and Miren 2014; Behera et al. 2014). Yang et al. porosity, homogeneity, and compactness, and hence also reflects its
(2008), Rao et al. (2011), Matias et al. (2013), Behera et al. (2014), mechanical strength (Gómez-Soberón 2002; Carneiro et al. 2014).
and Çakır and Sofyanlı (2015) reported that recycled concrete
aggregates with a rougher surface texture and higher parent con- Correlation between f st and f r and f cm of RAC
crete strength develop better bonding and interlocking between Like elastic modulus, fcm of concrete is commonly used to predict
the recycled concrete aggregate and the new adhered mortar matrix, its splitting tensile and flexural strengths. Several models have been
which in turn improved fst and fr of RACs. proposed to predict f st (Tavakoli and Soroushian 1996; Kheder and
Al-Windawi 2005; Xiao et al. 2006a) and f r (Bairagi et al. 1993;
Influence of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Size Tavakoli and Soroushian 1996; Kheder and Al-Windawi 2005;
Only a few studies have investigated the effect of the recycled ag- Xiao et al. 2006b) of RAC using the related fcm . Figs. 27 and 28
gregate size (Φ) on f st (Tavakoli and Soroushian 1996; Padmini illustrate the relationship of fst and f r , respectively, with f cm of
et al. 2009) and fr (Tavakoli and Soroushian 1996; Padmini RAC. Both fst and fr increase with an increase in fcm of RAC.
et al. 2009; Manzi et al. 2013) of RACs. Figs. 24(a and b) show This is attributed to the higher mortar strength of the concrete with
the results reported by Tavakoli and Soroushian (1996), which in-
dicate that an increase in the Φ of recycled concrete aggregate leads
to an increase in both the f st and fr of RAC. This observation can
be attributed to the fact that an increase in Φ results in an increase in
the roughness of the aggregate surface, leading to an increase in the
stress concentration and crack propagation within the ITZ, which in
turn results in a lower strength of the aggregate–mortar ITZs
(Akçaoğlu et al. 2002; Elices and Rocco 2008). However, Padmini
et al. (2009) reported that f st and f r of RACs are not significantly
affected by Φ.

Influence of RAC Bulk Density

Figs. 25 and 26 show the effect of the RAC bulk density on the
splitting tensile and flexural strengths of RACs, respectively
Fig. 27. Correlation between compressive and splitting tensile
(Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz 2002; Sheen et al. 2013). Both
strengths of RAC.
f st and f r increase with an increase in the concrete bulk density.

© ASCE 04018211-14 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211


Fig. 28. Correlation between compressive and flexural strengths of
RAC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a high compressive strength. The trendlines in Figs. 27 and 28 show
that both the fst and fr of RAC decrease with an increase in the
RCA% for a given f cm . This observation indicates that fcm is not
the only factor affecting the fst and fr of RAC and the influence of
RCA% also needs to be considered for accurate predictions of fst
and f r . In addition, Katz (2003) reported that in RAC, the ratio of
f r to fcm and that of fst to f cm commonly lie within the ranges
16–23% and 9–13%, respectively.
Conclusions
This study presented a comprehensive review of the mechanical
properties of RAC on the basis of 242 studies reported in last three
decades. The effect of all the potential influential factors on the
mechanical properties of RAC, including the compressive strength,
elastic modulus, flexural strength, splitting tensile strength, and ax-
ial stress-strain behavior, was carefully reviewed and explained.
The less-understood influences of the concrete mixing method, ad-
dition of minerals, curing condition of concrete, and pretreatment
of recycled concrete aggregate on the mechanical properties of
RAC were summarized. The following are the main observations
and conclusions from this review:
1. The compressive strength, elastic modulus, splitting tensile
strength, and flexural strength of RAC decrease with an in-
crease in RCA%.
2. The compressive strength of RAC increases with an increase in
the effective water-to-cement ratio. However, according to
some studies there is no strong correlation between the com-
pressive strength and total water-to-cement ratio.
3. An increase in the aggregate-to-cement ratio of a RAC mix
leads to a decrease in its compressive strength.
4. A RAC mix containing high-strength recycled concrete aggre-
gates exhibits high compressive strength. However, this effect
of the aggregate strength is less significant in mixes with low
mortar strength.
5. RACs with larger particle size or a lower amount of attached
mortar exhibit higher compressive strength, elastic modulus,
splitting tensile, and flexural strength.
6. Recycled concrete aggregates with proper moisture content are
beneficial for the compressive strength of RAC.
7. The compressive strength, elastic modulus, flexural strength,
and splitting tensile strength of RAC increase with an increase
in the RAC bulk density.
8. The advanced mixing approaches reported in the literature can
partly compensate for the inferior mechanical properties of
recycled concrete aggregate by enhancing the ITZ between
the aggregate and new mortar, which in turn improves the
strength-related properties of RAC.
© ASCE 04018211-15
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
9. RAC cured under optimized temperature and humidity condi-
tions exhibits the highest compressive strength.
10. The addition of superplasticizer to a RAC mix can maintain
the desirable workability of RAC but leads to a slight decrease
in its compressive strength. This is not the case with NAC.
11. The mortar attached to the surface of recycled concrete aggre-
gates can be removed through efficient chemical and physical
pretreatment, which in turn leads to an improvement in the
compressive strength of RAC.
12. The incorporation of silica fume into RAC results in an in-
crease in its compressive strength, whereas the inclusion of
FA and GGBS leads to a decrease in the compressive strength.
13. The elastic modulus, flexural strength, and splitting tensile
strength of RAC generally increase with an increase in its com-
pressive strength. However, these properties are affected by
RCA%. For the accurate prediction of these mechanical prop-
erties, the combined effect of the compressive strength and
RCA% needs to be considered.
The review presented here is expected to establish a better
understanding of recycled concrete aggregate and its concrete prod-
ucts. This review also demonstrates the potential of recycled con-
crete aggregate to be used as an alternative aggregate material in
structural concrete to conserve natural resources and reduce the
environmental impact of the construction industry.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China through Grant
51650110495 and from the University of Adelaide through a
Research Excellence Grant awarded to the third author.
References
Abbas, A., G. Fathifazl, B. Fournier, O. B. Isgor, R. Zavadil, A. G.
Razaqpur, and S. Foo. 2009. “Quantification of the residual mortar
content in recycled concrete aggregates by image analysis.” Mater.
Charact. 60 (7): 716–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2009.01
.010.
Abbas, A., G. Fathifazl, O. B. Isgor, A. G. Razaqpur, B. Fournier, and
S. Foo. 2008. “Proposed method for determining the residual mortar
content of recycled concrete aggregates.” J. ASTM Int. 5 (1): 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI101087.
AbdElhakam, A., A. E. Mohamed, and E. Awad. 2012. “Influence of
self-healing, mixing method and adding silica fume on mechanical
properties of recycled aggregates concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.
35: 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.013.
Achtemichuk, S., J. Hubbard, R. Sluce, and M. H. Shehata. 2009.
“The utilization of recycled concrete aggregate to produce controlled
low-strength materials without using portland cement.” Cem. Concr.
Compos. 31 (8): 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp
.2008.12.011.
Adams, M. P., T. Fu, A. G. Cabrera, M. Morales, J. H. Ideker, and O. B.
Isgor. 2016. “Cracking susceptibility of concrete made with coarse re-
cycled concrete aggregates.” Constr. Build. Mater. 102: 802–810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.022.
Adams, M. P., A. Jones, S. Beauchemin, R. Johnson, B. Fournier,
M. Shehata, J. E. Tanner, and J. Ideker. 2013. “Applicability of the
accelerated mortar bar test for alkali-silica reactivity of recycled con-
crete aggregates.” Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 2 (1): 78–96. https://doi.org/10
.1520/ACEM20120030.
Afroughsabet, V., L. Biolzi, and T. Ozbakkaloglu. 2017. “Influence
of double hooked-end steel fibers and slag on mechanical and
durability properties of high-performance recycled aggregate concrete.”
Compos. Struct. 181: 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct
.2017.08.086.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Ajdukiewicz, A., and A. Kliszczewicz. 2002. “Influence of recycled aggre-
gates on mechanical properties of HS/HPC.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
24 (2): 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(01)00012-9.
Ajdukiewicz, A. B., and A. T. Kliszczewicz. 2007. “Comparative tests of
beams and columns made of recycled aggregate concrete and natural
aggregate concrete.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 5 (2): 259–273. https://doi
.org/10.3151/jact.5.259.
Akbarnezhad, A., K. C. G. Ong, C. T. Tam, and M. H. Zhang. 2013.
“Effects of the parent concrete properties and crushing procedure on
the properties of coarse recycled concrete aggregates.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 25 (12): 1795–1802. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943
-5533.0000789.
Akçaoğlu, T., M. Tokyay, and T. Çelik. 2002. “Effect of coarse aggregate
size on interfacial cracking under uniaxial compression.” Mater. Lett.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
57 (4): 828–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-577X(02)00881-9.
Alexander, M. G., and T. I. Milne. 1995. “Influence of cement blend and
aggregate type on the stress-strain behavior and elastic modulus of
concrete.” ACI Mater. J. 92 (3): 227–235.
Andreu, G., and E. Miren. 2014. “Experimental analysis of properties of
high performance recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.
52: 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.054.
Ann, K. Y., H. Y. Moon, Y. B. Kim, and J. Ryou. 2008. “Durability of
recycled aggregate concrete using pozzolanic materials.” Waste Manage.
28 (6): 993–999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.003.
Bairagi, N. K., K. Ravande, and V. K. Pareek. 1993. “Behaviour of concrete
with different proportions of natural and recycled aggregates.” Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 9 (1): 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449
(93)90036-F.
Bairagi, N. K., H. S. Vidyadhara, and K. Ravande. 1990. “Mix design pro-
cedure for recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 4 (4):
188–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(90)90039-4.
Barbudo, A., J. de Brito, L. Evangelista, M. Bravo, and F. Agrela. 2013.
“Influence of water-reducing admixtures on the mechanical perfor-
mance of recycled concrete.” J. Cleaner Prod. 59: 93–98. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.022.
Behera, M., S. K. Bhattacharyya, A. K. Minocha, R. Deoliya, and
S. Maiti. 2014. “Recycled aggregate from C&D waste & its use in
concrete—A breakthrough towards sustainability in construction sector:
A review.” Constr. Build. Mater. 68: 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2014.07.003.
Belén, G. F., M. A. Fernando, C. L. Diego, and S. P. Sindy. 2011.
“Stress-strain relationship in axial compression for concrete using re-
cycled saturated coarse aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (5):
2335–2342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.031.
Beltrán, M. G., A. Barbudo, F. Agrela, A. P. Galvín, and J. R. Jiménez.
2014. “Effect of cement addition on the properties of recycled concretes
to reach control concretes strengths.” J. Cleaner Prod. 79: 124–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.053.
Berndt, M. L. 2009. “Properties of sustainable concrete containing fly ash,
slag and recycled concrete aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (7):
2606–2613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.02.011.
Brand, A. S., J. R. Roesler, and A. Salas. 2015. “Initial moisture and mixing
effects on higher quality recycled coarse aggregate concrete.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 79: 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015
.01.047.
Butler, L., J. S. West, and S. L. Tighe. 2011. “The effect of recycled con-
crete aggregate properties on the bond strength between RCA concrete
and steel reinforcement.” Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (10): 1037–1049. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.06.004.
Butler, L., J. S. West, and S. L. Tighe. 2013. “Effect of recycled concrete
coarse aggregate from multiple sources on the hardened properties of
concrete with equivalent compressive strength.” Constr. Build. Mater.
47: 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.074.
Butler, L., J. S. West, and S. L. Tighe. 2014. “Towards the classification
of recycled concrete aggregates: Influence of fundamental aggregate
properties on recycled concrete performance.” J. Sustainable Cem.
Based Mater. 3 (2): 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2014
.909752.
© ASCE 04018211-16
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Buyle-Bodin, F., and R. Hadjieva-Zaharieva. 2002. “Influence of industri-
ally produced recycled aggregates on flow properties of concrete.”
Mater. Struct. 35 (8): 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02483138.
Çakır, Ö. 2014. “Experimental analysis of properties of recycled coarse
aggregate (RCA) concrete with mineral additives.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 68: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.032.
Çakır, Ö., and Ö. Ö. Sofyanlı. 2015. “Influence of silica fume on mechani-
cal and physical properties of recycled aggregate concrete.” HBRC J.
11 (2): 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.06.002.
Carneiro, J. A., P. R. L. Lima, M. B. Leite, and R. D. Toledo Filho. 2014.
“Compressive stress-strain behavior of steel fiber reinforced-recycled
aggregate concrete.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 46: 65–72. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.11.006.
Casuccio, M., M. C. Torrijos, G. Giaccio, and R. Zerbino. 2008.
“Failure mechanism of recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 22 (7): 1500–1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2007.03.032.
ChakradharaRao, M., S. K. Bhattacharyya, and S. V. Barai. 2011. “Behav-
iour of recycled aggregate concrete under drop weight impact load.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (1): 69–80.
Chen, B. 2013. “Basic mechanical properties and microstructural analysis
of recycled concrete.” J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. -Mater. Sci. Ed. 28 (1):
104–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-013-0649-x.
Chen, H. J., T. Yen, and K. H. Chen. 2003. “Use of building rubbles as
recycled aggregates.” Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (1): 125–132. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00938-9.
Corinaldesi, V. 2010. “Mechanical and elastic behaviour of concretes made
of recycled-concrete coarse aggregates.” Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (9):
1616–1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.031.
Corinaldesi, V. 2011. “Structural concrete prepared with coarse recycled
concrete aggregate: From investigation to design.” Adv. Civ. Eng.
1–6. http://doi.org/10.1155/2011/283984.
Corinaldesi, V., and G. Moriconi. 2009. “Influence of mineral additions on
the performance of 100% recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (8): 2869–2876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009
.02.004.
Corinaldesi, V., G. Orlandi, and G. Moriconi. 2002. “Self-compacting
concrete incorporating recycled aggregate.” Vol. 4 of Innovations
and developments in concrete materials and construction edited by
R. K. Dhir, P. C. Hewlett, and L. J. Csetenyi, 455–464. London:
Thomas Telford.
Cui, Z. L., S. S. Lu, and Z. S. Wang. 2012. “Influence of recycled aggregate
on strength and anti-carbonation properties of recycled aggregate
concrete.” J. Build. Mater. 15 (2): 264–267.
de Juan, M. S., and P. A. Gutiérrez. 2004. “Influence of recycled aggregate
quality on concrete properties.” In Proc., Conf. on Use of Recycled Ma-
terials in Building and Structures, 9–11. Paris: RILEM Publications.
de Juan, M. S., and P. A. Gutiérrez. 2009. “Study on the influence of at-
tached mortar content on the properties of recycled concrete aggregate.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2): 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2008.04.012.
de Oliveira, M. B., and E. Vazquez. 1996. “The influence of retained mois-
ture in aggregates from recycling on the properties of new hardened
concrete.” Waste Manage. 16 (1): 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0956-053X(96)00033-5.
Dhir, R. K. 1999. “Sustainability of recycled concrete aggregate for use in
BS 5328 designated mixes.” Proc., ICE-Structures and Buildings
134 (3): 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1680/istbu.1999.31568.
Dilbas, H., M. Şimşek, and Ö. Çakır. 2014. “An investigation on mechani-
cal and physical properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) with
and without silica fume.” Constr. Build. Mater. 61: 50–59. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.057.
Domingo-Cabo, A., C. Lázaro, F. López-Gayarre, M. A. Serrano-López,
P. Serna, and J. O. Castaño-Tabares. 2009. “Creep and shrinkage of
recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (7): 2545–
2553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.02.018.
Du, T., W. Wang, Z. Liu, H. Lin, and T. Guo. 2010. “The complete stress-
strain curve of recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial compression
loading.” J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. (Mater. Sci. Ed.) 25 (5): 862–865.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-010-0109-9.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Duan, Z. H., and C. S. Poon. 2014. “Properties of recycled aggregate
concrete made with recycled aggregates with different amounts of
old adhered mortars.” Mater. Des. 58: 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.matdes.2014.01.044.
Elices, M., and C. G. Rocco. 2008. “Effect of aggregate size on the
fracture and mechanical properties of a simple concrete.” Eng. Fract.
Mech. 75 (13): 3839–3851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008
.02.011.
Etxeberria, M., A. R. Mari, and E. Vazquez. 2007a. “Recycled aggregate
concrete as structural material.” Mater. Struct. 40 (5): 529–541. https://
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9161-5.
Etxeberria, M., V, A. Marí, and M. Barra. 2007b. “Influence of amount of
recycled coarse aggregates and production process on properties of
recycled aggregate concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (5): 735–742.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.02.002.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Evangelista, L., and J. de Brito. 2014. “Concrete with fine recycled aggre-
gates: A review.” Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 18 (2): 129–172. https://doi
.org/10.1080/19648189.2013.851038.
Evangelista, L., and J. De Brito. 2007. “Mechanical behaviour of concrete
made with fine recycled concrete aggregates.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
29 (5): 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.12.004.
Fathifazl, G., A. Abbas, A. G. Razaqpur, O. B. Isgor, B. Fournier, and
S. Foo. 2009. “New mixture proportioning method for concrete made
with coarse recycled concrete aggregate.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 (10):
601–611. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:10(601).
Fathifazl, G., A. G. Razaqpur, O. B. Isgor, A. Abbas, B. Fournier, and
S. Foo. 2011. “Creep and drying shrinkage characteristics of concrete
produced with coarse recycled concrete aggregate.” Cem. Concr.
Compos. 33 (10): 1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp
.2011.08.004.
Ferreira, L., J. de Brito, and M. Barra. 2011. “Influence of the pre-saturation
of recycled coarse concrete aggregates on concrete properties.”
Mag. Concr. Res. 63 (8): 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr
.2011.63.8.617.
Folino, P., and H. Xargay. 2014. “Recycled aggregate concrete—Mechanical
behavior under uniaxial and triaxial compression.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 56: 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.073.
Fonseca, N., J. De Brito, and L. Evangelista. 2011. “The influence of curing
conditions on the mechanical performance of concrete made with
recycled concrete waste.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (6): 637–643.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.04.002.
Gayarre, F. L., C. L. C. Pérez, M. A. S. López, and A. D. Cabo. 2014.
“The effect of curing conditions on the compressive strength of recycled
aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 53: 260–266. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.112.
Gholampour, A., A. H. Gandomi, and T. Ozbakkaloglu. 2017. “New
formulations for mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete
using gene expression programming.” Constr. Build. Mater. 130:
122–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.114.
Gómez-Soberón, J. 2002. “Porosity of recycled concrete with substitu-
tion of recycled concrete aggregate: An experimental study.” Cem.
Concr. Res. 32 (8): 1301–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846
(02)00795-0.
Gonçalves, A., A. Esteves, and M. Vieira. 2004. “Influence of recycled
concrete aggregates on concrete durability.” In Proc., Int. RILEM Conf.
on the Use of Recycled Materials in Buildings and Structures. Paris:
RILEM Publications.
González-Fonteboa, B., and F. Martínez-Abella. 2008. “Concretes with
aggregates from demolition waste and silica fume.” Build. Environ.
43 (4): 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.008.
González-Fonteboa, B., F. Martínez-Abella, J. Eiras-López, and S. Seara-
Paz. 2011. “Effect of recycled coarse aggregate on damage of recycled
concrete.” Mater. Struct. 44 (10): 1759–1771. https://doi.org/10.1617
/s11527-011-9736-7.
González-Fonteboa, B., F. Martínez-Abella, M. F. Herrador, and S. Seara-
Paz. 2012. “Structural recycled concrete: Behaviour under low loading
rate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1): 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2011.08.010.
Gonzalez-Taboada, I., B. Gonzalez-Fonteboa, F. Martinez-Abella, and
D. Carro-Lopez. 2016. “Study of recycled concrete aggregate quality
© ASCE 04018211-17
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
and its relationship with recycled concrete compressive strength using
database analysis.” Materiales de Construcción 66 (323): 1–18. https://
doi.org/10.3989/mc.2016.06415.
Guneyisi, E., M. Gesoğlu, Q. Kareem, and S. İpek. 2016. “Effect of
different substitution of natural aggregate by recycled aggregate on
performance characteristics of pervious concrete.” Mater. Struct.
49 (1–2): 521–536.
Hani, S. A., I. A. Rahman, and H. M. Saman. 2015. “Enhancing the per-
formance of recycled aggregate concrete using micronized biomass
silica.” In Proc., CIEC, 65–77. Singapore: Springer.
Hansen, T. C. 1986. “Recycled aggregates and recycled aggregate concrete
second state-of-the-art report developments 1945–1985.” Mater. Struct.
19 (3): 201–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02472036.
Hansen, T. C. 2004. Vol. 6 of Recycling of demolished concrete and ma-
sonry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hansen, T. C., and E. Boegh. 1985. “Elasticity and drying shrinkage con-
crete of recycled-aggregate.” ACI J. Proc. 82 (5): 648–652.
Hassan, A. A. A., M. K. Ismail, and J. Mayo. 2015. “Mechanical properties
of self-consolidating concrete containing lightweight recycled aggre-
gate in different mixture compositions.” J. Build. Eng. 4: 113–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.005.
Hoffmann, C., S. Schubert, A. Leemann, and M. Motavalli. 2012.
“Recycled concrete and mixed rubble as aggregates: Influence of var-
iations in composition on the concrete properties and their use as struc-
tural material.” Constr. Build. Mater. 35: 701–709. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.007.
Hou, Y. L., and G. Zheng. 2013. “Mechanical properties of recycled ag-
gregate concrete in different age.” J. Build. Mater. 16 (4): 683–687.
Hu, M. P. 2007. “Mechanical properties of concrete prepared with different
recycled coarse aggregates replacement rate.” [In Chinese.] Concrete
2: 52–54.
Ismail, S., and M. Ramli. 2013. “Engineering properties of treated recycled
concrete aggregate (RCA) for structural applications.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 44: 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.03
.014.
Ismail, S., and M. Ramli. 2014. “Mechanical strength and drying shrinkage
properties of concrete containing treated coarse recycled concrete
aggregates.” Constr. Build. Mater. 68: 726–739. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.058.
Kabir, A., N. U. Ahmed, and M. S. Alam. 2015. “Effect of cement propor-
tion on strength of recycled aggregate concrete.” Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng.
Res. 4 (4): 341–346. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijscer.4.4.341-346.
Kang, T. H. K., W. Kim, Y. K. Kwak, and S. G. Hong. 2014. “Flexural
testing of reinforced concrete beams with recycled concrete aggregates
(with appendix).” ACI Struct. J. 111 (3): 607–616. https://doi.org/10
.14359/51686622.
Katz, A. 2003. “Properties of concrete made with recycled aggregate from
partially hydrated old concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (5): 703–711.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)01033-5.
Katz, A. 2004. “Treatments for the improvement of recycled aggregate.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (6): 597–603. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2004)16:6(597).
Kheder, G. F., and S. A. Al-Windawi. 2005. “Variation in mechanical prop-
erties of natural and recycled aggregate concrete as related to the
strength of their binding mortar.” Mater. Struct. 38 (7): 701–709.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02484315.
Kikuchi, M., Y. Dosho, M. Narikawa, and T. Miura. 1998. “Application
of re-cycled aggregate concrete for structural concrete. Part 1—
Experimental study on the quality of recycled aggregate and recycled
aggregate concrete.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Use of Recycled Concrete
Aggregate, 55–68. London: Thomas Telford.
Kim, S. W., H. D. Yun, W. S. Park, and Y. I. Jang. 2015. “Bond strength
prediction for deformed steel rebar embedded in recycled coarse aggre-
gate concrete.” Mater. Des. 83: 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.matdes.2015.06.008.
Kong, D., T. Lei, J. Zheng, C. Ma, J. Jiang, and J. Jiang. 2010. “Effect and
mechanism of surface-coating pozzalanics materials around aggregate
on properties and ITZ microstructure of recycled aggregate concrete.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (5): 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2009.10.038.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Kou, S. C., and C. S. Poon. 2009. “Properties of self-compacting
concrete prepared with coarse and fine recycled concrete aggregates.”
Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (9): 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconcomp.2009.06.005.
Kou, S. C., and C. S. Poon. 2012. “Enhancing the durability properties
of concrete prepared with coarse recycled aggregate.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 35: 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.032.
Kou, S. C., and C. S. Poon. 2015. “Effect of the quality of parent
concrete on the properties of high performance recycled aggregate
concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 77: 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2014.12.035.
Kou, S. C., C. S. Poon, and F. Agrela. 2011. “Comparisons of natural and
recycled aggregate concretes prepared with the addition of different
mineral admixtures.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (8): 788–795. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.05.009.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Kou, S. C., C. S. Poon, and D. Chan. 2007. “Influence of fly ash as cement
replacement on the properties of recycled aggregate concrete.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 19 (9): 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561
(2007)19:9(709).
Kou, S. C., C. S. Poon, and D. Chan. 2008. “Influence of fly ash as a cement
addition on the hardened properties of recycled aggregate concrete.”
Mater. Struct. 41 (7): 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527
-007-9317-y.
Kou, S. C., B. J. Zhan, and C. S. Poon. 2012. “Feasibility study of using
recycled fresh concrete waste as coarse aggregates in concrete.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 28 (1): 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2011.08.027.
Kumutha, R., and K. Vijai. 2010. “Strength of concrete incorporating
aggregates recycled from demolition waste.” ARPN J. Eng. Appl.
Sci. 5 (5): 64–71.
Lee, G. C., and H. B. Choi. 2013. “Study on interfacial transition zone
properties of recycled aggregate by micro-hardness test.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 40: 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012
.09.114.
Leite, M. B. 2001. “Evaluation of the mechanical properties of concrete
produced with recycled aggregates from construction and demolition
wastes.” Ph.D. dissertation, Federal Univ. of Rio Grande doSul.
Levy, S. M., and P. Helene. 2004. “Durability of recycled aggregates
concrete: A safe way to sustainable development.” Cem. Concr. Res.
34 (11): 1975–1980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.02.009.
Li, G., Y. Zhao, S. S. Pang, and Y. Li. 1999. “Effective Young’s modulus
estimation of concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (9): 1455–1462. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00119-2.
Li, H., and J. Z. Xiao. 2012. “On fatigue strength of recycled aggregate
concrete based on its elastic modulus.” J. Build. Mater. 15 (2): 260–263.
Li, J., H. Xiao, and Y. Zhou. 2009. “Influence of coating recycled aggregate
surface with pozzolanic powder on properties of recycled aggregate
concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (3): 1287–1291. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.07.019.
Li, J. B. 2004. “Study on mechanical behavior of recycled aggregate
concrete.” Master dissertation, Tongji Univ.
Li, W., J. Xiao, Z. Sun, S. Kawashima, and S. P. Shah. 2012. “Interfacial
transition zones in recycled aggregate concrete with different mixing
approaches.” Constr. Build. Mater. 35: 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.022.
Li, X. 2008. “Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China: Part I.
Material behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete.” Resour. Conserv.
Recycling 53 (1): 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008
.09.006.
Liang, Y. C., Z. M. Ye, F. Vernerey, and Y. Xi. 2015. “Development of
processing methods to improve strength of concrete with 100% recycled
coarse aggregate.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (5): 04014163. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000909.
Lim, J. C., and T. Ozbakkaloglu. 2014. “Stress–strain model for normal-
and light-weight concretes under uniaxial and triaxial compression.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 71: 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2014.08.050.
Lima, C., A. Caggiano, C. Faella, E. Martinelli, M. Pepe, and R. Realfonzo.
2013. “Physical properties and mechanical behaviour of concrete
© ASCE 04018211-18
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
made with recycled aggregates and fly ash.” Constr. Build. Mater.
47: 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.051.
Limbachiya, M., M. S. Meddah, and Y. Ouchagour. 2012a. “Performance
of portland/silica fume cement concrete produced with recycled con-
crete aggregate.” ACI Mater. J. 109 (1): 91–100.
Limbachiya, M., M. S. Meddah, and Y. Ouchagour. 2012b. “Use of
recycled concrete aggregate in fly-ash concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.
27 (1): 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.07.023.
Limbachiya, M. C., T. Leelawat, and R. K. Dhir. 2000. “Use of recycled
concrete aggregate in high-strength concrete.” Mater. Struct. 33 (9):
574–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02480538.
Lin, Y. H., Y. Y. Tyan, T. P. Chang, and C. Y. Chang. 2004. “An assessment
of optimal mixture for concrete made with recycled concrete aggre-
gates.” Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (8): 1373–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconres.2003.12.032.
Liu, Q., J. Xiao, and Z. Sun. 2011. “Experimental study on the failure
mechanism of recycled concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (10): 1050–
1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.06.007.
Lotfi, S., M. Eggimann, E. Wagner, R. Mroz, and J. Deja. 2015. “Perfor-
mance of recycled aggregate concrete based on a new concrete recy-
cling technology.” Constr. Build. Mater. 95: 243–256. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.021.
Manzi, S., C. Mazzotti, and M. C. Bignozzi. 2013. “Short and long-term
behavior of structural concrete with recycled concrete aggregate.” Cem.
Concr. Compos. 37: 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp
.2013.01.003.
Marinković, S., V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, and I. Ignjatović. 2010.
“Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggre-
gate concrete.” Waste Manage. 30 (11): 2255–2264. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012.
Martínez-Lage, I., F. Martínez-Abella, C. Vázquez-Herrero, and J. L.
Pérez-Ordóñez. 2012. “Properties of plain concrete made with mixed
recycled coarse aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 37: 171–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.045.
Mas, B., A. Cladera, T. D. Olmo, and F. Pitarch. 2012. “Influence of the
amount of mixed recycled aggregates on the properties of concrete for
non-structural use.” Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (1): 612–622. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.073.
Matias, D., J. de Brito, A. Rosa, and D. Pedro. 2013. “Mechanical proper-
ties of concrete produced with recycled coarse aggregates – Influence of
the use of superplasticizers.” Constr. Build. Mater. 44: 101–109. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.03.011.
McNeil, K., and T. H. K. Kang. 2013. “Recycled concrete aggregates:
A review.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 7 (1): 61–69. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s40069-013-0032-5.
Medina, C., W. Zhu, T. Howind, M. I. S. de Rojas, and M. Frías. 2014.
“Influence of mixed recycled aggregate on the physical-mechanical
properties of recycled concrete.” J. Cleaner Prod. 68: 216–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.002.
Medina, C., W. Zhu, T. Howind, M. I. S. de Rojas, and M. Frías. 2015.
“Influence of interfacial transition zone on engineering properties of
the concrete manufactured with recycled ceramic aggregate.” J. Civ.
Eng. Manage. 21 (1): 83–93. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013
.802727.
Mefteh, H., O. Kebaïli, H. Oucief, L. Berredjem, and N. Arabi. 2013.
“Influence of moisture conditioning of recycled aggregates on the prop-
erties of fresh and hardened concrete.” J. Cleaner Prod. 54: 282–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.009.
Mehta, P. K., and H. Meryman. 2009. “Tools for reducing carbon emissions
due to cement consumption.” Structure 1 (1): 11–15.
Montgomery, D. G., and D. Sturgiss. 1996. “Properties of concrete incor-
porating recycled concrete aggregates.” In Proc., National Symp. on the
Use of Recycled Materials in Engineering Construction. Barton,
Australia: Engineers Australia.
Murali, G., V. C. M. Vardhan, R. Gavriela, G. J. Janani, N. Shifu, and
R. Sri. 2012. “Experimental Study on recycled aggregate concrete.”
Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2 (2): 407–410.
Nagataki, S. 2001. “Recycling of demolished concrete.” ACI Spec. Publ.
200: 1–20.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Nagataki, S., A. Gokce, T. Saeki, and M. Hisada. 2004. “Assessment of
recycling process induced damage sensitivity of recycled concrete ag-
gregates.” Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (6): 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconres.2003.11.008.
Neville, A. M. 1995. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. London: Longman
Group.
Nixon, P. J. 1978. “Recycled concrete as an aggregate for concrete—A
review.” Matériauxet Construction 11 (5): 371–378. https://doi.org/10
.1007/BF02473878.
Otsuki, N., S. I. Miyazato, and W. Yodsudjai. 2003. “Influence of recycled
aggregate on interfacial transition zone, strength, chloride penetration
and carbonation of concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 15 (5): 443–451.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:5(443).
Ozbakkaloglu, T., A. Gholampour, and T. Xie. 2017. “Mechanical and
durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete: Effect of recycled
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
aggregate properties and content.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2):
04017275. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002142.
Özturan, T., and C. Çeçen. 1997. “Effect of coarse aggregate type on
mechanical properties of concretes with different strengths.” Cem.
Concr. Res. 27 (2): 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)
00006-9.
Padmini, A. K., K. Ramamurthy, and M. S. Mathews. 2009. “Influence of
parent concrete on the properties of recycled aggregate concrete.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2): 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2008.03.006.
Paine, K. A., and R. K. Dhir. 2010. “Recycled aggregates in concrete: a
performance related approach.” Mag. Concr. Res. 62 (7): 519–530.
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2010.62.7.519.
Pandurangan, K., A. Dayanithy, and S. O. Prakash. 2016. “Influence of
treatment methods on the bond strength of recycled aggregate concrete.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 120: 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2016.05.093.
Pedro, D., J. de Brito, and L. Evangelista. 2014. “Influence of the use of
recycled concrete aggregates from different sources on structural con-
crete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 71: 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2014.08.030.
Pedro, D., J. de Brito, and L. Evangelista. 2015. “Performance of concrete
made with aggregates recycled from precasting industry waste: Influ-
ence of the crushing process.” Mater. Struct. 48 (12): 3965–3978.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0456-7.
Pepe, M., R. D. Toledo Filho, E. A. Koenders, and E. Martinelli. 2014.
“Alternative processing procedures for recycled aggregates in structural
concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 69: 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2014.06.084.
Pereira, P., L. Evangelista, and J. de Brito. 2012a. “The effect of superplas-
ticizers on the mechanical performance of concrete made with fine
recycled concrete aggregates.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (9): 1044–
1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.06.009.
Pereira, P., L. Evangelista, and J. De Brito. 2012b. “The effect of super-
plasticizers on the workability and compressive strength of concrete
made with fine recycled concrete aggregates.” Constr. Build. Mater.
28 (1): 722–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.050.
Pickel, D. 2014. “Recycled concrete aggregate: Influence of aggregate
pre-saturation and curing conditions on the hardened properties of con-
crete.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Waterloo.
Poon, C. S., and D. Chan. 2007. “Effects of contaminants on the properties
of concrete paving blocks prepared with recycled concrete aggregates.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (1): 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2005.06.031.
Poon, C. S., S. C. Kou, and L. Lam. 2007. “Influence of recycled aggregate
on slump and bleeding of fresh concrete.” Mater. Struct. 40 (9):
981–988. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9192-y.
Poon, C. S., and C. S. Lam. 2008. “The effect of aggregate-to-cement ratio
and types of aggregates on the properties of pre-cast concrete blocks.”
Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (4): 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconcomp.2007.10.005.
Poon, C. S., Z. H. Shui, and L. Lam. 2004a. “Effect of microstructure of
ITZ on compressive strength of concrete prepared with recycled aggre-
gates.” Constr. Build. Mater. 18 (6): 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2004.03.005.
© ASCE 04018211-19
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Poon, C. S., Z. H. Shui, L. Lam, H. Fok, and S. C. Kou. 2004b. “Influence
of moisture states of natural and recycled aggregates on the slump and
compressive strength of concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (1): 31–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00186-8.
Purushothaman, R., R. R. Amirthavalli, and L. Karan. 2014. “Influence of
treatment methods on the strength and performance characteristics of
recycled aggregate concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (5): 04014168.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001128.
Radonjanin, V., M. Malešev, and S. Marinković. 2010. “Recycled concrete
as aggregate for structural concrete production.” Sustainability 2 (5):
1204–1225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2051204.
Rahal, K. 2007. “Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled coarse
aggregate.” Build. Environ. 42 (1): 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.buildenv.2005.07.033.
Rao, M. C., and K. Arun. 2015. “Influence of superplasticizer on properties
of recycled aggregate concrete.” Asian J. Civ. Eng. 16 (7): 1001–1023.
Rao, M. C., S. K. Bhattacharyya, and S. V. Barai. 2011. “Influence of field
recycled coarse aggregate on properties of concrete.” Mater. Struct.
44 (1): 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9620-x.
Ravindrarajah, R. S., Y. H. Loo, and C. T. Tam. 1987. “Recycled concrete
as fine and coarse aggregates in concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 39 (141):
214–220. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1987.39.141.214.
Ravindrarajah, R. S., and C. T. Tam. 1985. “Properties of concrete made
with crushed concrete as coarse aggregate.” Mag. Concr. Res. 37 (130):
29–38. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1985.37.130.29.
Ridzuan, A. R. M., A. B. M. Diah, R. Hamir, and K. B. Kamarulzaman.
2001. “The influence of recycled aggregate on the early compressive
strength and drying shrinkage of concrete.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, 2–4. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Ryu, J. S. 2002. “Improvement on strength and impermeability of recycled
concrete made from crushed concrete coarse aggregate.” J. Mater. Sci.
Lett. 21 (20): 1565–1567. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020349011716.
Safiuddin, M., U. J. Alengaram, M. M. Rahman, M. A. Salam, and M. Z.
Jumaat. 2013. “Use of recycled concrete aggregate in concrete: A
review.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 19 (6): 796–810. https://doi.org/10
.3846/13923730.2013.799093.
Sagoe-Crentsil, K. K., T. Brown, and A. H. Taylor. 2001. “Performance of
concrete made with commercially produced coarse recycled concrete
aggregate.” Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (5): 707–712. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0008-8846(00)00476-2.
Sahoo, K. K., M. Arakha, P. Sarkar, R. Davis, and S. Jha. 2016. “Enhance-
ment of properties of recycled coarse aggregate concrete using bacte-
ria.” Int. J. Smart Nano Mater. 7 (1): 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080
/19475411.2016.1152322.
Saravanakumar, P., and G. Dhinakaran. 2013. “Strength characteristics of
high-volume fly ash-based recycled aggregate concrete.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 25 (8): 1127–1133. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943
-5533.0000645.
Sato, R., I. Maruyama, T. Sogabe, and M. Sogo. 2007. “Flexural behavior
of reinforced recycled concrete beams.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 5 (1):
43–61. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.5.43.
Sheen, Y. N., H. Y. Wang, Y. P. Juang, and D. H. Le. 2013. “Assessment on
the engineering properties of ready-mixed concrete using recycled ag-
gregates.” Constr. Build. Mater. 45: 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2013.03.072.
Silva, R. V., J. de Brito, and R. K. Dhir. 2014. “The influence of the use of
recycled aggregates on the compressive strength of concrete: a review.”
Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 19 (7): 825–849. https://doi.org/10.1080
/19648189.2014.974831.
Simeonov, P., and S. Ahmad. 1995. “Effect of transition zone on the elastic
behavior of cement-based composites.” Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (1):
165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(94)00124-H.
Sivakumar, N., S. Muthukumar, V. Sivakumar, D. Gowtham, and
V. Muthuraj. 2014. “Experimental studies on high strength concrete
by using recycled coarse aggregate.” Int. J. Eng. Sci. 4 (1): 27–36.
Somna, R., C. Jaturapitakkul, W. Chalee, and P. Rattanachu. 2012. “Effect
of the water to binder ratio and ground fly ash on properties of recycled
aggregate concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (1): 16–22. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000360.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Sriravindrarajah, R., N. D. H. Wang, and L. J. W. Ervin. 2012. “Mix design
for pervious recycled aggregate concrete.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater.
6 (4): 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-012-0024-x.
Srivastava, V., R. Kumar, and P. K. Mehta. 2013. “Concrete made with
waste materials—A review.” J. Environ. Nanotechnol. 2 (2): 102–106.
https://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2013.06.132022.
Tabsh, S. W., and A. S. Abdelfatah. 2009. “Influence of recycled
concrete aggregates on strength properties of concrete.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (2): 1163–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008
.06.007.
Tam, V. W., A. Butera, and K. N. Le. 2016. “Carbon-conditioned recycled
aggregate in concrete production.” J. Cleaner Prod. 133: 672–680.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.007.
Tam, V. W., X. F. Gao, and C. M. Tam. 2005. “Microstructural analysis
of recycled aggregate concrete produced from two-stage mixing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Heriot-Watt University on 05/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approach.” Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6): 1195–1203. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.025.
Tam, V. W., and C. M. Tam. 2008. “Diversifying two-stage mixing
approach (TSMA) for recycled aggregate concrete: TSMAs and
TSMAsc .” Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (10): 2068–2077. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.024.
Tam, V. W., C. M. Tam, and K. N. Le. 2007a. “Removal of cement mortar
remains from recycled aggregate using pre-soaking approaches.”
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 50 (1): 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.resconrec.2006.05.012.
Tam, V. W., C. M. Tam, and Y. Wang. 2007b. “Optimization on proportion
for recycled aggregate in concrete using two-stage mixing approach.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (10): 1928–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2006.05.040.
Tavakoli, M., and P. Soroushian. 1996. “Strengths of recycled aggregate
concrete made using field-demolished concrete as aggregate.” ACI
Mater. J. 93 (2): 178–181.
Tazawa, E., T. Kasai, and S. Okamoto. 1989. “Compressive strength of
concrete prepared by double mixing.” J. Mater. Concr. Struct. Pave-
ments 408: 139–146.
Thomas, C., J. Setién, J. A. Polanco, P. Alaejos, and M. S. de Juan. 2013.
“Durability of recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.
40: 1054–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.106.
Thomas, C., I. Sosa, J. Setién, J. A. Polanco, and A. I. Cimentada. 2014.
“Evaluation of the fatigue behavior of recycled aggregate concrete.”
J. Cleaner Prod. 65: 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013
.09.036.
Topcu, I. B. 1997. “Physical and mechanical properties of concretes pro-
duced with waste concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 27 (12): 1817–1823.
Topcu, I. B., and N. Güncan. 1995. “Using waste concrete as aggregate.”
Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (7): 1385–1390.
Torgal, F. P., and S. Jalali. 2011. “Construction and demolition (C&D)
wastes.” In Eco-efficient construction and building materials, 51–73.
London: Springer.
Ulloa, V. A., E. García-Taengua, M. J. Pelufo, A. Domingo, and P. Serna.
2013. “New views on effect of recycled aggregates on concrete com-
pressive strength.” ACI Mater. J. 110 (6): 687–696.
Vilardell, J., A. Aguado, L. Agullo, and R. Gettu. 1998. “Estimation of
the modulus of elasticity for dam concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res.
28 (1): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00214-7.
Wagih, A. M., H. Z. El-Karmoty, M. Ebid, and S. H. Okba. 2013.
“Recycled construction and demolition concrete waste as aggregate
for structural concrete.” HBRC J. 9 (3): 193–200. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.08.007.
Wang, H. L., J. J. Wang, X. Y. Sun, and W. L. Jin. 2013. “Improving per-
formance of recycled aggregate concrete with superfine pozzolanic
powders.” J. Cent. South Univ. 20 (12): 3715–3722. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11771-013-1899-7.
Wang, Z., L. Wang, Z. Cui, and M. Zhou. 2011. “Effect of recycled coarse
aggregate on concrete compressive strength.” Trans. Tianjin Univ.
17 (3): 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12209-011-1499-2.
Wang, Z. W. 2007. “Production and properties of high quality recycled
aggregates.” Concrete 3: 74–77.
Wardeh, G., E. Ghorbel, and H. Gomart. 2014. “Mix design and prop-
erties of recycled aggregate concretes: Applicability of Eurocode 2.”
© ASCE 04018211-20
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(9): 04018211
Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 9 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069
-014-0087-y.
Wei, X. 2006. “Experimental study on influence of recycled coarse aggre-
gates contents on properties of recycled aggregate concrete.” Concrete
10: 45–47.
Wu, K. R., B. Chen, W. Yao, and D. Zhang. 2001. “Effect of coarse ag-
gregate type on mechanical properties of high-performance concrete.”
Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (10): 1421–1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008
-8846(01)00588-9.
Xiao, J., H. Li, and Z. Yang. 2013. “Fatigue behavior of recycled aggregate
concrete under compression and bending cyclic loadings.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 38: 681–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2012.09.024.
Xiao, J., J. Li, and C. Zhang. 2005. “Mechanical properties of recycled
aggregate concrete under uniaxial loading.” Cem. Concr. Res.
35 (6): 1187–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.020.
Xiao, J., P. Li, and W. Qin. 2006a. “Study on bond-slip between recycled
concrete and rebars.” J.-Tongji Univ. 34 (1): 13.
Xiao, J., W. Li, Y. Fan, and X. Huang. 2012a. “An overview of study
on recycled aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011).” Constr. Build.
Mater. 31: 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12
.074.
Xiao, J., W. Li, and C. Poon. 2012b. “Recent studies on mechanical proper-
ties of recycled aggregate concrete in China—A review.” Sci. China
Technol. Sci. 55 (6): 1463–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-012
-4786-9.
Xiao, J., M. Tawana, and X. Huang. 2012c. “Review of studies on struc-
tural performance of recycled aggregate concrete in China.” Sci. China
Technol. Sci. 55 (10): 2727–2739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431
-012-4803-z.
Xiao, J. Z., J. B. Li, and C. Zhang. 2006b. “On relationships between the
mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete: an overview.”
Mater. Struct. 39 (6): 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006
-9093-0.
Yang, K. H., H. S. Chung, and A. F. Ashour. 2008. “Influence of type and
replacement level of recycled aggregates on concrete properties.”
ACI Mater. J 105 (3): 289–296.
Yang, X., J. Wu, and J. G. Liang. 2009. “Experimental study on relationship
between tensile strength and compressive strength of recycled aggregate
concrete.” Sichuan Build. Sci. 35: 190–192.
Ye, H. 2009. “Experimental study on mechanical properties of concrete
made with high quality recycled aggregate.” Sichuan Build. Sci.
35: 195–199.
Yoda, K., T. Yoshikane, Y. Nakashima, and T. Soshiroda. 1988. “Recycled
cement and recycled concrete in Japan.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Dem-
olition and Reuse of Concrete and Masonry, 527–536. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Younis, K. H., and K. Pilakoutas. 2013. “Strength prediction model and
methods for improving recycled aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 49: 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09
.003.
Zaetang, Y., V. Sata, A. Wongsa, and P. Chindaprasirt. 2016. “Properties of
previous concrete containing recycled concrete block aggregate and re-
cycled concrete aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 111: 15–21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.060.
Zega, C. J., and A. A. Di Maio. 2011a. “Recycled concretes made with
waste ready-mix concrete as coarse aggregate.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
23 (3): 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0000165.
Zega, C. J., and A. A. Di Maio. 2011b. “Use of recycled fine aggregate in
concretes with durable requirements.” Waste Manage. 31 (11): 2336–
2340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.06.011.
Zhao, H., B. K. Liu, and L. U. Guo 2008. “Experimental research on the
basic mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete.” J. Anhui
Inst. Archit. Ind. 6: 3.
Zhao, Z., S. Wang, L. Lu, and C. Gong. 2013. “Evaluation of pre-coated
recycled aggregate for concrete and mortar.” Constr. Build. Mater.
43: 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.032.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.