History of Recycled PDF

THE USE OF CRUSHED RECYCLED CONCRETE AS AN
ALTERNATIVE CONCRETE AGGREGATE
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering
Shane Ratcliffe (s209083)
Supervisors:
Rob Wolff, Sabaratnam Prathapan
Thesis Coordinator:
Kamal Debnath
School of Engineering & Information Technology
Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the Environment
Charles Darwin University
May 2016
THE USE OF CRUSHED RECYCLED CONCRETE AS AN
ALTERNATIVE CONCRETE AGGREGATE
Submitted by
SHANE RATCLIFFE (s209083)
Abstract
Keywords: Recycled Concrete Aggregate, Natural Aggregate, Concrete, Concrete Costs,

Emissions, Concrete Strength
The strength, cost and emissions of recycled concrete aggregate were compared to natural
aggregate. Multiple meetings and site visits were carried out with the local suppliers in
Darwin. R.U.B Group were used for recycled concrete aggregate while HB Group were used
for natural aggregates. A cost analysis showed it was cheaper to use recycled concrete
aggregate. Concrete mixes were made with both types of aggregate. Unsaturated recycled
concrete aggregate was much weaker and had a greater variability in strength compared to
natural aggregate. However, provided it was in a saturated surface dry state, recycled concrete
aggregate could achieve similar strengths and variability to natural aggregate. The CO2
emissions from the production of recycled concrete aggregate were found to be greater than
those arising from the production of natural aggregate but this was dependent on the scope of
calculations.
Page ii of v
Acknowledgements
I would like to respectfully acknowledge those who have helped me in the research and
writing of this thesis.
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Rob Wolff for all his assistance. Under Rob’s
guidance, I was able to piece this thesis together over two semesters. I would also like to
extend thanks to my secondary supervisor, Sabaratnam Prathapan.
This thesis could not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance from Mike
Cull of HB Group and Ray Breem of R.U.B Group. Both men were instrumental in their help,
offering incredible amounts of information, while also being kind enough to donate the
materials needed to carry out the strength testing.
Finally, I would like to thank the lab staff at Charles Darwin University. This is extended to
Brendan Von Gerhardt and Hermangi Surti. I would not have been able to carry out the
required strength testing in the laboratories without their help.
Page iii of v
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iv
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 3
3. Background ............................................................................................................................. 5
3.1 History of Recycled Concrete Aggregates ....................................................................... 5
3.2 Modern Day Practice ........................................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Production.................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.2 Current Problems ....................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Properties of Concrete .................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Previous Research .......................................................................................................... 12
3.4.1 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 12
3.4.2 Strength .................................................................................................................... 13
3.4.3 Permeability ............................................................................................................. 14
3.4.4 Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Australia ............................................................. 15
3.5 Natural Aggregate Production Process at HB Group ..................................................... 16
3.6 Recycled Concrete Production Process at R.U.B Group ................................................ 17
3.7 Concrete Production Process at HB Concrete ................................................................ 19
4. Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 21
4.1 Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Cost of Aggregate .................................................................................................... 23
4.2.2 Cost of Concrete ...................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Strength ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.1 Concrete Mix ........................................................................................................... 26
4.3.2 Slump Test ............................................................................................................... 27
4.3.3 Strength Test Results ............................................................................................... 28
5. Discussion............................................................................................................................. 30
5.1 Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 30
5.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Strength ........................................................................................................................... 34
5.3.1 Clay.......................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.2 Porosity of Crushed Concrete .................................................................................. 35
5.3.3 Variability ................................................................................................................ 36
5.4 Further Problems with the use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate ................................... 37
Page iv of v
5.4.1 Contaminants ........................................................................................................... 37
5.4.2 Testing and Research of Source Concrete ............................................................... 38
5.5 Recommendations for Recycled Concrete Aggregate .................................................... 39
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 41
7. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 44
8. References ............................................................................................................................ 45
Appendix A: Emissions Calculations ....................................................................................... 49
A.1 Aggregate Production .................................................................................................... 49
A.2 Natural Aggregate Electricity Usage ............................................................................. 49
A.3 HB Group Power Bills ................................................................................................... 50
A3.1 Bill 1 ........................................................................................................................ 50
A3.2 Bill 2 ........................................................................................................................ 50
A.4 Power Bills from Home to Determine CO2 per KwH ................................................... 51
A4.1 Power Bill 1 ............................................................................................................. 51
A4.2 Power Bill 2 ............................................................................................................. 52
A.5 CO2 Emissions due to Electricity ................................................................................... 52
A.6 Recycled Concrete Aggregate Diesel Consumption...................................................... 53
A.7 CO2 Emissions Formulas from the Australian Government.......................................... 53
A.8 CO2 Emissions due to Diesel Machinery ....................................................................... 54
A.9 CO2 Emissions due to Transportation ............................................................................ 55
A.10 Total CO2 Emissions ................................................................................................... 55
Appendix B: Strength Calculations .......................................................................................... 56
B.1 25MPa Concrete Mix for 1m3 ........................................................................................ 56
B.2 Area and Volume of Test Cylinders .............................................................................. 56
B.3 Natural Aggregate Test Results ..................................................................................... 57
B.3 Unsaturated Recycled Concrete Aggregate Test Results............................................... 58
B.4 Saturated Surface Dry Recycled Concrete Aggregate Test Results .............................. 59
Page v of v
1. Introduction
Traditionally, concrete has been manufactured by combining cement, water and aggregate.
Cement has been made from limestone, water is available from oceans and rivers and
aggregate has been sourced from gravels found naturally both above and underground. The
theory behind a concrete mix is that the cement and water mix together to create a paste which
binds the aggregates to each other to form a stiff, composite material. Therefore, the quality of
the aggregate determines the strength of the concrete mix, as poor quality aggregate will not
bind well with the cement paste. Other factors such as the water to cement ratio will have an
effect on the strength, but aggregates make up roughly 70% of the final mix and without it,
the cement paste would have nothing to bind to.
As the demand for concrete for construction purposes has increased through the twentieth and
twenty first century, so has the mindset of recycling to preserve the environment. The
popularity of concrete has diminished the supply of natural gravel aggregate and meant that
different types of aggregate have had to be sourced. One choice is the use of crushed concrete
as an aggregate, made by collecting concrete that would normally be dumped in landfill and
putting it through a crushing machine to crush it up into small, manageable sizes, similar to
that seen with natural aggregate. This crushed aggregate is then used in the concrete mix in
the same manner as natural aggregate.
Figure 1 – Various Types and Sizes of Recycled Concrete Aggregate [1]
Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 1 of 59

There are currently few companies in Darwin who actually crush concrete. The main supplier
in Darwin, R.U.B Group only operates one crusher which can crush concrete at a rate of 200
[2]
tonnes per hour . This is miniscule in comparison to HB Group, which produce
approximately 500 tonnes per hour of natural aggregate [3]. Should R.U.B Group increase their
crushing output, there may be a competitive market between the use of natural and recycled
aggregates, however at present, concrete production in Darwin is predominantly done with the
use of natural aggregates.
Figure 2 - Aggregate Stockpile at HB Group [4]

2. Scope
The objective of this thesis is to determine whether using recycled concrete aggregates is
more cost effective, creates fewer emissions and produces concrete which is comparable in
strength, workability and variability to that of concrete made with natural aggregates.
2.1 Methodology
The aggregates are only being compared in their coarse form so natural fine aggregate will be
used for both concrete mixes. A starting point of an arbitrary construction site in Darwin’s
CBD will be used to calculate transportation emissions for recycled concrete aggregate.
Transportation will only include travel to and from the construction site to R.U.B Demolition
at Muramats Road, East Arm. For the natural aggregate, the analysis will not include
transportation emissions. Both aggregate types will include emissions from machinery used in
processing. The costs involved with the production of aggregates will exclude all
administration costs.
The location for this thesis has been kept local to Darwin, with information sourced from HB
Group for natural aggregates and R.U.B Group for recycled concrete aggregates. HB Group is
the largest Northern Territory based concrete supplier while R.U.B group is one of only a few
demolition companies located in Darwin. Both aggregates used in strength testing have been
sourced from the respective company. Each company has been extremely helpful in providing
information and feedback will be returned.
Compression tests will be carried out to compare the difference in strength and variability
between the two aggregates. A common concrete mix will be used between the two with a
constant water cement ratio. As this thesis is only comparing the two aggregates in their
coarse aggregate form, natural sand will be used for all mixes and the only difference will be
the type of coarse aggregate used. Further testing will be carried out to see what effects are
produced when using the recycled concrete aggregate in a saturated surface dry state.

Costs have been compared after meetings with both Michael Cull (General Manager, HB
Group) and Ray Breem (Owner, R.U.B Demolition). All costs were given at cost price and
included factors such as transportation and labour. The emissions have been calculated with
respect to multiple criteria; the transportation of the aggregate and the machinery used in the
crushing and sorting. Transportation emissions were calculated using average emission values
for burning diesel given by the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment.
Figure 3 - Crushed Concrete Stockpile at R.U.B Group [4]

3. Background
3.1 History of Recycled Concrete Aggregates
The practice of crushing up existing structures and reusing the masonry for construction
purposes dates as far back as ancient Roman times. In terms of using crushed concrete, it is
first recorded as being used in Germany in 1860 [5].
After the Second World War, there were enormous amounts of concrete and brick rubble due
to the destruction from the war. The Germans were efficient in their efforts after the war,
using the demolished concrete and brick for the reconstruction of their country. By using the
rubble, not only did it alleviate the need for natural aggregates, but it also cleared the
destroyed cities which proved to be highly cost effective. There was approximately 600
million cubic metres of rubble after the war.
Figure 4 - Rubble Left After Bombing of Pforzheim, 1945 [6]
Multiple recycling plants were set up around Germany to process the rubble. By the end of
1955, approximately 11.5 million cubic metres of crushed aggregate had been produced from
the rubble, which allowed for the construction of 175000 units. By 1956, the supply of rubble
had diminished to roughly 15% of the amount left after the war, so the demand for buildings
made from crushed rubble had declined [7].

In Australia, the practice of recycling construction wastes has been used in the road industry
since the 1960’s by recycling asphalt pavements. Since then, there has been a steady increase
in the recycling of concrete products, with recycled concrete aggregate now commercially
available in Sydney and Melbourne [8] [9].
3.2 Modern Day Practice
As landfills reach capacity and the public becomes more concerned about global warming,
there is a greater push toward recycling. While concrete itself has minimal carbon emissions,
the need to quarry out land for natural aggregate instead of having it used for forestry, for
example, is considered environmentally unfriendly in today’s society. Although this thesis
only sets out to compare coarse aggregates, the use of recycled fine aggregates is also
becoming more common. Previous and current methods of sourcing natural fine aggregates
include river bed dredging, which has become increasingly more difficult and costly due to
the protection of land and the requirement for permits so more companies are looking towards
recycled concrete for their fine aggregate [10].
3.2.1 Production
The supply of recycled concrete comes from multiple sources. These include:
 Demolished buildings
 Failed slab pours (due to cracks, excess deformation, poor formwork)
 Defective precast elements
 Old concrete roads and driveways
 Overfilled landfill
In modern Australia, most concrete recycling is done by private companies, however there are
some local councils that recycle it at their waste depots including regional towns such as
Tamworth [11]. The Shoal Bay Waste Management facility in Darwin does not crush concrete.

The concrete is recycled by means of crushing. Rather than dumping concrete from the
sources listed above at a landfill, the concrete is brought to the respective company.
Depending on the nature of the concrete being delivered and the machine used for crushing,
the concrete is either put straight into the crusher or broken into smaller parts to allow
crushing. Iterative crushing processes allow for smaller aggregate sizes. Most modern
crushers remove the steel reinforcement bar from the crushed concrete before it is released
from the crusher. This process is described more in depth in Section 3.5.
Figure 5 – Powerscreen MetroTrak HA Crusher, R.U.B Group [4]
A 2011 report for the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management
found that in the 2008/09 financial year, over one million tonnes of masonry (asphalt, bricks,
concrete and other masonry) were recycled both in Victoria and Queensland while New South
Wales had over four million tonnes of masonry recycled. South Australia had over one
million tonnes of concrete alone recycled [12].
3.2.2 Current Problems
While its popularity is increasing, the use of recycled concrete aggregate in construction still
trails behind the use of natural aggregate. This is predominantly seen in the NT as there are
few companies who crush the concrete. There are multiple factors that limit the use of
recycled concrete aggregate in construction including but not limited to:

 Legal Liability: R.U.B group does not allow their recycled concrete aggregate to be
used for structural purposes as it is too much of a legal liability. If a building were to
be erected and a load bearing concrete column made with recycled concrete aggregate
was to fail, there are too many repercussions for R.U.B Group as they could legally be
shown at fault as the aggregate they provided may have been faulty [2].
 Public Perception: The use of natural aggregates has always been the standard in the
production of concrete and there has been little drive from the Government to
encourage the use of recycled concrete aggregate over natural aggregate. As the old
saying goes, ‘why fix what ain’t broke’. The general public view that using a product
that isn’t the standard (i.e. the one that hasn’t been used traditionally) does not achieve
the desired result when compared to using traditional methods.
 Lack of Awareness in Darwin: As mentioned previously, there are few companies

that actually recycle concrete in Darwin. Should some of the larger concrete
companies such as HB Group begin a crushing operation, Darwin may see an increase
in the use of recycled concrete aggregates.
 Supply and Demand: Should recycled concrete take off, there would have to be the
supply of demolished concrete to meet the demands of new concrete being made with
crushed recycled concrete aggregate. In a city such as Darwin, the rate of construction
in present times is well exceeding the rate at which concrete structures are being
demolished. The recycling process will only be able to carry on for so long until there
comes a point at which natural aggregate would have to be used again as there isn’t
enough demolition waste available for recycling. However, it has been shown that the
concrete recycling process can be reiterated at least three times with minimal loss in
compressive strength [13].
 Voids: In its dry state, recycled concrete aggregate is porous due to the nature of dried
concrete. This void content is detrimental to a concrete mix as the water in the mix is
absorbed into the voids in the recycled concrete aggregate rather than reacting with the
cement. Previous studies have shown that recycled concrete aggregate must be made
into a saturated surface dry (SSD) state to provide properties similar to that seen in
natural aggregate. It should be noted that aggregates at HB Group are routinely soaked

by a nightly sprinkler system to achieve a saturated surface dry state. This is common
practice for any natural aggregate stockpile [3].
 Contamination: Depending on where the demolished concrete has come from, there
can be a number of contaminants present. Any contaminants stored in the concrete
could have a negative effect on a concrete mix should the concrete be crushed and
used for aggregate. The main contaminant is steel, used in concrete for steel
reinforcement. R.U.B Group guarantees 99% steel removal. 100% steel removal is
possible; however it is not cost effective. If recycled concrete aggregate with 99% of
steel removed is used for road base, there is a chance that the 1% remaining steel may
impact a tyre. This, however, is extremely unlikely [2]. Crushed concrete used as road
base may have bitumen in it which has been shown to drastically reduce the
compressive strength. Other contaminants that can arise in concrete include:
o Gypsum – Produced due to sulphate expansion.
o Organic Matter – This includes substances such as paper, wood, fabrics.
o Chlorides – While these will not affect the strength of concrete itself, they will
corrode steel reinforcement bar should it be used.
o Soils – Concrete foundations are built into the surrounding soils and it can be
difficult at times to ensure all concrete is washed free of the soil [7].
Figure 6 – Demolished Concrete with Steel and Wood Contaminants [14]

3.3 Properties of Concrete
As discussed earlier, concrete is made by combining cement, water and aggregates. When the
cement mixes with the water, a chemical reaction known as ‘hydration’ occurs. Over a period
of time, the paste changes from a thick, gooey material to an extremely hard rock-like
material [15].
It is crucial in the design stage to ensure the mix of ingredients is suited for the purpose of the
concrete. The ratio of the water to cement, known as the water-cement ratio, is one of the
main factors that determines the strength and workability of a concrete mix. Using a low
water cement ratio will create a high strength mix; however it will be difficult to work with.
On the other hand, increasing the water content will allow the mix to be workable i.e. easy to
shape and put in smaller spaces; the trade-off is reduced strength. A concrete mix must be
designed to achieve the optimum result, depending on the job at hand [16].
Aggregates are available in a range of sizes and like the ratio of elements, they must be
chosen depending on the use of the concrete. Large concrete structures allow for the use of
large aggregate sizes; small structures require small aggregate sizes and anything in between
will generally use a graded mix of aggregate. Using large aggregate in spaces that are too
small will introduce voids in the concrete mix which ultimately sacrifice the strength [3] [16].
Figure 7 - Concrete Slab Being Poured [17]

Curing is the stage at which concrete begins to harden. Through hydration, each cement
particle forms a node on its surface. All the nodes on the individual particles expand until they
join to another cement particle or aggregate. This chemical reaction will continue for the
entire lifespan of the concrete, however, the rule of thumb is that optimal strength and
hardening has been achieved after twenty eight days [16].
As previously discussed, voids are detrimental to the strength of the concrete. It is crucial in
the pouring stage that concrete is vibrated to eliminate any voids present in the mix. Poor
vibration can lead to reduced strength and is just one of the many reasons that cracking can
occur. Other reasons for cracking arise from movement and a lack of moisture during curing.
These can be avoidable provided correct workmanship and standards are adhered to [16].
Typically, concrete is designed according to ‘AS1379 – Specification and Supply of

Concrete’. However, this standard does not take into account the extremity of the heat
conditions in a climate such as Darwin. In Darwin, producing concrete to meet the
specification will cause difficulties in pouring and construction. Industry practice in Darwin is
to design to the climate and not the standard. An example of this is seen when designing for
workability with a high strength concrete mix. If followed to standard, a high-strength
concrete mix designed for workability according to AS1379 would create disastrous results
for workers trying to pour the mix. Instead, the concrete is made with admixtures which
increase workability with a lower water to cement ratio than required in the standard. This
method has no reduction in strength and allows the concrete to be workable in the humid, wet
season climate [3].

3.4 Previous Research
Several studies have been done on recycled concrete aggregate that look at factors such as the
properties, strength, permeability and environmental impacts.
3.4.1 Environmental Impacts
A study done in 2010 for the International Journal of Integrated Waste Management, Science
and Technology compared the environmental impacts of the production of recycled concrete
aggregates in comparison to natural aggregates. Marinkovic, Radojanin, Malesev and
Ignjatovic carried out a life cycle assessment on the production phase for the two aggregates,
looking at the emissions in cement and aggregate production and transport of the aggregates.
Construction emissions were deemed outside of the life cycle. The reason for their study is
that there are roughly 850 million tonnes of construction and demolition wastes produced
annually in Europe. This accounts for 31% of Europe’s total waste generation and landfill
disposal.
Concrete mixes were designed to compare qualities between natural aggregate and recycled
concrete aggregate. The authors found that recycled concrete had a 25% decrease in
compressive strength, 45% decrease in modulus of elasticity and a 50% increase in water
absorption and drying shrinkage. It should be noted that they did not use a control concrete
batch for their recycled concrete aggregate, rather they just used landfill concrete with an
unknown design strength for crushing.
In terms of the environmental impacts, it was interesting to note that their research showed
greater CO2 emissions in the production of recycled concrete aggregate in comparison to
natural aggregate. 1.38 grams of CO2 were emitted per kilogram of natural aggregate
produced, whereas 1.69 grams of CO2 were released in recycled concrete aggregate
production. When creating a concrete batch, the study showed that a total of 307.61 kilograms
of CO2 were produced for every 1m3 of concrete made with natural aggregate. Alternatively,
concrete made with recycled concrete aggregate had CO2 emissions in the range of 319.63
kilograms per 1m3 of concrete. In comparison, the average 2014 car in the UK would have to
travel approximately 2565km to produce the same CO2 emissions as the production of 1m3 of
a concrete batch with recycled concrete aggregate [17].

This shows that although the use of recycled concrete aggregate causes slightly higher CO 2
emissions, the worst environmental impact is done in the concrete production phase for both
natural aggregate and recycled concrete aggregate. More efficient methods of concrete
production need to be investigated see a reduction in CO2 emissions. [18]
3.4.2 Strength
Tabsh, Akmal and Abdelfatah researched the strength and degradation properties of recycled
concrete aggregate in their 2009 article in the Construction and Building Materials Journal. It
was seen that the compressive and tensile strength of concrete made with recycled concrete
aggregate depended on the mix of proportions, but on average, there was a 10-25% reduction
in strength when compared to natural aggregate.
For the strength tests, a total of eight different concrete batches were designed. Natural
aggregate, crushed concrete from footpaths and median strips, crushed concrete from a
30MPa concrete mix and crushed concrete from a 50MPa concrete mix were used. Each
aggregate type was put in a concrete batch designed for 30MPa and 50MPa. Ten cylinders
were made for each mix, producing a total of eighty samples.
To measure the degradation, or soundness, of the concrete, the samples were frozen and
thawed and saturated in a sodium sulphate solution. The concrete made with recycled
concrete aggregate was more reactive to the freeze and thaw cycle and showed more
disintegration in the sodium sulphate mix compared to natural aggregate concrete. However,
it was still in the acceptable limit of 12% of disintegration given by the American Society of
Testing Materials.
The strength tests showed recycled concrete aggregate derived from a 50MPa concrete mix
had almost identical compressive strength to natural aggregate. The strength of recycled
concrete aggregate from a 30MPa mix was roughly 30% less and aggregate from footpaths
was approximately 40% less in comparison to natural and recycled aggregates from the
50MPa mix. The conclusions they derived from their tests were that, provided the amount of
coarse aggregate is kept the same, the only reduction in strength when using recycled concrete
aggregate will arise when using crushed concrete derived from a 30MPa or less mix.

Tabsh, Akmal and Abdelfatah found that a 10% increase in water was required for the
concrete mixes made with recycled concrete aggregate to achieve the same slump as the
concrete mix with natural aggregate. This increased water content has an impact on the
strength. Should an admixture be used in the concrete to reduce the amount of water required
for the same workability, a repeat of the tests would perhaps see higher strengths from the
[19]
concrete with recycled concrete aggregate . By using recycled concrete aggregate with
saturated surface dry properties (SSD), it is possible that this increase in water may not be
required.
Further studies by Norvell, Stewart, Juenger and Fowler found that the presence of certain
clays in a concrete mix had a severe impact on compressive strength. Their studies showed
that a concrete mix with both constant and varied water-cement ratios had a reduction in
compressive strength of over 40MPa when montmorillonite, a common chemical found in
clays, was added to it. This was seen to be due to the increase in water demand of the clay
particles, reducing the amount of water that could hydrate the cement [20].
3.4.3 Permeability
The permeability properties of recycled concrete aggregate were studied by Zaharieva, Buyle
Bodin, Skoczylas and Wirquin in 2003. The study, done for the Cement & Concrete
Composites Journal, compared the permeability of recycled concrete aggregate concrete mix
to natural aggregate concrete. The permeability of a mix depends on its design and the
conditions in which it cures and dries. Their test samples were cured in an air conditioned
room to avoid a hot climate. Recycled concrete aggregate mixes naturally have higher
permeability due to the high water to cement ratio required for workability. A previous study
done by the same authors over a 20 year span found that concrete permeability and porosity
increase with the degradation of the material.
For their permeability tests, they made four different batches. Each batch had the same
cement content but different water contents. The aggregates had different levels of pre-
soaking so the total water to cement ratio was roughly the same. Test cylinders were put into a
triaxial permeability cell and had liquid injected at a constant pressure until steady state,
laminar flow. Therefore, Darcy’s law could be used to calculate the permeability.
Their tests found that concrete made with recycled concrete aggregate had a higher
permeability than its natural aggregate counterpart. On average, the recycled concrete
aggregate mixes had 23% porosity compared to only 7.2% for natural aggregate concrete.

Recycled concrete aggregate therefore had a higher water absorption rate due to the higher
porosity [21].
3.4.4 Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Australia
The Australian Government’s Department of Industry Innovation, Science, Research and

Tertiary Education released a report in 2012 with intentions to make the construction industry
more aware of recycled aggregates. Much of the information put forward in the report is
unreferenced, making it difficult to take it as a reliable source. In the 2008/09 financial year,
nine million tonnes of masonry, including concrete, were recycled. In some states, over 75%
of masonry is recycled. Currently, 90% of concrete made today is made with natural
aggregate and only 10% recycled concrete aggregate.
The report states it is more economical for the cost per tonne of recycled aggregate in
comparison to natural aggregate. It is claimed that it is more efficient to use recycled
aggregates. This conflicts with the 2010 study discussed in Section 3.4.1. The study for this
report was carried out by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and used a full product
life cycle analysis, including the construction and demolition phase after aggregate
production. On the other hand, the International Journal of Integrated Waste Management
report only looked at the production of the aggregate, including sourcing and transportation to
and from the plant. The RMIT study says that recycled concrete aggregate produces 65% less
emissions than natural aggregates in its’ lifetime, partly due to the energy used in quarrying
for natural aggregate and the recovery of reinforcing steel in recycled concrete aggregate.
The report goes onto state that the use of recycled aggregate is more economical due to the
gate fees of a crushing plant being less than those seen at a landfill. However, the gate fees are
subject to the size and quality of material delivered to a crushing plant. This corresponds with
the statements made by Ray Breem from R.U.B Group.
Finally, a case study is given for a project in New South Wales. An old bus ramp was
demolished and 4990 tonnes of concrete rubble and steel reinforcement were recovered. A
demolition company local to the area was contracted to crush the rubble and remove the steel.
Fulton Hogan, a large civil contracting company, was working on the redesign of one of the
taxiways at the Sydney Airport. When designing the base course of the taxiway, they used all
the recycled concrete from the demolished bus ramp, along with many other sources to
provide a purely recycled concrete road base.

The case studies are presented to show real world examples where the recycled aggregate can
be used in applications other than a new concrete mix. If a contractor is confident with using
recycled concrete as a road base to withstand the load of an aircraft on a taxiway, it is obvious
that it is acceptable for use with urban roads, which is most likely the reason the report
highlighted an airport taxiway as an example [22].
3.5 Natural Aggregate Production Process at HB Group
All of HB Group’s natural aggregate is sourced from their quarry at Mt Bundy Station,
located just over 100km from Darwin. The main mineral used for natural aggregate is granite,
with the quarry having a two hundred year supply. The rock is crushed and screened by Terex
Cedarapids machinery, with an MVP450x cone crusher used for crushing.
The site is first blasted with explosives to disintegrate the rock into large aggregates. This
large, disintegrated aggregate, ranging anywhere from 5mm to 1000mm and above, is then
transported to the crushers. After the granite has been crushed, it exits the crusher and is
transported to the screeners. The first screener has a 40mm screen, then 20mm, 14mm, 10mm,
7mm and 5mm with all aggregates less than 5mm used for manufactured sand.
Figure 8 – HB Quarry, Mt Bundy, NT [23]
The plant has the capacity to manufacture up to 500 tonnes per hour of aggregate and
manufactured sand, while also having the capacity to produce 600 tonnes per hour of fine
crushed rock. The plant is operated remotely, with the only personnel on site having the job of
driving the trucks and machinery. HB Group have planted native trees around the quarry, 350
this year alone, to rehabilitate some of the land they have stripped for the aggregate.

From the quarry, the aggregates are transported to the stockpile at the concrete production
plant in Winnellie, where they are stored in large bays. HB Group purchase aggregates from
BORAL, which are also stored at the facility. All aggregates are saturated nightly by a
sprinkler system between the storage bays [3].
3.6 Recycled Concrete Production Process at R.U.B Group
All concrete crushed by R.U.B group is delivered to site at no cost to them. Dumpers must
pay a fee of $300 per semi-trailer load of rubble, provided all pieces are less than 900mm in
diameter. Pieces greater than 900mm attract a price of $450 per semi load as R.U.B Group
must pre-crush the rock down to 900mm size at their own cost to allow it to fit into the
crusher.
Once the concrete has been dumped, it is then placed into the crusher by means of an
excavator. The crusher R.U.B Group uses is a Powerscreen Metrotrak HA mobile jaw crusher
that allows for high output of crushed concrete. It can produce up 200 tonnes per hour of
crushed concrete using approximately 17.5 litres of diesel per hour. It also removes the steel
reinforcing bar from the crushed concrete. While the Metrotrak HA is portable, it requires a
trailer for transportation to site which R.U.B Group does not currently own. A smaller crusher
is soon to be purchased and will allow R.U.B Group to do crushing on site.
Figure 9 – Crushing Jaws of the Metrotrak HA Crusher [4]
Concrete is fed into an angled chute which contains a screening mechanism that allows pieces
less than 20mm in size to fall through and allowed to pile up next to the machine via means of
a conveyor belt. Pieces larger than 20mm are fed into the jaw crusher. The jaws rapidly move

back and forth, gradually breaking down the concrete. Crushed concrete exiting the crusher
ranges in size from 40mm aggregate to fines less than 5mm.
As it exits the crusher on a conveyor belt, a magnetised belt running perpendicular to the
output belt picks up the steel reinforcing bar left after crushing. It is raised approximately
100mm from the exit conveyor so it does not obstruct the crushed concrete. After one cycle it
is possible to achieve 99% steel removal. 100% steel removal is possible with two cycles of
crushing, however this is not cost effective for R.U.B Group and hence its crushed concrete
has 1% steel on average.
Once it has been crushed, the concrete aggregate is then screened with a portable screener.
R.U.B Group uses the Herbst Compac Screen S52. When not in use, the screener closes up for
ease of transportation and can be taken to worksites with an appropriate trailer. The crushed
concrete is fed onto a main conveyor belt which travels to a main screen. A series of screens
decreasing in size are stacked above one another. Each screen feeds to a conveyor belt exiting
different sides of the screener.
Figure 10 – Herbst Compac Screener in its Closed State [4]
Once it has been screened, the recycled concrete aggregate is stored in stockpiles at the R.U.B
Group yard where it sits with no added saturation [2].

3.7 Concrete Production Process at HB Concrete
Concrete production at HB Group is all controlled by a central computer room, manned by

two technicians. After an order is received, the technicians send the required weights of each
aggregate type to an operator driving a front end loader. HB Group have designed mixes for
any required strength through years of design and testing. The loaders receive the information
via illuminated screens next to a large bin where the aggregates are placed. The bins have
scales and can accurately record the weights inside them. Generally, the loaders are able to get
as close to the required weight within a ±10kg error, which is extremely accurate when
considering the complexity of operating a front end loader.
Figure 11 – Front Loader Collecting Aggregate [24]
While the aggregates are being loaded into the weight bins, water is being added to the
concrete truck. In the Darwin climate, it is crucial to keep the temperature of the concrete mix
as low as possible to avoid cracking and failed pours. To reduce the temperature, some water
is substituted with ice. For every kilogram of ice poured into the truck, one litre of water must
be removed from the design mix as the densities of ice and water are approximately the same.
For example, if 45kg of ice is used then the design must reduce its water content by 45 litres.

Once the concrete truck has received the required amount of ice, it positions itself under a
chute. Above the chute is where the mixing of the aggregate, cement and water occurs. The
aggregates previously loaded into the bin are brought to the mixing drum through a conveyor
system. Water is injected into drum through a pipe installed in the side. The water is chilled to
a very low temperature to further help with the low concrete temperature. Cement is added to
the mixing drum from above through a plastic pipe. The enclosure is ventilated so that any
cement dust that is introduced into the air can be recaptured and put back into the cement
drums.
The concrete truck then drives to a washing bay, where any excess concrete from the chute
that splashed onto the truck is rinsed off with water. The driver inspects the quality of the mix
in the rotating drum and decides if any more water is required based on the visual inspection.
If water is required, the amount of litres added are relayed back to the control room
technicians, who add the value to the final concrete mix ratio and print off the receipt. The
concrete is then driven to the designated worksite and poured [3].
Figure 12 – Concrete Mixing Drum at HB Group [4]

4. Analysis
4.1 Emissions
When comparing emissions between the two aggregates, a scope must be defined as
emissions could continue indefinitely when producing both aggregates. Due to the difference
in the scale of production between HB Group and R.U.B Group, the emissions stemming
from the production of the aggregate were calculated at a per tonne basis to keep the
comparisons fair.
For the sake of this thesis, natural aggregate production emissions were calculated from:
 Mining and use of vehicles at the quarry – This included the emissions from the front
end loaders and trucks at the quarry.
 Power required for crushers and screeners per tonne of aggregate – All the crushers
and screeners at the quarry run on electricity so a copy of the power bills for HB
Group were acquired and the amount of electricity used per tonne was calculated.
Emissions from the production of recycled concrete aggregate arose from:
 Transport of rubble from an arbitrary construction site in the city to R.U.B Group –
This simulated concrete demolition coming from a construction site in Darwin’s CBD.
For the sake of this thesis, the Darwin Civic Centre was chosen as the arbitrary
construction site.
 Crushing and screening of one tonne of aggregate – Values from Ray Breem were
given for the usage of diesel for a given duration. Tonnes per hour were sourced from
the machine manuals and the amount of diesel per tonne was calculated.
Calculated emissions did not include:
 Blasting at the quarry.

 Production of concrete with the respective aggregate.
 Transport of produced concrete to a construction site.
 Demolition.
 Further iterations of recycling or crushing.
These guidelines were adhered to in the calculation of the CO2 emissions. Only the levels of
CO2 produced were calculated as they are the most common greenhouse gas emission.
Emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2) are minimal in comparison to CO2 and
were therefore deemed negligible. For the machinery running on diesel, formulas from the
2014 National Greenhouse Accounts Factors Report by the Australian Government’s
Department of the Environment were used to determine the kilograms of CO2 emitted per litre
of diesel burnt while information provided from various power bills from Jacana Energy
determined the CO2 emissions from electricity use [25].
Table 1 – Diesel Emissions
CO2 Emissions (Tonnes per

Aggregate Type
tonne of aggregate produced)
Natural Aggregate 0.0015
Recycled Concrete Aggregate 0.0473
Table 2 – Electricity Emissions

Aggregate Type
Recycled Concrete Aggregate 0
Table 3 – Total Emissions

Aggregate Type
The CO2 emissions for producing one tonne of natural aggregate are almost ten times less
than that of the production of one tonne of recycled concrete aggregate. This is due to the
diesel used in the transportation of the demolition waste. Further discussion is carried on in
Section 5.1. Detailed emission calculations can be found in Appendix A.

4.2 Costs
4.2.1 Cost of Aggregate
4.2.1.1 Production Costs
The production costs are the costs that each company must pay to physically produce the
aggregates.
Table 4 – Aggregate Production Costs [2], [3]
Production Costs
Aggregate Type
($AUD/Tonne)
For HB Group, this cost includes:
 Mining (Government and Environmental Agency costs)

 Labour
 Fuel
 Tertiary and secondary crushing for grading by means of screening
 Transport to the storage bays
 Saturation [3]
For R.U.B Group, this cost includes:
 Labour
 Fuel
 One cycle of crushing
 Steel Removal [2]
As can be seen in Table 4, it is $17 cheaper to produce recycled concrete aggregate than it is
natural aggregate. These costs do not include administration costs. If they were included, an
[2] [3]
approximate 10% increase in price would occur for both . These costs only include the
cost to the respective company for the physical production of the aggregates. The costs have
been calculated as Australian Dollars per tonne as HB Group operate at a much larger scale
than R.U.B Group. By using the cost per tonne, it allows for a rough comparison to be drawn.

The production costs for R.U.B Group do not include screening, as their screened aggregate is
sold separately to their unscreened aggregate. HB Group screens all their aggregate before
stockpiling.
4.2.1.2 Purchasing Costs

Purchasing costs are what a builder or contractor would have to pay if they are looking to
purchase aggregate to create their own concrete. However, as discussed earlier, recycled
concrete aggregate does not necessarily have to be used for a concrete mix and can be used in
applications such as road bases provided it is graded and free of steel.
Table 5 – Aggregate Purchasing Costs [2] [3]
Natural Recycled Concrete Recycled Concrete

Aggregate Size (mm) Aggregate Aggregate (Unscreened) Aggregate (Screened)
($AUD/Tonne) ($AUD/Tonne) ($AUD/Tonne)
20 45.00 13.90 22.20
10 48.00 13.90 22.20
5 35.00 13.90 22.20
Comparing the costs of natural aggregate and screened recycled concrete aggregate, it is
$22.80 cheaper, $25.80 cheaper and $12.80 cheaper to purchase aggregate in 20mm, 10mm
and 5mm sizes respectively.
It should be noted that the reason the purchasing costs of the recycled concrete aggregate are
so low is due to the fact that companies that provide their concrete to R.U.B Group must pay a
fee to dump it there. They are charged $300 per 20 metre semi-trailer load delivered, provided
all pieces are less than 900mm in size. If pieces are above 900mm, they are charged $450 per
20 metre semi-trailer load delivered as the pieces must be broken down manually before being
put into the crusher.
R.U.B Group is able to sell their unscreened aggregate at a lower cost than that of production
as they do not need to cover the cost of the diesel needed for the screening process. They can
also recuperate the difference in costs through the dumping fee. This allows for a very
competitive price in comparison to the natural aggregate. Furthermore, R.U.B Group sell the

collected steel from the crushing process to steel recycling plants which also help recoup
costs.
4.2.2 Cost of Concrete
This thesis only looks at the comparison between coarse aggregates and therefore the cost to
produce a concrete mix is compared using 20mm natural aggregate and 20mm recycled
concrete aggregate. This design mix was a HB Group design for a 25MPa (N25) concrete mix
that will produce 1m3 [3].
Table 6 – Cost of Concrete Mix
Weight Cost Per Tonne Total Cost

Component
Required (kg) ($AUD/Tonne) ($AUD)
20mm Natural Aggregate 1000 45.00 45.00
20mm Recycled Concrete Aggregate 1000 22.20 22.20
Coarse Washed Sand 500 35.00 17.50
Fine Washed Sand 400 25.00 10.00
General Purpose Cement 290 260.00 75.00

Natural
Aggregate 147.50
Total Cost of Concrete Mix
Concrete Mix Recycled
Concrete 124.70
Aggregate Mix
As can be seen in Table 6, producing 1m3 of a 25MPa concrete mix with recycled concrete
aggregate will decrease the price by $22.80 AUD. If a contractor were to have the job of
designing a low priority concrete slab, for example a concrete base car park, that required
100m3 of concrete, they would save $2280 by using recycled concrete aggregate over natural
aggregate.

4.3 Strength
Three separate batches of concrete were made and tested for compressive strength; one with
coarse natural aggregate, one with unsaturated coarse recycled concrete aggregate and another
with saturated surface dry coarse recycled concrete aggregate. A 25MPa mix was provided by
HB Group so the calculation of needed components was not required. Ten cylinders of each
mix were tested after 28 days.
While it is possible to solely make a concrete mix with graded recycled concrete aggregates,
the 20mm coarse aggregate was the only element changed in the mixture. Natural coarse and
fine washed sand was used for all three batches. This was done as a means to keep the
comparison as controlled as possible, only looking at the strength differences between the
20mm aggregate. Ray Breem has stated that a concrete mix consisting 250kg of cement for
every cubic metre of his graded RCA has achieved strengths of 30MPa after only seven days
of curing [2].
All concrete was mixed and poured into moulds following the criteria from ‘AS1012.2:
Preparing concrete mixes in the laboratory’ and ‘AS1012.8.1: Method for making and curing
concrete – Compression and indirect tensile test specimens’ [26] [27]. However, these standards
apply to concrete made with natural aggregate. When it came to making mixes with the
unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate, variations to the method were required because of
the lack of hydration of the cement. This included the rodding of the concrete mix as it was
extremely unworkable. This is discussed further in Section 5.3. The slump tests were carried
out in accordance with ‘AS1012.3.1: Methods of testing concrete – Determination of
properties related to the consistency of concrete – Slump test’ [28].
4.3.1 Concrete Mix
The concrete mix used for the compression tests was a design mix from HB Group who
calculated the different weights of components required in mix based on years of trial and
error [3]. The weights required for 1m3 were detailed in Table 6. However, this mix had to be
scaled down as there were only ten cylinders of each aggregate type being made. The mix had
a water-cement ratio of 0.52.
Because ten cylinders were required, the criteria from AS1012.2 state that the batch size shall
exceed the amount required for test purposes by at least 10% [26]. Therefore the mix had to be
scaled to suit eleven cylinders which meant a total volume of 0.017m3 per aggregate type.
Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix B. The final mix can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7 – Design Concrete Mix for Strength Testing
Component Weight (kg)
20mm Aggregate 17.27
Coarse Washed Sand 8.64
Fine Washed Sand 6.91
General Purpose Cement 5.00
Water 2.59
All components were mixed together following the correct procedure from AS1012.2. Once
mixed, a slump test was carried out before pouring the concrete into the cylinder moulds. The
concrete was then left to set for twenty four hours in the air before being removed from the
moulds. They were then placed in water and allowed to cure for a further twenty seven days.
4.3.2 Slump Test
Adhering to AS1012.3.1, the slump of each mix was found. The concrete made from both the
natural aggregate and saturated surface dry recycled concrete aggregate had a slump of
approximately 40mm while the mix with just recycled concrete aggregate had almost zero
slump and was extremely unworkable. The reasons for this are discussed in Section 5.3.
Figure 13 – Slump of mix made with Recycled Concrete

Aggregate [4]
4.3.3 Strength Test Results
4.3.3.1 Compression Tests

After curing for a total of twenty eight days, ten cylinders of each aggregate type were tested
in the compressive testing machine located in Purple 2 at Charles Darwin University. The
concrete cylinders were placed in the machine and crushed until any failure was reached. The
target strength was 25MPa as that is what the mix was designed for. All strength calculations
were done according to ‘AS1379 – Specification and supply of concrete’ [29].
Table 8 – Compressive Strength Test Results
Average Standard
Difference in
Aggregate Type Compressive Deviation
Strength (MPa)
Strength (MPa) (MPa)
Natural Aggregate 34.25 0.85 3.06
Unsaturated Recycled
22.01 4.33 13.88
Concrete Aggregate
Saturated Recycled
29.72 1.35 03.95
Concrete Aggregate
As can be seen in Table 8, the natural aggregate had the highest average strength of 34.25MPa
followed by the saturated recycled concrete aggregate with 29.72MPa then the unsaturated
recycled concrete aggregate with an average strength of 22.01MPa.
While the average strength may give a good indication of the strength of the mix, it is the
variability in the test results that should be of the highest concern as it is not ideal if there are
many outliers in the strength test. As the results show, the variability of the mixes made with
unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate was much greater than that found in the natural
aggregate mix while the saturated recycled concrete aggregate was only slightly more. The
natural aggregate only had a standard deviation of 0.85MPa compared to 4.33MPa with the
unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate mix and 1.35MPa with the saturated recycled
concrete aggregate mix. The biggest indication of variability was the difference of 13.88MPa
between the weakest and strongest test cylinder made with unsaturated recycled concrete
aggregate.

4.3.3.2 Types of Failure
For all mixes, the most common type of failure was shear. This was more evident with the
unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate due to the lack of compaction stemming from poor
workability.
Figure 14 – Failure of Natural Aggregate [4] Figure 15 – Failure of Unsaturated Recycled Concrete
Aggregate [4]
Figure 16 – Failure of SSD Recycled Concrete

Aggregate [4]

5. Discussion
5.1 Emissions
As can be seen from the results in Section 4.1, recycled concrete aggregate produced over ten
times the amount CO2 for every tonne of aggregate produced in comparison to natural
aggregate. The diesel used in the transportation of the demolition waste from the arbitrary
construction site to the stockpile at R.U.B group is the main reason for this large difference in
CO2 emissions. The transportation of demolition waste from a construction site to the R.U.B
lot is required as that is where the crushers and screeners are located.
The scope of the emissions analysis omitted the transport of natural aggregate from the Mt
Bundy quarry to the HB Group stockpile in Winnellie. This was because the transportation of
natural aggregate to the stockpile was not considered to be involved in the production of
natural aggregate as it was only produced at the quarry. However, the aggregate must make its
way to the stockpile as it would have no use sitting at the quarry. By including this
transportation in the analysis, the emissions from the production of natural aggregate exceed
the emissions seen with the production of recycled concrete aggregate.
Table 9 – Total Emissions including Natural Aggregate Transportation

Aggregate Type
While this may give a more accurate indication of the emissions that arise in the production of
each aggregate type, the analysis of the emissions stemming from the diesel burnt by the
trucks in the transportation of the aggregate is not precise. This is because all other
calculations have been done as a per tonne basis. However, the load in each semi-trailer varies
with each trip so it is not possible to calculate the transport emissions at a per tonne basis.
Furthermore, values for fuel efficiency were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) which provide an average result for all vehicles Australia wide. The articulated trucks
used to transport natural aggregate and demolition waste may have a fuel efficiency differing
from the data given by the ABS [30].

It is seen in Table 2 in Section 4.1 that the emissions from electricity used in the production of
recycled concrete aggregate is zero. This is due to all of the crushing and screening machinery
at R.U.B group being powered by diesel. The machinery used at HB Group is powered by
electricity from the grid. While the site at R.U.B Group may use some electricity, its usage is
not necessary for the production of the aggregate and only powers the office on site, therefore
being excluded from the scope in the analysis of the emissions.
On the other hand, the power bills used to calculate the electricity powering the machinery at
HB Group’s quarry may include electricity being used to power services not related to the
production of the aggregate i.e. offices and lighting. Therefore, the emission values provided
for natural aggregate may be slightly greater than the actual result. The only way to achieve
accurate emissions values purely for the production of natural aggregate would be to monitor
the electricity only used by the crushing and screening machinery at the quarry.
Further problems arise in the analysis of emissions when taking in account the difference in
the scale of production between the two aggregate types in the Darwin area. While the
emissions of each aggregate were calculated at a per tonne basis, over twice as much natural
aggregate is produced each hour compared to recycled concrete aggregate. If both aggregate
types were to be produced at the same rate, a more accurate result in the calculation of
emissions would perhaps be achieved. This, however, is not possible unless the production of
recycled concrete aggregate in the Darwin area is increased.
All data used in the calculation of the diesel emissions from machinery in the analysis were
approximate values given in meetings with HB and R.U.B Group [2] [3]. These values are only
estimates and change daily depending on the construction and destruction occurring in the
Darwin area. When looking at the transportation emissions, each job will be different. The
distance travelled when transporting aggregate will change, which in turn will see an increase
or decrease in the emissions from transportation. Therefore, the emissions should only be
taken as an indication and not a precise result. Further in-depth analysis would be required to
achieve a more accurate result in the calculation of the emissions.

5.2 Costs
It was shown that recycled concrete aggregate could be produced and sold at costs cheaper
than natural aggregate. This gives recycled concrete aggregate a competitive advantage in the
construction industry as tenders and jobs are heavily reliant on the total cost. As discussed in
Section 4.2.2, a company could save over two thousand dollars when using recycled concrete
aggregate in a car park base requiring 100m3 of concrete. This cost saving would be minimal
in comparison to the overall cost of the project, but it is highly advantageous as it is finding a
use for demolition waste that would otherwise be left for landfill.
It was found when making the concrete mix with the recycled concrete aggregate that it was
highly unworkable in its unsaturated state. For the recycled concrete aggregate to be sold in
the construction industry, it would have sold in a saturated surface dry state. This could be
achieved by having a sprinkler system installed at R.U.B Group to wet the stockpiles of
screened recycled concrete aggregate daily and achieve a saturated surface dry state.
However, this process would come at a cost to R.U.B Group, with the start-up cost of the
sprinkler system itself along with the increased cost of the water bill. This may see less of a
difference in cost between the two aggregate types, reducing the competition and the
advantage of using recycled concrete aggregate.
Figure 17 – Screened Aggregate Stockpile at R.U.B Group [4]

If R.U.B Group can develop a way to keep their recycled concrete aggregate in a saturated
surface dry state while maintaining the competitive cost seen with the current unsaturated
aggregate, they may be able to develop a market for the use of recycled concrete aggregate.
While the recycled concrete aggregate is currently used for road base [2], it would be ideal for
local construction companies to begin using it more frequently in low priority, non-load
bearing applications such as concrete for footpaths, kerbs and driveways. Concrete slabs and
retaining walls that have minimal load bearing applications are also applicable. Without
further research and development, it is not recommended to use recycled concrete aggregate
in concrete intended for load bearing and structural purposes due to the variability in strengths
from the same mix. This is discussed further in Section 5.3.3.
For both aggregate types, it can be expected that costs will rise as the years pass. HB Group’s
quarry has an estimated two hundred year supply of granite, and is in its early stages with its
inception in 1992 [23]. However, Darwin and its surrounding regions have consistently been
one of Australia’s fastest growing capital cities [31]. If this growth continues, the quarry may
deplete quicker than anticipated. Unless HB Group are able to source another quarry, the cost
of the natural aggregate will increase as the quarry supply depletes.
Provided that recycled concrete aggregates see further use in concrete applications as
discussed earlier, the growth of Darwin and surrounding regions may also impact the costs of
recycled concrete aggregate. Unless the rate of demolition is exceeding or equal to the rate of
construction and development with recycled concrete aggregate, R.U.B Group will begin to
see a reduction in their stockpile on site. Without the constant supply of demolition waste,
there is nothing for R.U.B Group to crush and screen. Should this situation occur, it would
require an increase in purchasing costs to preserve cost margins. However, provided R.U.B
Group maintain their dumping fees below those at Darwin City Council’s waste management
facilities, this should not be an issue.

5.3 Strength
As seen with the results in Section 4.3.3, natural aggregate had the highest strength with the
smallest standard deviation. This was expected as natural aggregate has been a tried and tested
aggregate for many years. The unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate was substantially
weaker than the natural aggregate, even weaker than the target strength of 25MPa, with a high
standard deviation. On the other hand, the recycled concrete aggregate in a saturated surface
dry state was similar to natural aggregate with its average strength marginally less than the
natural aggregate samples. Its standard deviation was slightly higher than that of the natural
aggregate. While a higher standard deviation indicates more variability, as it was only 0.5MPa
higher means it could be considered as an alternative to natural aggregate.
There are several reasons for the reduction in strength seen in the unsaturated recycled
concrete aggregate. One of the main common factors stems around the lack of hydration of
the cement due to there not being enough water in the mix. This is discussed further in the
following sections.
Figure 18 – Sample of Concrete Mix made with

Unsaturated Recycled Concrete Aggregate Showing
the Dry Mix [4]

5.3.1 Clay
The recycled concrete aggregate received from R.U.B Group had a very high concentration of
fine clay particles located on the surface of the aggregate. This clay comes from multiple
sources, including the site where the initial demolition waste was sourced, along with the site
at which it is stockpiled at R.U.B Group.
As discussed in Section 3.4.2, studies have shown that naturally occurring chemicals in clay
can have a negative effect on the compressive strength of the concrete [20]. While it is possible
there is a chemical reaction between the clay and cement that causes further reductions in
strength, the main reason is due to the water in the concrete mix hydrating the clay rather than
the cement. Because the cement is not hydrated properly, the cement and water cannot form
the paste required in a concrete mix to form a strong bond between the aggregates. The lack
of this paste causes the mix to become highly unworkable.
5.3.2 Porosity of Crushed Concrete
Once concrete is cured, it becomes very porous in comparison to natural aggregate. Previous
research has shown that recycled concrete aggregate will absorb water at up to three times the
rate of natural aggregate [32]. This increased water absorption further reduces the ability for the
cement to be hydrated. When the water is added to a concrete mix containing unsaturated
recycled concrete aggregate, rather than hydrate the cement, it is absorbed into the aggregate
at a rapid rate. This was witnessed during the production of the concrete mix for the strength
tests referred to in Section 4.3.
The combination of clay coating the aggregate along with the porosity of unsaturated recycled
concrete aggregate caused the concrete mix to become very dry and sandy. This is evident in
Figures 13 and 15, which show just how ‘crumbly’ the mix was. While the standards were
adhered to during the production of the mix, it was extremely difficult to vibrate using the
rodding method, with rodding not being possible at times. This lack of workability had a
negative effect on the strength, as seen in Section 4.3.3. Poor workability lead to inadequate
compaction which in turn caused reduced strength.

To make the mix more workable, more water could have been added to the mix to further
hydrate the cement. However, increasing the water in the mix will in turn reduce the strength
due to the increased water-cement ratio, as discussed in Section 3.3. This is undesirable and
therefore reinforces the need for recycled concrete aggregate to be in a saturated surface dry
state. The saturation process fills the voids present in the recycled concrete aggregate and
disallows more water to enter. It is necessary for the aggregate to be surface dry so as to not
increase the water-cement ratio of the given mix.
Although natural aggregate in its virgin state has less water absorption than recycled concrete
[32]
aggregate , as previously mentioned in Section 3.5, the natural aggregate stored at HB
Group is sprayed with a sprinkler system nightly to keep it saturated surface dry, minimising
any problems with voids in the aggregate.
5.3.3 Variability
As seen in the results in Section 4.3.3, the concrete samples made with unsaturated recycled
concrete aggregate had a much higher standard deviation in strength than natural aggregate.
However, in its saturated surface dry state, the recycled concrete aggregate had a minor
increase in variability between the ten test cylinders in comparison to those made with natural
aggregate. This variability is the main reason why recycled concrete aggregate cannot be used
in structural, load bearing applications unless it is saturated surface dry. For example, if a
40MPa concrete mix is required for a project; one batch of concrete made with unsaturated
recycled concrete aggregate could meet the criteria whereas another could fail.
Multiple factors, such as the clay content, porosity and strength of the source concrete being
recycled are detrimental to achieving a concrete mix with consistent strength. The lack of
consistency seen with unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate means it is currently too unsafe
to use in structural applications, without further research and testing. This also applies to the
saturated surface dry recycled concrete aggregate. The ten cylinders tested gave a good
indication of the results, however if the test were to be repeated with a new batch of recycled
concrete aggregate, there is a high chance that the results would differ considerably. The
variability is the biggest problem preventing its use in the construction industry. However,
there will come a time in the future after further testing and research where it is used
extensively.

5.4 Further Problems with the use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate
5.4.1 Contaminants
Because recycled concrete aggregate is sourced from demolition waste, there are numerous
types of contaminant that can become present in a stockpile of crushed aggregate. While
R.U.B Group has a system in place to remove magnetic metal contaminants from the crushed
aggregate during screening, non-magnetic objects stay present without some form of human
sorting.
During the manual screening of the aggregate, various types of contaminants were found.
These included wood, fibres, plastic, tiles and non-magnetic metals. These contaminants are
detrimental to concrete and had they not been removed from the aggregate, they would have
caused undesirable weaknesses. Because each component in a concrete mix is measured by
weight, the contaminants would have added unnecessary weight and seen a reduction in the
amount of actual recycled concrete aggregate present in the mix. Even after manual screening,
contaminants such as plastic and glass were still found in cured concrete after testing.
Figure 19 – Various Contaminants found during Manual

Screening [4]

5.4.2 Testing and Research of Source Concrete
When demolition waste is dumped on site at R.U.B Group, there is little information taken in
regards to where it came from and what it was used for. Semi-trailers full of demolition waste
drive in and dump their product. Because demolition wastes are generally from older
buildings, it is difficult to know what strength the original demolished concrete was designed
to be. There may be concrete of several differing strengths in the same load being dumped at
R.U.B Group.
Section 3.4.2 details studies in which it was shown that concrete mixes made with recycled
concrete aggregate that had source concrete of higher strengths will achieve greater strengths
than those made with lower strength mixes. While the tests done in this thesis showed that
saturated recycled concrete aggregate had similar strength and variability to natural aggregate,
there is no guarantee that the same results would be achieved with a new batch of concrete
made with recycled concrete aggregate from a different stockpile at R.U.B Group.
Without a system in place to sort the demolition waste concrete in terms of its original
strength, consistently making a concrete mix with recycled concrete aggregate with similar
strength and workability to one made with natural aggregate on a regular basis would most
likely prove to be implausible. This however cannot be confirmed without further testing.
To combat this variability, samples of each load of demolition waste dumped R.U.B Group
should be crushed and tested in a concrete mix of known strength to determine the rough
strength of the recycled concrete aggregate. Furthermore, if possible, a core sample should be
drilled from the demolition waste before it is crushed and tested for compressive strength to
know the strength of the source concrete. However, keeping different stockpiles for several
different strengths and types of demolished concrete may prove difficult for R.U.B Group.
Should these methods or ones similar be applied, the use of recycled concrete aggregate for
structural purposes may become a possibility, provided correct saturation and washing of
aggregate is adhered to. However, as stated in Section 3.2.2, R.U.B Group see this as too
much of a legal liability. Extensive research and testing could see this liability reduced.

5.5 Recommendations for Recycled Concrete Aggregate
Before R.U.B Group can sell its recycled concrete aggregate for use in concrete purposes as a
competitor to natural aggregate, several actions must be implemented. The majority of the
actions combat the hydration problems discussed in Section 5.3. These include:
 Saturation: It is evident from the points mentioned in Section 5.3 that the main cause
for most of the problems seen with recycled concrete aggregate are due to a lack of
hydration in the mix. For recycled concrete aggregate to be seen as an alternative to
natural aggregate, it must be in a saturated surface dry state. As seen from the results
in Section 4.3.3, the difference in strength and variability between the natural
aggregate and saturated recycled concrete aggregate samples was minimal. Saturating
the aggregate will help achieve a workable mix as this fills the voids present in cured
concrete. This in turn prevents the water being absorbed into the recycled concrete
aggregate and allows it to hydrate the cement. An ideal solution would see the
implementation of a nightly sprinkler system, similar to that used at HB Group. Not
only will this soak the aggregate, but it would allow the aggregate’s surface to dry
during the day due to the heat from the sun.
 Clay Removal: All aggregate must be washed extensively to ensure that all clay has
been removed from its surface. Section 5.3.1 detailed the detrimental effects seen with
the aggregate containing clay particles on its surface. It is likely that the saturation and
washing of the aggregate could be achieved simultaneously.
 Removal of Contaminants: While R.U.B Group uses a magnetic removal system to

catch magnetic metals, all other contaminants remain present in the recycled concrete
aggregate, witnessed in Figure 16. A manual sorting process, perhaps similar to those
at recycling plants, would be ideal. Having the aggregate run along a conveyor while it
is visually inspected by a team who are able to pick out all non-magnetic contaminants
would eliminate the problem and keep the stockpiled aggregate clean.

 Testing of Source Concrete: Testing could be undertaken to gain a better
understanding of the demolition waste being dumped on site at R.U.B Group. Core
samples should be drilled where possible to determine the compressive strength that
the concrete was designed to achieve. Furthermore, an initial concrete mix should be
made with the batch of crushed concrete that was dumped. This would allow R.U.B
Group to gain insight into the workability and strength of the given recycled concrete
aggregate before it is sold for concrete applications. If the aggregate is then be used in
a pour for construction purposes, adequate testing should be carried out for each
truckload to ensure there is no variability between the separate truckloads being
poured.
Should R.U.B Group follow these recommendations, they would be able to offer a
competitive alternative to natural aggregate with possibilities for use in structural purposes
provided further testing is undertaken to support its use in this purpose.

6. Conclusion
The use of recycled concrete aggregates has begun to increase in popularity as the supply of
natural aggregates begins to dwindle and the public becomes more conscious of recycling.
Recycling of concrete in Darwin is miniscule in comparison to the natural aggregate market.
This is partially due to the rate of demolition in a small city the size of Darwin which does not
supply enough recycled concrete to keep up with the supply of natural aggregate. Australia
wide, the recycled concrete market is increasing in size with South Australia having recycled
over one million tonnes of concrete in the 2008/09 financial year.
Background research found that recycled concrete aggregate production had greater CO 2
emissions than that seen in natural aggregate. Equal strength concrete could be produced with
recycled concrete aggregate provided the concrete supply for the recycled concrete aggregate
was controlled and regulated. It was found that the permeability of recycled concrete
aggregate was far greater than natural aggregate due to the porosity of set concrete. However,
this can be overcome if the recycled concrete aggregate is saturated.
Site visits were carried out at both R.U.B Group and HB Group which provided a greater
understanding of the production process for each aggregate type. HB Group operate at a much
larger scale than R.U.B Group, therefore the analysis for each aggregate must be carried out
as a per tonne basis. HB Group produce all their aggregate at Mt Bundy Quarry, with roughly
500 tonnes produced per hour. On the other hand, R.U.B Group have an output of
approximately 200 tonnes per hour at their site located in East Arm.
It was found that the production of one tonne of natural aggregate would produce over ten
times less CO2 emissions than those seen in the production of one tonne of recycled concrete
aggregate. This was due to the burning of diesel during the transportation of demolition waste
from an arbitrary construction site to R.U.B Group. In the initial analysis, the emissions
generated during the transportation of natural aggregate from the HB Group Quarry to their
stockpile in Winnellie were deemed to be outside the scope of the production of the
aggregate. However, the transportation of aggregate would be necessary for any form of
concrete production.

Further analysis found that the inclusion of these transportation emissions increased the total
CO2 emissions significantly. The total emissions seen in the production of one tonne of
natural aggregate were approximately three times that of recycled concrete aggregate when
the natural aggregate transportation emissions were included. Because there are so many
variables in the calculation of emissions, the results should only be taken as an indication.
A cost analysis found that recycled concrete aggregate could be produced $17AUD cheaper
per tonne compared to natural aggregate. The costs were sourced from the representatives at
each company. The cost analysis included factors such as labour and transport and did not
include any administration costs. It was found that a 25MPa concrete mix made with recycled
concrete aggregate would cost $22.80AUD less per 1m3 in comparison to a mix made with
natural aggregate. In a large project, these cost savings would be minimal. However, the
environmental benefits seen from the recycling of demolition waste would be preferable in the
awarding of tenders.
Three 25MPa concrete mixes were made and poured into ten cylinders each. One contained
natural aggregate, one contained unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate and the last
contained recycled concrete aggregate in a saturated surface dry state. It was found that the
concrete mix made with saturated recycled concrete aggregate was very comparable to the
natural aggregate concrete mix in both strength and workability, whereas the one made with
unsaturated recycled concrete aggregate was much weaker and highly unworkable.
The lack of workability and strength in the unsaturated recycled aggregate mix was due to the
lack of hydration of the cement. When the water was poured into the mix, it was absorbed by
both the clay and the crushed concrete aggregate. The saturated recycled concrete aggregate
prevented this from happening as all the voids were already full of water and the clay was
rinsed off.
A system must be put in place to ensure full removal of the contaminants as this was
identified as a problem during manual screening. Further testing of the source concrete and
demolition waste delivered to R.U.B Group will allow for a reduction in variability in
concrete mixes witnessed during testing. Provided R.U.B Group can offer a saturated, clay
free recycled concrete aggregate, there is the possibility of a competitive aggregate market in
the Darwin region.

This thesis has shown that more emissions are produced from the production of recycled
concrete aggregate in the scope of the analysis, however further research and a better defined
scope would show that there are fewer emissions in its production. The reduced price of
recycled concrete aggregate in comparison to natural aggregate is beneficial to it being
considered a viable alternative. Recycled concrete aggregate can be seen as a competitive
alternative to natural aggregate for concrete mixes used in non-structural applications.
Furthermore, provided there is extensive testing and research, recycled concrete aggregate
could also be used in structural applications provided it is saturated surface dry and free of
clay.

7. Recommendations
During the research of this thesis, there were issues that arose that would require further
research and testing outside the scope of the thesis. These include:
 Concrete mixes with all aggregates deriving from recycled concrete aggregate:
This thesis only compared aggregates in their coarse form. Further research is needed
into graded concrete mixes made entirely with recycled concrete aggregates. This
means both coarse and fine aggregate.
 The use of recycled concrete aggregate as a road base: Although it is currently a

widely accepted industry practice, further research in the use of recycled concrete
aggregate as road base would provide research that would prove valuable to the
roadwork industry.
 Improving fine crushed rock: A large problem in today’s natural aggregate industry
is the reduction of river bed dredging which is forcing more aggregate suppliers to use
fine crushed rock instead of coarse and fine washed sand. The problem is that fine
aggregate particles from river beds are smooth and round due to years of erosion from
water currents. Smooth fine aggregates are preferred in a concrete mix due to the way
they interact with cement paste. On the other hand, fine crushed rock particles are very
rough and jagged. The aggregate industry requires research into a method of crushing
rock into fine aggregate that produces smooth and round particles.

8. References
[1] Bisatrian Materials, Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA), 2014, [Online], Available:
http://www.bistrianmaterials.com/gallery/series/supply_yard_materials_gallery/996/,
[Accessed: 8/9/15]
[2] Ray Breem, Owner of R.U.B Group
[3] Mike Cull, General Manager of HB Group
[4] Photo taken by Shane Ratcliffe, 2015/16
[5] F.M Khalaf, A.S DeVenny, “Recycling of Demolished Masonry Rubble as Coarse
Aggregate in Concrete: Review”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, pp. 331-340,
Volume 16 Issue 4, July/August 2004, [Online], Available: American Society of Civil
Engineers Library, http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(2004)16%3A4(331), [Accessed: 9/9/15]
[6] DJ5IL Amateur Radio Station, No Title, N.D., [Online], Available: http://cq-
cq.eu/pf45.html, [Accessed: 3/10/15]
[7] A.S Devenny, “Recycling of Demolished Masonry Rubble”, Degree of Doctor of

Philosophy, Napier University, City of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 1999
[8] Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia, “Use of Recycled Aggregates in Construction”,
CCAA Reports, Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia, May 2008, [Online], Available:
http://www.ccaa.com.au/imis_prod/documents/Library%20Documents/CCAA%20Reports/Re
cycledAggregates.pdf, [Accessed: 10/9/15]
[9] T. Wilmot, G Vorobieff, “Is Road Recycling a Good Community Policy?” in Proceedings
of the 9th National Local Government Engineering Conference, 29th August 1997, Australia,
Australian Stabilisation Industry Association, 1997, Available: AustStab,
http://www.auststab.com.au/pdf/tp15.pdf, [Accessed: 10/9/15]
[10] NSW Government Primary Industries, “Activities Requiring a Permit”, Fishing and
Aquaculture, NSW Government, N.D., [Online], Available:
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/protecting-habitats/activities-requiring-a-permit,
[Accessed: 10/9/15]

[11] Tamworth Regional Council, “Resource Recovery”, Tamworth Waste Management
Facility, Tamworth Regional Council, N.D., [Online], Available:
http://www.tamworth.nsw.gov.au/Waste/Tamworth-Waste-Management-Facility/Resource-
Recovery/Resource-Recovery/default.aspx, [Accessed: 11/9/15]
[12] Hyder Consulting, Encycle Consulting & Sustainable Resource, Construction and
Demolition Waste Status Report: Management of Construction and Demolition Waste in
Australia, Report No. 5, Published by Hyder Consulting for the Queensland Department of
Environment and Resource Management, 20th October 2011
[13] S.B Huda, M.S Alam, “Mechanical Behaviour of Three Generations of 100% Repeated
Recycled Coarse Aggregate Concrete”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 65, p574,
August 2014, [Report], Available: Elsevier,
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30405/description#descriptio
n, [Accessed: 12/9/15]
[14] Royalty Free Stock Photos, Demolition Site Rubble, Concrete and Steel, N.D, [Online],
Available: http://www.123rf.com/photo_3436289_demolition-site-rubble-concrete-and-
steel.html, [Accessed: 12/9/15]
[15] Portland Cement Association, How Concrete is Made, Portland Cement Association,
N.D., [Online], Available: http://www.cement.org/cement-concrete-basics/how-concrete-is-
made, [Accessed: 12/9/15]
[16] Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia, “Concrete Basics – A Guide to Concrete
Practice”, Seventh Edition, Published February 2010, [Online], Available:
http://www.elvingroup.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/concrete_basics.pdf, [Accessed:
12/9/15]
[17] Great American Dream Home, Pouring Concrete, 2012, [Online], Available:
http://greatamericandreamhome.com/pouring-the-concrete-slab/, [Accessed 15/9/15]
[18] S. Marinkovic´, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatovic´, “Comparative Environmental

Assessment of Natural and Recycled Aggregate Concrete”, International Journal of
Integrated Waste Management, Science and Technology, Vol. 30, pp. 2255-2264, 2010
[19] S.W. Tabsh, A.S. Abdelfatah, “Influence of Recycled Concrete Aggregates on Strength
Properties of Concrete”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23, pp. 1163-1167, 2009

[20] J.K. Norvell, J.G. Stewart, M.C.G Juenger, D.W Fowler, “Influence of Clays and Clay-
Sized Particles on Concrete Performance”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19,
pp. 1053-1059, 2007
[21] R. Zaharieva, F. Buyle-Bodin, F. Skoczylas, E Wirquin, “Assessment of the Surface

Permeation Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete”, Cement & Concrete Composites,
Vol. 25, pp. 223-232, 2003
[22] Australian Government, Department of Industry Innovation, Science, Research and

Tertiary Education, Australia’s Sustainable Aggregates Industry, Canberra, June 2012
[23] HB Group, HB Quarry, 2015, [Online], Available:

http://halkitis.com.au/cms2/index.php/divisions/hb-quarries#!HB_Quarries_06, [Accessed:
3/10/15]
[24] HB Group, HB Concrete, 2015, [Online], Available:

http://halkitis.com.au/cms2/index.php/divisions/hb-concrete#!HB_Concrete_08, [Accessed:
3/10/15]
[25] Australian Government, National Greenhouse Account Factors, Department of the

Environment, July 2014, [Online], Available:
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b24f8db4-e55a-4deb-a0b3-
32cf763a5dab/files/national-greenhouse-accounts-factors-2014.pdf, [Accessed: 20/3/16]
[26] Standards Australia, “AS1012.2: Preparing concrete mixes in the laboratory”, Standards
Australia, 2014, [Online], Available: https://www-saiglobal-
com.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/online/autologin.asp, [Accessed: 14/4/16]
[27] Standards Australia, “AS1012.8.1: Method for making and curing concrete –
Compression and indirect tensile test specimens”, Standards Australia, 2014, [Online],
Available: https://www-saiglobal-com.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/online/autologin.asp, [Accessed:
14/4/16]
[28] Standards Australia, “AS1012.3.1: Methods of testing concrete – Determination of

properties related to the consistency of concrete – Slump test”, Standards Australia, 2014,
[Online], Available: https://www-saiglobal-com.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/online/autologin.asp,
[Accessed: 14/4/16]

[29] Standards Australia, “AS1379 – Specification and supply of concrete”, Standards
Australia, 2007, [Online], Available: https://www-saiglobal-
com.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/online/autologin.asp, [Accessed: 14/4/16]
[30] Australian Bureau of Statistics, “9208.0 - Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12
months ended 31 October 2014”, Australian Government, 15/10/2015, [Online], Available:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9208.0/, [Accessed 29/3/16]
[31] Australian Bureau of Statistics, “3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2014-
15”, Australian Government, 15/10/2015, [Online], Available:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/3218.0Media%20Release12014-15,
[Accessed 29/3/16]
[32] J. Yang, Q. Du, Y. Bao, “Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregate and Crushed Clay
Bricks”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25, pp. 1935-1945, 2011

Appendix A: Emissions Calculations
A.1 Aggregate Production
Table A1 – Aggregate Production
Recycled
Natural Aggregate Concrete
Aggregate
450 (diesel)
Tonnes per Hour 200
500 (electricity)
0.0022 (diesel)
Hours per Tonne 0.005
0.0020 (electricity)
A.2 Natural Aggregate Electricity Usage
Table A2 – Natural Aggregate Electricity Usage
Bill 1 Bill 2
Number of Days 31 30
Kilowatt Hours 101401.32 87812.40
Kilowatt Hours per Day 3271.01 2927.08
Kilowatt Hours per Hour

327.10 292.71
(assuming 8 hour day)
Average Kilowatt Hours
309.90
per Hour

A.3 HB Group Power Bills
A3.1 Bill 1
A3.2 Bill 2

A.4 Power Bills from Home to Determine CO2 per KwH
Table A3 – Power Bills from Home
Bill 1 Bill 2
Kilograms of CO2 1559 2083
Kilowatt Hours 2599 3472
Kilograms of CO2 per

0.5998 0.5999
Kilowatt Hour
Average Kilograms of
0.5999
CO2 per Kilowatt Hour
A4.1 Power Bill 1

A4.2 Power Bill 2
A.5 CO2 Emissions due to Electricity
Table A4 – CO2 Emissions due to Electricity
Recycled
Natural
Concrete
Aggregate
Aggregate
Average Electricity used

309.9 0
per Hour (kWh)
Electricity per Tonne 0.62 0
Tonnes of CO2 per Tonne

0.0004 0
of Aggregate

A.6 Recycled Concrete Aggregate Diesel Consumption
Table A5 – Recycled Concrete Aggregate Diesel Consumption
Total Fuel Fuel

Time in Use
Machine Consumption Consumption
(Hours)
(Litres) (Litres/Hour)
Crusher 8 140 17.5
Screener 15 100 6.67
Excavator 10 150 15
Total
39.17
(Litres/Hour)
A.7 CO2 Emissions Formulas from the Australian Government

A.8 CO2 Emissions due to Diesel Machinery
Table A6 – CO2 Emissions due to Diesel
Recycled
Natural
Concrete
Aggregate
Aggregate
Diesel Burnt per Hour

250 39.17
(Litres)
Diesel Burnt per Tonne
0.55 0.196
(Litres)
0.0015 0.0005
of Aggregate

A.9 CO2 Emissions due to Transportation
Table A7 – Transportation of Demolition Waste to R.U.B Group (Return Trip)
Average
Articulated Truck Total CO2 Emitted
Total Distance (Kilometres) Total Diesel Used
Fuel Consumption (Tonnes)
(L/100km)
30.8 56.9 17.52 0.0468
Table A8 – Transportation of Natural Aggregate to Winnellie Stockpile
Average
Articulated Truck Total CO2 Emitted
Total Distance (Kilometres) Total Diesel Used
Fuel Consumption (Tonnes)
(L/100km)
95.7 56.9 54.45 0.1454
A.10 Total CO2 Emissions

Table A9 – Total CO2 Emissions
Natural
Aggregate Recycled
Natural
(Including Concrete
Aggregate
Transportation Aggregate
of Aggregate

0.0019 0.1473 0.0473
of Aggregate

Appendix B: Strength Calculations
B.1 25MPa Concrete Mix for 1m3
Table B1 – 25MPa Mix for 1m3
Component Weight (kg)
20mm Aggregate 1000

Coarse Washed Sand 500
Fine Washed Sand 400
General Purpose Cement 290
Water 150
This gives a water cement ratio of 0.517
B.2 Area and Volume of Test Cylinders
( )

B.3 Natural Aggregate Test Results
Table B2 – Natural Aggregate Test Results
Pressure
Test Cylinder No. Force (kN) (Force/Area)
(MPa)
1 255 32.47
2 266 33.87
3 279 35.52
4 273 34.76
5 273 34.76
6 270 34.38
7 270 34.38
8 274 34.89
9 260 33.10
10 270 34.38
Average 34.25
Standard
0.85
Deviation
Difference 3.06
Where standard deviation (σ) is determined by:
√ ∑( )

B.3 Unsaturated Recycled Concrete Aggregate Test Results
Table B3 – Unsaturated Recycled Concrete Aggregate Test Results
Pressure
(MPa)
1 234 29.79
2 210 26.74
3 125 15.92
4 130 16.55
5 155 19.74
6 190 24.19
7 164 20.88
8 205 26.10
9 149 18.97
10 167 21.26
Average 22.01
Standard
4.33
Deviation
Difference 13.88

B.4 Saturated Surface Dry Recycled Concrete Aggregate Test Results
Table B4 – Saturated Surface Dry Recycled Concrete Aggregate Test Results
Pressure
(MPa)
1 220 28.01
2 246 31.32
3 236 30.05
4 244 31.07
5 245 31.19
6 222 28.27
7 240 30.56
8 236 30.05
9 230 29.28
10 215 27.37
Average 29.72
Standard
1.35
Deviation
Difference 3.95


History of Recycled PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Recycled PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE USE OF CRUSHED RECYCLED CONCRETE AS AN

ALTERNATIVE CONCRETE AGGREGATE

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering

Shane Ratcliffe (s209083)

Rob Wolff, Sabaratnam Prathapan

School of Engineering & Information Technology

Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the Environment

Charles Darwin University

SHANE RATCLIFFE (s209083)

Keywords: Recycled Concrete Aggregate, Natural Aggregate, Concrete, Concrete Costs,

Figure 1 – Various Types and Sizes of Recycled Concrete Aggregate [1]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 1 of 59

Figure 2 - Aggregate Stockpile at HB Group [4]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 2 of 59

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 3 of 59

Figure 3 - Crushed Concrete Stockpile at R.U.B Group [4]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 4 of 59

3.1 History of Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Figure 4 - Rubble Left After Bombing of Pforzheim, 1945 [6]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 5 of 59

3.2 Modern Day Practice

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 6 of 59

Figure 5 – Powerscreen MetroTrak HA Crusher, R.U.B Group [4]

3.2.2 Current Problems

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 7 of 59

 Lack of Awareness in Darwin: As mentioned previously, there are few companies

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 8 of 59

Figure 6 – Demolished Concrete with Steel and Wood Contaminants [14]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 9 of 59

Figure 7 - Concrete Slab Being Poured [17]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 10 of 59

Typically, concrete is designed according to ‘AS1379 – Specification and Supply of

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 11 of 59

3.4.1 Environmental Impacts

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 12 of 59

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 13 of 59

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 14 of 59

3.4.4 Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Australia

The Australian Government’s Department of Industry Innovation, Science, Research and

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 15 of 59

3.5 Natural Aggregate Production Process at HB Group

Figure 8 – HB Quarry, Mt Bundy, NT [23]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 16 of 59

3.6 Recycled Concrete Production Process at R.U.B Group

Figure 9 – Crushing Jaws of the Metrotrak HA Crusher [4]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 17 of 59

Figure 10 – Herbst Compac Screener in its Closed State [4]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 18 of 59

Concrete production at HB Group is all controlled by a central computer room, manned by

Figure 11 – Front Loader Collecting Aggregate [24]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 19 of 59

Figure 12 – Concrete Mixing Drum at HB Group [4]

Recycled Concrete Aggregate Page 20 of 59

Emissions from the production of recycled concrete aggregate arose from:

Calculated emissions did not include:

 Blasting at the quarry.

Table 1 – Diesel Emissions

CO2 Emissions (Tonnes per

Natural Aggregate 0.0015

Recycled Concrete Aggregate 0.0473

Table 2 – Electricity Emissions

CO2 Emissions (Tonnes per