Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Recycled aggregate concrete produced with red granite dust as a partial

cement replacement
S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield ⇑
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, Edinburgh Napier University, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sustainable development involves reducing natural resource consumption by appropriate recycling. To
Received 30 September 2010 reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, red granite dust arising from the rock-crushing process
Received in revised form 31 March 2011 was assessed for suitability as a replacement for up to 30% by mass of the cement content of structural
Accepted 14 April 2011
grade concretes made with recycled coarse aggregates. While the impact on worldwide cement demand
Available online 8 May 2011
will be minimal, the contribution to waste reduction may be valuable. Laboratory trials showed that this
red granite dust rendered it suitable in terms of workability, stiffness and strength compared to normal
Keywords:
aggregate and Portland cement concretes. The potential for thereby overcoming the problem of low early
Concrete
Recycling
strength in some pulverised fuel ash concretes was demonstrated.
Aggregate Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cement
Granite
Testing

1. Introduction and research hypothesis
Concrete has been a leading construction material for over a
century: its annual global production is about 3.8 billion m3 –
roughly 1.5 tonnes per capita – according to Portland Cement
Association data [18]. Global natural aggregate (NA) consumption
is expected to rise by 2.9% annually to a 2013 total of around 28
billion tonnes [14]; approximately 1 billion tonnes of construction
and demolition waste (CDW) are generated annually in the EU
alone [20]. Due to advances in the manufacture of crushing
machinery and developments in recycling processes, it is now pos-
sible to produce recycled aggregate (RA) cheaply. Annually,
approximately 65 million tonnes of aggregate are derived from
recycled sources representing 23.6% of the total of 275 million ton-
nes used in the UK [12]. Unfortunately, the European standard [6]
for the specification of concrete did not include provision for the
use of recycled aggregate concretes (RAC), however the UK com-
plementary standard thereto [10] permits their use but imposes
additional requirements on maximum masonry, fines, asphalt
and sulphate contents.
This research examined the potential for using recycled red
granite dust (RGD) (from a crusher) as a partial cement substitute
in concrete. The successful production of RAC, with this cement-
replacing RGD, could lead to its large-scale structural use, rather
than the prevailing low-value uses for many such materials. The
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)131 455 2232; fax: +44(0)131 455 2239.
E-mail address: c.fairfield@napier.ac.uk (C.A. Fairfield).
waste product (RGD) generated from such rock crushers amounts
to one tonne per nine tonnes of aggregate produced [4]. Structural
quality RAC here inferred that made with 100% coarse RA, pro-
duced from CDW and with a 28 day compressive strength above
50 N mm 2. The research hypothesis was that a comparable work-
ability, strength, durability and overall performance were achiev-
able when RGD was used as a partial cement substitute. The
authors’ null hypothesis is that RGD use caused no statistically sig-
nificant improvement over comparable NA concretes.
2. Test methods and materials used
All materials were tested in accordance with current British or European Stan-
dards. Recycled aggregates were tested in accordance with standards originally pre-
pared for natural aggregates while noting their inclusion in BS EN 12620 [8]. The
coarse aggregates used were: a nominal 20 mm down crushed granite natural
aggregate (for the control mixes) and a similarly graded recycled, crushed, screened
and washed aggregate with approximately 6.6% impurities (timber, metal, glass, pa-
per, rubber and mortar). The fine aggregate was a natural medium sand. Lafarge’s
Portland PC Cem I (Class 42.5 N mm 2) cement was used throughout. The red gran-
ite crusher dust came from Cloburn quarry, Lanarkshire, Scotland. The rock-crush-
ing produces smaller aggregates; it also produces dust (the RGD which is separated
by vacuum filtration) amounting to approximately 2% by mass of the coarse aggre-
gate. This accumulates and, on windy days, is readily dispersed unless the stock-
piles are sprayed with water. Wet sieve analysis data for the RGD are given in
Table 1. Chemical analyses of cement, pulverised fuel ash (PFA) (for comparison)
and RGD are given in Table 2.
Additionally, the cement grains all passed a 38 lm square aperture cloth mesh
sieve: manufacturer’s data indicated a specific surface area of 300 to 450 m2 kg 1.
The RGD’s high silica and alumina contents suggested a potential pozzolanic
reaction (although data shown later refutes this and the principal instigator of
strength was shown to be practically all physical) and a quasi-cementitious nature.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.047
 S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094 4089

Table 1 Additionally, the RGD’s gravimetric water absorption was approximately 1%.
Wet sieve analysis of RGD. Fig. 1 shows typical scanning electron micrographs of the particles in both RGD
and PFA samples. The PFA used here was Category N to BS EN 450-1:2005 [9] with
Sieve size (lm) Percentage passing (%) a fineness of 30% (based on the amount passing a 45 lm square aperture mesh
150 99.4 sieve).
75 81.5 Evaluation of the particles’ shape, texture and morphology showed the RGD’s
63 77.3 grains to be slightly larger, more angular, more porous and of greater specific sur-
45 58.6 face and roughness than a typical PFA sample. Energy dispersive X-ray analysis con-
38 52.2 firmed the chemical compositions outlined in Table 2.

3. Mixes determining optimum RGD content

Table 2
Chemical compositions: the cement, a typical PFA (for comparison) and RGD.
3.1. Mix designs: NAC, RAC and RGD-for-cement replacement
Property Average content (%)
Cement PFA RGD Increasing the fines content, particularly for medium to high
Silica (SiO2) content 21.8 45.0 61.4
range cement contents, results in increased water demand. In
Alumina (Al2O3) content 4.20 30.0 16.3 the absence of sufficient water, the available free water and ce-
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) content 2.50 11.0 3.66 ment tend to work less effectively. This leads to agglomeration
Quicklime (CaO) content 65.1 5.90 3.69 of cement particles and a stiffer mix. The additional water for
Magnesia (MgO) content - 2.25 1.70
wetting the finer PFA causes reduced strength but it may be pos-
Potassium oxide (K2O) content 0.72 3.40 3.75
Sodium oxide (Na2O) content 0.13 1.30 3.62 sible to avoid the lack of workability and drop in strength by
Sulphate (as SO3) content – 1.50 0.05 increasing the cement content. An alternative to this is to reduce
Na2Oeq (Na2O + 0.658  K2O) content 0.60 3.51 6.09 the water content and use a superplasticiser (SP) [13]. The
Other oxides 3.15 – 1.10 authors chose to reduce the water content and use an SP admix-
Loss on ignition – 5.0–7.0 5.01
ture to maintain workability while avoiding the extra cost of an
increased cement content (the SP may add cost at a potentially
higher rate per m3 in certain markets). The authors used Fosroc’s
Structuro 11180 superplasticising admixture (to EN 934-2: T3.1/
3.2). This polycarboxylate polymer contained a maximum chlo-
ride content of less than 0.1% by mass and a maximum alkali con-
tent below 3.0% by mass.
For concretes with compressive strengths under 40 N mm 2, the
coarse aggregate rarely becomes strength-limiting as a relatively
high water:cement (w/c) ratio is used (i.e. within 0.5 to 0.7). Thus,
the hardened paste and interfacial zone between it and the
aggregate is the weakest link [3]. Similarly for such concrete, the
mineralogy of the coarse aggregate is not a major factor in its mix
design unless it is proven to contain sufficient deleterious minerals
[17]. Conversely, higher strength concrete, for which a lower w/c ra-
tio is often used (i.e. below 0.45), the hardened paste and interfacial
zone are strong enough and are non-strength limiting: it is the
coarse aggregate’s strength and mineralogy that control the
concrete’s strength [16]. All RA concretes herein were made with
100% RA: RGD was then used as a partial cement substitute.
The characteristic, 28 day, compressive strength of the authors’
natural aggregate control concrete was 50 N mm 2 (target mean
strength 63 N mm 2) and the UK’s most common mix design
method [21] yielded the following proportions (per m3 of fresh
concrete): a free water:cement ratio of 0.4, a cement content of
425 kg, a water content of 170 kg, a fine aggregate content of
545 kg and a coarse aggregate content of 1280 kg. The RAC, based
on the natural aggregate control concrete was modified to account
for the properties of the recycled aggregate, differed slightly in that
it had a free water:cement ratio of 0.4, a cement content of 425 kg,
a water content of 170 kg, a fine aggregate content of 530 kg and a
coarse aggregate content of 1235 kg.

3.2. RAC with partial RGD-for-cement replacement

Fig. 1. Scanning electron micrograph of RGD particles (PFA shown for comparison).

BS EN 12620 defines crushed rock dust, or simply dust, as aggre-

Fly ash meeting BS EN 450 should contain at least 25% reactive silica, far below that
found in this RGD (61.4%), albeit inevitably at a differing reactivity: X-ray diffraction
revealed variable amorphous/crystalline silica ratios and this in itself warrants fur-
ther investigation outwith the scope of this paper. Another limitation is that the
sum of ferric oxide (Fe2O3), alumina (Al2O3) and silica (SiO2) must be at least 70%
in PFA for possible use in concrete: the sum of these oxides is over 80% in the chosen
RGD, leading to the belief that it may be useful for concrete mixes. Although seem-
ingly high, the RGD’s alkali content (as Na2O equivalent) was not freely available
and therefore not able to contribute to any potential alkali-aggregate reaction.
gate particles passing a 75 lm aperture sieve. This RGD would thus
be classified as a very fine powder. In contrast to alternative PFA
mixes, the ideal level of cement replacement for concrete mixes
with RGD was unknown. In this case, selection of the optimum
RGD content was based on the workability and strength of trial
mixes. Mix proportions trialled here at different RGD contents
are given in Table 3.
4090 S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094

Table 3
Mix proportions with differing RGD contents.
100

RGD content (%) Mass (kg per m3 of fresh concrete)

90
Cement RGD Water Coarse Fine aggregate
aggregate
0 425 0 170 1280 545 80
20 372 93 160 1270 545
30 345 145 155 1265 540
40 312 208 150 1250 535 70
50 280 280 145 1230 525

60

Strength (Nmm-2 )
Table 4
Compressive strength at 28 days
Workability of mixes with RGD as a partial cement substitute.
Compressive strength at 56 days
50
RGD (%) WR SP w/c Slump Vebe Notes
Compressive strength at 90 days
(%) (%) ratio (mm) time (s)
0 0 0 0.40 15 12 Uniform mix 40 Tensile splitting strength at 28 days
0 16 0.8 0.34 20 10 Uniform mix
20 16 0.8 0.34 25 9 Uniform mix
Tensile splitting strength at 56 days
30 16 0.8 0.34 20 11 Slightly cohesive 30
Tensile splitting strength at 90 days
40 16 0.8 0.34 25 8 Less cohesive
50 16 0.8 0.34 30 6 Segregating slightly Flexural strength at 28 days
20
Flexural strength at 56 days
For selection purposes, a total of five NA concrete trials, with
RGD partially replacing cement, were produced with 0.8% SP and 10
16% concomitant water reduction (WR). It must be stressed that
these mixes do not represent an exhaustive list – see Abukersh 0
[1] for more details – and are subject to the limitation that two 0 10 20 30 40 50
parameters (total cement content and water content) are varied RGD content (%)
simultaneously. Fuller treatment of the optimisation of the RGD
content remains a subject of ongoing research. Fig. 2. Mechanical properties of mixes with RGD as a partial cement substitute.

3.3. Results: workability as a determinant of optimum RGD content

Table 4 displays mixes used for the selection of the best RGD ce-
ment replacement level and their resulting workability.
Table 4 indicates that as the RGD content increased, the slump
initially increased – possibly attributable to the SP’s dispersive
influence – however beyond 20% cement replacement, the slump
decreased to reach a minimum at 30% RGD content (still above that
of the control mix). The physical reason for reduced slump within
the range 20–30% RGD content was possibly due to local grain rear-
rangement (around this RGD content the density of the wet concrete
peaked). Beyond this range this closest packed arrangement re-
collapsed and the slump increased again possibly due to the
increased free water content in the voids due to the lower absorp-
tion of RGD grains when compared with cement. Cement also reacts
chemically with water and when there is more cement (or less RGD)
there will be less free water for grain lubrication. In contrast, no
reaction of RGD with water takes place; some water is absorbed
by the grains and the fluidity is increased when there is less cement
in the mix. However, further increases in RGD content were pre-
dicted to result in a lack of mix cohesion. Below 50% substitution, re-
sults showed that it was possible to maintain adequate concrete
workability, with the help of a superplasticising admixture. The
authors also acknowledge the fact that test-to-test, a 5 mm change
in slump is negligible and within the range of inherent variability for
the slump test itself. Over the range 0% RGD to 30% RGD the trend is
at least established despite these concretes appearing to be slightly
less workable than comparable mixes used on construction sites.
3.4. Results: mechanical properties as determinants of optimum RGD
content
Fig. 2 shows the time dependency of the three key mechanical
properties of concrete mixes with RGD contents ranging from zero
(control mix) to 50% cement replacement.
The superplasticised NAC with up to 30% RGD content reached a
compressive strength of 72 N mm 2, (above the 63 N mm 2 target
mean strength of the control mix): data at greater ages exhibited
similar trends. Visual inspection of the failure surfaces revealed
shearing of aggregate grains at lower RGD contents indicating a
higher matrix strength: higher RGD (40 and 50%) contents under-
went bond failure and had lower strengths. In addition to the ce-
ment content reduction, the decrease in tensile strength may be
attributed to the increased amount of free water due to the lower
absorption of the RGD – this despite the constant w/c ratio used for
each mix – thus the higher RGD content mixes became wet and
lean resulting in lower strengths. However, the superplasticised
concrete without RGD was stronger than that with it but mixes
with 20% and 30% RGD were stronger than the control mix without
SP and RGD. Of all mixes tested, that with 30% RGD attained the
highest 28 day compressive and tensile strengths, with a flexural
strength of 93% of the control mix’s. The small compressive
strength changes between 28 and 90 days suggested physical
rather than chemical (pozzolanic) action: in fact the greatest
change over time occurred in the 0% RGD mixes.
Workability data showed the 30% RGD mix to have a uniform
20 mm slump, which, although the lowest, nevertheless repre-
sented a mid-range value compared to that designed (10–
30 mm). This mix’s Vebe time of 11 s was also within the original
design limits (6–12 s).
3.5. Results: density and ultrasonic pulse velocity as determinants of
optimum RGD content
Table 5 summarises the time dependency of the density and
ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete mixes with RGD contents
ranging from zero (control mix) to 50% cement replacement.
The data show that both density and pulse velocity generally
decreased with the addition of RGD, however, the density at 30%
 S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094 4091

RGD content was slightly higher at both 56 and 90 days (yet not at
28 days). This was possibly caused by the gradual development of
an improved pore structure arising from the continued cement
hydration and void-filling nature of the RGD grains. Despite the
density improvement at 30% RGD, the density was marginally
(2.2% and 2.4% at 56 and 90 days respectively) below that of the
control mix. The pulse velocity followed a similar trend with a
maximum at 30% RGD and a range from 4.65 to 5.00 km s 1; there-
fore, all RGD mixes could be classified as excellent against the cri-
teria of BS 1881-209:1990 [5]. The density differences measured
largely corresponded to the lighter material replacing the cement
and the water content differences between mixes; with this in
mind the small differences observed may well have been the result
of the test’s inherent variability. On the basis of the measured
properties (Sections 3.2–3.5 inclusive), the 30% RGD mix was
selected for further testing.
4. Mixes with 30% RGD content
4.1. Concrete mixes with 30% RGD-for-cement replacement
To investigate further the possibility of using RGD in NA and
RA concretes, four other mixes in which 30% of their cement was
Table 5
Density and ultrasonic pulse velocity of mixes with RGD as a partial cement
substitute.
RGD (%) Density (kg m 3
) and (ultrasonic pulse velocity (km s
28 days 56 days 90 days
replaced by RGD were produced. Two mixes (one NAC, the other
RAC, both 30% RGD-for-cement replacement, no superplasticiser,
no water reduction, 0.4 w/c ratio and 0.32 w/b ratio) were de-
signed to reach 50 N mm 2 compressive strength at 28 days
(slump, 10–30 mm; Vebe time, 6–12 s) for NAC and RAC mixes,
in accordance with the Building Research Establishment mix de-
sign method [21]. In the other two mixes (as above but with a
0.34 w/c ratio and a 0.27 w/b ratio) the water content was re-
duced by 16% in combination with 0.8% SP addition (as proven
optimal for the materials at hand). Section 4 continues by pre-
senting test data relating to these mixes’ workability and
mechanical properties.
4.2. Results: workability of concretes with 30% RGD-for-cement
replacement
Table 6 shows the workability measurements and the visual
observations made on these latest mixes.
Data presented in Table 6 showed that it was possible to pro-
duce concrete with 30% RGD cement replacement to an acceptable
standard of workability; a little extra compaction was needed for
non-SP mixes. Comparing 30% RGD with the control mixes, a mar-
ginal improvement was seen; however, it could be merely the ef-
fect of the reduction of absorption capacity of the newly formed
binary binder (70% cement, 30% RGD). This implied that RGD was
less absorbent than cement. The workability was much improved
in superplasticised mixes despite the water reduction. Another
noteworthy point was the reddish external appearance of the
1
)) 30% RGD which may be beneficial in some circumstances, undesir-
able in others.

0 2393 (4.85) 2288 (4.76) 2278 (4.86)

0 + 0.8% SP 2316 (4.85) 2314 (5.04) 2322 (5.10) 4.3. Results: mechanical properties of mixes with 30% RGD-for-cement
20 + 0.8% SP 2216 (4.88) 2203 (4.92) 2207 (4.91) replacement
30 + 0.8% SP 2193 (5.00) 2237 (4.94) 2223 (4.97)
40 + 0.8% SP 2189 (4.73) 2185 (4.90) 2190 (4.96)
50 + 0.8% SP 2176 (4.65) 2184 (4.82) 2181 (4.87) RGD concrete mixes were tested and the results shown in Table
7 with data from the control mixes.

Table 6
Workability data: control mixes versus those at 30% RGD-for-cement replacement.

Mix Description w/c w/b* SP (%) WR (%) Slump (mm) Vebe time (s) Notes
Mixes without RGD
1 NAC (control mix) 0.40 0.40 0 0 15 12 Uniform mix
2 RAC (control mix) 0.40 0.40 0 0 10 14 Uniform mix
3 NAC + SP 0.34 0.34 0.8 16 15 10 Uniform & cohesive
4 RAC + SP 0.34 0.34 0.8 16 25 7 Uniform & cohesive
Mixes with 30% RGD-for-cement replacement
5 NAC 0.40 0.32 0 0 20 9 Uniform mix, needs 2 min compaction
6 RAC 0.40 0.32 0 0 15 13 Uniform mix, needs 3 min compaction
7 NAC + SP 0.34 0.27 0.8 16 55 5 Uniform & cohesive
8 RAC + SP 0.34 0.27 0.8 16 45 7 Uniform & cohesive
*
Water to binder ratio.

Table 7
Mechanical properties: control mixes versus 30% RGD-for-cement replacement.
2 2 2
Mix RGD % Compressive strength/Nmm Tensile splitting strength/Nmm Flexural strength/N mm
28 days 56 days 90 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 28 days 56 days
1 0 69.0 (1) 71.0 76.0 (1) 4.7 3.8 4.6 8.1 9.8
2 0 52.0 (0.75) 58.0 58.5 (0.78) 3.6 4.1 3.6 7.8 7.9
3 0 74.0 (1.07) 89.5 91.5 (1.21) 5.8 7.2 7.1 11 11
4 0 64.0 (0.93) 72.0 73.0 (0.96) 4.8 4.4 4.9 11 8.2
5 30 64.0 (0.93) 62.0 72.5 (0.96) 4.8 3.6 4.7 6.2 6.8
6 30 46.0 (0.67) 53.0 53.5 (0.70) 3.5 3.5 3.7 7.5 5.5
7 30 72.0 (1.04) 76.5 74.0 (0.97) 4.6 4.5 5.4 7.6 6.7
8 30 53.5 (0.78) 54.0 54.5 (0.72) 3.5 4.6 5.2 7.3 7.0

Values in brackets are ratios of the mix strength at the specified age to the corresponding strength of the NAC control mix.
4092 S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094

Fig. 3. Stress–strain plots: NAC (left) & RAC (right) mixes at 30% RGD content.

Mixes 7 and 8 were also tested at 7 days to check the early age Table 8
strength of RGD concrete giving compressive strengths of 65.5 and Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of 30% RGD mixes.
41.5 N mm 2 respectively. The 28 day tensile strengths were con- Mix RGD (%) Compressive strength Modulus of elasticity Poisson’s
sistently between 6% and 8% of the compressive strengths at the (N mm 2) 28 days (GPa) 28 days ratio
same age. 1 0 69.0 (1) 36.3 (1) 0.10
This testing showed that NAC concrete made with 30% RGD-for- 2 0 52.0 (0.75) 28.3 (0.78) 0.28
cement replacement achieved the target mean strength of 3 0 74.0 (1.07) 51.4 (1.42) 0.39
63 N mm 2. This concrete, which can be regarded as a recycled 4 0 64.0 (0.93) 40.0 (1.10) 0.30
5 30 64.0 (0.93) 41.4 (1.14) 0.25
concrete, attained better compressive and tensile (and comparable
6 30 46.0 (0.67) 28.3 (0.78) 0.25
flexural) strengths than the control mix. RAC mixes with 30% RGD 7 30 72.0 (1.04) 49.7 (1.37) 0.27
were able to achieve the characteristic strength only after 56 days 8 30 53.5 (0.78) 39.0 (1.08) 0.25
and were unable to attain the target mean strength at any age un-
Values in brackets are the ratios of the compressive strength and modulus of
less an appropriate SP was used (with concomitant water reduc- elasticity at 28 days to the corresponding values for the NAC control mix.
tion). The SP did not markedly improve the strength of RGD
concrete mixes: a comparison of mixes with and without SP
showed small increases which decreased with time. Although
the middle cube in a cruciform pattern. Stress–strain plots are pre-
RAC mixes with 30% RGD achieved an acceptable strength
sented in Fig. 3 with derived properties in Table 8.
(53.0 N mm 2) after 56 days, it is clear that when two recycled
Results presented in Table 8 show that Es tended to improve
materials (recycled coarse aggregate and RGD) were combined,
with the addition of RGD and SP, particularly with NAC mixtures;
the resulting concrete was unlikely to achieve this high a target
NAC modulus increased by 14–37%, most likely due to the greater
mean strength even with admixtures. It is notable that NAC and
stiffness of NA and a strong matrix. NAC with 30% RGD and SP
RAC mixes made with 30% RGD-for-cement replacement achieved
achieved the highest Es. In contrast, superplasticised RAC improved
practically equal strengths irrespective of the presence of the
by 8% due to the decreased strength of RAC without SP. The non-
added SP. The superior rate of strength increase of concrete mixes
superplasticised RAC (Mix 6 with only RGD) achieved an elastic
with added SP was more pronounced until 90 days for NAC mixes
modulus equal to that of the RAC control mix; while the RAC mix
and 56 days for RAC mixes: thereafter, this difference vanished.
with SP attained the highest modulus of 39 GPa (better than the
The data indicated that the improvement of compressive strength
NAC control mix). However, although the moduli achieved by
of mixes without RGD varied from 10% to 24% and 2% to 16% for
RAC were lower than those for NAC, they remained acceptably stiff.
mixes incorporating 30% RGD; this difference was not deemed
Slender sections need high strength and stiffness; such sections
significant.
are preferable for cost- and space-saving. In this context, it has
Tests on three 100 mm (side length) cubes from Mix 7 (NAC,
been found that the density of 30% RGD concrete enables manufac-
0.8% SP content, 16% water reduction and 30% RGD) yielded an
ture of lighter sections. Combined with increased strength and
early compressive strength of 67 N mm 2 at 7 days. A similar mix
stiffness at the same level of RGD-for-cement replacement (30%),
produced with PFA instead of RGD achieved 50 N mm 2 at the
this indicates potential widespread acceptability and applicability
same age. This indicated improved early strength of this RGD
for this novel recycled concrete.
mix when compared to a similar PFA mix. This is potentially valu-
able in situations where high early strength is needed for rapid
construction or removal of formwork. 4.4. Comparisons to other strength and stiffness estimates
The static modulus of elasticity Es for RGD concrete mixes was
determined from strain-gauged compression tests. A vertical stack The elastic modulus Es is ideally measured directly on a con-
of three dental plaster-jointed 100 mm cubes was subjected to two crete specimen. From an experimental point of view, this is not al-
partial load cycles before crushing at a rate of 180 kN per minute ways straightforward. A concrete’s elastic modulus Es, flexural
and a temperature of 20 °C. The quarter-bridge, 120 X circuit resis- strength rf and tensile strength rt are often estimated using either
tance, 2.10 gauge factor, strain gauges were mounted on the face of theoretical or empirical approaches. Various sources suggest
 S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094 4093

Table 9
Models used to estimate concrete properties from the compressive strength.

Term References Key formula Mix 5 Mix 6 Mix 7 Mix 8

rc = 64.0 N mm 2 rc = 46.0 N mm 2 rc = 72.0 N mm 2 rc = 53.5 N mm 2
Es = 41.4 GPa Es = 28.3 GPa Es = 49.7 GPa Es = 39.0 GPa
rf = 6.15 N mm 2 rf = 7.54 N mm 2 rf = 7.56 N mm 2 rf = 7.30 N mm 2
rt = 4.8 N mm 2 rt = 3.5 N mm 2 rt = 4.6 N mm 2 rt = 3.5 N mm 2
Es (GPa) ACI 318 [2] 4127rc 33.0 n/a 35.0 n/a
1=
CEB-FIP [11] 21.5(0.1rc) 3 39.9 n/a 41.5 n/a
GB 50010 [15] 105/(2.2 + 34.7/rc) 36.5 n/a 37.3 n/a
Dhir et al. [13] 370rc + 13100 n/a 30.1 n/a 32.9
1=
Ravindrarajah et al. [19] 7700(rc) 3 n/a 27.8 n/a 29.0
Xiao et al. [22] 105/(2.8 + 40.1/rc) n/a 27.2 n/a 28.2
Eurocode 2, BSI [7] 22(rc/10)0.3 38.4 34.8 39.8 36.4
rf (N mm 2) ACI 318 [2] 0.54rc 4.32 3.66 4.58 3.95
CEB-FIP [11] 0.81rc 6.49 5.49 6.87 5.92
Xiao et al. [22] 0.75rc n/a 5.10 n/a 5.50
rt (N mm 2) ACI 318 [2] 0.49rc 3.92 n/a 4.16 n/a
2=
CEB-FIP [11] 1.4(0.1rc) 3 4.83 n/a 5.22 n/a
3=
GB 50010 [15] 0.19(rc) 4 4.30 n/a 4.70 n/a
Xiao et al. [22] 0.24(rc)0.65 n/a 2.90 n/a 3.19
Eurocode 2, BSI [7] 2.12 ln(1 + (rc/10)) 4.24 3.24 4.46 3.92

formulae for normal and high strength concrete property predic-
tion and were used [1] on the NA and RA concretes described here-
in. Key results are given in Table 9.
The purpose of the analysis carried out here is to check the con-
formity of the measured properties to those estimated. Results pre-
sented in Table 9 showed that the relationships between rc and Es,
rf and rt for normal and recycled aggregate concretes were not
necessarily valid for NAC and RAC mixes with chemical and/or
mineral admixtures. Further research is recommended for the
development of new prediction models, incorporating the effects
of admixtures.
Meanwhile, in the absence of such models, the appropriate
inter-relationships of the mechanical properties of such concretes
remain best evaluated experimentally. This would thereby encom-
pass the variety of aggregate combinations, regional geologies,
production methods, curing processes, test methods and specific
standards used.
5. Conclusions
Substantial quantities of RGD, estimated at between 1% and 2%
by mass of the total aggregate crushed, are produced in quarries.
This RGD is currently disposed of as waste: its large-scale use as
a cement replacement in concrete mixes could therefore be
beneficial. The RGD’s physical and chemical properties exhibited
similarities to PFA allowing mix design to proceed along
well-established lines. Despite the RGD’s higher silica content
(approximately 61% compared to PFA at approximately 51%), the
RGD was a less reactive material than typical PFAs.
The mechanical properties of RA concretes should be directly
measured on representative samples; the estimation by numerical
formulae may lead to wide variations. The results showed that NA
concretes produced with RGD at 30% cement replacement level
had strengths either comparable to, or better than, equivalent
control mixes, although they were marginally weaker than similar
PFA-based concretes. An equal, or improved, modulus of elasticity
ensued. In the same way, RA aggregate concretes with 30% RGD
showed strengths comparable to equivalent PFA-based concretes:
in these cases a higher elastic modulus was achieved with the RA
concretes.
Concrete mixes containing 30% RGD showed good fresh proper-
ties, better than expected mechanical properties and excellent (al-
beit reddish coloured) surface finish. The concretes produced
covered the range of the design strengths typically required in
structural and civil engineering practice. Concrete with 30% RGD
demonstrated better early age strength than similar PFA-based
concrete. Any RGD addition beyond 30% caused a decrease in
strength, although the mechanical properties remained acceptable
at up to and including 50% RGD-for-cement replacement.
References
[1] Abukersh SA. High quality recycled aggregate concrete. PhD thesis, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh Napier University; 2009.
[2] American Concrete Institute. ACI 318 Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete. Committee for structural concrete, Detroit: Am Concrete
Inst.; 2002.
[3] Beshr H, Almusallam AA, Maslehuddin M. Effect of coarse aggregate quality on
the mechanical properties of high strength concrete. Constr Build Mater
2003;17(2):97–103.
[4] British Geological Survey. Sustainable utilization of quarry by-products.
Keyworth, UK: BGS; 2009. <http://www.sustainableaggregates.com/docs/
revs/t2c_suqbp.pdf>. [accessed 21.02.11].
[5] British Standards Institution. BS 1881-209:1990 Testing concrete.
Recommendations for the measurement of dynamic modulus of elasticity.
London: BSI; 1990.
[6] British Standards Institution. BS EN 206-1:2000 Concrete. Specification,
performance, production and conformity. London: BSI; 2000.
[7] British Standards Institution. EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures. London: BSI; 2004.
[8] British Standards Institution. BS EN 12620:2002 + A1:2008 Aggregates for
concrete. London: BSI; 2002.
[9] British Standards Institution. BS EN 450-1:2005 + A1:2007 Fly ash for concrete.
London: BSI; 2005.
[10] British Standards Institution. BS 8500-2:2006 Concrete. Complementary
standard to BS EN 206-1. Specification for constituent materials and
concrete. London: BSI; 2006.
[11] Comité Euro-International du Béton & Fédération Internationale de la
Précontrainte. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Design Code. London: Thomas
Telford Ltd; 1993.
[12] Dhir RK, Payne KA. Performance related approach to use of recycled
aggregates. Waste & resources action programme Tech. Report AGG 0074,
Banbury: WRAP; 2007.
[13] Dhir RK, Zhu WZ, McCarthy MJ. Use of portland pfa cement in combination
with superplasticizing admixtures. Cem Concr Res 1998;28(9):1209–16.
[14] Freedonia Group Inc. World Construction Aggregates Industry. Rockville,
Maryland, USA: Freedonia Group Inc.; 2009.
[15] Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China. National Standard
GB 50010-2002 Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press; 2002.
[16] Illston JM, Domone PLJ. Construction materials: their nature and behaviour.
3rd ed. London: E & FN Spon; 2001.
[17] Neville AM. Neville on concrete. An examination of issues in concrete
practice. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Am. Concrete Inst. International; 2003.
[18] Portland Cement Association. Cement and concrete basics. PCA on-line. Skokie,
Illinois, USA: PCA <http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_lessonone
c.asp>. [accessed 21.03.11].
[19] Ravindrarajah RS, Steward M, Greco D. Variability of recycled concrete
aggregate and its effect on concrete properties: a case study in Australia. In:
4094 S.A. Abukersh, C.A. Fairfield / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4088–4094

Proceedings of international workshop on recycled concrete. Niigata, Japan;
2000. p. 9–25.
[20] Sonigo P, Hestin M, Mimid S. Management of construction and demolition
waste in the EU. In: Proceedings of stakeholders workshop, Brussels, Belgium;
2010.
[21] Teychenné DC, Franklin RE, Erntroy HC. Design of normal concrete mixes. 2nd
ed. Watford: Building Research Establishment; 1997.
[22] Xiao J-Z, Li J-B, Zhang C. On relationships between the mechanical properties
of recycled aggregate concrete: an overview. Mater Struct 2006;39(6):
655–64.