Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 14 April 2010
Received in revised form 14 July 2010
Accepted 18 July 2010
Available online 17 August 2010
Keywords:
Recycling of materials
Sustainability
Construction and demolition waste
Concrete blocks
Aggregates
Environment
Landll
a b s t r a c t
A study undertaken at the University of Liverpool has investigated the potential for using recycled demolition aggregate in the manufacture of precast concrete building blocks. Recycled aggregates derived from
construction and demolition waste (C&DW) can be used to replace quarried limestone aggregate, usually
used in coarse (6 mm) and ne (4 mm-to-dust) gradings. The manufacturing process used in factories, for
large-scale production, involves a vibro-compaction casting procedure, using a relatively dry concrete
mix with low cement content (100 kg/m3). Trials in the laboratory successfully replicated the manufacturing process using a specially modied electric hammer drill to compact the concrete mix into oversize
steel moulds to produce blocks of the same physical and mechanical properties as the commercial blocks.
This enabled investigations of the effect of partially replacing newly quarried with recycled demolition
aggregate on the compressive strength of building blocks to be carried out in the laboratory. Levels of
replacement of newly quarried with recycled demolition aggregate have been determined that will not
have signicant detrimental effect on the mechanical properties. Factory trials showed that there were
no practical problems with the use of recycled demolition aggregate in the manufacture of building
blocks. The factory strengths obtained conrmed that the replacement levels selected, based on the laboratory work, did not cause any signicant strength reduction, i.e. there was no requirement to increase
the cement content to maintain the required strength, and therefore there would be no additional cost to
the manufacturers if they were to use recycled demolition aggregate for their routine concrete building
block production.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
About 275 million tonnes of new construction aggregates are
extracted annually in the UK. By 2012, if UK demand for aggregates
increases by an expected 1% per annum, an extra 20 million tonnes
of aggregates will be needed each year. About 60% of extracted
aggregate is crushed rock and 40% is sand and gravel [1]. These
are essential materials for buildings and infrastructure but extraction causes signicant environmental damage. Government aims
are to reduce demand for primary aggregates by minimising the
waste of construction materials and maximising the use that is
made of alternatives [2]. An attempt to address the environmental
costs associated with quarrying has been the introduction of the
Aggregates Levy in April 2002 [3].
The inert fraction or core construction and demolition waste
(C&DW), which is essentially the mix of materials obtained when
an item of civil engineering infrastructure is demolished, i.e., the
fraction derived from concrete, bricks and tiles, is well suited to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 151 794 5217; fax: +44 (0) 151 794 5218.
E-mail address: marios@liverpool.ac.uk (M.N. Soutsos).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.07.014
being crushed and recycled as a substitute for newly quarried (primary) aggregates. Although there are many potential uses for recycled demolition aggregate, most are currently used for low-value
purposes such as road sub-base construction, engineering ll, or
landll engineering. However, the costs for crushing the C&DW,
which is estimated to be approximately 7 per tonne [47], is
not recovered when it is sold as road sub-base aggregate. The selling price depends heavily on the demand and can vary between 2
and 4 per tonne. Demolition contractors are still therefore required to include for this difference and pay a recycling plant operator for collecting C&DW from demolition sites. While recycled
demolition aggregate could be used for higher-value uses, potential users are deterred by the perceived risks involved [8]. Needs
have been identied to be:
Increase research and development to improve the quality of
recycled demolition aggregate.
Demonstrate where recycled demolition aggregates are competitive with newly quarried ones. Condence could be built
by identifying, undertaking and monitoring appropriate demonstration projects and disseminating the results [5].
727
728
that the concrete nes could be reduced from 61% to 45% and still get the same texture on the blocks as those made with limestone aggregates. The overall gradings of
the aggregates are shown in Fig. 2.
Both RCA and RMA had very high water absorption, see Table 1, which are similar to the behaviour of man-made lightweight aggregates. A mixing procedure
adopted for making concrete using lightweight aggregates was trialled and found
to be successful when using recycled demolition aggregates, i.e. pre-mixing half
the mix water with the aggregate and then adding the cement and the remaining
water.
Preliminary trials were carried out using standard 150 mm diameter cylinder
moulds and a laboratory vibro-compaction hammer drill, see Fig. 3, to simulate
the industrial technique for making blocks. The texture of the cut surfaces of laboratory specimens, which was in addition to the mechanical properties, was observed to be similar to factory blocks, see Fig. 4, which indicated that the
industrial production technique could be replicated in the laboratory.
After having successfully replicated the industrial block-making procedure in
the laboratory, the replacement of quarried limestone with recycled demolition
aggregate could be investigated. The mix proportions of natural limestone aggregate used by a block making factory, Table 2, had to be converted to volume, re-
Fig. 3. Initial trials in the lab to cast blocks made use of an electric hammer drill and
a cylindrical mould.
Table 1
Water absorptions and densities of aggregates.
Fine limestone
Coarse limestone
Fine masonry
Coarse masonry
Fine concrete
Coarse concrete
2.30
2.24
2.50
2.69
2.67
0.65
2.24
1.90
18.00
2.30
2.11
9.15
2.36
2.01
17.50
2.41
2.22
8.50
729
Fig. 4. Initial trials in the lab aimed at producing blocks with the same texture as those obtained from the factory.
Table 2
Mix proportions used for blocks.
Mix type
Fine aggregate
(4 mm-to-dust)
Total water (kg/m3) Free W/C Density (wet) (kg/m3) Compressive strength
100
120
139
158
177
215
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
100
100
106
106
112
119
0.62
0.50
0.44
0.39
0.35
0.33
2125
2125
2125
2125
2125
2125
7-day
(N/mm2)
28-day
(N/mm2)
7.9
9.1
9.6
11.2
11.9
12.2
8.4
9.6
10.2
11.9
12.6
12.9
Fig. 5. Laboratory mixing, casting and testing the concrete is being squeezed in
the hand to determine its consistency.
28-day mortar-capped blocks and that of 7-day blocks tested with breboard packing on the ends to simplify and speed up the testing procedure, see Fig. 9. This ratio,
which was quoted as 1.06, was also conrmed in the laboratory. All the blocks were
tested at 7-days using breboard end packing and the conversion factor of 1.06 was
used to convert this strength to the equivalent 28-day strength. All the values on
the gures are the equivalent 28-day strengths.
Blocks made with RCA had marginally lower wet densities than
quarried limestone blocks as a result of the volumetric rather than
weight based replacement procedure. For example, a block with
100% replacement of both coarse and ne fractions of limestone
aggregate with RCA, shown as 100C + F in Fig. 10a, had a wet density of 1890 kg/m3 which was lower than the 2125 kg/m3 for a
block with limestone aggregate only. Fig. 10a shows that 100%
replacement of both coarse 6 mm and ne 4 mm-to-dust quarried
limestone aggregate with RCA has a considerable detrimental effect on the compressive strength. The cement content would need
to be increased from 100 kg/m3 to approximately 130 kg/m3 in order for the strength to be at least 7 N/mm2. This was not acceptable
to precast concrete factories as the cost of the additional cement
730
Fig. 8. Laboratory mixing, casting and testing demoulding of the concrete blocks
immediately after casting.
Fig. 10. Compressive strength versus cement content for blocks made with ne and
coarse RCA.
Fig. 9. Laboratory mixing, casting and testing breboard used for testing of
concrete building blocks for compressive strength at 7-days.
731
ne aggregate fraction only with RCA has more of a detrimental effect on strength than the coarse aggregate replacement. The recommendation is therefore to limit the ne aggregate
replacement to less than 30%.
The results from the above mixes have also been plotted as
compressive strength versus watercement ratio and are shown
in Fig. 11. Lower watercement ratios are needed if RCA is to have
the same strength as quarried limestone blocks. Associated with
the lower watercement ratios is an increase in cement content
as it appears that the consistency of the mix depends to a large extent on its free water content, i.e. the free water content needs to
be the same for high and low watercement ratios. This trend relates very well with the design of normal concrete mixes [15].
Fig. 12 shows the compressive strength versus the percentage of
Fig. 12. Strength versus % replacement level of limestone aggregate with coarse and
ne RCA (all mixes had 100 kg/m3 of cement).
replacement of limestone aggregate with coarse and ne concrete-derived aggregates for all the mixes with 100 kg/m3 of cement. It was concluded that reasonable replacement levels would
be 60% for the coarse fraction and 20% for the ne fraction.
4.2. Series II RMA
The replacement of quarried limestone aggregate with RMA has
been investigated independently from RCA. The lower density of
RMA was expected to be problematic. Replacement of limestone
with RMA on an equal weight basis was not possible. The increased
volume of material, resulting from the different densities, could
not be compacted into a block of the required dimensions. Replacement again had to be on a volumetric basis, rather than weight, in
order to take into account the different densities of the materials.
Fig. 13 shows that 100% replacement of either the coarse 6 mm
or/and the ne 4 mm-to-dust quarried limestone aggregate with
RMA had a considerable detrimental effect on the compressive
strength. However, a lower percentage replacement of either the
coarse or ne fraction showed only a small detrimental effect. This
is also apparent in Fig. 14, which shows the compressive strength
versus watercement ratio. It appears from this graph that there is
a greater detrimental effect at the higher watercement ratios, i.e.,
with low cement contents. This detrimental effect decreases with
decreasing watercement ratios, i.e. increasing cement contents.
The high percentage of water absorption of recycled aggregate
and the difculty in measuring this accurately may have contributed
to the curves of strength versus watercement ratio being so close
together for replacement levels up to 60%. The true effect of replacing quarried limestone with RMA can be seen in Fig. 15. It appears
that the detrimental effect varies almost linearly with the percentage replacement level. However, up to a 20% replacement level by
coarse and ne RMA aggregate can be recommended as it can still
produce blocks with compressive strengths above 7 N/mm2.
4.3. Series III combined coarse and ne fraction replacement
Fig. 11. Compressive strength versus watercement ratio for blocks made with ne
and coarse RCA.
The decision was taken on the basis of the results of Series I and
II mixes to focus on a mix where, in the case of RCA, the coarse
732
Fig. 13. Compressive strength versus cement content for coarse and ne fraction
replacement (%) of limestone with RMA.
Fig. 14. Compressive strength versus watercement ratio for coarse and ne
fraction replacement (%) of limestone aggregate with RMA.
fraction of quarried limestone be replaced by 60% but the ne fraction be replaced by 30% instead of 20%. The corresponding replacement levels for RMA were 20% and 20% for ne and coarse
fractions. These percentage replacement levels were based on
mixes that had either the coarse or the ne fraction replaced but
not both. It was therefore necessary to investigate the effect of
varying the percentage of ne fraction replacement for a mix that
already had either 60% or 20% of the coarse fraction replaced with
RCA and RMA aggregate, respectively.
Fig. 16 shows that the effect of increasing replacement level of
ne fraction has a similar detrimental effect on the 60% coarse RCA
mix as it did if all the coarse aggregate was limestone. The similar-
733
strength. Consistency of mechanical properties of concrete building blocks may as a consequence of the variability of supplied recycled aggregate be also affected. The mix using 60% and 30% RCA
replacement of the coarse and ne fractions was selected as the
control mix. It was then assumed that the coarse and ne RCA fractions were contaminated with RMA. Fig. 17 shows that increasing
percentage of RMA in the RCA does have a detrimental effect. Despite the scatter of results it can be concluded that the percentage
of masonry should be limited to 10%. This is also the amount of masonry permitted in recycled aggregate if it is to be classied as
concrete-derived aggregates RCA in BS 8500 Guidance for EN
206-1 [8].
4.5. Series V factory trials
Fig. 15. Strength versus % replacement level of limestone aggregate with coarse and
ne RMA (all mixes had 100 kg/m3 of cement).
Fig. 16. Strength versus % of ne fraction replacement in 60% coarse RCA and 20%
coarse RMA mixes.
on the strength, and that the detrimental effect is mainly due to the
ne fraction.
4.4. Series IV contamination by RMA in RCA
Structures are commonly constructed using concrete structural
elements but with masonry cladding. Complete separation of the
concrete and masonry prior to demolition may not be possible if
contract deadlines are to be adhered to. The Industrial Collaborators expressed concern about the homogeneity of the recycled
demolition aggregate. Contamination of RCA with RMA is a concern
since RMA has been shown to have a greater detrimental effect on
734
Table 3
Mix proportions and compressive strengths of blocks cast during factory trials.
Mix type
L1
Cement (kg/m3)
Coarse aggregate
(kg/m3)
Limestone
RCAe RMA
Limestone
RCA RMA
93.59
L2
151.03
L3
209.56
L4
92.76
L5
158.51
L6
215.98
L7
92.93
L8
158.43
L9
211.80
Fine aggregate
(kg/m3)
471.30
669.62
808.66
0
444.45
762.59
0
435.64
747.48
0
0
0
631.47
0
0
618.96
0
0
1129.88
0
0
1103.30
0
0
1061.99
0
0
651.98
254.81
0
636.65
248.82
0
612.81
239.50
0
791.44
852.21
0
157.36
778.46
0
154.78
731.29
0
145.40
0
201.24
838.24
0
197.94
787.45
0
185.95
Free water
(kg/m3)
Free W/C
Density
(wet) (kg/m3)
Compressive
strength (N/mm2)
7-Day
28-Day
7-Day
28-Day
211.42
2.26
1967
1917
7.9
10.1
179.76
1.19
1888
1849
9.6
11.5
181.97
0.87
1880
1852
11.2
14.5
149.47
1.61
1971
1935
7.7
10.0
143.89
0.91
1955
1906
12.4
13.4
136.52
0.63
1961
1927
13.4
16.6
135.10
1.45
1894
1874
7.0
9.3
138.98
0.88
1932
1892
12.2
13.9
143.91
0.68
1911
1886
15.7
16.7
735
this project. The authors would also like to thank the following
industrial collaborators for their assistance with the project: Clean
Merseyside Centre, Marshalls Ltd, Forticrete Ltd, Liverpool City
Council, Liverpool Housing Action Trust (LHAT), Cemex Ltd, WF
Doyle & Co. Ltd. and DSM Demolition Ltd. However, the views given in this discussion are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funders, regulatory bodies or commercial
interests.
References
Fig. 18. Twenty-eight day strengths of factory blocks made with recycled demolition aggregate.
[1] Ofce of the Deputy Prime Minister. Planning for the supply of aggregates in
England; 2000. <http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/
documents/pdf/odpm_plan_pdf_605804.pdf> [accessed 15.05.09].
[2] HM treasury. Budget report. Building a Britain of economic strength and social
justice; 2003. <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/bud_bud03/budget_
report/bud_bud03_repchap7.cfm> [accessed 15.05.09].
[3] HM treasury. Summary of responses to the consultation on the objectives of
the sustainability fund under the aggregates levy package; 2000. <http://www.
hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/summary_of_responses_
for_the_sustainability_fund_under_the_aggregates_levy_package_consultation/
consult_susfund_index.cfm> [accessed 24.08.09].
[4] Soutsos MN, Millard SG, Bungey JH, Jones, N, Tickell RG, Gradwell J. The use of
recycled construction and demolition waste in the manufacture of precast
concrete building blocks. In: Proc of the inst of civ eng, engineering
sustainability; September 2004. p. 13948.
[5] Soutsos MN, Millard SG, Bungey JH. Concrete building blocks made with
recycled demolition aggregate, vol. 4. Concrete Plant International; 2006. p.
707 [August].
[6] Soutsos MN, Tang KK, Millard SG, Bungey JH, Tickell G. Precast concrete
products made with recycled demolition aggregate, vol. 74. BFT (Concrete
Plant + Precast Technology) International; 2008. p. 3245 [2006/2008 June].
[7] Soutsos MN, Millard SG, Bungey JH. Precast concrete products made with
recycled demolition aggregate. 12th ed. Institute of concrete technology,
yearbook 20072008; 2007. p. 93103.
[8] BSI. BS 8500-2: 2006 Complementary British standard to BS EN 206-1.
Specication for constituent materials and concrete. London: British Standards
Institution (BSI); 2006.
[9] Dhir RK, Limbachiya MC, Leelawat T. Suitability of recycled concrete aggregate
for use in BS 5328 designated mixes. In: Proc instn civ engrs structs & bldgs,
vol. 134; 1999. p. 25774.
[10] Gradwell J, Tickell RG, Millard SG, Soutsos MN, Bungey JH, Jones N.
Determining the economic viability of precast concrete products made with
recycled construction and demolition waste. In: International conference:
sustainable waste management and recycling: challenges and opportunities.
London: Kingston University; September 2004. p. 295302.
[11] Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). Construction statistics annual;
2003. <http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/stats/constat2003.pdf> [accessed
15.05.09].
[12] Clover C. Prescotts bulldozers ready to demolish Victorian terraces; 2006.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/29/
npres29.xml> [accessed 15.05.09].
[13] 4sight project research. Rocks to rubble building a sustainable region; 2006.
<http://www.biffaward.org/downloads/projectles/1127-474.pdf> [accessed
15.05.06].
[14] Government Ofce for the North West. Regional waste strategy for the north
west draft for consultation; 2003. <http://set.iarna.co.uk/afs/downloads/
documents/rws_summary.pdf> [accessed 15.05.06].
[15] Teychenn DC, Franklin RE, Erntroy HC. Design of normal concrete mixes. 2nd
ed. Building Research Establishment; 1997.