Use of Recycled Wash Water and
Returned Plastic Concrete in the
Production of Fresh Concrete
Jeff Borger, Ramon L. Carrasquillo, and David W. Fowler
Nicol & Holland Associates, Inc., Denver, Colorado; and Civil Engineering Department, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
The disposal of leftover concrete and wash water from ready-mix
concrete trucks is becoming an increasingly greater environmental
concern. The first concern is over the amount of waste water that is
generated in cleaning these trucks. The second concern is what
effect, if any, these materials, which are considered hazardous by the
EPA, might have when surface bodies of water and ground water
become contaminated. This research project investigated the poten-
tial for recycling these waste concrete materials for the production of
fresh concrete and mortar. A relatively new stabilizing admixture
was also investigated as an aid in the recycling process. The result-
ing mortar was tested for compressive strength, sulfate resistance,
workability, and setting time. ADVANCEDCEMENTBASEDMA-
TERIALS1994, 1, 267--274
KEY WORDS: EPA, Plastic concrete, Recycling, Setting
time, Stabilizing admixtures, Strength, Sulfate resistance,
Wash water, Workability
he disposal of w a s h water from concrete
ready-mix trucks is becoming an increasingly
greater problem. In the past, it was possible to
dispose of leftover concrete and truck wash water in
vacant lots, storm sewers, ready-mix plant yards, or at
the construction site. When an empty 10 cubic yard
ready-mix truck returns to the batch plant from the
construction site, there is still approximately 600 lb. of
concrete adhering to the inside of the drum and mixing
blades. It takes approximately 150 to 300 gallons of
water to wash this concrete out before it hardens inside
the drum [1]. It is estimated that 21,000,000 cubic yards
of concrete are batched each year in Texas, requiring
105,000,000 gallons of cleaning water; this is enough
water to furnish the annual needs of a city of 5500
people. On a national level, approximately 247,000,000
cubic yards of concrete are produced annually, requir-
Address correspondence to: Ramon L. Carrasquillo, Construction Materials Re-
search Group, The University of Texas, 10100 Burner Road, Building 18B, Austin,
Texas 78758.
© Elsevier Science Inc.
ISSN 1065-7355/94/$7.00
ing 1,240,000,000 gallons of cleaning water. The water
that is discharged out of the truck contains fine cement
particles, sand, gravel, and chemical admixtures. This
water is caustic and has a pH high enough to be con-
sidered hazardous under the EPA's definition of cor-
rosivity [1]. The obvious environmental concern is the
effect this water has on the ground water and on all
surface bodies of water that become contaminated.
Concrete waste materials can be toxic to aquatic organ-
isms and degrade the water for drinking and recreation
[21.
There are basically four options for disposing un-
used concrete and wash water for ready-mix produc-
ers: at the ready-mix plant yard, at the construction
site, at a landfill, or at a reclamation unit. The first two
options are becoming limited because of the 1987 revi-
sions to the Clean Water Act. In addition to point
sources of water pollution, these revisions include dif-
fuse sources of water pollution such as storm water
runoff from ready-mix plant yards and construction
sites. Since October 1, 1992, all ready-mix plant yards
and construction sites have been required to obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [6] per-
mit. This includes monitoring storm water that leaves
the yard, and installing any necessary control systems
that will reduce the level of pollutants in the water. A
third way to dispose of the waste materials is to de-
posit them at an authorized landfill or disposal site.
However, with the development of environmental reg-
ulations and the increased demand on landfill, the
availability of authorized disposal sites has decreased
significantly over the last 15 years. Finally, a ready-mix
truck can dispose of wash water and leftover concrete
at a wash-out pit, or a mechanical reclaiming unit.
These options require a high capital investment and
are expensive and labor intensive to maintain.
Research Significance
It is clear that dwindling options will force concrete
producers to find alternative ways of disposing of their
Received June 30, 1993
Accepted March 8, 1994
268 Borger et al.
waste materials. One option is to recycle. In the past,
wash water from reclamation units has been used suc-
cessfully to produce n e w concrete. There are n e w
chemical additives on the market that can preserve
wash water and returned plastic concrete for several
days prior to being used in the production of new con-
crete. This method has the advantage that all waste
concrete and wash water can be reused, whereas rec-
lamation units or wash-out pits can return only the
water. These stabilizing admixtures are expensive,
costing approximately $11 per gallon, not including the
cost of computing dosage rates. However, they can
prove to be cost effective to concrete producers by re-
using 600 lb. of concrete material per truck per deliv-
ery, or when used in areas of the country where any
other method of disposal is too expensive.
Background Information
Up until the time when stabilizing admixtures were
introduced, little or no research on the immediate use
of recycled ready-mix truck wash water or returned
plastic concrete in the production of fresh concrete had
been performed. However, if the technology needed
for the use of these recycled materials becomes feasi-
ble, the performance of the resulting concrete will need
to be evaluated.
Much of the past research on the use of mix water in
concrete has been focused on what effect various min-
erals, salts, or other impurities in the water have on the
properties and performance of fresh and hardened
concrete. In 1925, Abrams tested 68 different water
samples for use as mix water in the production of con-
crete [3]. Over 6000 tests were performed to determine
each water sample's effect on strength, time of set,
flow, and soundness of the resulting concrete. Abrams
claimed that the best indication of the quality of the
mixing water was the 28-day strength of the concrete.
He also reported that mix water is generally acceptable
if it contains fewer than 6000 parts per million (ppm) of
total dissolved solids. Wash water can carry cement
particles and other pieces of aggregate as a fine in sus-
pension for several minutes before these settle out.
The wash water can also carry chemical and mineral
admixtures that have been dissolved in the water, re-
suiting in a large amount of total dissolved solids.
Therefore, the use of wash water in the production of
concrete, especially minutes after it is discharged by
the ready-mix truck, should be investigated to deter-
mine if the properties of the concrete are affected. The
Portland Cement Association (PCA) recommends that
up to 50,000 p p m of total solids can be tolerated when
returned wash water is used to make fresh concrete
[4]. Other research also suggests that strength and set
Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994;1:267-274
time are the only factors that need to be investigated
when using a suspect mix water. More recently, how-
ever, problems of concrete soundness and durability
have been investigated. The PCA states that, "Exces-
sive impurities in mixing water not only may affect
setting time and concrete strength, but also may cause
efflorescence, staining, corrosion of reinforcement,
volume instability, and reduced durability" [4]. Fi-
nally, workability can also become a concern since the
water is carrying a large quantity of fines, including
cement particles, mineral admixtures, and fine aggre-
gate. Water demand may increase to achieve consis-
tent workability among batches of concrete. The work-
ability may also be affected by the residual effects of
chemical admixtures such as superplasticizers and air
entraining agents that are transferred from one batch
of concrete to another by the use of recycled wash
water. These concerns are further complicated by the
fact that the concentrations of the fines and the chem-
ical admixtures are not known and can vary depending
on how much water is used to clean out the ready-mix
trucks.
Stabilizing admixture systems were introduced in
1988 and are now primarily marketed by Master Build-
ers Technologies under the trademark Delvo, and by
Grace Concrete Products under the trademark Recov-
ery. These systems consist of two phases: stabilization
and activation. The stabilization phase slows or stops
the hydration of the individual cement grains. The sta-
bilizing admixture acts like a high-range retarder, and
depending on the dosage, can keep concrete from set-
ting indefinitely. It differs from a conventional re-
tarder, however, because it also prevents the hydra-
tion of the tricalcium aluminates (C3A), whereas a con-
ventional retarder does not. The activation phase
allows the hydration process to proceed normally. The
activating admixture acts as an antidote for the stabi-
lizing admixture and neutralizes the retarding effect.
Essentially, the activator is an accelerator, and typically
any accelerator can be used as an antidote for the sta-
bilizer. With the use of the stabilizing and activating
admixtures, the dynamics of the cement hydration in
concrete can be controlled for any desired period of
time. Preliminary tests and field studies show that the
physical properties of stabilized/activated concrete,
such as strength, freeze-thaw durability, creep, and
corrosion resistance, were as good as or better than
those of the control untreated concrete [1].
The stabilizing admixture, when added to the con-
crete, prevents further hydration of the cement grains
by forming a protective barrier around the cement
grains. The stabilizing admixture also acts as a surface
agent, dispersing the cement grains and preventing
them from flocculating. Other cementitious materials,
such as fly ash and blast slag, are also prevented from
Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994;1:267-274
hydrating. W h e n the treated concrete is ready to be
used again, the activating admixture is added. The ac-
tivator breaks d o w n the protective barrier on the ce-
ment particles, and w h e n the stabilized concrete is
combined with fresh concrete, normal hydration con-
tinues.
The dosages of stabilizer and activator depend on
several factors, including the type of application, the
desired length of stabilization, the age of the concrete,
the cement content in the concrete, the desired set time
after activation, other admixtures in the concrete, and
concrete temperature. Preliminary dosage rates are de-
termined by the admixture manufacturer's representa-
tive. Actual dosage rates should always be determined
from trial batches.
There are many applications for stabilizing admix-
tures. The system was originally developed for over-
night and weekend stabilization of returned plastic
concrete, but many n e w applications, including stabi-
lization of ready-mix truck wash water, have also been
developed. When a ready-mix truck returns to the
batch plant, it often carries leftover concrete. By utiliz-
ing stabilizing admixtures, the leftover concrete can be
held overnight without setting and then reused in the
next day's batch. The stabilizing admixture is added to
the leftover concrete, and it is thoroughly mixed. In the
morning, the activating admixture is then added to
restore the stabilized concrete before any fresh con-
crete is batched on top. The resulting concrete is sim-
ilar to the old concrete in terms of set, strength, and
workability characteristics. Other applications for sta-
bilizing admixtures include stabilization of ready-mix
truck wash water, same-day stabilization of returned
plastic concrete, long-haul applications, truck break-
downs/traffic jams, reused concrete from p u m p lines,
and concrete temperature control.
Experimental Program
Introduction
The main purpose of this project was to find out if the
use of recycled wash water and returned plastic con-
crete was feasible in the production of new concrete.
Because there is little or no information available on
the topic being studied, the testing program was per-
formed in such a w a y as to build on the results of the
previous tests. The investigation [5] s t u d i e d the
strength, setting time, workability, and sulfate resis-
tance of mortars that incorporated recycled wash wa-
ter. These tests made up about one half of the main test
program. The other half of the test program dealt with
stabilizing and activating admixtures and their use in
controlling the hydration dynamics of a mortar.
Use of Recycled Wash Water 269
Materials
All materials used in this test program are commer-
cially available and currently used in the production of
Portland cement concrete in Texas. The materials used
include ASTM type I-II and type III Portland cements,
siliceous river sand with a bulk specific gravity at sat-
urated surface dry conditions of 2.58 and an absorption
capacity of 0.99%, and stabilizing and activating ad-
mixtures.
Mix Proportions
The mix proportions for the mortars utilizing the recy-
cled wash water were those presented in ASTM C109;
namely, a 1:2.75 cement:sand mix by weight with a
0.485 water:cement ratio by weight. For the mortar sta-
bilization and activation segment of the experiment, a
low cement content mix having a 450:1100 cement:
sand ratio by weight, and a high cement content mix
having a 650:1100 cement:sand ratio by weight were
used. Both mix proportions used a water:cement ratio
of 0.43 by weight. Pastes used for setting time tests
were made with a water:cement ratio of 0.29 b y
weight, unless stated otherwise. No correlation was
observed between the set time measured using paste
samples and the mortar set times.
Procedure
MORTARS INCORPORATING RECYCLED WASN WATER. T o simu-
late wash water from ready-mix trucks, 32 batches of
controlled wash water were made. Only cement and
water were used to simulate the wash water. The three
variables considered were cement particle concentra-
tion, cement type, and wash water age. Table 1 shows
sample combinations of wash water that were made.
The two different water:cement ratios used were de-
termined by what was considered to be representative
w a s h w a t e r discharged from a ready-mix truck;
namely, five parts water to one part cement and ten
parts water to one part cement by weight.
To prepare the wash water, the cement and water
were mixed for 5 minutes, allowed to sit for 3 minutes,
and then mixed again for 5 minutes. The resulting
TABLE 1. Wash water used in preparing mortars
Cement
Type
Mix (ASTM Water:Cement Wash Water
Designation C150) Ratio (by Wt) Age
SA-02,03 II 5.0 15 min, 24 h
SA-04,05 II 10.0 15 min, 24 h
SA-07,08 III 5.0 15 min, 24 h
SA-09,10 III 10.0 15 min, 24 h
270 Borger et al.
wash water was then allowed to sit for 15 minutes, at
which time it was agitated once more, and half of it
was used to mix a cement paste and a batch of mortar.
The paste was used for set tests using a Vicat needle,
while the mortar was used to make the 3 x 6 inch
cylinders used for 3, 7, and 28 day strength tests and
the 1 × 1 x 11.25 inch mortar bar prisms used for the
sulfate resistance tests. This procedure was repeated
for the other half of the wash water after it had been
allowed to sit for 24 hours. Control pastes and mortars
made with tap water and ASTM type II and type III
cements were also prepared as references. For each
mortar batch, nine cylinder molds were filled accord-
ing to ASTM C192-88, and vibrated on a vibrating table
for 10 seconds. The mortar cylinders were cured by
covering with wet burlap and polyethylene for 24
hours and then transferred to the moist curing room
for the remainder of the test period. Also, six mortar
bar molds were filled and cured according to ASTM
C1012. This procedure was used to test mortars mixed
with wash water added at 15 minutes and 24 hours
after it had been mixed. Another test program, identi-
cal to the one outlined above, was used to test mortars
made with wash water of different ages, namely, 1, 2,
4, 8, 24, and 48 hours, to evaluate the effect of a
broader range of times of addition on the properties of
the resulting mortars.
STABILIZATION/ACTIVATIONSIMULATIONS. The second phase
of the testing program dealt with the stabilization and
activation of mortar. First of all, set charts were devel-
oped to determine dosages of stabilizer required to
keep the mortar from setting for a desired period of
time. Secondly, the stabilization and activation of re-
turned plastic concrete was simulated using the dosage
of stabilizer determined from the set charts.
To prepare the set charts, 450 and 650 lb. cement
mortar mixes were produced. Enough mortar was
batched to make five setting time test specimens for
each of the five dosages of stabilizer used: 0, 10, 20, 30,
and 40 oz./cwt of cement. A second batch of mortar
was mixed and the procedure outlined above was fol-
lowed, with the exception that the mortar was allowed
to sit for I hour in the mixing drug before being dosed
with the stabilizer. This was again repeated for a third
batch of mortar that was allowed to sit for 2 hours
before being dosed. To simulate the agitation of a
ready-mix truck drum in the field, these two batches of
mortar were mixed every 15 minutes for I and 2 hours,
respectively, before being dosed with the stabilizer.
The set time of each specimen was measured by pen-
etration resistance, as outlined in ASTM C403. The set-
ting times of each specimen were recorded and plotted
as a function of the dosage of the stabilizer and the age
of the mortar. The mix specimens containing 650 lb. of
Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994;1:267-274
cement and over 20 oz. of stabilizer did not set, and the
test procedure was repeated using lower stabilizer dos-
ages, namely, 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 oz./cwt of cement.
A plan to simulate an overnight stabilization of re-
turned plastic concrete was developed. A 450 lb. ce-
ment mix that was 2 hours old was chosen to be sta-
bilized overnight or at about 14 hours after initial
batching, and then activated. The following time
schedule was followed: (1) At 3:00 p.m., the original
mortar was mixed and then agitated every 15 minutes
for 2 hours. (2) At 5:00 p.m., the stabilizer was added
and the mortar was thoroughly mixed for 5 minutes.
(3) At 7:00 a.m. the following morning, the accelerator
was added and fresh mortar was batched on top of the
original mortar.
The stabilizer dosage used was 35 oz./cwt of cement.
After the stabilizer was added, the mortar was divided
into four samples. Each sample was covered and al-
lowed to sit until the next morning. At that time, each
sample was dosed with 0, 5, 10, or 25 oz./cwt acceler-
ator. These dosages were based on the amount of ce-
ment in the stabilized mortar only. Fresh mortar, in the
amount of 2.5 times by weight of the original mortar,
was batched on top. A penetration resistance setting
time test specimen and nine 3 x 6 in. cylinders were
made from each activated mortar batch. Set times were
recorded and plotted as a function of accelerator dos-
age and compared with the control mix set times.
Compressive strength of the cylinders was determined
at 3, 7, and 28 days and was compared with the control
mixes. A flow history, or a record of the flow measured
at various times, was also plotted as a function of time
throughout the stabilization/activation procedure. The
procedure outlined above was repeated for two more
450 lb. cement mortar mixes using activator dosages of
0, 25, 50, and 75 oz./cwt and 0, 50, 100, and 150 oz./cwt
cement, respectively, and for two 650 lb. cement mixes
utilizing a stabilizer dosage of 20 oz./cwt and activator
dosages of O, 5, 10, and 25 oz./cwt and O, 50, 100, and
150 oz./cwt of cement, respectively. For activator dos-
ages above 50 oz./cwt, the activator was added as a
volume replacement of the mix water to achieve con-
sistent workabilities among batches.
Test Results
Mortars Incorporating Recycled Wash Water
Typical strength results for mortars utilizing recycled
wash water added at 1, 2, 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours are
shown in Figure 1. Typical mortar bar expansions for
these mortars are shown in Figure 2 and typical flows
for these mortars are shown in Figure 3. Typical setting
times for pastes utilizing recycled wash water added at
15 minutes and 24 hours are shown in Figure 4.
Advn Cem Bas Mat Use of Recycled Wash Water 271
1994;1:267-274

Stabilization~Activation Simulations 0.35

WASHWATERAGE
A typical stabilizer dosage chart for a 450-lb. cement 0.3
• 1HR
mortar mix is shown in Figure 5 and a typical activator A 0.25 -..--c---- 2 HR
dosage chart for a 450 lb. cement mix dosed with 35 .~ 0.2
e 4HR

oz./cwt of stabilizer is shown in Figure 6. The compres-

sive strength and flow history of these mixes is shown ~ 0.15 •¢ 24 HR
- ~ - 48 HR
in Figures 7 and 8. Similar trends were noted for mixes "~ 0,1 .......o-- .. CONTROLII ......................

that contained 650 lb. cement. 0.05

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Discussion E X P O S U R E TIME, WEEK8

FIGURE 2. Mortar bar expansion for type II cement mortars

Mortars Incorporating Recycled Wash Water
The strengths of mortars containing wash water added
up to a time of 4 hours after it had been prepared were
similar to or higher than that of the type II control
strength, as shown in Figure 1. For a wash water age in
excess of 4 hours, strength was reduced, and in some
instances fell lower than the strength of the type II
control. The greatest strength gains were obtained for
a wash water age of about 2 hours, while the lowest
strengths were obtained at times of addition of 24 and
48 hours. This increase in strength for earlier wash
water ages can be explained by a reduction of the ef-
fective w:c ratio and an increased cement content of
the mixture. Using a weighted average of the cement
in the mixture and the cement contributed by the 5.0
w:c wash water, the effective w:c ratio was calculated
to be 0.374 instead of the prescribed w:c ratio of 0.485.
There is no apparent explanation for the reduction in
strength for mortars made with wash water added at
24 and 48 hours. Perhaps some of the hydrated cement
particles in the wash water could have interfered with
the normal hydration process of the cement in the
fresh mortar.
In general, mortar bar expansions for all mixes in-
corporating recycled wash water were less than or
equal to the type II control mortar mix made with tap
made with wash water containing a type II cement at 5.0 w:c
ratio.
water, indicating that the use of wash water may in-
crease concrete resistance to sulfate attack, as shown in
Figure 2. It is possible that the permeability may have
been reduced due to the added cementitious material
of the mixture. The wash water age had the greatest
effect on the sulfate resistance of the mortars. The ear-
lier the wash water age, and hence the higher the ef-
fective cementitious material in the mortar mixture, the
more resistant the mortar was to sulfate attack. This
was true even when a high C3A content type III ce-
ment was used in the wash water.
The mortar seemed to be the stiffest for times of
addition between 2 and 4 hours, or when the cement
particles in the wash water were most reactive, as
shown in Figure 3. It returned to normal consistency
after 8 hours, or when the cement particles were al-
most fully hydrated and could no longer contribute
any stiffness to the mortar. Before 8 hours, the w:c
ratio was effectively reduced, thereby reducing the
flow. After 8 hours, there was very little cement in the
wash water, and the flow returned to a normal consis-
tency.
Most setting times were within 20% of the control
paste setting times, as shown in Figure 4. In general,

8000 (CONTROL II STRENGTH) (6270) W i s h Water Age

140
130
~ 6000 []2HR
120
E 5000 B4HR

~
110
4000 BB8HR 100
W 3000 [ ] 24 HR 90
5.0 w/c
2000 [ ] 48HR 80
10.0 w/c
t(:00 70

0 60 ...... CONTROL II

3 7 28 50
TEST AGE, DAYS 40
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
FIGURE 1. Compressive strength of type II cement mortars AGE OF WASH WATER, HOURS
made with wash water containing a type II cement at 5.0 w:c
ratio. FIGURE3. Flow for mortars made with a type II wash water.
272 Borger et al. Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994;1:267-274

1411

~ - 120

WI

~ 20

0
CEMENT~fPE - - - ~ II II II II III III III III @
CONC~ITRATICN~I~ a5.0 QS.0 Q10.0 @10,0 @5.0 @5.0 @10.0 10.0
AGE • 15MIN 24HR 10MIN 24HR 15MIN 24HR 15MIN 24HR
WASH WATER

FIGURE 4. Set times of pastes made with wash water added at 15 minutes and 24
hours.

setting times of pastes made with wash water added at was about 120 oz./cwt. This dosage may seem extreme,
24 hours set sooner than the pastes made with wash but the stabilizer manufacturer recommends that dos-
water added at 15 minutes, although the difference ages up to 150 oz./cwt are allowable.
was not significant. In all tests, the strength of the stabilized/activated
mortars equaled or exceeded the strength of the con-
Stabilization~Activation Simulations trol batch, as shown in Figure 7. Even when no acti-
The stabilizing admixture performed as expected. De- vator was used in the mixture, the compressive
pending on the dosage of stabilizer, the mortar could strength was still improved. This indicates that the use
be kept from setting for any desired period of time. of the stabilizer alone, without any activator, can in-
However, above a certain dosage of stabilizing admix- crease the compressive strength. When the activator
ture the mortar would not set at all, as shown in Figure was used, further increases in strength were noted.
5. In general, the mortars that were allowed to sit for a However, these further increases in strength do not
longer period of time before being dosed needed more seem to be dependent on activator dosage rate; higher
stabilizer than the mortars that were dosed immedi- activator dosages did not always result in higher
ately upon batching. This can be explained by the more strength. Finally, there were no adverse effects of high
advanced degree of hydration of the older mortars. dosages of activator on compressive strength.
When activating the mortar, there was a general In all cases, the resulting mortar had a similar flow to
trend that the set times decreased with increased dos- the original mortar, indicating that the workability was
ages of activator, as shown in Figure 6. For the 450 lb. not affected by the stabilization/activation process, as
cement mortar mix, the activator dosage that produced
a mortar with a similar set time as the control mortar
9 ~ INITIALSET

8
160.00 - - " -
T E M P E R A T U R E RANGE 23-27 DEG C AGEOF MORTARAT 7
14000 STABILIZATION
~p, = NO SET FOR DOSAGES ~- I 0 HR {~NITIAL)
g.
A
120.00
100.00
BEYOND THIS POINT ~ ..... ~ ~4)~
" ~1HR(INITIAL)
N'
80.00 L • 2 HR (INITIAL)

3
60.00
2
40.00
1
20.00 TEMPERATUR~RANGE 22-231DEGC I I I I I
0
0.00 i - T , i ---', 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 160
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ACTIVATOR DO6AGE (OZ/CWT)

D O S A G E OF S T A B I L I Z E R ( o z / c w t cement)
FIGURE 6. Set times of a 450 lb. cement stabilized activated
FIGURE 5. Initial set times for a 450 lb. cement mortar mix. mortar mix.
Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994; 1:267-274
3 7
OtLy
FIGURE 7. Compressive strength of a stabilized/activated 450
lb. mortar mix.
shown in Figure 8. The flow was increased when the
stabilizer was added because of the additional liquid in
the mixture. When the mortar was activated, the flow
was either increased or decreased. The flow character-
istics upon activation of the stabilized mortar were
probably dominated by the flow of the fresh mortar
batched on top. But the dosage of activator was also a
factor. In general, the flow for mortars containing
higher activator dosages was larger than for mortars
containing lower activator dosages.
Conclusions
The following conclusions for the use of recycled wash
water as mix water based on this study were made:
1. Wash water can be successfully used in produc-
ing fresh concrete, even immediately upon being
discharged from the ready-mix truck.
2. In this study, the age of the wash water had the
greatest effect on strength. 28-day strength was
increased up to 20% when wash water was used
as the mix water. Generally, strength was in-
140
130 ¸
~120
110 ACTIVATOR O(~SAGE
100 ~ STABILIZER ADOED ~ 00Z
90 ~ 50,100,1500Z
80 I q q I
2 4 6 8
TiME (HR)
FIGURE 8. Flow history for a stabilized/activated 450 lb. ce-
ment mortar mix.
Use of Recycled Wash Water 273
creased when ages of wash water of 8 hours or
less were incorporated into a mortar mix.
3. The increase in strength was determined to be
due to the reduced effective w:c ratio and an in-
crease in cement content of the mix. Two notable
exceptions to this were mixes that yielded re-
duced strengths of 13 and 20%, respectively. The
loss in strength may have been due to the phys-
ical interference of the normal hydration process
caused by the wash water solids, even though no
26
significant effect on set time was noticed.
4. In general, the use of wash water increased the
sulfate resistance of the mortar. This was the case
even when a high C3A type III cement was used
in the wash water because the added amount of
C3A was relatively small.
5. The permeability of the resultant mortar mixtures
was reduced due to the increased cement content
of the entire mix.
6. Setting times were accelerated or retarded by as
much as 25% when wash water was used as the
mix water.
7. Workability was significantly affected up to a
wash water age of about 8 hours. The earlier
times of addition resulted in much stiffer mortars
due to the increased cement content of the mix.
After 8 hours, however, the cement particles had
settled out and the mortar returned to normal
consistency.
8. It is recommended that trial mixes be made with
any wash water to determine its suitability for
use in concrete.
The following conclusions for the use of stabilizing
and activating admixtures as an aid in the recycling of
leftover concrete can be made:
1. The hydration of cement could be controlled by
the use of stabilizing and activating admixtures.
2. It is recommended that consistent setting times
and workabilities be the primary factors w h e n
determining initial stabilizer and activator dos-
ages. The compressive strength can be tested
last, since an increase in strength can almost al-
l
ways be expected.
3. It was found that compressive strength remained
the same or was increased when a stabilizing ad-
mixture was used in the mix.
~I ~ .ACTIVATO R +
4. It was found that very high activator dosages
FRESH MORTAR
ADDED
were required to achieve a setting time similar to
the control mix.
I I I I I
10 12 14 16 18 20 5. High dosages of activator up to 150 oz./cwt did
not adversely affect the strength.
6. The final workability of a stabilized/activated
mortar was similar to the workability of the orig-
274 Borger et al.
inal mortar. W h e n activator dosages greater than
50 oz./cwt are used, it is r e c o m m e n d e d that the
activator be a d d e d as a v o l u m e replacement of
the mix water. Since high dosages of activator
were u s e d in this study, w a t e r c o m p e n s a t i o n
n e e d e d to be m a d e to achieve consistent work-
abilities.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the University of Texas at Austin and the
Texas Advanced Technology Program for their support of this proj-
ect. Thanks are also due to A1Pinelli of Master Builders Technologies
for supplying the stabilizing admixture and for his advice through-
out this project.
Advn Cem Bas Mat
1994;1:267-274
References
1. Master Builders Technologies Research and Develop-
ment. Technical Report No. 128--Delvo System. Master
Builders, Inc., Admixture Division: Cleveland, 1988.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register,
V. 55, No. 222, pp. 47990-48074, 40 CFR Parts 122, 123,
and 124. EPA, November, 1990.
3. Abrams, D.A. In Experimental Studies of Concrete; Struc-
tural Materials Research Laboratory, Lewis Institute: Chi-
cago, 1925.
4. Portland Cement Association. Design and Control of Con-
crete Mixtures; PCA: Skokie, IL, 1990.
5. Borger, J.D. The Use of Recycled Wash Water and Returned
Plastic Concrete for the Production of Fresh Concrete; M.S.
Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX,
1993; pp 1-147.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Manual
for the Preparation of NPDES Permit Applications for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity. EPA-
505/8-91-002. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, April, 1991.