ABSTRACT

The rapid economic growth of country has led to heavy investment in construction of
new infrastructure and replacement of older infrastructure. This has led to a new variety
of solid waste that environmental engineers have to contend with namely, Construction
& Demolition (C&D) waste. It has been reported that a portion of this waste can be
recycled and reused as aggregate. Recycled aggregate is eco-friendly, economical and
solves the construction industry waste management problem. It has, however, not been
commercialized on a large scale yet (due to lack of extensive results, though research
efforts are currently underway) and is so far been used in the construction of roads on
a very minor note. Here the recycled aggregate properties have been studied along-with
the strength properties of concrete. In this research work, a comparison between natural
aggregate (NA) and recycled aggregate (RA) has been done and various proportions of
NA: RA (0:100, 60:40, 70:30, 80:20 and 100:0) have been experimentally tested for
efficacy of use in two concrete mixes (M20 and M25). Tests on aggregates such as
Impact Value Test, Abrasion Value Test, Aggregate Crushing Test, and of concrete
such as Compression Test has been carried out in both the mixes to come to a specific
conclusion.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

Title page

Certificate i

Acknowledgement ii

Declaration iii

Abstract iv

Contents v

List of Figures vii

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION 1-3

1.1 General 1

CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12-16

CHAPTER-3 METHODOLOGY 7-14

3.1 Component materials 7

3.2 Concrete Mix proportion 9

3.3 Concrete paving blocks and flags 10

3.4 Concrete properties 10

3.5 Results for concrete paving blocks 12

CHAPTER-4 CASE STUDY 15-17

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

S.No Title Page no

1 Concrete paving flags 2
2 Grading curves for natural river aggregate 8
3 Grading curves for the recycled brick aggregate 9
4 Grain size distribution 10
5 Concrete with 100% recycled brick aggregates 11
6 Concrete with combination of river and crushed brick aggregates 11
7 Concrete flags after 28 freeze/thaw cycles with de-icing salt 14

vii
vii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The use of structures made of brick is long-known. There are numerous structures made
of brick in the world. Natural and other disasters can damage them during the
exploitation. It often happens that demolition is more economical than renovation.
Purposeful demolition is applied when vital city areas are modernized. The demolition
creates a large amount of waste material which needs to be transported to appropriate
waste areas. The expenses of cleaning up the ruins are considerably increased because
of the transport and the need for adequate ecological waste areas. Because of this a
research for the possibilities of the use of construction waste was initiated. Spoilage
may appear in the manufacturing output of brick and roofing tile when the burning
process is not appropriately done, and that can also be reused. If the bricks are preserved
after the demolition, they can be cleaned and used for construction. If not, their parts
can be used in various ways: for drainage, as a base for roads, tennis courts, as aggregate
for CaSi bricks, aggregate for concrete etc.

When structures made of concrete are demolished or renovated, concrete recycling is

an increasingly common method of utilizing the rubble. Concrete was once routinely
trucked to landfills for disposal, but recycling has a number of benefits that have made
it a more attractive option in this age of greater environmental awareness, more
environmental laws, and the desire to keep construction costs down.Concrete aggregate
collected from demolition sites is put through a crushing machine. Crushing facilities
accept only uncontaminated concrete, which must be free of trash, wood, paper and
other such materials. Metals such as rebar are accepted, since they can be removed with
magnets and other sorting devices and melted down for recycling elsewhere. The
remaining aggregate chunks are sorted by size. Larger chunks may go through the
crusher again. After crushing, has taken place, other particulates are filtered out through
a variety of methods including hand-picking and water flotation.

Crushing at the actual construction site using portable crushers reduces construction
costs and the pollution generated when compared with transporting material to and from

1
a quarry. Large road-portable plants can crush concrete and asphalt rubble at 600 tons
per hour or more. These systems normally consist of a rubble crusher, side discharge
conveyor, screening plant, and a return conveyor from the screen to the crusher inlet
for reprocessing oversize materials. Compact, self-contained mini-crushers are also
available that can handle up to 150 tons per hour and fit into tighter areas. With the
advent of crusher attachments - those connected to various construction equipment,
such as excavators - the trend towards recycling on-site with smaller volumes of
material is growing rapidly. These attachments encompass volumes of 100 tons/hour
and less.

Construction materials are increasingly judged by their ecological characteristics.

Concrete recycling gains importance because it protects natural resources and
eliminates the need for disposal by using the readily available concrete as an aggregate
source for new concrete or other applications. According to a 2004 FHWA study, 38
states recycle concrete as an aggregate base; 11 recycle it into new Portland cement
concrete. The states that do use recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in new concrete
report that concrete with RCA performs equal to concrete with natural aggregates. Most
agencies specify using the material directly in the project that is being reconstructed.

Recycling of concrete is a relatively simple process. It involves breaking, removing,

and crushing existing concrete into a material with a specified size and quality. See ACI
555 (2001) for more information on processing old concrete into recycled concrete
aggregates. The quality of concrete with RCA is very dependent on the quality of the
recycled material used. Reinforcing steel and other embedded items, if any, must be
removed, and care must be taken to prevent contamination by other materials that can
be troublesome, such as asphalt, soil and clay balls, chlorides, glass, gypsum board,
sealants, paper, plaster, wood, and roofing materials.

Out of the total construction demolition waste, 40% is of concrete, 30% ceramics, 5%
plastics, 10% wood, 5%metal, & 10% other mixtures. As reported by global insight,
growth in global construction sector predicts an increase in construction spending of
4800 billion US dollars in 2013. These figures indicate a tremendous growth in the
construction sector, almost 1.5 times in 5 Years. For production of concrete, 70-75%
aggregates are required. Out of this 60-67% is of coarse aggregate & 33- 40% is of fine
aggregate. As per recent research by the Fredonia group, it is forecast that the global

2
demand for construction aggregates may exceed 26 billion tons by 2012. Leading this
demand is the maximum user China 25%, Europe 12% & USA 10%, India is also in
top 10 users. From environmental point of view, for production of natural aggregates
of 1 ton, emissions of 0.0046 million ton of carbon exist whereas for 1ton recycled
aggregate produced only 0.0024-million-ton carbon is produced. Considering the
global consumption of 10 billion tons/year of aggregate for concrete production, the
carbon footprint can be determined for the natural aggregate as well as for the recycled
aggregate. The use of recycled aggregate generally increases the drying shrinkage creep
& porosity to water & decreases the compression strength of concrete compared to that
of natural aggregate concrete. It is nearly 10- 30% as per replacement of aggregate.
Recycling reduces the cost (LCC) by about 34-41% & CO2 emission (LCCO2) by
about 23-28% for dumping at public / private disposal facilities.

3
 CHAPTER-III

METHODOLOGY
3.1 COMPONENT MATERIALS

Concrete were made using Ordinary Portland cement CEM I 42.5 R Lafarge BFC.
The properties of cement are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Chemical composition of cement.

20.31
SiO2 (%)
Al2O3 (%) 5.73
Fe2O3 (%) 3.72
CaO (%) 61.59
MgO (%) 2.42
SO3 (%) 3.38
Na2O (%) 0.29
K2O (%) 0.60
CO2 (%) 0.54
Natural river aggregate and crushed brick aggregate were used. After demolition of
masonry structure bricks were crushed and separated into fractions 0/4, 4/8 and 8/16
mm. Grading curves of the river and crushed brick aggregate are shown in Figs 2 and
Fig 3. Properties of natural river & recycled brick aggregate are given in Tables 2 and
3, respectively.

Table 2 Properties of natural river aggregate.

FRACTION 0/4 4/8 8/16

PARTICLE DENSITY 2658 2651 2652

3
(KG/M )
COMPACTEDDENSITY 1590 1600 1620
(KG/M3)

LOOSE DENSITY 1500 1500 1520

(KG/M3)

WATER ABSORPTION 0.5 0.6 0.4

(%)

7
 FRACTION 0/4 4/8 8/16

PARTICLE 1618 1758 1611

DENSITY
(KG/M3)
COMPACTED 1216 1011 1010
DENSITY
(KG/M3)

LOOSE 1017 907 850

DENSITY
(KG/M3)

WATER 21.8 21.2 20.1

ABSORPTION
(%)

Table 3 Properties of recycled brick aggregate

Fig 2. Grading curves for the natural river aggregate

8
 CHAPTER -IV
CONCLUSIONS
1. The possibilities of using recycled brick as aggregate for fabrication concrete
paving blocks and flags are presented in this paper. From the investigation results the
following can be concluded:

2. The concrete density decreased as the percent of recycled brick aggregate

increased.

3. Water absorption of concrete increased with crushed brick replacement level.

Concrete with 100% substitution of natural aggregate has 12% higher water absorption
than concrete with 25% recycled bricks as aggregate, but satisfied freeze/thaw test
which means that concrete based on crushed brick has good durability performance.

4. The compressive and tensile splitting strength of concrete blocks and bending
strength of paving flags decreased as the percent of recycled brick aggregate increased.

5. Water absorption of the paving blocks and flags exceeded the limit of 6%.

6. Mass loss for all type of concrete blocks and flags after freeze/thaw test was
61.0 kg/m2, so it satisfied the requirements for the best class for weather resistance
according to the European standards.

7. Abrasion resistance of paving elements decreased as the percent of recycled

aggregate increased. All types of concrete were able to satisfy the minimum
requirements of the European standards.

8. It was possible to use up to 32.5% of recycled brick as aggregate to prepare

concrete paving blocks which meet the requirements of EN 1338.

9. The production of concrete paving flags is possible with recycled brick as

aggregate. The quality of elements depends of replacement level of natural aggregate.
It is possible to get paving flags, according to EN 1339, bending strength Class 1 with
65% recycled brick as aggregate, Class 2 for bending strength with replacement levels
50% and 60% and the best, Class 3, with crushed brick replacement level up to 32.5%.

18
 REFERENCES
[1] Debieb F, Kenai S. The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks as
aggregate in concrete. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:88693.

[2] Demir I, Orhan M., Reuse of waste bricks in the production line.
Build Environ 2003;38:14515.

[3] Dijk K, Fraaij ALA, Hendriks Ch. F, Mulder E, Zwan J. Recycling

of masonry debris as raw material in the ceramic industry. In: Proceedings of
the international congress Challenges of concrete construction, Dundee, UK.
Book: Sustainable concrete construction; 2002. p. 291304.

[4] Poon CS, Chan D. Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregate and
crushed clay brick as unbound road sub-base. Constr Build Mater
2006;20:57885.

[5] Wild S, Gailius A, Hansen H, Szwabowski J. Waste clay brick a

European study of its effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the international
congress Creating with concrete, Dundee, UK. Book: Exploiting wastes in
concrete; 1999. p. 26173.

[6] Cachim PB. Mechanical properties of brick aggregate concrete.

Constr Build Mater 2009;23:12927.

[7] Cabral AEB, Schalach V, Dal Molin DCC, Ribeiro JLD. Mechanical
properties modeling of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater
2010;24:42130.
[8] Torkittikul P, Chaipanich A. Utilization of ceramic waste as fine
aggregate within Portland cement and fly ash concrete. CemConcr
Compos2010;32:4409.

[9] Cordinalesi V, Morconi G. Behavior of cementitious mortars

containing different kinds of recycled aggregate. Constr Build Mater
2009;23:28994.

[10] Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S. Reusing ceramic wastes in concrete

Constr Build Mater 2010;24:8328.

19
[11] De Brito J, Pereira AS, Correia JR. Mechanical behaviour of non-
structural concrete made with recycled ceramic aggregates. CemConcr
Compos 2005;27:42933.

[12] Senthamarai RM, DevadasManoharan P. Concrete with ceramic

waste aggregate. CemConcr Compos 2005;27:9103.

20