37-DRC COMMITTEE ~ I

F . ,,,

DEMOLITION AND R E - U S E OF C O N C R E T E

Recycled concrete as an a g g r e g a t e for concrete a review

P. J. NIXON (~)

The present state of knowledge on the use of recycled concrete as an aggregate in n e w

concrete is reviewed and suggestions made as to what further work is necessary before a
proper assessment of the material can be made. Where crushed uncontaminated concrete
is used the properties o f the material as an aggregate and the basic engineering characteristics
o f the concrete made with it are well established. M u c h less is k n o w n about the type and
quantity of impurities which could occur in crushed concrete from general building rubble
and the effect these w o u l d have on concrete made using such crushed concrete as aggregate.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
The increasing numbers of concrete buildings being
demolished, the difficulties of disposing of the concrete
rubble produced together with a developing scarcity of
aggregates near to the major urban areas has prompted an
interest in the possibility of using concrete rubble as
aggregate in fresh concrete. A RI LEM Committee, 37/DRC
"Demolition and Re-use of Concrete" has recently been
formed to examine techniques of demolishing concrete
buildings and ways of re-using the concrete waste so
produced. The amount of concrete being demolished in
Britain at present, how it is disposed of and the problems
involved in collecting and processing it for use as aggrega-
te have been considered in a previous paper [1 ]. This paper
is concerned with the properties of such aggregates.
The first extensive and well documented use of materials
from the demolition of buildings as aggregate in fresh
(1) Building Research Establishment, Department of the Envi-
ronment, G.-B.
concrete was during and just after the Second World War.
At this time the rubble left after the bombardment of cities,
especially after aerial bombing, was used in concrete for
rebuilding particularly in Britain and Germany. Later when
wartime fortifications were being demolished the rubble
from these was used. Most of the literature from this time
describes the use of brick rubble as this was the predomi-
nant building material. These accounts have been revie-
wed by Nixon [1]. There are, however, at least two reports
from the immediate post-war period describing the use of
concrete rubble and these are described below.
Since that post-war period there has been little
research interest until quite recently when the increasing
numbers of concrete buildings being demolished and
a possible future scarcity of natural aggregates in some
areas has reawakened an interest in the use of concrete
rubble as an aggregate. In this paper the information
now available on the properties of concrete made with
concrete rubble is reviewed and the important gaps
in knowledge on the subject are identified.

371
VOL. 11 - N ~ 65 - MATERIAUX ET CONSTRUCTIONS

T,~BLE I
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATES MADE FROM RECYCLED CONCRETE
AND COMPARISON WITH PROPERTIESOF FRESH NATURAL AGGREGATES

Original Concrete Absorption (%) Relar Density (SSD)

Compressive Strength Coarse Coarse
Description (MN/m 2) aggt. Fine aggt. aggt Fine aggt.
i

Ploger (ref. 5)
Gravel & sand aggregate 35 (90 day) 6.0 lO .5 nd nd
Trap rock coarse aggt.
mixed crushed and natural 34 (90 day) 4.5 nd nd nd
sand fine aggt.

Buck (ref. 2)
Driveway waste (chert
41 (8 years) 4.5 7.9 2.42 2.33
gravel aggt.)
Discarded beam (carbonate
55 (9~ months) 3.9 nd 2.52 n&
coarse aggt.)
Discarded beam 13 (2~ years) 2.3 7.9 2.59 2.36
(granite coarse aggt.)
Concrete panels (cher~
23 (8 months) 4.4 7.5 2.36 2.27
gravel aggt.)

Malhotra (ref. 6)
Discarded test cylinders High 4 7.9 2.53 nd
(limestone coarse and sand Medium 3.9 9.3 2.53 2.31
fine aggt.) Low 4.4 8.6 2.5 2.34

FRESH NATURAL AGGREGATES

Limestone (ref. 6) 0.4 2.68
(ref. 2) 0.8 2.67
]herr gravel (ref. 7) 2.6 2.52
Natural sand (ref. 6) 0.5 2.7
(ref. 7) 0.4 2.63

2. EARLY I N V E S T I G A T I O N S OF THE USE OF
RECYCLED CONCRETE AS AN A G G R E G A T E
(Information from Buck [2])
Gluzhge [3] investigated the use of waste concrete
as an aggregate in Russia in 1946. He found that
crushed concrete aggregate had a lower specific
gravity than natural aggregate and that the concrete
made with the crushed concrete aggregate had a lower
compressive strength. At equal compressive strengths
the flexural strength of the concrete with crushed con-
crete aggregate was greater than the control mixes.
If concrete fines were used the cement content had
to be increased unduly.
Graf [4] studied the use of building rubble as an
aggregate in Germany in 1948. As part of this work
he examined the effect of contamination by gypsum
plaster by adding controlled amounts of gypsum to
the rubble. He concluded that about 1% of SO 3 in
the form of gypsum was the maximum tolerable level,
and that powdered gypsum caused a greater expansion
in a shorter time than gypsum grains of 1-7 ram. He also
found that gypsum tends to concentrate in the finer
material.

TABLE II
DENSITY AND AIR CONTENT OF CONCRETES MADE WITH RECYCLED AND FRESH AGGREGATES

Aggregate type used Water/cement Density of Fresh concrete Air Content

(kg/m 2) (%)

Malhotra (ref. 6)
Coarse aggt. - low strength recycled concrete 0.69 21i5 6.9
Fines - natural
Control 3.69 2210 6.2
Coarse aggt, - low strength recycled concrete 0.67 2240 3.5
Fines - ditto
Control 0.67 2275 5.3

Buck (ref. 7)
Coarse aggt. - Crushed concrete 0.49 5.7 - 6
Fines - natural
Coarse aggt. - crushed aggt. 0.49 5.9 - 6.3
Fines - ditto
Control 0.49 6 - 6.3

372

3. RECENT W O R K
Recent work on the use of recycled concrete as an
aggregate will be reviewed in terms of the particular
properties of the resulting aggregate and of the fresh
concrete.
3.1. P r o p e r t i e s of the recycled concrete
aggregate
The properties of recycled concrete aggregate have
been reported by Ploger [5], Buck [2] and Malhotra [6],
Their results are summarised in table" I which also
includes fresh natural aggregates for comparison, It is
clear from these results that the main difference between
the recycled and fresh aggregates is the higher water
absorption of the recycled aggregate, an effect which
is especially marked in the fine aggregates. This is
presumably due to the porosity of the cement paste,
which will tend to concentrate in the fine fraction.
The density of the recycled concrete aggregate is also
somewhat lower but the differences in density are not
as marked as those in absorption.
Malhotra [6] also studied the recycled concrete
aggregates by optical and scanning electron microscopy.
He found that the particles of crushed concrete tended
to be more rounded and to have a smoother surface
texture than fresh crushed ,limestone aggregates used
as a control. Cracks in the hydrated cement paste
adhering to the crushed concrete particles with a width
of the order of 2-4 p were observed and it was thought
that these may have caused the high absorption of
this aggregate.
3,2. Physical p r o p e r t i e s o f c o n c r e t e made w i t h
recycled and fresh aggregate
The density and air contents of concrete made with
recycled and fresh aggregates are tabulated in table II.
The concrete densities of the recycled aggregate con-
crete are slightly lower, reflecting the lower aggregate
densities. The air contents are little different (the lower
air content for the wholly recycled aggregate concrete
found by Malhotra for the low strength mix is not
r.onfirmed in the medium of high strength mixes).
3.3. S t r e n g t h s o f c o n c r e t e made w i t h recycled
aggregates
Buck ([2], [7]) studied the compressive strengths
of concrete containing recycled concrete aggregate at
constant water/cement ratio (and constant workability)
except for two mixes in which the w/c ratio was reduced
by the use of a water reducing admixture and by the
addition of fly ash. His data is summarised in table III,
In general he found lowered strengths compared with
a control mix. However he was able to show that the
strength of the concrete can be higher than the original
strength of the crushed concrete which comprises the
aggregate. Moreover it can be seen from the Table
that there is no correlation between the strength of
the original concrete and the strength of the new
concrete made using it as aggregate. The use of a water
P. J. NIXON
reducing admixture and .higher cement content was
effective in producing a stronger concrete.
Malhotra [6] prepared concrete at low, medium and
high strength levels using crushed concrete from dis-
carded test cylinders appropriate to the strength level.
His compressive strength results are also given in table II1.
They confirm the observation of Buck that concrete
made with recycled concrete aggregate has a lower
compressive strength than a control but does not give any
further information on the effect of the original strength.
This is because the aggregate was not made from concrete
of known strength but rather from a mixture of discarded
cylinders within a strength band and also because these
strength bands were matched with the planned strength of
the new concrete.
Frondistou-Yannas [8] has studied the variation of
strength with water/cement ratio of concrete made with
crushed concrete coarse aggregate. The old concrete
was made with a granite gravel. Her results are not
tabulated so to prevent inaccuracies they are also
presented graphically here in figure 1. In general they
confirm the findings of previous authors that the concrete
containing the recycled concrete aggregate has a lower
compressive strength.
3.4. Bond strength between crushed concrete
aggregate and m o r t a r
Frondistou-Yannas also studied the aggregate-matrix
bond strength for fresh granite gravel, granite gravel
sorted from the crushed concrete, granite gravel with
adhering mortar and of crushed mortar from the con-
crete. Her results (table IV) show a decreasing bond
strength with increasing proportion of mortar, empha-
sising the desirability of reducing the proportion of
mortar in the recycled concrete aggregate.
3.5. W o r k a b i l i t y o f the concrete
Buck [7] observed that mixes containing crushed
concrete as both coarse and fine aggregate had a lower
slump and higher cement content than the control mixes.
They appeared wet even though stiffer than the control
mixes. When however natural sand was used as the
fine aggregate with crushed concrete coarse aggregate
there was little difference in slump, air content or
cement content from the equivalent mix made with
new aggregate. As stated in 3 . 3 Buck also found it
possible to achieve equivalent workability at a lower
water/cement ratio by use of a water reducing
admixture.
Work of Malhotra [6] and Frondistou-Yannas [8]
confirms these observations. Working over a range of
water/cement ratios they found virtually no difference
in workability between mixes containing crushed con-
crete coarse aggregate and natural sand fines and those
made entirely with fresh natural aggregates. When
Malhotra used crushed concrete fines however he found
a sharp increase in water requirement. This effect was
especially marked when minus 150 p material from the
crushed concrete was included. This minus 150 p
concrete was observed to consist mainly of hydrated
cement particles.
373
VOL. 11 - N~ 65 - MATIr:RIAUX ET CONSTRUCTIONS

TABLE III
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS OF CONCRETE M A D E WITH RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE

Original Concrete New Concrete

Compressive strength (MNIm 2)
Compressive Aggregate W/C I Cement
Description Strength (MN(m2 ) ratio content (kg/m 3)
I
7 day 28 days I 56 day 90 day

Buck ( r e f . 2 & 7)

~riveway waste 41 (8 years) Control-chert 0.49 273 17.85 28.5 32.4 34.9
[Chert gravel a g g t . ) 8ravel & sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.49 273 13.65 21.0 24.7 26.75
FA-sand
~A-crushed concrete 0.49 300 15.85 23.4 26.26 29.5
FA-crushed concrete

)iscarded test beam 55 (9~ months) Control-llmestone 0.49 300 21.9 31.0 33.0 36.7
=arbonate coarse aggregate) and sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.49 290" 17.8 28.6 27.6 32.1
FA-sand
!Discarded test beam CA-crushed (concrete) 0.49 17.8 24.9 28.8 28.5
!(granite coarse aggregate) 13 (21 years) FA-crushed concrete
IConcrete panel (chert) 23 (8 months) Control-chert 0.49 18.3 28 . i 30,3 33.9
!gravel aggregate) gravel and sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.49 17.3 23.9 27.2 34.1
FA-crushed concrete
Driveway waste 41 (8 y e a r s ) CA-crushed concrete 0.45 385 24.1 35 9 1 36.4 38.7
(chert gravel aggregate) FA-crushed concrete
(water reducing admixture)

Malhotra (ref. 6)

Discarded test low Control-limestone 0.69 14 17.6 17.9

cylinders (limestone (unspecified) and sand
coarse aggregate, CA-crushed concrete 0.69 9 13.6 13.9
sand fine aggregate) FA-sand
Control limestone 0.67 I6.2 19.5 22.4
and sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.67 12.7 16.3 17.9
FA-crushed concrete
Medium Control-limestone and 0.56 17.0 . Z1.9 zz.~

(unspecified) sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.56 16.0 20.0 20.7
FA-sand
Control-limestone and 0.57 20.3 22.4
sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.57 17.0 17.8
FA-crushed concrete

High Control-limestone and 0,41 31.1 32,5 35.4

(unspecified) sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.41 28,4 32.3 37.4
FA-sand
Control-limestone and 0,41 31 .8 36.2 40.7
sand
CA-crushed concrete 0.41 26.0 31 .7 33.7
FA-crushed concrete

3.6. M o d u l u s of elasticity
Frondistou-Yannas [8] has measured the modulus
of elasticity of a series of concretes at different
water/cement ratios made with recycled concrete coarse
aggregate and natural sand fines. She found a significant
decrease in the modulus compared with control mixes
(fig 2).
3.7. D r y i n g shrinkage
Data on the drying shrinkage of concfefe made with
recycled concrete aggregate has been obtained in
Japan [9]. This investigation found that the drying
shrinkage of concrete made with the recycled concrete
aggregate was 10-30% larger than that of a control
concrete made with river sand and gravel (fig. 3).
3.8. Durability
The freeze/thaw resistance of concrete made with
recycled concrete aggregate has been studied by
Buck [7] and Malhotra [6]. Buck reported his results
as a durability factor after 300 cycles of freezing and
thawing. His tests were carried out in accordance with
the US Army Engineers Handbook for Concrete and
Cement, CRD-C 114. They are summarised in table V.
Malhotra assessed the freeze/thaw resistance of the
concrete by ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements
during and after the period of freeze/thaw cycling and
by flexural strength measurements at the end of the
period. His results are summarised in table Vl. Both Buck
and Malhotra found the freeze/thaw resistance of the
concrete made with recycled concrete aggregate to be
very similar to that of control concretes except that
Buck also found that concrete made with crushed chert
gravel concrete had a significantly better freeze/thaw
resistance than concrete made with the original chert
gravel. This is thought to be because the old mortar
which is coating the surface of the chert gravel particles
in the crushed concrete seals the pores and prevents
the ingress of water to the frost-susceptible chert
particles.

374
 P. J. N I X O N

4000 27.6 3-0 21

3000 "".. Control 20 -7

O
14
x 2-0
% w
I
%
2000 13.8
Recycled '\\ ~ e ~ e Z
v
aggregate concrete ",
Recycled agg g te co c 9 1-0
E 1000 6.9

0 I / 1 l I
0-5 0-55 0-6 0"65 0"7 0-75 0"5 0"55 016
O'65 01"7 0"75
Water/cement ratio-- by weight Water/cement
ratio-- by weight
a) Portland cement Type III and Ottawa sand fine a) Portland cement Type III and Ottawa sand
aggregate fine aggregate

4000 27-6 3.(3

CL

c~ s
I 300C 20-7 x
g Lu
2-0 14
I
% %
._~
&
o 1000
E
c.)
2000

Recyiii 13-8

6"9
1-0 \
Z

I t 0~.7 I 0
0-5 '
0-55 0!6 " '
0.65 0I7 '
0.75 0-5 0-55 0-6 0-65 0"75
Water/cement ratio--by weight Water/cement ratio -- by weight

b) Portland cement Type I and granite sand fine b) Portland cement Type I and granite sand fine
aggregate aggregate

Fig. 1. - - Relationship between w a t e r / c e m e n t ratio and Fig. 2. -- R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w a t e r / c e m e n t ratio and

c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h for c o n c r e t e m a d e w i t h recycled modulus of elasticity for concrete made with recycled
c o n c r e t e a g g r e g a t e ( a f t e r F r o n d i s t o u - Y a n n a s [8]). concrete aggregate (after Frondistou-Yannas [8]).

Age-- week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

%
i \\ w,c o

X~o sand, river gravel

==

River sand, . . . . . . . . ". =~=~'

~ n~*=~ o O ~ e l e aggregate
demolished concrete aggregate o~ ~

10
Fig. 3. - Comparison of drying shrinkage of
-

c o n c r e t e m a d e w i t h c o n c r e t e rubble aggre-
gate and river sand and gravel ( a f t e r T o m a -
s a w a [9]).
TABLE V
TABLE IV DURABILITY FACTOR OF CONCRETE MADEWITH RECYCLEDCONCRETE
BOND STRENGTH BETWEEN RECYCLEDCONCRETEAGGREGATE AGGREGATEAFTER ACCELERATED FREEZE/THAW CYCLING (after Buck [7])
AND CEMENT MATRIX (after Frondistou-Yannas [8])
type of aggregate used No, of cycles Durability factor
Ultimate load
Type o f a s g r e g a t e Type of failure
(Ib .)
~ew c h e r t gravel and sand 300 3
New granite gravel 56 • 15 Aggregate - macrlx interface 2rushed concrete coarse aggt.
300 23
3ranlte gravel sorted from Icher~ gravel concrete) and sand
the crushed concrete 49 ~* 18 Aggregate macrlx interface
:rushed concrete (chert gravel)
300 28
3ranite gravel with adhering :oarse and fine
nortar- sorted from the 39 *-- 14 Usually aggregate limes tone coarse aggregate
:rushed concrete 300 62
and s a n d
~ortar sorted from the ]rushed limeseone coacrete
31 -* 8 Always aggregate 300 45
= r u s h e d concrete :oarse aggregate and sand

375
VOL. 11 - N~ 65 - MATERIAUX ET CONSTRUCTIONS

Buck also measured the linear coefficient of thermal
expansion at 28 days and monitored the length change
of prisms stored at greater than 90% RH and 73 + 2~
The results of these tests on concrete containing recycled
concrete aggregate showed their behaviour to be very
similar to control concretes.
4. EFFECT OF I M P U R I T I E S IN THE CONCRETE
The only systematic studies of the effect of impurities
in recycled concrete on the properties of the fresh
concrete made with the recycled concrete as aggregate
have been of contamination by gypsum plaster.
As described in Section 2,Graf [4] studle~ the ettect
of adding gypsum to the rubble aggregate and found
that 1% SO 3 was the maximum tolerable level. Other
early investigations of the effect on concrete of sulphate
in the aggregate were by Gaede [10] and Newman [11].
Gaede added finely ground gypsum or magnesiun~
sulphate to a gravel-sand aggregate. He found a criticm
range of SO 3 contents over which the strength dropped
rapidly and then remained more or less constant as
further gypsum was added. He concluded that the limit
of 1% SO 3 (in Germany) ought to be reduced to below
0.5%. Newman studied the effect of soluble sulphates
in broken-brick aggregate and found no deleterious
effects up to 1% SO 3.
More recently Buck [2] reported that 5% gypsum
by weight of.total aggregate was sufficient to produce
harmful internal expansion in concrete made with
cement containing over 5% C3A when the concrete
was moist cured. Expansion was reduced when the
specimens were allowed to dry. Neither the use of
a cement w~th reduced C3A content or of fly ash was
effectwe m preventing expansion however.
Samarai [12] has studied the effect of added gypsum
on mortar prisms made with a number of different
cements. He monitored length change, compressive
and flexural strength. He concluded that the maximum
total sulphate that could be added as part of the aggre-
gate was O. 6% by weight of the aggregate for ordinary
Portland cement or 0.7% for highly sulphate resistant
cement. He also found that a natural pozzolanic cement
was effective in reducing expansion particularly at high
SO 3 levels, but he did not carry out a sufficient number
of tests to propose a s o 3 limit for this type of cement.
In view of the differing SO 3 contents of the various
cements he considered it better to set a limit on the
basis of the total SO 3 content of the cement and
aggregate. For ordinary Portland cement this should be
a maximum of 5.2% SO 3 by' weight of the cement.
Like Buck he found that allowing the specimens to dry
reduced final expansion.
5. DISCUSSION
A number of workers have now examined the basic
properties of concrete in which the aggregate is the
product of crushing another concrete. Most have
concentrated on uncontaminated material, often old
laboratory test specimens and there is good agreement
on most aspects of the behaviour of this recycled
concrete.
The most marked difference in the physical properties
of the recycled concrete aggregate is the higher water
absorption and it seems likely that this is due to absorp-
tion by cement paste adhering to the old aggregate
particles. There is general agreement that the compres-
sive strength (and judging from limited evidence, the

TABLE Vl
EFFECT OF ACCELERATED FREE/THAW CYCLING ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH
AND ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY OF CONCRETE MADE WITH RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE
(Malhotra [6]).
Properties of reference prisms at
Prisms after freeze/thaw cyclin~
age corresponding to end of test
No. of Age at Flexural Residual Pulse % :hange
w/c
Type of aggregate used ratio Flexural Pulse in pulse
strength (MN/m 2) velocity (m/s) cycles end O f test strength strength velocity ve .ocity
(days) (MN/m-) (%) (m/s)

~ m i x e s

Control 0.69 5.1 4,528 760 I00 4.6 90.6 4,398 - 2.8
CA-crushed concrete 0.69 4.1 4113 760 100 3.8 91.6 3988 - 3
FA-sand

Control 0.67 5.4 4613 684 93 4.9 92.9 4503 - 2.4

CA-crushed concrete 0.67 5.2 4269 684 93 4.6 86.2 4249 - 0.5
FA-crushed concrete

Mediumstren th mixes

Control 0.56 5.8 4542 603 ' 82 5.3 93.3 4481 - 1.3

CA-crushed concret= 0.56 4.6 4300 603 82 5.1 111.2 4170 - 3

FA-sand

Control 0.57 5.5 4640 603 82 5.2 95.0 4506 - 2.9

CA-crushed concrete 0.57 4.7 4305 603 82 4.6 98.5 4147 - 3.7
FA-crushed concrete

Hih siren t h m l x e s

Control 0.41 7.5 5086 750 96 7.2 95.0 4846 - 4.7

CA-crushed concrete 0.41 6.9 4733 750 96 6.7 97.0 4501 - 4.9
tA-sand

Control 0.41 8.3 5070 750 I00 7.7 92.1 4859 - 4.2
CA-crushed concrete 0.41 7.2 4708 750 93 5.9 81.9 4579 - 2.7
FA-crushed concrete

376

flexural strength) is somewhat lower (up to about 20%
lower in some cases but usually less) compared with
control mixes but there does not seem to be any corre-
lation between the loss in strength and the water/cement
ratio of the final concrete. There is only limited evidence
(and some disagreement) on the effect of the strength
of the original concrete on the strength of the new
concrete made with it as aggregate but it seems probable
that, within limits, it is not important. There is evidence
however that when the concrete fails it is the adhering
mortar on the crushed concrete aggregate that is the
weakest link. The use of crushed concrete fines does not
seem to have any great effect on the compressive strength
of the concrete but it does seem to reduce the worka-
bility significantly. When only crushed concrete coarse
aggregate is used the workability is little different from
control mixes. Again, when using recycled coarse
aggregate there is little difference in the modulus of
elasticity; there is no information on the effect of fines
on this property.
The durability of the recycled concrete has been
examined mostly with respect to the freeze/thaw resist-
ance of the concrete and the results suggest that with
uncontaminated concrete there is no problem. In fact
with concrete containing a highly porous frost suscep-
tible aggregate there may actually be an improvement
probably because the cement paste blocks up the pores.
The drying shrinkage has been found to be somewhat
greater in the recycled concrete. There is no information
on the creep, wetting expansion or resistance to aggres-
sive solutions such as sulphates, of recycled concrete.
Less work has been carried out on the effect of
impurities in the crushed concrete on the properties
of the final concrete. Most of that which has been done
has been devoted to sulphate impurities, presumably
originating from gypsum plaster. This w o u l d certainly
be a major problem with the recycling of general building
rubble concrete. The results published suggest that for
concrete placed in a position where it is likely to be
wet for much of the time a limit on the total soluble
sulphate content of the aggregate of between 0 . 5
and 1% is advisable if ordinary Portland cement is used.
Most workers have used finely powdered gypsum in
their experiments, what little evidence there is on the
effect of particle size has suggested that larger sized
pieces of gypsum cause less expansion. There is some
conflict of evidence on the effect of pozzolanic cements
including fly ash and more work is needed.
In general then there seems to be a reasonable know-
ledge of the basic engineering properties of the recycled
concrete and the main penalty in its use is a slightly lower
compressive strength compared with a control mix made
with the same original aggregate. A more thorough
investigation of the effect of the strength of the original
concrete w o u l d seem to be needed however, and also
a fundamental investigation of the mode of failure of
the recycled concrete which may enable the reason for
the lowered strength to be understood and counteracted.
The main field in which more information on the
behaviour of the recycled concrete is required is its
durability. Creep, wetting expansion and porosity all
need to be examined as does the effect of aggressive
solutions.
P. J. NIXON
The above remarks apply to uncontaminated con-
crete from a known source. If however recycled concrete
aggregate is to be used on any scale then the rubble
from general building demolition would have to be
exploited. Here there is a basic lack of knowledge of
what might be expected to occur in the output from
a particular method of processing the rubble. Possible
methods of controlling impurities eg magnetic separa-
tion of metal reinforcement, means of reducing the
amount of gypsum, need to be explored and the effect
of the remaining contaminants examined. Once iden-
tified there is some knowledge of the behaviour of
common contaminants [ ( e . g . Ref [13])] but much
investigation will be needed to deal with all the possi-
bilities, for example, the effects of mixtures of cements
other than Portland cement in the crushed concrete.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work described has been carried out as p,art
of the research programme of the Building Research
Establishment of the Department of the Environment
and this paper is published by permission of the Director.
REFERENCES
[1] NIXON P. J. - - The use of materials from demolition in
construction. Resources Policy, December 1976,
p. 276-283.
12] BUCKA. D. - - Recycled concrete as a source of aggregate.
Proc. of Symposium, Energy and Resource Conservation
in the Cement and Concrete Industry, Canmet, Ottawa,
1976.
[3] GLUSHGE P. I. - - The work of the Scientific Research
Institute. Gidrotskhnicheskoge Stroitelstvo No 4, April
1946, p. 27-28 (U.S.S.R.). Brief English summary in
Engineers Digest, Vol. 7, No 10, 1946, p. 330.
[4] GRAF O. - - Uber Ziegelsplittbeton, Sandsteinbeton und
Trummerschuttbeton. Die Bauwirtschaft, No 2, January
No 3, February No 4, March 1948 (Germany). Crushed
Brick Concrete, Sandstone Concrete and Rubble Concrete,
Trans, No 73-1, January 1973. U.S. Army Engineer Water-
ways Experimental Station, C.E. Vicksburg, Miss.
~5] PLOGER a. R . - An investigation of the compressive
strength of concrete in which concrete rubble was used
as an aggregate, unpublished thesis, Cornell University,
1947.
[6] MALHOTRAV. M. - - The use of recycled concrete as a new
aggregate. Proc. of Symposium, Energy and Resource
Conservation in the Cement and Concrete Industry,
Canmet, Ottawa, 1976.
[7] BUCK A. D. - - Recycled concrete. Highway Research
Record, No 430, 1973.
[8] Waste concrete as aggregate for new concrete, S. Fron-
distou-Yannas. ACI Journal, August 1977, p. 373-374.
1"9] Studies on the reuse of demolished concrete, Committee
for Research on the Reuse of Construction Waste,
Building Contractors Society, Tokyo, March 1975 (Personal
communication by F. Tomasawa).
[10] GAEDEK. - - Dt Aussch Stahlbeton 109, 1952 and 126,
1957.
[11] NEWMAN A. J. - - The utilisation of brick rubble from
demolished shelters as aggregate for concrete. Inst Mun
Eng J, 1946, Vol. 73, No 2, p. 113-121.
377
VOL. 11 - N ~ 65 - M A T E R I A U X ET C O N S T R U C T I O N S

[12] SAMARA! MURD A. - - The disintegration of concrete [13] MIELENZ R. C. - - Reactions o f aggregates involving solu-
containing sulphate-contaminated aggregates, Mag Con bility, oxidation, sulphate or sulphides. Highway Res Rec,
Res, Vol. 28, No 96, 1976, p. 130-140. 1963, Vol. 43, p. 8-18.

Rs utilis~ sans impuret~s, les propri~t~s du b~tctn concass~

Le b 6 t o n recycl6 en tant que granulat
- - On fait le point sur rktat present des connaissances
relatives ~ rutilisation du b~ton recycl~ comme granulat
du b~ton nouveau. Et r o n pr~sente quelques sugges-
tions sur les travaux ~ accomplir avant qu'une 6valuation
correcte "de ce mat~riau puisse ~tre faite. Lorsqu'il est
en tant que granulat et les caract~ristiques techniques
du b6ton. de base du b~ton confectionnd avec ce mat~riau sont
bien 6tablies. Mais on en sait beaucoup moins sur les
types et quantit~s d'impuret6s qui se rencontrent dans
le b~ton concass~ a partir d ' u n mat~riau de ddmolition
global et sur les effets qui p e u v e n t en rksulter pour
le b~ton confectionnk avec ces dkbris.

378