Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on

Non-conventional Materials and Technologies (NOCMAT 2009)

6-9 September 2009, Bath, UK

STRENGTH AND DEFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS OF

CONCRETE CONTAINING COARSE RECYCLED AND
MANUFACTURED AGGREGATES
Kevin A Paine 1, David J Collery2 and Ravindra K Dhir 3
1

BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials, University of Bath

2
Concrete Technology Unit, University of Dundee
3
University of Dundee, and Applying Concrete Knowledge Ltd.

Abstract: The paper describes the initial results of a large and comprehensive study to
determine the effect of recycled and manufactured aggregates on concrete properties, and
whether the relationships given in national design codes between compressive strength
and other strength and deformation characteristics are applicable to concretes made with
these aggregates. The results suggest that whilst use of recycled and manufactured
aggregates may reduce strength at a given w/c ratio, compared to natural aggregates, in
the main, other characteristics are proportional to this loss in compressive strength. Thus
engineers and specifiers have control over the behaviour of concrete made with these
aggregates, provided they control compressive strength.
Keywords: concrete, aggregates, strength, creep, sustainability
1 Introduction
Worldwide consumption of aggregates in 2010 is estimated to be 27 billion tonnes, of
which only 2.5% will come from recycled sources (Freedonia 2007). As one of the main
consumers of aggregate, the concrete industry has a major role to play in increasing the
amount and value of recycled aggregates used. One of the several attributes that attract
users to concrete as an environmentally friendly material is its potential to absorb many
industrial wastes (as manufactured aggregates) as part of the aggregate component.
Indeed, the European Standard for Aggregates for Concrete, BS EN 12620, now permits
use of recycled and manufactured aggregates (RMA). However, the rules for use of
structural concrete in Europe, BS EN 1992-1-1 (known as Eurocode 2), are based on
strength and deformation characteristics, independently of the concrete constituents or mix
proportions, and assume that the engineering properties of concrete can be approximated
from the compressive strength by means of simple relationships (Table 1). These
relationships are based on specific assumed conditions that do not include RMA and for
these reasons many users have no confidence in the use of recycled and manufactured
aggregates in structural concrete.
This paper reports on preliminary findings of research carried out at the University of
Dundee to determine: (i) whether concrete made with a range of RMA differ from reference
concretes made with natural aggregate, and (ii) whether the strength and deformation
characteristics given in Eurocode 2 are applicable to concretes made with RMA.
1

Senior Lecturer, k.paine@bath.ac.uk

Research Student, d.j.collery@dundee.ac.uk
3
Emeritus Professor and Director, r.k.dhir@dundee.ac.uk
2

Table 1: Stress and deformation characteristics based on Eurocode 2

STRENGTH (N/mm2)/
MODULUS (kN/mm2)

MATERIAL PROPERTY

ANALYTICAL RELATIONSHIP

Cylinder Strength, fck

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cube Strength, fck,cube

25

37

50

60

75

85

95

fcc 1.25 fc

Compressive Strength, fcm

28

38

48

58

68

78

88

fcm = fck + 8

2.2

2.9

3.5

4.1

4.4

4.6

4.8

fctm = 0.3 fck(2/3) C50/60

fctm = 2.12 ln ((1+ (fcm/10)) > C50/60

Flexural Strength, fct,fl

3.3

4.3

5.3

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.3

fctm,fl = 1.5 fctm

Tensile splitting strength, fct,sp

2.4

3.2

3.9

4.5

4.8

5.1

5.3

fctm,sp = (1/0.9) fctm

Elastic modulus, Ecm

30

33

35

37

39

41

42

Ecm = 22 [fcm / 10] 0.3 (fcm in N/mm2)

Tensile Strength, fctm

2 Programme of Work
The paper reports on characteristics of five natural aggregates and six RMA and their
effect on the main engineering properties of concrete at three w/c ratios (0.35, 0.50 and
0.70). Strength and deformation characteristics investigated included: (i) compressive
strength, (ii) flexural strength, (iii) tensile splitting strength and (iv) static modulus of
elasticity, and (iv) basic/drying creep.

3 Materials and Mix Proportions

The performance of eleven coarse aggregates were studied in this work: five natural
aggregates (natural gravel, carboniferous limestone, dolomitic limestone, basalt and
granite), three recycled aggregates (RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3), a recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) and two manufactured aggregates (incinerator bottom ash aggregates [IBAA] and
steel slag). Key characteristics of the eleven aggregates are given in Table 2. River sand
conforming to BS EN 12620:2008 was used as fine aggregate in all mixes, and the cement
used was CEM I 42.5N conforming to BS EN 197-1:2000.
Concrete mixes were proportioned for w/c ratios of 0.35, 0.50 and 0.70 in accordance
with the BRE method for designing normal concrete mixes (Teychenne et al. 1997) to
achieve a consistence conforming to the S3 slump class in BS 8500-1:2006.
4 Cube Strength
The compressive strength of all concretes was determined by testing 100mm cube
specimens in accordance with BS EN 12390-3:2002. Selected concretes were also tested
using 150mm diameter, 300mm high cylinders.
The relationship between w/c ratio and 28-day cube strength for all aggregate types is
shown in Figure 1, and in all cases exhibited the typical shape that would be expected.
For a given w/c ratio, it can be seen that steel slag concrete exhibited the highest strength
and IBAA the lowest strength. The strength of RA concrete, at a given w/c ratio was
approximately 10 to 15 N/mm2 lower than that of natural aggregate concrete.

Table 2: Characteristics of coarse natural, recycled and manufactured aggregates used

NATURAL

PROPERTIES

RECYCLED

MANUF.

NG

CL

DL

RCA

RA-1

RA-2

RA-3

SS

IBAA

Fl15

Fl15

Fl15

Fl15

Fl50

Fl35

Fl15

Fl50

Fl35

Fl15

Fl35

(i) SSD

2600

2750

2725

2650

2850

2520

2400

2580

2630

3750

2500

(ii) Loose bulk

1520

1440

1430

1450

1460

1180

1190

1250

1270

1750

1280

1.0

0.8

2.0

0.7

1.5

3.0

4.4

2.9

3.5

1.9

4.5

25

22

25

26

20

26

36

21

34

18

42

Flakiness Index
3

Density, kg/m

Water Absorption, %

LA, , %

m-D, , %
Drying Shrinkage, %
10/14 mm only

24

17

12

14

24

39

32

37

23

0.039

0.03

0.016

0.031

0.054

0.065

0.055

0.06

0.037

0.085

NG=natural gravel, CL=carboniferous limestone, DL=dolomitic limestone, G=granite,

B=basalt, SS=steel slag

90

(b)

(a)

RCA
RA-1
RA-2
RA-3
IBAA
steel slag

80
Cube strength (N/mm 2)

20
0.03

70
60
50
40
30

natural gravel
basalt
carb. limestone
dolomitic limestone
granite

20
10
0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

w/c ratio

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

w/c ratio

Figure 1: Relationship between w/c ratio and cube strength for

(a) natural aggregates and (b) recycled and manufactured aggregates
Table 3 ranks the 11 aggregates in terms of the w/c ratio required to achieve a mean cube
strength of 40 N/mm2 at 28 days; giving an indication of the likely affect on cement content
should admixtures not be used to limit water content. The relationship between mean
cube (fcm,cube) and mean cylinder (fcm) strength for the selected concretes tested is shown
in Figure 2. It can be seen that this generally reflects the approximate relationship between
characteristic cube (fck,cube) and characteristic cylinder (fck) strength given in Eurocode 2
(Table 1). Consequently the results suggest that the methodology for determining
compressive strength in Eurocode 2 from either cylinder or cube strengths is applicable to
all types of aggregate.

Table 3: Aggregates ranked on basis of w/c ratio and least cement (CEM I)
content required for a strength of 40N/mm2
Aggregate

w/c ratio

Steel slag
Carboniferous limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Basalt
Granite
Natural gravel
RCA
RA-3
RA-2
RA-1
IBAA

0.68
0.66
0.64
0.64
0.61
0.58
0.54
0.48
0.46
0.44
< 0.34

Water content,
l/m3 *
190
190
190
190
190
180
190
190
190
190
190

CEM I content,
kg/m3
280
290
295
295
310
310
350
395
415
430
> 555

* for S3 consistence class using superplasticizer

100

Cube strength (N/mm 2)

90
Eurocode 2
(non-linear)

80
70
60
50

natural gravel
carb. limestone
RCA
RA-3
IBAA

40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

2
Cylinder Strength (N /mm
` )

Figure 2: Relationship between cylinder and cube strength for concrete made with
selected natural, recycled and manufactured aggregates

5 Deformation Characteristics
5.1 Tensile splitting and flexural strength
Tests for tensile splitting and flexural strength were carried out in accordance with BS
EN 12390-6:2000 and BS EN 12390-5:2000, respectively, at 28 days.
The relationship between mean cube strength (fcm,cube) and mean tensile splitting
strength (fctm,sp) is shown in Figure 3. In drawing the Eurocode 2 relationship it has been
assumed that the mean cube strength of concrete is related to the characteristic cylinder
strength by means of the following relationship:
f cm ,cube =

f ck + 8
0.8

(1)

Tensile splitting strength (N/mm 2)

7
6
5
4

fctm = 0.9 f ctm,sp

(Table 1)

3
2
1

Key as per Figure 1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Cube Strength (N/mm2)

Figure 3: Relationship between mean cube strength and mean tensile splitting strength
In general all results lie above this curve, suggesting that the Eurocode 2 relationship is
a slightly conservative means of approximating tensile splitting strength from a given
compressive strength. The curve appears to fit best to natural gravel, carboniferous
limestone and the recycled aggregate concretes. Steel slag, dolomitic limestone and
granite concretes had experimental tensile splitting strengths approximately 1 N/mm2
higher than that given by the curve. At high strengths there is a kink in the Eurocode 2
relationship to reflect a potential decrease in the gain in tensile strength with increased
cube strength. Insufficient results were obtained at high strengths to verify whether this is
necessary.
The relationship between mean cube strength (fcm,cube) and mean flexural strength (fctm,fl)
is given in Figure 4, and shows similar trends to that observed above, with most results
lying above the Eurocode 2 relationship. Again, there were insufficient results at high
strengths to verify whether the kink given in Eurocode 2 is necessary, however, visual
interpretation of the results for any given aggregate do seem to suggest that cube strength
and flexural strength are more directly and linearly proportional than has been previously
suggested.
5.2 Elastic modulus
Tests for modulus of elasticity were carried out at 28 days in accordance with BS 1881121:1983.
The relationship between mean elastic modulus (Ecm) and mean cube strength (fcm,cube)
for all concretes are shown in Figure 5. In relation to the relationship given in Eurocode 2
(Table 1) there was clearly a degree of scatter of results, which would be expected due to
the known effect of aggregate type on the elastic modulus of concrete. This is
acknowledged in Eurocode 2 which suggests that the values in Table 1 are applicable to
quartzite aggregates, and should be reduced by 10% and 30% for limestone and
sandstone aggregates respectively, and increased by 20% for basalt aggregates. Curves
approximating to a 30% reduction and 20% increase are also shown as dotted lines in
Figure 5.

10
Flexural strength (N/mm 2)

9
8
7
6
fctm,fl = 1.5 fctm
(Table 1)

5
4
3
2

Key as per Figure 1

1
0
0

20

40

60

Cube Strength

80

100

(N/mm2)

Figure 4: Relationship between mean cube strength and mean flexural strength
60

Elastic modulus (kN/mm2)

E cm =1.2 x 22 [f cm/10] 0.3

50
40
E cm = 22 [f cm/ 10]0.3
(T able 1)

30
E cm =0.7 x 22 [fcm/10] 0.3

20
10

Key as per Figure 1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Cube Strength (N/mm 2)

Figure 5: Relationship between mean cube strength and mean elastic modulus
Other than for IBAA, the elastic modulus of most aggregates fall within these dotted
lines. Interestingly however, the basalt concrete used in this work lies on the curve given
by the equation in Table 1 and does not appear to require to be increased. Likewise, both
limestone concretes also match this equation, suggesting that the 10% reduction is not
necessary. On the other hand, natural gravel concrete tends to fall about 10% below the
values in Table 1, whilst granite concrete is approximately 20% higher.
All recycled aggregate concretes fell below the equation in Table 1, but were within the
reduction permitted for sandstone aggregates. In general, recycled aggregate concrete
tended to have elastic moduli 20% lower than those given in Table 1 for a given
compressive strength. All IBAA concretes gave the lowest elastic moduli for a given w/c
ratio, and gave values below that expected by sandstone aggregates for a given
compressive strength.

5.3 Creep
Creep tests were carried out using a 100mm diameter, 300mm high cylinder in
accordance with the procedure developed at the University of Dundee (Dhir et al. 1986).
At the age of 28 days, the specimen was capped at each end, as described in the
procedure for testing the modulus of elasticity. Two demec points were then glued 200mm
apart on a vertical line of each cylinder (50mm from the top of both ends of the specimen),
and the cylinders covered with wax to prevent drying shrinkage. The specimens were
subjected to a constant compression stress of 40% of the compressive strength of the
concrete. Measurements were taken daily for seven days, and then at three-day intervals
for 12 weeks. Similar measurements were taken on sealed unloaded specimens.
Concrete creep was calculated by comparing changes in the length of the specimen under
constant load to changes in the length of the unloaded specimen in a similar environment.
Figure 6 shows the development of creep coefficient with time for concrete made with
each aggregate type at w/c ratio of 0.5. Other than IBAA concrete which showed
significant levels of creep, creep coefficients were in the range of 1.9 to 2.6 at 100 days
with recycled aggregate concretes tending to show slightly higher creep than natural
aggregate concretes; steel slag concretes giving the least creep. These results can be
expected given the differences in elastic modulus and cube strength identified above.
4.5

(a)

basalt
carb limestone

3.5
Creep coefficient

(b)

natural gravel

4.0

dolomitic limestone
granite

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5

steel slag
RA-1
RA-2
RA-3
IBAA
RCA

1.0
0.5

w/c = 0.5

w/c = 0.5

0.0
0

50

100

150

50

100

150

Time, days

Time, days

Figure 6: Creep coefficient development for concrete made with (a) natural aggregates
and (b) recycled and manufactured aggregates at w/c ratio = 0.5
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the creep coefficient (after 100 days) as
calculated by the method given in Annex B to Eurocode 2 and that determined
experimentally at 100 days. The results show a linear relationship (R2 = 0.76) in which the
experimentally derived values were approximately 20% higher than that predicted by
Eurocode 2. However, in general it can be seen that the approach to estimating creep
coefficient in Eurocode 2 is no less applicable to recycled and manufactured aggregates
than it is to natural aggregates.

Creep coefficient, 100 days experimental

5.0
4.5
4.0

R2 = 0.763

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

Key as per Figure 6

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Creep coefficient (Eurocode 2)

Figure 7: Relationship between creep coefficient given in Eurocode 2 and that

experimentally measured at 100 days (w/c ratio = 0.5)

6 Practical Implications
Recent moves towards greater sustainability in concrete have led to the use of recycled
and manufactured aggregates in concrete. However, there has been concern that these
aggregates may produce concrete that is not compatible with commonly accepted
structural design rules.
The work reported has shown that the use of recycled and manufactured may result in
significant differences in compressive strength at a given w/c ratio when compared to
natural aggregate concretes (although research shows that they may be used up to a
certain proportion of coarse aggregate without any effect (Dhir et al.1999), and whilst this
aspect of behaviour was studied in this research, it is not presented in this paper).
However, differences in strength between natural aggregate concretes and recycled and
manufactured aggregate concretes were in the main proportionally carried over to other
aspects of engineering performance (i.e. flexural strength, tensile splitting strength, elastic
modulus and creep).
From these initial results, it can be suggested that there is no need for any review of
general design procedures relating to the use of recycled and manufactured aggregates,
on account of differences in behaviour between these and normal aggregate concretes
and for this reason, they can be utilised effectively within the framework of present design
procedures. In relation to elastic modulus, for example, it is suggested that recycled
aggregate concretes be conservatively treated in the same manner as sandstone
aggregates. For tensile splitting strength, flexural strength and creep coefficient, criteria in
Eurocode 2 may be used without modification.
This behaviour is consistent with earlier work demonstrating that recent moves towards
producing sustainable and/or durable concrete through the introduction of alternative
cements and more efficient mix design methods, may also be used effectively within the
framework of present design procedures (Dhir et al. 2005).
Based on this, engineers and specifiers can have much more control and flexibility in
their approach to the concrete they use, in terms of choice of both aggregates and cement,
safe in the knowledge that compressive strength is appropriate for assessing other stress
and deformation characteristics of a concrete mix.

7 Conclusions
The research presented in this paper was part of a much wider and more comprehensive
study into the use of recycled and manufactured aggregates in structural concrete. Based
on the work in this paper using six RMA and five natural aggregates at three w/c ratios, it
can be concluded that coarse recycled and manufactured aggregates may be used
effectively within the framework of present design procedures. In particular it was
observed that:

Concrete made with natural, recycled and manufactured aggregates will have
different strength and deformation characteristics at a given w/c ratio.

However, changes in the strength and deformation characteristics when using

recycled and manufactured aggregates are proportional to the changes in
compressive strength.

Accepted and assumed relationships between engineering properties and

compressive strength as used in most design codes are therefore valid.

.
8 References
DHIR, R.K., LIMBACHIYA, M.C. AND LEELAWAT, T., 1999. Suitability of recycled
concrete aggregate for use in BS5328 Designated mixes. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, 134, (3), pp 257-274.
DHIR, R.K., MCCARTHY, M.J. AND PAINE, K.A., 2005. Engineering property and
structural design relationships for new and developing concretes. Materials and
Structures, 38 (1), pp1-9
DHIR, R.K., MUNDAY, J.G.L. AND ONG, L.T. 1986. Investigations of the engineering
properties of OPC/pulverized-fuel ash concrete: deformation properties, The Structural
Engineer, Vol. 64B, No 2, pp 36-42
FREEDONIA. World Construction Aggregates to 2011 - Demand and Sales Forecasts,
Market Share, Market Size, Market Leaders, Industry Report, 2007, 321pp
TEYCHENNE, D.C., FRANKLIN, R.E. AND ERNTROY, H.C. Design of normal concrete
mixes. Second Edition, amended by B K Marsh. Building Research Establishment,
1997.