ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S26
Ultimate Behavior of Flexure-Critical Prestressed Concrete
Beams with Recycled Concrete Aggregates
by Michael R. Brandes and Yahya C. Kurama
This paper describes an experimental investigation on the ultimate
load behavior of flexure-critical precast/prestressed concrete beams
that use recycled concrete aggregates (RCAs) as replacement for
coarse natural aggregates (for example, crushed stone, gravel).
Specifically, the measured results from 18 simply supported, normal-
strength concrete pretensioned beam test specimens are presented
and compared with predictions from nonlinear numerical models
and existing code methods for conventional concrete. These 18 spec-
imens were obtained by saw-cutting nine longer beams that were
previously subjected to sustained service-level loads. The subsequent
ultimate load tests of the saw-cut beams were conducted in two series
of nine specimens each, with normalized moment-to-shear ratios of
7.6 and 3.6, respectively, defined as the distance from the simple
support to the point of load application divided by the depth to the
prestressing strands. The other experimental parameters (tested in
selected combinations as described in the paper) were the aggregate
replacement level (0%, 50%, and 100% by volume), two sources of
high-quality RCA (from rejected precast members and a construction
demolition recycling yard), and two different levels of prestressing.
In general, the use of RCA had a relatively small (as compared with
the level of aggregate replacement) effect on the overall ultimate
load-versus-deflection behavior of the beams or on the progres-
sion of failure. Importantly, the ability of closed-form code design
methods and nonlinear numerical models to predict the measured
behaviors of the beams was not significantly affected by the level of
aggregate replacement.
Keywords: flexural failure; precast concrete; prestressed concrete; recycled
concrete aggregate (RCA); ultimate load.
INTRODUCTION
Uncertainty and variability in recycled concrete aggre-
gate (RCA) properties, stemming from inherent variations
in demolished concrete sources and conditions, have largely
limited the use of RCA in engineered reinforced concrete
applications. Knaack and Kurama1,2 and McGinnis et al.3
have shown that the variability in the properties and behavior
of RCA concrete can be accounted for by using the RCA
water absorption and deleterious material content as predic-
tors of compressive strength, stiffness, creep, and shrinkage.
The effects of this variability can be better monitored and
controlled in the quality-controlled and repetitive production
processes of the precast/prestressed concrete industry.
Rejected/excess precast concrete is a significant source for
clean RCA with high quality and consistent properties (as
compared with material from construction recycling yards).
The ability for precast concrete plants to recycle their own
rejected/excess materials into new concrete would not only
reduce the demand for natural coarse aggregates but also
reduce material transportation costs and space needed for
the storage of concrete debris. With these benefits, the use
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
of precast RCA in precast/prestressed concrete members
represents a real opportunity for practical applications of
engineered RCA concrete.
With this vision, this paper describes the measured results
from 18 pretensioned concrete beam test specimens mono-
tonically loaded to ultimate flexural failure under four-point
bending. The 18 specimens were saw-cut from a set of nine
longer beams, which were cast and prestressed at a promi-
nent precast concrete production plant in a manner consis-
tent with current U.S. practice, varying the RCA source,
aggregate replacement ratio, and prestress level. The beams
used two standard concrete mixture designs from the precast
concrete plant, but with natural coarse aggregates (crushed
limestone) replaced by RCA up to full (100%) volume
replacement. Two different sources of high-quality RCA
from rejected precast hollow-core members and traditional
construction recycling waste were used. The ultimate-load
test results of the 18 beams described in this paper were
obtained after the nine longer parent beams were subjected
to sustained service-level loads.4 The measured results under
two different moment-to-shear ratios were compared with an
existing structural analysis program for prestressed concrete,
Response-2000,5 as well as ACI 318-146 design predictions.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The development and industry adoption of sustainable
construction practices are essential to satisfy the vast infra-
structure needs of today and of the future; the use of RCA
can provide quantifiable benefits.7 With concrete being the
most widely used construction material on earth, researchers
have investigated many methods to reduce its environmental
impacts—for example, by replacing cement with indus-
trial by-products and by reducing water demands using
admixtures. Given the need to replace aging buildings and
bridges in many parts of the world, a major effort has been
the recycling of old crushed concrete as replacement for
natural coarse aggregates in new concrete structures. Much
of the research on this topic to date has involved conven-
tional monolithic cast-in-place reinforced concrete construc-
tion. In comparison, research on the use of RCA in precast/
prestressed concrete structures has been very limited. This
paper contributes to this knowledge gap by presenting recent
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 2, March 2019.
MS No. S-2017-299.R2, doi: 10.14359/51713287, was received May 8, 2018, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
15
Fig. 1—Ultimate load test beams: (a) a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6 elevation; and (b) beam cross section. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 2—Schematic and photograph of ultimate-load tests. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
test data on the ultimate load behavior of flexure-critical
precast/prestressed RCA concrete beams.
BACKGROUND
Previous research on the use of RCA in precast and/or
prestressed concrete applications is limited. Regarding mate-
rial properties, Limbachiya et al.8 investigated the effect of
precast RCA (that is, RCA from precast concrete members)
on the concrete compression strength, in addition to its effect
on other engineering properties (for example, stiffness,
creep, and shrinkage) and durability (freezing and thawing,
chloride diffusion, abrasion, and permeability). The effect
of precast RCA on the concrete strength was found to be
minimal for aggregate replacements of up to 30%. Through
a series of concrete compression and tension strength tests,
Perez-Benedicto et al.9 concluded that precast RCA can be
used for higher percentages of aggregate replacement than
other RCA sources. A study by Soares et al.10,11 incorporating
laboratory material tests as well as in-place tests of full-scale
structures also found excellent mechanical and durability
properties of concrete with precast RCA. The influence of
water-cement ratio (w/c) on the mechanical properties of
RCA concrete suitable for prestressed members was investi-
gated by Lopez-Gayarre et al.12
Regarding structural applications, Gonzalez-Corominas
et al.13 conducted ultimate load tests of prestressed concrete
railroad sleepers produced with high-quality RCA. The
effects of RCA on the bond strength of prestressing steel
16
and on the early-age strength and stiffness gain of concrete,
which are critical for precast/prestressed concrete applica-
tions, were recently investigated by the authors.14 The ulti-
mate shear-critical behavior of prestressed RCA concrete
beams was also investigated.15 To the best of the authors’
knowledge, no other previous research exists on the ultimate
load behavior of prestressed concrete structural members
(for example, beams) using RCA. There has also been no
research on the long-term durability of prestressed RCA
concrete structures—for example, investigating the effects
of the greater RCA porosity (as compared with that of natural
coarse aggregates) on the corrosion of prestressing steel.
Previous research on non-prestressed beams has shown
that the use of RCA has little effect on ultimate flexural
strength and ductility. For example, Fathifazl et al.16 showed
that, although beams with greater amounts of RCA had
slightly lower cracking moment and greater crack formation,
the moment-versus-deflection behavior through failure was
not affected significantly. Similarly, Knaack and Kurama17
showed that increased amounts of RCA had little effect on
the yield moment, flexural strength, and ultimate deflection.
Finally, Kang et al.18 determined the flexural design equations
in ACI 318-14 to be valid for aggregate replacements of up
to 30%. Previous tests of shear-critical non-prestressed RCA
concrete beams have shown mixed results. For example,
specimens with 100% replacement in Knaack and Kurama17
showed relatively small effect of RCA on the shear strength
of the beams, while Etxeberria et al.19 found greater effects.
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
Table 1—Ultimate-load test beams with a/dp = 7.6
Service load test beam ID Ultimate load test beam ID R ls, mm lo, mm lo + a, mm tu, days fpj, MPa f p ,tu ,� MPa

UP4-0-28 UP4-0-7.6 0 232 1303 1077

UP4-50-28 UP4-50-7.6 0.5 232 1303 1050
UP4-100-28 UP4-100-7.6 1.0 232 1303 1004
UP5-0-28 UP5-0-7.6 0 198 1303 1050
UP5-50-28 UP5-50-7.6 0.5 3048 152 1600 198 1303 1021
UP5-100-28 UP5-100-7.6 1.0 198 1303 1018
CT4-0-28 CT4-0-7.6 0 117 931 758
CT4-50-28 CT4-50-7.6 0.5 117 931 729
CT4-100-28 CT4-100-7.6 1.0 117 931 685

Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 2—Ultimate-load test beams with a/dp = 3.6

Service load test beam ID Ultimate load test beam ID R ls, mm lo, mm lo + a, mm tu, days fpj, MPa f p ,tu � , MPa

UP4-0-28 UP4-0-3.6 0 236 1303 1077

UP4-50-28 UP4-50-3.6 0.5 236 1303 1050
UP4-100-28 UP4-100-3.6 1.0 236 1303 1004
UP5-0-28 UP5-0-3.6 0 202 1303 1050
UP5-50-28 UP5-50-3.6 0.5 1524 457 1143 202 1303 1021
UP5-100-28 UP5-100-3.6 1.0 202 1303 1018
CT4-0-28 CT4-0-3.6 0 119 931 758
CT4-50-28 CT4-50-3.6 0.5 119 931 729
CT4-100-28 CT4-100-3.6 1.0 119 931 685

Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

These discrepancies may point to the greater effects of RCA
quality and properties on the shear strength than on the flex-
ural strength. In comparison with the ultimate load behavior,
the effect of RCA on the sustained service load deflections of
non-prestressed reinforced concrete beams was found to be
greater.20,21 Vertical load, lateral load, and shake-table tests
of reinforced concrete frame structures,22-26 some incorpo-
rating precast RCA, have generally supported the results
found from member tests that RCA is a feasible alternative
to natural coarse aggregates in structural applications.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The precast beams in this research program were tested in
two series of nine specimens each, with applied moment-to-
shear ratios of a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6, respectively, where a is the
distance from the simple support to the point of load applica-
tion and dp is the effective depth to the prestressing strands.
Figure 1 depicts the beam elevation for each series, as well as
the cross section, which was the same in all cases. The clear
span length ls between supports was 3048 and 1542 mm (120
and 60 in.) for the beams with a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6, respectively,
and the overhang length lo from each support to the beam end
was 152 and 457 mm (6 and 18 in.), respectively.
The 18 beams were saw-cut from nine 5.79 m (228 in.)
long beams that were subjected to service-level loads for a
period of approximately 2.5 months or more4 prior to the
ultimate load testing. Each beam was b = 152 mm (6 in.)
wide and h = 229 mm (9 in.) deep. The primary reinforce-
ment consisted of two 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) diameter steel
prestressing strands at a depth of dp = 191 mm (7.5 in.) from
the top. Each beam was also reinforced with two Grade 420
(U.S. Grade 60) No. 10 (U.S. No. 3) longitudinal bars at
the top, in addition to Grade 420 No. 10 stirrups at 171 mm
(6.75 in.) on center. The strands in 12 of the specimens were
pretensioned (jacked) to a stress of fpj = 0.7fpu (where fpu =
1862 MPa [270 ksi] is the specified ultimate strand strength)
to prevent immediate cracking of the bottom surface under
the applied service loads4 (consistent with Class U member
definition in ACI 318-14). The other six beams were preten-
sioned to fpj = 0.5fpu to result in concrete tension stresses
within the range for ACI 318-14 Class C (cracked) members
under service loads. All beams were designed to develop
cracking on the top surface upon prestress transfer and were
therefore reinforced with the two No. 10 top bars to control
this cracking.
No strand slip was observed at the beam ends upon saw-
cutting. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the ulti-
mate-load tests with a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6, respectively,
including the parent service-load beam for each ultimate-load
specimen, aggregate replacement ratio R (expressed as a
percentage of the total coarse aggregate volume1), span
length between simple supports ls for each ultimate-load
beam, distance from beam end to simple support lo, distance
from beam end to point of load application lo + a (that is,

ACI Structural Journal/March 2019 17

 Table 4—Dry weight proportions for target NA
concrete mixture designs (excluding admixtures)
NA Water*, Cement, Cement NA-CL2,
mixture kg/m3 kg/m3 type† w/c kg/m3 FA, kg/m3
M-NA4 139 415 I-2 0.34 949 842 (FA2)
M-NA5 155 415 I-3 0.38 949 856 (FA3)
*
Required mixing water over saturated-surface-dry (SSD) condition of coarse and fine
aggregates.
†
Two different types of Type I cement were used.
Note: 1 kg/m3 = 1.686 lb/yd3.

Fig. 3—Coarse aggregate gradation. (Note: 1 mm =

0.0394 in.) Table 5—Dry weight proportions for RCA concrete
mixture designs
RCA Target NA NA-CL2,
Table 3—Aggregate properties
mixture mixture R*, % RCA, kg/m3 kg/m3
Specific gravity
Water M-RCA15 M-NA4 50 446 (RCA-PC3) 475
Saturated absorption,
M-RCA16 M-NA4 100 893 (RCA-PC3) —
Aggregate Type Bulk dry surface-dry % wt.
M-RCA17 M-NA5 50 446 (RCA-PC3) 475
RCA-PC3 Rejected precast 2.44 2.52 3.39
M-RCA18 M-NA5 100 893 (RCA-PC3) —
RCA-T Demolition waste 2.49 2.60 4.36
M-RCA19 M-NA4 50 460 (RCA-T) 475
NA-CL2 Crushed limestone 2.61 2.68 0.60
M-RCA20 M-NA4 100 921 (RCA-T) —
FA2 Sand n.a. 2.62 0.90
*
R is replacement ratio (Eq. (1)).
FA3 Limestone sand n.a. 2.80 0.60
Note: 1 kg/m3 = 1.686 lb/yd3.
Note: n.a. is not available.
cates the type of RCA, with “P” for precast RCA and “T”
provided development length for the strands), age of concrete for traditional RCA, with the RCA properties described in
(from casting) at time for ultimate loading tu, jacking the section on “Aggregates.” For the third character, the
stress fpj, and remaining prestress (after losses4) at time tu number “4” indicates that the aggregate replacement was
of ultimate loading, fp,tu. The provided strand development based on target NA concrete mixture M-NA4, while the
lengths lo + a in the saw-cut beams exceeded the required number “5” indicates replacement based on NA concrete
prestress transfer lengths, which were calculated as 635 and mixture M-NA5, which are described in the section titled
457 mm (25 and 18 in.) for the Class U and Class C beams, “Concrete mixtures.” The fourth character of the specimen
respectively, per ACI 318-14. Thus, it is expected that the nomenclature indicates the replacement ratio R expressed as
full intended level of prestress was present at the midspan a percentage (0, 50, and 100%) of the total coarse aggregate
of all the saw-cut beams. However, the provided strand volume. The last character of the nomenclature represents
development lengths were shorter than the required develop- the concrete age at superimposed service loading, to,
ment lengths per ACI 318-14, which resulted in strand slip (28 days) for the service-load tests4 and a/dp (3.6 or 7.6) for
during the ultimate load testing of some of the beams, as the ultimate-load tests.
discussed in more detail later in this paper.
Figure 2 depicts a schematic and a photograph of the ulti- Aggregates
mate-load test setup. Each beam was placed on a simple As shown in Table 3, RCA from two different sources
support at each end. These supports were not constructed were used as follows. RCA-PC3 was rejected hollow-core
as rollers; however, they had rounded low-friction steel members from Kerkstra Precast, Inc. in Grandville, MI,
surfaces to minimize any restraint to the rotation and hori- where the casting and prestressing of the beams were done.
zontal movement of the beam ends. A 245 kN (55 kip) RCA-T was a traditional construction demolition waste
capacity, 254 mm-stroke (10 in.), servo-controlled hydraulic acquired from a recycling yard in Grandville, MI. The target
actuator reacting against a stiff fixture was used to apply a gradation for the coarse aggregates was MDOT27 No. 17A;
vertical load through two steel rods placed 152 mm (6 in.) however, this target was not fully achieved, as can be seen
apart in between the actuator foot and the top of the beam. in Fig. 3. Both RCA sources were clean, with less than 1%
The actuator was operated using a servo-hydraulic controller deleterious materials (for example, wood, asphalt). The use
in displacement feedback mode at a rate of approximately of high-quality RCA in the project represented the rigorous
2.5 mm/min (0.1 in./min). quality requirements used in the precast concrete industry.
For the specimen nomenclature in Tables 1 and 2, the The natural coarse aggregate (NA) was crushed limestone
first letter “U” indicates uncracked (Class U) beams with (NA-CL2), and typical concrete sand (FA2) as well as lime-
fpj = 0.7fpu, while “C” indicates cracked (Class C) beams stone sand (FA3) were used to cast the beams. ASTM C12728
with fpj = 0.5fpu. The second letter of the nomenclature indi- and ASTM C12829 were used to determine the specific

18 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

Fig. 4—Flexural cracking from superimposed service loading of CT4 beams: (a) R = 0; (b) R = 0.5; and (c) R = 1.0.

Table 6—Concrete material properties

28 days Beam test day tu
Beam ID Spread, mm fc′, MPa Ec, MPa ft′, MPa f c′,tu , MPa Ec ,tu , MPa f t ,′tu , MPa
UP4-0-7.6,3.6 572 65.9 39,774 5.30 77.1 43,215 5.72
UP4-50-7.6,3.6 533 67.9 38,364 5.83 81.4 41,799 6.38
UP4-100-7.6,3.6 546 70.1 35,322 5.20 82.7 41,343 5.65
UP5-0-7.6,3.6 546 58.0 32,744 5.89 69.2 37,595 6.43
UP5-50-7.6,3.6 546 58.1 33,733 5.23 67.5 34,799 5.64
UP5-100-7.6,3.6 521 62.4 30,951 5.38 70.7 35,502 5.74
CT4-0-7.6,3.6 552 60.3 37,115 3.88 66.1 38,197 4.06
CT4-50-7.6,3.6 603 61.1 34,264 3.36 69.3 36,067 3.59
CT4-100-7.6,3.6 483 62.1 33,613 3.49 69.0 33,885 3.67

Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

NA concrete mixture designs. The dry weight proportions

Table 7—Prestressing strand properties for the RCA concrete mixtures with R = 0.5 (that is, 50%
Strand ID Beam ID Ap, mm2 Ep, MPa fpu, MPa εpu, mm/mm volumetric replacement) and 1.0 (100% replacement) used
S-0.5B2 UP4 97 212,076 2023 0.0651 in this research are shown in Table 5.
S-0.5B3 UP5 97 208,022 2006 0.0751
Properties of concrete and prestressing steel
S-0.5B4 CT4 96 208,353 1995 0.0677 strand
Notes: 1 mm2 = 0.00155 in.2; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi. For each beam casting, three 76 mm (3 in.) by 152 mm
(6 in.) concrete cylinders were tested14 (at each age) to deter-
gravity and absorption for the coarse (both NA and RCA) mine the compression strength fc′ and stiffness Ec at ages
and fine aggregates, respectively. of 18 hours, 7 days, 28 days, 56 days, and after all of the
ultimate-load beam tests had been completed according to
Concrete mixtures ASTM C39.30 Because changes in the concrete properties
Table 4 shows the dry weight proportions (for a batch size between the 56-day and subsequent final concrete cylinder
of 1 m3 [1.31 yd3]) of the two target NA concrete mixtures tests were small, linear interpolation was used to determine
that formed the basis of the RCA concrete mixtures in this the compression strength f c′,tu and stiffness Ec ,tu at the time of
research. The RCA concrete mixtures were determined using ultimate load testing tu for each beam. The concrete tension
the direct volume replacement (DVR) method1 by replacing strength ft′ was measured from three modulus of rupture
a selected volume of coarse NA with an equal volume of (MOR) beams tested at 28 days under three-point bending
RCA according to with a 457 mm (18 in.) span length per ASTM C293.31 To
determine the tension strength f t ,′tu at tu, the 28-day strength
RCA NAC
R = 1 − (VNA /VNA ) (1) ft′ was multiplied by the ratio between the square root (that
is, 1/2 power) of f c′,tu and the square root of the 28-day
RCA
where R is volumetric replacement ratio; VNA is volume compression strength fc′. Note that this calculation is rather
of natural coarse aggregate in RCA concrete mixture; and arbitrary and, thus, the resulting f t ,′tu values should be used
NAC
VNA is volume of natural coarse aggregate in NA concrete with caution, especially also considering the large inherent
mixture. The DVR method ensures that for a given volume variability in the tension strength of concrete.
of concrete, the volumetric proportion of each component Table 6 shows the average concrete properties for each
of the mixture remains constant between different RCA and mixture, including spread, which was measured according

ACI Structural Journal/March 2019 19

Fig. 5—Moment-versus-deflection behavior of beams with: (a) a/dp = 7.6; and (b) a/dp = 3.6. (Note: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.;
1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 8—Cracking strength and initial stiffness of beams with a/dp = 7.6
Mc, kN-m ∆c, mm Ki, kN/mm
Beam ID Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Pred. P/M
UP4-0-7.6 29.1 28.4 0.98 5.8 4.1 0.69 7.01 9.98 1.42
UP4-50-7.6 29.5 28.5 0.97 5.6 4.1 0.71 7.36 9.98 1.35
UP4-100-7.6 28.2 28.4 1.01 6.9 3.8 0.58 5.78 9.98 1.75
UP5-0-7.6 30.2 28.2 0.93 6.6 4.1 0.63 6.48 9.46 1.47
UP5-50-7.6 28.7 27.9 0.97 6.6 3.8 0.56 5.95 10.5 1.74
UP5-100-7.6 28.9 28.1 0.97 6.4 4.1 0.64 6.30 9.46 1.53
CT4-0-7.6 23.1 27.4 1.18 5.6 4.3 0.74 5.60 9.11 1.60
CT4-50-7.6 23.1 27.4 1.19 6.9 4.3 0.62 4.55 8.76 1.92
CT4-100-7.6 21.7 27.4 1.26 7.4 4.3 0.60 4.20 8.58 2.10
Avg. = 1.05 Avg. = 0.64 Avg. = 1.65
St. dev. = 0.12 St. dev. = 0.06 St. dev. = 0.25

Notes: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN/mm = 5.71 kip/in.

to ASTM C1611.32 In most cases, RCA led to an increase
in the concrete compression strength (but not necessarily
the tension strength), which can be attributed to the high
quality and low deleterious material content of the RCA.
Conversely, the use of RCA led to a drop in the concrete
stiffness in almost all cases. This was expected due to the
presence of residual mortar on the RCA,1 which was less
stiff than the crushed limestone it replaced.
The prestressing steel was seven-wire, uncoated, low-
relaxation strand that satisfied ASTM A416.33 Three different
strand spools from the same manufacturer were used as
listed in Table 7. For each spool, the cross-sectional area Ap
of the strand was determined using the measured weight of
strand samples, as described in Walsh and Kurama.34 Addi-
tionally, three strand samples were tested to free-length
fracture, using sand-grip anchors,34 to determine the linear-
elastic stiffness Ep, peak (ultimate) strength fpu, and ultimate
(fracture) strain εpu. A 51 mm (2 in.) gauge extensometer
was used to measure the free-length strand strains during
these tests. As allowed by ASTM A370,35 the extensometer
was removed prior to strand fracture (to prevent damage to
the sensor), with the subsequent incremental strand strains
determined from the relative displacements of the testing
machine crossheads.

20 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

Table 9—Ultimate strength and failure deflection of beams with a/dp = 7.6
Mu, kN-m ∆u, mm su, mm ∆f, mm
Beam ID Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Meas. Mn, kN-m Mn/Mu fpn, MPa ldt, mm
UP4-0-7.6 63.8 63.1 0.99 29.5 25.1 0.85 0 67.6 64.6 1.01 1895 2169
UP4-50-7.6 63.6 63.4 1.00 32.5 24.9 0.77 0 67.6 64.9 1.02 1897 2205
UP4-100-7.6 64.1 63.2 0.99 34.3 25.4 0.74 0 65.5 65.0 1.01 1896 2261
UP5-0-7.6 62.7 62.6 1.00 31.8 23.6 0.74 0 64.8 62.9 1.00 1859 2134
UP5-50-7.6 62.1 62.0 1.00 35.8 24.6 0.69 0 81.3 62.7 1.01 1857 2167
UP5-100-7.6 64.3 62.4 0.97 38.1 24.4 0.64 0 70.6 63.0 0.98 1859 2174
CT4-0-7.6 58.3 60.8 1.04 40.6 30.7 0.75 0 71.9 61.6 1.06 1826 2431
CT4-50-7.6 59.3 60.9 1.03 54.4 31.5 0.58 1.37 72.4 62.2 1.05 1836 2484
CT4-100-7.6 58.2 60.8 1.05 58.9 32.5 0.55 2.08 65.5 61.9 1.06 1826 2522
Avg. = 1.01 Avg. = 0.70 Avg. = 1.02
St. dev. = 0.03 St. dev. = 0.10 St. dev. = 0.03

Notes: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

Table 10—Cracking strength and initial stiffness of beams with a/dp = 3.6
Mc, kN-m ∆c, mm Ki, kN/mm
Beam ID Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Pred. P/M
UP4-0-3.6 30.9 28.3 0.92 2.5 1.1 0.42 35.9 77.4 2.16
UP4-50-3.6 31.9 28.5 0.89 2.5 1.1 0.44 38.0 78.1 2.05
UP4-100-3.6 29.2 28.4 0.97 2.8 1.0 0.38 31.5 79.7 2.53
UP5-0-3.6 35.7 28.2 0.79 2.5 1.1 0.42 39.2 73.6 1.88
UP5-50-3.6 32.3 27.9 0.86 2.3 1.1 0.47 39.6 72.9 1.84
UP5-100-3.6 30.8 28.1 0.91 2.3 1.0 0.40 37.3 84.8 2.27
CT4-0-3.6 24.1 27.4 1.14 2.3 1.1 0.53 32.2 69.9 2.17
CT4-50-3.6 22.8 27.4 1.20 2.0 1.2 0.56 31.7 68.3 2.15
CT4-100-3.6 21.4 27.4 1.28 2.3 1.2 0.51 26.4 66.9 2.53
Avg. = 1.00 Avg. = 0.46 Avg. = 2.18
St. dev. = 0.17 St. dev. = 0.06 St. dev. = 0.24

Notes: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN/mm = 5.71 kip/in.

Beam pretensioning and casting
The nine 5.79 m (228 in.) long beams were cast and
prestressed at Kerkstra Precast, Inc., Grandville, MI. The
prestressing strands were passed through the formwork and
reinforcement cages, anchored on the dead-end bulkhead,
and jacked and anchored to the specified force at the live end.
The jacking force was ensured using a calibrated pressure
gauge, and the final elongation of each strand was checked
against the target elongation corresponding to the specified
jacking force. The beams were cast in their as-tested config-
uration according to the daily batching procedures at Kerk-
stra Precast, Inc. For each mixture, approximately 0.76 m3
(1 yd3) of concrete was batched. After casting, the beams and
companion material specimens (for compression strength
and modulus of rupture testing) were covered with a tarp and
allowed to cure on the prestressing bed for approximately
18 hours. At this point, three initial compression strength
cylinders were tested to ensure appropriate concrete strength
gain, after which the prestressing strands were cut simulta-
neously to transfer the prestress force into each beam.
Service loading of beams prior to ultimate-load
testing
A brief overview of the service-load testing of the beams4
is provided herein as background for the subsequent
ultimate-load testing. After prestress transfer, the beams
were brought to the laboratory at the University of Notre
Dame and subjected to a total superimposed service load of
Ws = 2134 kg (4705 lb) through four-point bending for at
least 78 days starting at an age of 28 days. The concrete in
compression and the prestressing steel in tension remained
in the linear elastic range and, thus, the only effects (albeit
minor) of the service loading of the beams were concrete
cracking and prestress losses. The reduction of prestress
due to long-term losses was estimated using measurements
from embedded concrete vibrating wire strain gauges in
select beams.4 The remaining strand stresses at the time of

ACI Structural Journal/March 2019 21

Table 11—Ultimate strength and failure deflection of beams with a/dp = 3.6
Mu, kN-m ∆u, mm su, mm ∆f, mm
Beam ID Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Pred. P/M Meas. Meas. Mn, kN-m Mn/Mu fpn, MPa ldt, mm
UP4-0-3.6 59.9 62.9 1.05 10.2 7.6 0.75 0.03 34.5 64.6 1.08 1895 2169
UP4-50-3.6 64.6 63.4 0.98 14.0 7.6 0.55 0.33 30.2 64.9 1.01 1897 2205
UP4-100-3.6 62.4 63.2 1.01 15.0 8.1 0.54 0.28 33.0 65.0 1.04 1896 2261
UP5-0-3.6 61.2 62.6 1.02 11.2 7.4 0.65 0.36 33.0 62.9 1.03 1859 2134
UP5-50-3.6 59.9 62.0 1.04 12.7 7.6 0.59 0.46 32.0 62.7 1.05 1857 2167
UP5-100-3.6 62.4 62.4 1.00 12.4 7.6 0.61 0 45.7 63.0 1.01 1859 2174
CT4-0-3.6 50.7 60.8 1.20 16.8 9.7 0.57 2.06 50.5 61.6 1.22 1826 2431
CT4-50-3.6 50.6 60.9 1.20 29.5 9.9 0.34 2.95 35.1 62.2 1.23 1836 2484
CT4-100-3.6 55.5 60.8 1.10 26.9 10.4 0.38 2.72 28.2 61.9 1.11 1826 2522
Avg. = 1.07 Avg. = 0.55 Avg. = 1.09
St. dev. = 0.08 St. dev. = 0.13 St. dev. = 0.08

Notes: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

ultimate-load testing, f p ,tu , listed in Table 1, were estimated
from the measured prestress losses at the end of the service
loading. Changes in the vibrating wire gauge strains toward
the end of the service-load tests were very small; thus, the
last measured strains were deemed appropriate for use at
time tu of the ultimate-load tests.
As anticipated by design and allowed by ACI 318-14,6 all
beams experienced flexural cracking at the top upon prestress
transfer. These cracks closed upon the application of super-
imposed load and, therefore, did not affect the behavior
of the beams. Also, as designed, the superimposed service
loading caused flexural (bottom) cracks in the midspan
regions of the Class C beams (that is, CT4 beams with fpj =
0.5fpu). Figure 4 shows the observed superimposed load-in-
duced cracking in the CT4 beams. Note that the cracks were
hairline width but were highlighted with a marker for ease
of viewing. In general, an increase in the number and length
of cracking was observed between the beams with R = 0
and 1.0. This difference may have occurred because of the
reduced tension strength of RCA concrete (refer to f c′,tu
values in Table 6) as well as the increased prestress losses
(refer to f p ,tu � values in Tables 1 and 2). The Class U beams
(that is, UP4 and UP5 beams with fpj = 0.7fpu) did not develop
any bottom cracks during service loading.
Because the service-load test beams were saw-cut away
from the midspan, the shorter Class C Beams (CT4-0-3.6,
CT4-50-3.6, and CT4-100-3.6) did not include any preex-
isting bottom cracks. Instead, the entire cracked region of the
Class C service-load test beams was located on one side of
the midspan (that is, off-center with respect to the midspan)
in Beams CT4-0-7.6, CT4-50-7.6, and CT4-100-7.6. The
cracked region extended from the beam end to a distance
of approximately 3dp, 2.1dp, and 1.8dp from the constant
moment region (that is, region between the steel rods placed
152 mm [6 in.] apart under the actuator foot at the top of
the beam) at the midspan of Beams CT4-0-7.6, CT4-50-
7.6, and CT4-100-7.6, respectively. The cracks closer to the
beam midspan were much smaller than the cracks closer to
the beam end. Importantly, because there were no cracks
in the constant moment region of any beam, the flexural
failure during the ultimate-load testing of the beams was not
affected. However, the preexisting cracks likely affected the
initial stiffness of these beams and may have also caused
earlier crack propagation on the precracked side of the beam
during the early stages of testing.
Numerical modeling
Each ultimate-load test beam was modeled in
Response-20005 to determine the nonlinear load-versus-dis-
placement behavior up to peak load. The beam cross section
was defined using the section generator in Response-2000.
The concrete compression stress-strain behavior was
modeled using the Popovics/Thorenfeldt/Collins rela-
tionship5 in Response-2000, together with the measured
compression strength, f c′,tu (Table 6). The tension strength was
taken as f t ,′tu from Table 6, and the tension stiffening factor5
was set as the default, 1.0 for the post-cracking stress-strain
relationship.
The stress-strain relationship of the prestressing steel also
followed the default model in Response-2000, based on the
Ramberg-Osgood relationship.5 Even though the measured
values for Ep and fpu (Table 7) were considerably greater,
Response-2000 does not allow the user to modify the default
values of Ep = 196,500 MPa (28,500 ksi) and fpu = 1862 MPa
(270 ksi). The modeled prestress included losses estimated
using the last measured concrete vibrating wire gauge strains
at the end of sustained service loading ( f p ,tu in Table 1). The
No. 10 compression (top) deformed reinforcing bars and
transverse (shear) stirrups were modeled using nominal
ASTM A615 Grade 420 steel properties. The steel stress-
strain relationship was defined as linear (with stiffness of
Es = 199,950 MPa [29,000 ksi]) until yielding at a stress of
fsy = 414 MPa (60 ksi), flat post-yield until strain hardening
at a strain of εs,sh = 0.015 mm/mm, and quadratic during
strain hardening with a slope of zero at the point of ultimate
(that is, maximum) stress (fsu = 621 MPa [90 ksi]) and corre-
sponding strain (εsu = 0.08 mm/mm).

22 ACI Structural Journal/March 2019

Fig. 6—Beams with a/dp = 7.6 at ∆f (R = 0 [top row], R = 0.5 [middle row], R = 1.0 [bottom row]): (a) UP4; (b) UP5; and
(c) CT4.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The measured results from the ultimate-load testing
of the prestressed concrete beams with a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6
are presented in this section. Figure 5 shows the applied
moment M versus deflection ∆ relationships of the beams
with different R to evaluate the effect of RCA on the ulti-
mate flexural behavior. The moment was determined using
the measured load as the maximum moment (constant
between the load application points) ±76 mm (±3 in.) from
the beam midspan (not including self-weight, which was
negligible compared to the applied load). The deflection was
the maximum deflection at the beam midspan, measured as
the average from two string potentiometers placed on both
sides of the beam. Most of the beams were also equipped
with linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) at each
end to measure any slip in the prestressing strands, which
was necessary because cutting of the beams resulted in
smaller development lengths, lo + a, (Table 1) than required
by ACI 318-14. Data for all measurements were collected at
a sampling frequency of approximately 100 Hz.
Effect of RCA
Each graph in Fig. 5 depicts three UP4, UP5, or CT4
beams with R = 0, 0.5, and 1.0. The following points are
marked on each curve: 1) “cracking” at moment Mc and
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
deflection ∆c (denoted by a ○ marker); 2) ultimate moment
Mu and deflection ∆u ( ∇ marker); and 3) failure, defined
at 0.8Mu and corresponding deflection ∆f (□ marker). The
cracking moment Mc was defined as the point when the slope
of the M-∆ curve began to deviate from the initial linear-
elastic stiffness. To find this point, a trend line was fit to the
initial linear portion of the M-∆ curve. Once deviation (of
approximately 0.05% in moment) from this line was calcu-
lated, the beam was deemed to have “cracked.” The ultimate
moment Mu was defined as the peak moment reached during
the test, at the corresponding deflection ∆u. Finally, the
failure moment Mf was defined by a 20% drop in resistance
from Mu, with the failure deflection ∆f taken as the corre-
sponding deflection.
Table 8 presents the cracking moment Mc, corresponding
deflection ∆c, and initial stiffness Ki of the beams with a/dp = 7.6.
The initial stiffness was determined by dividing the super-
imposed load applied at Mc by ∆c. Table 9 lists the ultimate
moment Mu, corresponding deflection ∆u, maximum strand
slip (if any) at ultimate moment su, and failure deflection ∆f
of the beams. Tables 10 and 11 show similar key results for
the beams with a/dp = 3.6.
The results show that RCA had little effect on the overall
moment-versus-deflection behavior of the beams. The use
of RCA at 100% replacement (R = 1.0) resulted in a small
23
Fig. 7—Beams with a/dp = 3.6 at ∆f (R = 0 [top row], R = 0.5 [middle row], R = 1.0 [bottom row]): (a) UP4; (b) UP5; and
(c) CT4.
reduction in the cracking moment Mc, as well as a reduc-
tion in the initial stiffness Ki. The results for beams with R =
0.5 were somewhat mixed. The average reductions in Mc for
R = 0.5 and 1.0 were 1% and 4%, respectively, for the beams
with a/dp = 7.6, and 4% and 10%, respectively, for the beams
with a/dp = 3.6. The average reductions in Ki for R = 0.5
and 1.0 were 7% and 15%, respectively, for the beams with
a/dp = 7.6, and –2% (that is, an increase in stiffness) and
12%, respectively, for the beams with a/dp = 3.6. The reduc-
tion in Ki was more pronounced for the CT4-7.6 beams;
however, the behavior up to and through the “cracking” of
these beams was likely affected by the preexisting and asym-
metric flexural cracks from the service-load testing.
The differences in the ultimate moment Mu of the beams
with different R were also small, with increases on average
as a result of the use of RCA. The average increases in Mu
for R = 0.5 and 1.0 were 0% and 1%, respectively, for the
beams with a/dp = 7.6, and 2% and 5%, respectively, for the
beams with a/dp = 3.6. As a more pronounced difference, the
beams with greater R (especially for the CT4 beams) gener-
ally reached Mu at greater deflections ∆u. This indicates that
the decreased stiffness of RCA concrete allowed for greater
beam displacements at failure. The average increases in ∆u
for R = 0.5 and 1.0 were 19% and 27%, respectively, for the
beams with a/dp = 7.6, and 42% and 39%, respectively, for
the beams with a/dp = 3.6.
24
All the beams demonstrated flexural failure with signifi-
cant flexural cracking and crushing of the concrete near the
midspan, as depicted in Fig. 6 and 7 for the damage state of
each beam at ∆f. The normalized shear force factor at ulti-
mate load, vu = Vu/(bdp√ f c′,tu), were small and ranged between
0.17 and 0.18 and between 0.31 and 0.37 using MPa units
(2.0 and 2.2, and 3.7 and 4.5, using psi units) for the beams
with a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6, respectively. In comparison, the
estimated shear strength factor vc = Vc/(bdp√ f c′,tu) provided
by the concrete (with Vc calculated as the smallest from
Eq. (22.5.5.1) and Table 22.5.8.2 of ACI 318-14) was 0.17
(using MPa units) for the beams with a/dp = 7.6 and ranged
between 0.20 and 0.22 (using MPa units) for the beams with
a/dp = 7.6 (2.0, and 2.4 and 2.6, respectively, using psi units).
Thus, diagonal cracking was more pronounced in the beams
with a/dp = 3.6 (because of the greater difference between
vu and vc for these beams). Note, however, that the ultimate
behavior was still governed by flexure because the beams
had shear reinforcement. As a result, the Mu values for the
beams with a/dp = 3.6 were similar to (and most values were
slightly smaller than) the moments reached by the beams
with a/dp = 7.6.
Effect of strand slip
As stated previously, all of the ultimate-load test beams
had smaller strand development lengths, lo + a, (Table 1)
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
Fig. 8—Response 2000 predictions and measured strand slip for beams with a/dp = 7.6 (R = 0 [top row], R = 0.5 [middle row],
R = 1.0 [bottom row]): (a) UP4; (b) UP5; and (c) CT4. (Note: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
than required by ACI 318-14.6 Figures 8 and 9 superimpose
the measured M-∆ behavior of each beam with the measured
slip s, if any, at each end of the two strands (using four
LVDTs as shown in Fig. 2). The magnitude of slip is shown
on the right y-axis and the initiation of slip is depicted using
a dashed vertical line. There were no discernable trends
about the location of slip in terms of the live end, dead end,
and/or the saw-cut end of the beams.
The CT4 beams, which required a greater development
length due to the smaller prestress force, were the only
beams with a/dp = 7.6 that experienced strand slip. The
magnitude of slip was small, but there was an increasing
trend with R. In the beam with R = 0, strand slip occurred
after the ultimate moment Mu was reached and, thus, did not
affect Mu or ∆u. For the beams with R = 0.5 and 1.0, strand
slip initiated prior to reaching Mu and caused a small drop in
load, followed by an increase in load. This strand slip may
have contributed to the observed increase in ∆u with R (refer
to Fig. 8(c)) together with the reduced stiffness of RCA
concrete discussed previously.
Strand slip occurred in each beam with a/dp = 3.6 due to
the shorter distance from the beam end to the load applica-
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
tion point, lo + a (refer to Table 2 and Fig. 1). Except for the
UP5 beam with R = 1.0, strand slip initiated prior to or at
the ultimate moment Mu and, thus, affected the ultimate and
failure behavior. The greatest magnitudes of slip and largest
effects of slip on Mu, ∆u, and ∆f occurred for the CT4 beams
(Fig. 9(c)), which required a greater development length
due to the lower prestress force, as discussed previously. No
discernable trends were found for the effect of RCA on the
amount of slip.
NUMERICAL MODEL AND DESIGN
COMPARISONS
Figures 8 and 9 also compare the measured M-∆ behavior of
each beam with the predicted behavior from Response-2000
(dashed lines). The ratio between the predicted value and
measured value (P/M) is also shown for Mc, ∆c, Ki, Mu, and
∆u in Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11. Response-2000 reasonably
accurately and conservatively underpredicted the cracking
moment Mc for the UP4 and UP5 beams, but overpredicted
Mc for the CT4 beams with both a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6, likely
because of the preexisting flexural (bottom) cracks in these
beams, which were not included in the Response-2000
25
Fig. 9—Response 2000 predictions and measured strand slip for beams with a/dp = 3.6 (R = 0 [top row], R = 0.5 [middle row],
R = 1.0 [bottom row]): (a) UP4; (b) UP5; and (c) CT4. (Note: 1 kN-m = 8.85 kip-in.; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
models. The predictions for the ultimate moment Mu were
fairly accurate for all of the beams, except for the CT4
beams with a/dp = 3.6, where Mu was reduced due to strand
slip, which was not included in the Response-2000 models.
For all beams, the model significantly underpredicted the
cracking deflection ∆c (which resulted in an overprediction
of the stiffness Ki) and the ultimate deflection ∆u. Impor-
tantly, the accuracy of the estimations was consistent regard-
less of the use of RCA. Note that while the overprediction
of the beam stiffness may be viewed as counter-intuitive
with respect to the lower strand stiffness in Response-2000,
a more significant factor governing the beam stiffness was
concrete cracking, which was difficult to model numer-
ically. Specifically, these comparisons indicate that the
Response-2000 models likely under-predicted the extent of
cracking in the beams.
The nominal (design) flexural strength of each beam, Mn,
was calculated using well-known methods36 for conventional
prestressed concrete structures together with the measured
material properties. It was assumed that at Mn, the maximum
concrete compression strain reached εcu = 0.003 mm/mm.
The strain in the prestressing strands (including prestrain
26
corresponding to f p ,tu in Table 1) at Mn was determined
using strain compatibility (that is, plane sections remain
plane) and the corresponding stress, fpn was found using the
measured strand stress-strain relationship. The strain in the
No. 10 compression bars was also determined using strain
compatibility, and the corresponding stress was found using
an assumed stiffness of Es = 199,950 MPa (29,000 ksi)
because the steel remained in the linear-elastic range for all
of the beams. Iterations in the concrete and steel stress resul-
tants were conducted until axial equilibrium for the beam
cross section was achieved. Then, moment equilibrium was
used to determine the nominal flexural strength Mn.
Tables 9 and 11 present the results of the code predic-
tions for the beams with a/dp = 7.6 and 3.6, respectively.
Consistent with the Response-2000 predictions for the ulti-
mate moment Mu, the code predictions were fairly accurate
for all of the beams except for the CT4 beams with a/dp =
3.6, where Mu was significantly reduced due to strand slip,
which was not included in the nominal strength Mn calcula-
tions. Importantly, the accuracy of the estimations was again
consistent regardless of the use of RCA.
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
 Using the fpn values corresponding to the nominal flexural
strength Mn of each beam, the required development lengths ldt
from ACI 318-146 were also calculated, as listed in Tables 9 and
11. The required development lengths were considerably
greater than the provided development lengths, lo + a (refer
to Table 1), from the end of each beam to the load applica-
tion point. Given that the measured strand slip magnitudes
were relatively small, it can be inferred that slip is not likely
to occur in beams that comply with the ACI Code develop-
ment length requirements, regardless of the amount of RCA.
However, more research needs to be conducted on this topic.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper experimentally investigated the use of RCA
as replacement for coarse natural aggregates in precast/
prestressed concrete structures. The important conclusions
are summarized in the following. Note that these results may
be limited to the materials used and tests conducted. Future
research should investigate the effect of RCA on the dura-
bility (for example, strand corrosion) of prestressed concrete
structures, which was not within the scope of this paper.
1. The use of RCA had a relatively small (as compared with
the level of aggregate replacement) effect on the overall ulti-
mate load-versus-deflection behavior of the beams, regardless
of the applied moment-to-shear ratio a/dp. There was also no
discernable effect of RCA on the progression of beam failure.
2. The use of RCA generally resulted in a small reduction
in the beam cracking load and in the initial beam stiffness.
3. The use of RCA had little effect on the ultimate strength
of the beams.
4. The use of RCA resulted in increased deflections at ulti-
mate strength. This indicates that the decreased stiffness of
RCA concrete allowed for greater beam displacements.
5. Strand slip occurred prior to reaching the ultimate
strength in many of the beams, especially for a/dp = 3.6. This
is because the provided strand development lengths in these
beams were considerably shorter than the required develop-
ment lengths from ACI 318-14. No discernable trends were
found for the effect of RCA on the initiation or amount of slip.
6. The Response-2000 numerical models reasonably
accurately and conservatively underpredicted the cracking
moment Mc, except for the beams with preexisting flex-
ural (bottom) cracks, which were not included in the
Response-2000 models. The predictions for the ultimate
moment Mu were also fairly accurate except for the beams
where Mu was reduced due to strand slip, which was not
included in the models. The largest discrepancies were in
the cracking deflection ∆c (which affected the stiffness Ki
prediction) and the ultimate deflection ∆u, which were
significantly underpredicted by Response-2000.
7. The ACI 318-14 nominal (design) strength Mn predic-
tions for ultimate moment Mu were fairly accurate, except
for the beams where Mu was significantly reduced due to
strand slip, which was not included in the Mn calculations.
8. In general, the ability of the Response-2000 models or
ACI 318-14 design methods to predict the measured ulti-
mate strengths of the beams was not significantly affected by
the percentage of RCA replacing NA (that is, R).
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019
AUTHOR BIOS
Michael R. Brandes is a Design Engineer at Schaefer Inc., Cincinnati,
OH. He received his MS and BS in civil engineering from the University
of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN. His research interests include novel
reinforced concrete design and sustainable concrete construction practices.
ACI member Yahya C. Kurama is a Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences at the University of
Notre Dame. He is a member of ACI Committees 374, Performance-Based
Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings; 555, Concrete with Recycled Mate-
rials; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 550, Precast Concrete Structures. His
research interests include the behavior and design of reinforced concrete
structures under extreme loading from earthquake and fire, sustainable
construction, and precast/prestressed concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)
under Grant No. CMMI 1436758. The support of the NSF Program Director
Y. G. Hsuan and former NSF Program Director K. I. Mehta is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors sincerely thank Kerkstra Precast, Inc. Grand-
ville, MI, and West Michigan Recycle, Grandville, MI, for providing the
RCA materials in this research. The beam casting and prestressing were also
conducted at Kerkstra Precast, Inc., and this work is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The authors thank M. J. McGinnis of the University of Texas at
Tyler, who is a co-investigator on this NSF project, for his guidance with
the research. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations
in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views of the NSF, the program directors, or other individuals/organizations
acknowledged herein.
REFERENCES
1. Knaack, A. M., and Kurama, Y. C., “Design of Concrete Mixtures
with Recycled Concrete Aggregates,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 110, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct. 2013, pp. 483-493.
2. Knaack, A. M., and Kurama, Y. C., “Creep and Shrinkage of
Normal-Strength Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregates,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 112, No. 3, May-June 2015, pp. 451-462. doi:
10.14359/51687392
3. McGinnis, M. J.; Davis, M.; de la Rosa, A.; Weldon, B. D.; and
Kurama, Y. C., “Strength and Stiffness of Concrete with Recycled
Coarse Aggregates,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 154, 2017,
pp. 258-269. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.015
4. Brandes, M. R., and Kurama, Y. C., “Service Load Behavior of
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Beams with Recycled Concrete Aggre-
gates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, May 2018, pp. 861-873. doi:
10.14359/51702133
5. Bentz, E., and Collins, M., “Response-2000: Reinforced Concrete
Sectional Analysis Using the Modified Compression Field Theory,” V.1.0.5,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2000.
6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 520 pp.
7. McGinnis, M. J.; Davis, M.; de la Rosa, A.; Weldon, B. D.; and
Kurama, Y. C., “Quantified Sustainability of Recycled Concrete Aggre-
gates,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 69, No. 23, 2017, pp. 1203-
1211. doi: 10.1680/jmacr.16.00338
8. Limbachiya, M.; Leelawat, T.; and Dhir, R., “Use of Recycled
Concrete Aggregate in High Strength Concrete,” Materials and Structures,
V. 33, No. 9, 2000, pp. 574-580. doi: 10.1007/BF02480538
9. Perez-Benedicto, J.; del Rio-Merino, M.; Peralta-Canudo, J.; and de la
Rosa-La Mata, M., “Mechanical Characteristics of Concrete with Recycled
Aggregates Coming from Prefabricated Discarded Units,” Materiales de
Construcción, V. 62, No. 305, 2012, pp. 25-37.
10. Soares, D.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; and Pacheco, J., “Use of Coarse
Recycled Aggregates from Precast Concrete Rejects: Mechanical and Dura-
bility Performance,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 71, 2014,
pp. 263-272. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.034
11. Soares, D.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; and Pacheco, J., “In Situ Mate-
rials Characterization of Full-Scale Recycled Aggregates Concrete Struc-
tures,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 71, 2014, pp. 237-245. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.025
12. Lopez-Gayarre, F.; Vinuela, R. B.; Serrano-Lopez, M. A.; and
Lopez-Colina, C., “Influence of the Water Variation on the Mechanical
Properties of Concrete Manufactured with Recycled Mixed Aggregates for
Pre-Stressed Components,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 94,
2015, pp. 844-850. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.097
27
 13. Gonzalez-Corominas, A.; Etxeberria, M.; and Fernandez, I., “Struc-
tural Behaviour of Prestressed Concrete Sleepers Produced with High
Performance Recycled Aggregate Concrete,” Materials and Structures,
V. 50, No. 1, 2017, p. 94. doi: 10.1617/s11527-016-0966-6
14. Brandes, M. R., and Kurama, Y. C., “Effect of Recycled Concrete
Aggregates on Strength and Stiffness Gain of Concrete and on Bond
Strength of Steel Prestressing Strand,” PCI Journal, V. 63, No. 2, 2018,
pp. 87-105.
15. Brandes, M. R., and Kurama, Y. C., “Behavior of Shear-Critical
Prestressed Concrete Beams with Recycled Concrete Aggregates under
Ultimate Loads,” Engineering Structures, V. 165, 2018, pp. 237-246. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.029
16. Fathifazl, G.; Razaqpur, A.; Isgor, O.; Abbas, A.; Fournier, B.; and
Foo, S., “Flexural Performance of Steel-Reinforced Recycled Concrete
Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2009,
pp. 858-867.
17. Knaack, A. M., and Kurama, Y. C., “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Beams with Recycled Concrete Coarse Aggregates,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 141, No. 3, 2015, p. B4014009 doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001118
18. Kang, T. H.; Kim, W.; Kwak, Y. K.; and Hong, S. G., “Flexural
Testing of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Recycled Concrete Aggre-
gates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 3, May-June 2014, pp. 607-616.
doi: 10.14359/51686622
19. Etxeberria, M.; Mari, A.; and Vazquez, E., “Recycled Aggregate
Concrete as Structural Material,” Materials and Structures, V. 40, No. 5,
2007, pp. 529-541. doi: 10.1617/s11527-006-9161-5
20. Knaack, A. M., and Kurama, Y. C., “Sustained Service Load
Behavior of Concrete Beams with Recycled Concrete Aggregates,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2015, pp. 565-577. doi:
10.14359/51687799
21. Knaack, A. M., and Kurama, Y. C., “Modeling Time-Dependent
Deformations: Application for Reinforced Concrete Beams with Recycled
Concrete Aggregates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 1, Jan. 2018,
pp. 175-190. doi: 10.14359/51701153
22. Pacheco, J.; de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; and Soares, D., “Flexural Load
Tests of Full-Scale Recycled Aggregates Concrete Structures,” Construc-
tion and Building Materials, V. 101, No. 1, 2015, pp. 65-71. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.10.023
23. de Brito, J.; Ferreira, J.; Pacheco, J.; Soares, D.; and Guerreiro, M.,
“Structural, Material, Mechanical and Durability Properties and Behaviour
28
of Recycled Aggregates Concrete,” Journal of Building Engineering, V. 6,
2016, pp. 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.02.003
24. Xiao, J.; Sun, Y.; and Falkner, H., “Seismic Performance of Frame
Structures with Recycled Aggregate Concrete,” Engineering Structures,
V. 28, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.06.019
25. Wang, C., and Xiao, J., “Study of the Seismic Response of a Recy-
cled Aggregate Concrete Frame Structure,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, V. 12, No. 4, 2013, pp. 669-680. doi: 10.1007/
s11803-013-0205-x
26. Xiao, J.; Ding, T.; and Wang, C., “Seismic Behavior of Cast-in-Place
and Precast Recycled Aggregate Concrete Frames: A Comparative Study,”
Structural Engineering International, V. 25, No. 3, 2015, pp. 300-307. doi:
10.2749/101686615X14210663188853
27. MDOT, “Standard Specifications for Construction,” Michigan
Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI, 2012, 1012 pp.
28. ASTM C127-15, “Standard Test Method for Relative Density
(Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate,” ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, 5 pp.
29. ASTM C128-15, “Standard Test Method for Relative Density
(Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Fine Aggregate,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, 6 pp.
30. ASTM C39/C39M-15a, “Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2015, 7 pp.
31. ASTM C293/C293M-10, “Standard Test Method for Flexural
Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Center-Point Loading),”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 3 pp.
32. ASTM C1611/C1611M-14, “Standard Test Method for Slump Flow
of Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2014, 6 pp.
33. ASTM A416/A416M-12a, “Standard Specification for Steel Strand,
Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Concrete,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 5 pp.
34. Walsh, K. Q., and Kurama, Y. C., “Effects of Loading Condi-
tions on the Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioning Strand-Anchorage
Systems,” PCI Journal, V. 57, No. 1, 2012, pp. 76-96. doi: 10.15554/
pcij.01012012.76.96
35. ASTM A370-14, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2014, 50 pp.
36. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., Prestressed Concrete Structures,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, 766 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/March 2019