ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF

CONCRETE INCORPORATING FINE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATES AND

BRICK DUST

A report submitted for fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING

IN

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

SUBMITTED BY

ANMOL SARAO

(801624003)

Under Supervision of

Dr. Shakeel Waseem Dr. A.B Danie Roy

Assistant Professor, IUST, Jammu, and Kashmir. Assistant Professor, CED

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

JUNE 2018
(i)
 DECLARATION
I Anmol Sarao hereby declare that the work which is presented in this Thesis entitled
“Assessment and Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Concrete incorporating Fine
Recycled Aggregate of Concrete and Brick dust” as per the requirements for the award of
Master of Engineering in Structural Engineering, submitted at the Civil Engineering
Department, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, is an authentic record
of work carried out by me under the supervision of Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Waseem, Assistant
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Science and Technology,
Jammu and Kashmir and Dr. A.B Danie Roy, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala.

Date-……………. Anmol Sarao

(801624003)

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Assessment and comparison of mechanical
properties of concrete incorporating Fine recycled concrete aggregates and Brick dust”
being submitted by Anmol Sarao, Roll No.-801624003 in partial fulfillment for award of
Master of Engineering in Structural Engineering is work carried out by him under my
guidance and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for award of any other degree.

Dr. Shakeel Waseem Dr. Danie A.B Roy

Assistant Professor, CED Assistant Professor, CED

Islamic University of Science & Technology Thapar Institute of Engineering &Technology

Jammu and Kashmir. (A Deemed University to be University) Patiala,

Punjab.
(i)
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to express my deep gratitude Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Waseem, Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Science and Technology, Jammu
and Kashmir and Dr. A.B Danie Roy, Assistant Professor, Civil engineering department,
Thapar Institute of Engineering and technology, Patiala for providing his uncanny guidance,
support and for his patient listening of my ideas and also suggesting new ways for implementing
my ideas and for the motivation and inspiration that triggered me throughout my work. Sincere
gratitude to Dr. Prem Pal Bansal, HOD, Civil engineering department, for having made
available requisite facilities during the course of study. I would also like to thank all the staff
members for providing with all the help and facilities, which I required for the completion of the
Thesis.

Anmol Sarao

(801624003)

(ii)
 ABSTRACT

Concrete is most commonly used construction material all over the world, over ten billion metric
tons of concrete is used yearly for different construction purposes. Concrete is a composite
material made of three basic materials i.e. Cement, Coarse aggregates and Fine aggregates. Due
to heavy consumption of concrete all over the world, there is a large demand for aggregates, but
the availability of these natural aggregates is diminishing so to meet the demand of booming
Urbanization we need to use recycled aggregates for production of concrete. It is considered that
using recycled aggregates is a viable alternative to dumping which is favorable to the
sustainability of natural resources and will help in conservation of natural resources.

In the present postgraduate thesis, a study on a comparative study of the mechanical properties of
concrete made by replacement of fine aggregates with fine recycled concrete aggregates and
crushed brick aggregates. The proportion to which fine aggregates are replaced is 25% and 50%.
The free water-cement ratio was kept constant for all the mixes.

Results show different Mechanical properties which include compressive strength, flexural
strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, ultrasonic pulse velocity, and rebound
hammer test. Compressive strength test and splitting tensile strength test are done after 7-Days
and 28-days of age while other tests are done at 28-days of age. Test results indicate that all
strength properties were reduced, reduction of strength properties increased with increase in
replacement ratios. The reduction of the strength properties was more in case of brick dust. It is
seen that on 25% replacement of concrete with Fine recycled concrete aggregates it shows
favorable results but if the replacement ratio is increased the strength reduction increases which
can not be permitted. Reduction in strength properties of mixes incorporating fine recycled brick
aggregates was more than fine recycled concrete aggregates and brick dust was not considered a
suitable alternative material.

(iii)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION (i)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (ii)
ABSTRACT (iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (iv)-(v)
LIST OF TABLES (vi)
LIST OF FIGURES (vii)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE NO

1.1 CONCRETE CONSUMPTION AND ITS EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENT 1-2
1.2 FINE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATES 2-6
1.3 BRICK DUST 7-8
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THESIS 8
1.5 ORGANISATION OF THESIS 9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES 10-11
2.2 MIX COMPOSITIONS 12
2.3 WORKABILITY 13
2.4 DENSITY 13
2.5 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 14-15
2.6 SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH 15
2.7 MODULES OF ELASTICITY 15
2.8 ABRASION RESISTANCE 16
2.8 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY 17
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
3.1 MATERIALS USED 18
3.1.1 Cement 18
3.1.2 Natural fine aggregates 19
3.1.3 Recycled fine concrete aggregates 20-22
3.1.4 Brick dust 22-23
(iv)
 3.1.5 Natural coarse aggregates 24-25
3.1.6 Water 25
3.2 CONCRETE MIX 26-27
3.3 CASTING AND CURING 27
3.4 TESTS CONDUCTED 28-36

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 SLUMP TEST 37-38

4.2 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST 38-40

4.3 SPLITTING TENSILE STRENGTH TEST 40-42

4.4 FLEXURAL STRENGTH TEST 42-43

4.5 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY TEST 44-45

4.6 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST 46-47

4.7 REBOUND HAMMER TEST 47-48

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 49

REFERENCES 50-51

(v)
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Physical Properties …………………………..……………………………………11

Table 2.2 Details of concrete mixes………………………………………………………….12

Table 2.3- Compressive Strength of concrete specimens……………………………….……14

Table 2.4- Split tensile strength Results……………………………………………………...15

Table 2.5- Modulus of Elasticity …………………………………………………...………..16

Table 3.1- Physical Properties of Cement…………………………………………...……….18

Table 3.2- Physical Properties of Fine Natural Aggregates……………………………..…...19

Table 3.3- Sieve Analysis of Fine Natural aggregates………………………………..……...19

Table 3.4- Physical Properties of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates………….……..……21

Table 3.5- Sieve Analysis Fine recycled concrete aggregates………………………………..22

Table 3.6- Physical properties of Brick Dust……………………………………....................23

Table 3.7- Sieve Analysis of Brick Dust……….…………………………………….……….23

Table 3.8- Gradation of 20mm Natural Coarse aggregates…………………………………..24

Table 3.9- Gradation of 10mm Natural Coarse aggregates…………………………...……...24

Table 3.10- Physical Properties of Natural Coarse aggregates……………………………….25

Table 3.11-Mixes Prepared…………………………………………………………………...27

Table 4.1- Slump Values of all Mixes………………………………………………………..37

Table 4.2- Compressive Strength Test Results……………………………………………….38

Table 4.3- Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results…………………………………………...40

Table 4.4- Flexural Strength Test Results……………………………………………………42

Table 4.5- Modulus of Elasticity Test Results…………………………………….………….44

Table 4.6- Ultrasonic Velocity Test Results…………………………………….....…………46

Table 4.7- Rebound Hammer Test Results……………………………………….…………..48

(vi)
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1-General Composition of concrete ………………………………….…………….…..1

Figure 1.2- Schematic representation recycling technique…...………………….………………4

Figure 1.3- Benefits of recycling ………...……………………………………………………...5

Figure 1.4- Types of Recycled Concrete Aggregates …………………………..…………….....6

Figure 1.5- Jaw crusher………………………………………...………………………………...7

Figure 1.6- Number of Brick Kilns in Asian Countries …………………………………………7

Figure 3.1- Laboratory Waste used for producing FRCA……………………..…………….…20

Figure 3.2- Jaw crusher used to crush Concrete waste from Laboratory……..………………..20

Figure 3.3- Fine recycled Concrete Aggregates……………...………………………………...21

Figure 3.4- Brick Dust………………………………………………………...………….……21

Figure 3.5- Concrete Mixing Machine……………………………..…………………….…….22

Figure 3.6- Slump Test Apparatus…………………………………..………………….……....28

Figure 3.7- Compression Testing Machine…………………………..……………………..….30

Figure 3.8- Splitting tensile strength using CTM…………….………...……..…………....…..31

Figure 3.9- Universal Testing machine………….………………………………………....…..33

Figure 3.10- Frame Assembly For Modulus of Elasticity Test…………………..……..….…..34

Figure 3.11- Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity test Apparatus…………….…………………………..35

Figure 3.12- Rebound Hammer Test Apparatus……………………………………………….36

Figure 4.1- Slump Values of concrete mixes……………………….……………………….....38

Figure 4.2- Compressive strength of FRCA………………….…………………………..……39

Figure 4.3- Compressive Strength of FRBA……………………………………………..……39

Figure 4.4(a)- Splitting Tensile Strength of FRCA……………………………………………41

Figure 4.4(b)- Splitting Tensile Strength of FRBA……………………………………....……41

(vii)
Figure 4.5(a)- Flexural Strength of FRCA………………………………………………...…..43

Figure 4.5(b)- Flexural Strength of FRBA…………………………………………………….43

Figure 4.6(a)- MOE of FRCA 28-Days……………………………………………...…..……44

Figure 4.6(b)- MOE of FRBA 28-Days……………………………………………...…..……45

Figure 4.7(a)- Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity FRCA……………………………………….…...…46

Figure 4.7(b)- Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity FRBA………………………………….……...……47

Figure 4.8- Rebound Hammer Test………………………………………………………....…48

(viii)
 CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the details of concrete consumption and its effect of environment, the need
for recycled materials to produce concrete, different wastes generated in the construction of
buildings, use of these aggregates and introduction of the thesis.

1.1 CONCRETE CONSUMPTION AND ITS EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENT

Concrete is most commonly used construction material all over the world, over ten billion tonnes
of concrete is produced every year. With that large amount of concrete produced concrete
production plays a vital role in the economic development of the world. Concrete comprises of
three major fractions- aggregates, binder and water hence is a composite material. Since 50 to 80
percent of concrete comprises of aggregates so aggregates play an important role in concrete
performance and the overall consumption of natural aggregates in the production of concrete is
very high.

Concrete Composition
Cement
13%

Coarse Agg
50%
fine Agg
22%

Fig 1.1: General Composition of Concrete (Behra et al., 2014)

This use of a large amount of aggregates in concrete puts a lot of pressure on the ecosystem. The
aggregate extractions by mining have harmful effects on the environment leading to several
environmental problems such as soil erosion, retreating coastline, harming flora and fauna etc.
The methods of extraction of these natural aggregates are time and cost consuming processes.
Extraction by machines requires fuel and which further release obnoxious gasses which causes
air pollution.

(1)
The production of fine aggregates from coarse aggregates is a high-cost process and raises
difficulties concerning fresh concrete, given their high regularity. The increase in the rate of
industrialization and urbanization due to the parallel growth in economy and population has
made the use of concrete as the most non-sustainable material as it is consuming the maximum
amount of natural resources.

Sustainability is a broad term describing meeting the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The issues of
sustainability are of prime concerns these days as we use a large number of natural resources for
producing materials such as concrete. To achieve sustainability issue in the construction area,
researchers and companies are focusing on reduction, reuse, and recycling of the waste materials.

So, to take care of all these harmful effects Construction Industry requires alternate materials to
fulfill the needs of construction. To facilitate this, Recycled aggregates can be used for concrete
production.

1.2 Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates

1.2.1 Concrete Waste

Concrete Waste can be categorized as follows-:

1. Demolition Waste- is waste debris from the destruction of a building. The debris varies
from insulation, electrical wires, rebar, wood, concrete, and bricks. It also may contain
lead, asbestos or different hazardous materials.
2. Concrete Leftovers-The leftovers of concrete batching plants come under this category. A
large number of leftovers due to the difference in demand and supply are generated at
batching plants.
3. Precast Concrete plants- Precast concrete is a construction product produced by casting
concrete in a reusable mould these precast concrete are in great demand but with great
demands comes greater wastage which leads to a lot of landfills.
4. Test Samples-Test samples from laboratories also generate a large amount of wastage
which is left with no further utilization.

(2)
India is on the list of countries with the largest production of demolition waste. With the growing
economy of India, it is expected that the demand for aggregates for construction activities will be
doubled in the coming two decades. Currently, India has a severe shortage of infrastructural
facilities. Nonetheless, India is constructing its foundation at a very fast rate. In this process of
construction and reconstruction, it has become the second largest producer of cement in the
world only after China. Though it is not even in the top ten when it comes to the production of
recycled aggregate concrete. One of the main reason for it is the lack of proper source concrete in
India. To meet these needs of the construction industry we need an alternative to natural
aggregates with keeping in mind the sustainability issue in mind. This can be achieved by
recycling Concrete Demolition waste.

1.2.2 RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATES

Recycling is an act of processing used materials for further use in developing new value
products. Recycled aggregates are the aggregates extracted through the processing of the debris
generated from the demolition of concrete structures and other construction debris such as waste
concrete, rejected precast concrete members, broken masonry, concrete road beds and asphalt
pavement, leftover concrete from the ready-mix concrete plant and the waste generated from
different laboratories. The resulting properties are different from the natural aggregates, but the
newly formed aggregates can be accommodated easily to get desired mechanical properties.

Fig. 1.2: Schematic representation recycling technique (Behra et al. 2014)

The aggregates typically processed from concrete waste such as demolition waste, concrete
leftovers from RMC plants and precast plants are Known as Recycled Concrete Aggregates.

(3)
The process extraction of Concrete recycled aggregates has three steps which are as follows-:

1. Evaluation of Source concrete-The first step in the production of RAC is to determine the
quality of the source concrete. Properties and records of source concrete like strength,
durability, and composition are looked into for deciding the proper source concrete.
2. Breaking of waste- The simple process involves crushing concrete into specified size and
quality.
3. Removal of contaminants- Contaminants like reinforcing steel, foundation materials,
asphalt concrete shoulders, soil, etc. are removed. It can be achieved by many methods
including screening or air separation, demolition, using electromagnets, etc.

1.2.3 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RAC

Advantages of Recycled Aggregate:

1. Reduces the number of virgin aggregates to be created, hence less evacuation of natural
resources.
2. While being crushed into smaller particles a large amount of carbon dioxide is absorbed.
This reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Cost saving – few research studies have shown a significant reduction in construction
costs if RAC is used.
4. Conserves landfill space, reduces the need for new landfills and hence saving more costs.
5. Creates more employment opportunities is the recycling industry.

Fig 1.3: Benefits of recycling (Behra et al. 2014)

(4)
 Disadvantages of Recycled Aggregate:

1. Downgrading the quality of concrete.

2. Increase in water absorption capacity ranging from 3% to 9%
3. Decreases in compressive strength of concrete (10-30%)
4. Reduces workability of concrete.
5. Lack of specifications and guidelines.
6. Less durability of RAC, however, few papers have shown an improvement in the
durability by mixing it with special materials like fly ash

1.2.4 Types of Recycled Concrete Aggregates

After screening the Concrete recycled aggregates can be divided into two types-:

Types of Recycled
Concrete aggregates

1.Coarse Recycled
Concrete aggregates

2.Fine Recycled
Concrete aggregates

Fig 1.4: Types of Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Coarse Recycled concrete Aggregates are aggregates which have the same particle size as that of
natural coarse aggregates i.e.-20 to 35.5mm and are extracted from demolition and other concrete
wastes.

Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates are aggregates which have same practical size as that of
natural Fine aggregates i.e.-less than 4.75mm and are extracted from demolition and other
concrete wastes.

(5)
The incorporation of coarse recycled aggregates (CRA) in concrete is already accepted, although
with restrictions, by the construction industry. In some countries, even full substitution is
allowed in particular situations. However fine recycled aggregates (FRA) are firmly excluded
from concrete and mortar production in almost all existing standards and regulations. But with
recent studies, it has been proved that FRAs with acceptable features can also be used for the
production process and Pre-treatments can be also be used for property improvement of Fine
recycled aggregates and with recent development on the topic, it has been seen that FRA can be
used with effecting the mechanical properties to a point where concrete turns out to be
insufficient in terms of strength.

1.2.5 Processing of Demolition Debris

Jaw Crusher- A jaw crusher uses compressive force for breaking of the particle. This mechanical
pressure is achieved by the two jaws of the crusher of which one is fixed while the other
reciprocates.

Fig 1.5: Jaw Crusher (Sunco Machinery, 2013)

(6)
1.3 Brick Dust

Brick Dust is leftover part of crushed bricks which is available at Brick kilns, which is brick red
in colour. Brick dust is generally used on Kacha roads in villages in Punjab region to make
pavement soil-less clayey and make the moment of vehicles such as tractors, Bullock carts, and
Bicycles etc. possible in rainy seasons. Brick dust is also used in playgrounds, gardens, and
parks. Brick dust used in this study is taken from Jindal Brick Kiln situated near Village Kauli.
Crushed Brick dust was not considered a recyclable material in many parts of the World but
during the 1860s it was used as aggregates by Germany for reconstruction of the Structures after
the Second World War. As concrete consumes a large amount of natural minerals every year to
control this large consumption of natural aggregates we can put Brick dust to a better use by
making it an alternative for these natural aggregates and conserve these natural minerals for
future generation. The Number of Brickkiln in India alone are 1.4 lakh which produces around
240-260 billion Bricks every year. Data for Brick Kilns in Asian countries can be seen in Figure
1.6. With this large number of Brick kilns in Asia, the amount of Brick waste is also large which
can be put to a good used by incorporation of this waste in concrete.

Brick Kilns in Asian Countries

0.8 India

1.4 Vietnam
Nepal
Pakistan
0.1
0.007 China
0.1

Fig 1.6: Number of Brick Kilns in Asian Countries (J.S Kamyotra, 2017)

(7)
1.3.1 Advantages of Brick Dust

The use of Brick dust has following advantages-:

1. Reduces the use of Natural aggregates in concrete and helps to create a sustainable
environment.
2. Reduction in cost of concrete by use of brick dust in concrete
3. Brick dust utilization will lead to a reduction in waste piles in Kilns.
4. More employment opportunities in the Recycling Industry.

1.3.2 Disadvantages of Brick Dust

1. Downgrading the quality of concrete.

2. Increase in water absorption capacity ranging from10% to 15%
3. Decreases in compressive strength of concrete (10-30%)
4. Reduces workability of concrete.

1.4 Objective of Thesis

The objectives of the thesis are as follows -:

1. To study the effect of fine recycled concrete aggregates and brick dust when replaced
with fine aggregates.
2. To compare the workability of concrete mixes incorporating fine recycled concrete
aggregates and brick dust as partial replacement of natural fine aggregates in the concrete
mix.
3. To compare the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength,
modulus of elasticity, ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete incorporating fine recycled
concrete aggregates and brick dust as partial replacement of natural aggregates.

(8)
1.5 Organization of the thesis

1. The first chapter is the introduction of the thesis and this chapter discusses the details of
concrete consumption, different wastes produced in the construction of building and
details of fine recycled concrete aggregates and brick dust.
2. The second chapter is the literature review which discusses the existing literature on
utilization of fine recycled concrete aggregates and brick dust.
3. The third chapter is experimental studies and includes all the properties of materials used
and procedures of tests performed.
4. The fourth chapter is results and discussion which includes the test results of the concrete
mixes prepared.
5. The fifth chapter is the conclusion of the entire thesis.

(9)
 CHAPTER-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter deals with the existing literature on utilization of fine recycled concrete aggregates
and brick dust as fine aggregates in new concrete and effect of this utilization on properties of
concrete so formed.

2.1 General
Fine recycled concrete aggregates and Brick dust aggregates have been used in Concrete as
replacement of Fine natural aggregates. Due to the large-scale utilization of virgin aggregates,
there is an urgent need of recycled aggregates to create an environment which can fulfill the
needs of all present and future generations without harming the environment. Due to lack of
landfills, high natural aggregates extraction cost, air pollution and forest degradation and ever-
increasing dumping cost the utilization of recycled concrete and Brick dust as Recycled
aggregates is an eco-friendly and sustainable alternative.

2.2 Properties of Concrete Incorporating Fine Recycled concrete aggregates and Brick
Dust
Properties of concrete incorporating Fine recycled concrete aggregates and brick dust based on
studies gathered from work done all over the world published by different journals are
mentioned.

2.2.1 Physical Properties

Evangelista and de Brito (2006)- reported that the concrete used for recycling was solely made
for the purpose and was of standard composition this was done so that the properties of concrete
used for the entire process are known. The average compressive strength for this concrete after
28 days was 29.6 MPa. To keep the particle size of both natural aggregates and recycled
aggregates the range of size chosen was 0.074mm to 1.19mm. It was also reported that density
of Fine recycled aggregates was less than Natural aggregates and water absorption of fine
recycled aggregates was more than that of Natural aggregates.
(10)
Khatib (2005)-Reported that the natural fine aggregates used belonged to Class M according to
BS 882,1992 and Coarse natural aggregates were of 20 mm nominal size. Recycled aggregates
contained Crushed brick and crushed concrete which were crushed in the laboratory and were
recycled out of demolition waste. The particle size of these recycled aggregates was less than 5
mm in Diameter. The density of Recycled aggregates is less than the natural aggregates hence
they have more water absorption. Water absorption of their aggregates was also calculated
which was 6.2% for Crushed concrete and 14.8 % for crushed brick.

Cong and Poon (2009)-reported the properties of FRA as in table 2.3. For coarse aggregates
Crushed natural granite was used by Cong and Poon and the size was 10mm and 20mm both
taken in equal proportions. River sand was used as fine aggregate, it was taken from a local
quarry. Fine recycled aggregates were obtained from a Concrete and demolition waste recycling
plant. Fine recycled aggregates were less dense and had a greater water absorption capacity.

P. Pereira et al. (2012) -Total four types of natural aggregates were used out of which two were
fine natural aggregated which were FNA1 and FNA2 and other two were coarse natural
aggregates which were CNA1 and CNA2. All aggregates were characterized in terms of size
grading particle density and water absorption. Fine recycled aggregates showed a greater water
absorption than all the natural aggregates whereas in terms of density Fine recycled aggregates
had the least density.

Cheng-Chih Fan et al (2016) - Reported the physical properties as shown in table 2.1. In the
table, CAN stands for Coarse natural aggregates and FNA stands for Fine natural aggregates. R1
and R2 are two Fine recycled aggregates R1 was produced by crushing concrete waste and R2
was produced by repeated crushing until the required particle size is obtained.

Table 2.1: Physical Properties of the CAN, FNA, R1, and R2 (Fan et al. 2016)

SR No. Physical Properties CAN FNA R1 R2

1 Maximum Grain size (mm) 19 4.75 4.75 4.75
2 Saturated Surface dry density 2668 2653 2347 2404
3 Water absorption % 1.2 1.3 8.9 6.6
4 Fineness Modulus 6.9 2.9 3.3 3.1

Absorption- FRA has a higher water absorption rate than does FNA; therefore, a higher
concentration of FRA will tend to increase the water absorption of the resulting concrete.
Furthermore, the water absorption rate of R1 is higher than that of R2, which means that using
(11)
R1 in concrete results in greater water absorption than that obtained when using R2, when the
two specimens shared the identical replacement ratio.

2.1.2 Mix compositions used

Khatib (2005)- Nine different mixes were made to examine the influence of incorporating fine
recycled concrete aggregates and crushed brick aggregated on the properties of concrete. The
control mix proportion of 1:2:4. Mixes with replacement proportion of 25%, 50%, 75% and
100% were made. Water-cement ratio for all the mixes was kept constant. Water Cement ration
for all the mixes was 0.5.

Table 2.2- Details of concrete mix (kg/ )

Mix compositions used

Crushed Crushed Coarse
Mix Mix ID Cement Water Sand
concrete brick aggregate
M1 Control 325 162 649 0 0 1298
M2 CC25 322 161 483 161 0 1288
M3 CC50 320 159 320 320 0 1277
M4 CC75 317 158 158 475 0 1267
M5 CC100 315 157 0 629 0 1257
M6 CB25 319 159 478 0 159 1275
M7 CB50 314 156 314 0 314 1253
M8 CB75 308 154 154 0 462 1232
M9 CB100 303 151 0 0 606 1211

Evangelista and Brito (2006)-mixes were designed for the common target slump of 80mm. It
was expected that FRA would have more water absorption than FNA so the water-cement ratio
of the mixes containing FNA was increased to keep workability constant. Five replacements
were made i.e. 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% and 100%.

Dabieb and Kenai (2007)- Mixes were designed using Fine Recycled Crushed brick as
replacement of Fine Natural Aggregates. The mix proportions used for the control mix are
1:2.14:3.19. The replacement percentages used were 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Water-
cement ratio was chosen to keep the values of a slump between 60mm to 70mm.

(12)
Kou and Poon (2009) - Two series of concrete mixes were prepared. In the concrete mixes,
natural river sand was replaced by FRA at replacement levels of 0%, 25%, 50%,75% and 100%
by mass, respectively, and the cement content was fixed at 386 kg/m. Cement to natural
aggregates ration used was 1:2. In Series I, the concrete mixes were designed at the fixed water-
cement ratio of 0.53. In Series II, the concrete mixes were designed to have a near constant
slump in the range of 60–80 mm; and as such, the free water content (and hence the water-
cement ratio) varied.

Pereira et al. (2012) – Two types of superplasticizers were used i.e. SP1 and SP2, Five mixes
with each superplasticizer were made. Out of the five mixes, one was the control mix which had
no Recycled aggregate other four had 10%, 30%, 50% and 100% replacement of natural
aggregates by Recycled aggregates. All the mixes have the same cement content and water
content is reduced as due to use of superplasticizer and increase of aggregates.

Fan et al. (2016) -Two types of fine recycled aggregates (FRA: R1, R2) were produced. Fine
recycled aggregate (R1) was produced simultaneously with recycled coarse aggregate production
by crushing concrete waste. Fine recycled aggregate (R2) was produced by repeating the
crushing process until required particle size. Two types of water-cement ratios were used i.e.
0.35 and 0.55. The mixes with water-cement ratios of 0.35 showed poor workability so
superplasticizer was used. The replacement of different mixes was 25%, 50%, and 100%.

2.2.3 Workability

Khatib (2005)-The mixes show a good workability without the use of admixture and the slump
values vary from 170 mm to 190 mm for concrete containing crushed concrete and from 85 mm
to 155 mm for concrete containing crushed brick.

Pereira et al (2012) – all mixes met the target workability apart from concrete without
superplasticizer and 100% replacement of FNA by FRA. The lower slump achieved for this
particular case means that the optimal water/cement ratio should be slightly higher than that
used. The performance of this mix, therefore, tends to deviate from that of the other mixes.

(13)
Fan et al. (2016)- The specimen containing R1 presented less slump than did R2 when the two
specimens shared identical replacement ratios. This can be attributed to the fact that FRA has a
rougher surface texture and greater angularity, which increases the friction among the particles.
Thus, as the FRA replacement ratio was increased, the higher concentration of fine aggregate in
the cement paste produced more friction between the particles, thereby reducing slump in the
concrete.

2.2.4 Density
Khatib (2005)- The density of the mixes at 1, 7, 28 and 90 days of curing was calculated. There
is a decrease in the density of the concrete in which natural aggregates are replaced by recycled
aggregates. The value of density ranges from 2263 to 2427 kg/ .

Pereira et al (2012) -The mixes with recycled aggregates showed a decrease in density with
increasing the incorporation percentage of FRCA.

Fan et al. (2016)- The density of FRA was lower than that of FNA; therefore, increasing the
ratio of FRA to FNA reduced the density of the resulting concrete mixes. Graphs show that R2
mixes have greater density this is because R1 has greater water absorption than R2.

2.2.5 Compressive strength-

Khatib (2005) – Cubes of 100 mm size were used to determine the compressive strength of the
concrete. Cube compressive strength was checked at 1, 7, 28 and 90 days. Compressive strength
decreased in concrete containing Crushed concrete and crushed brick. The reduction in strength
by incorporating Crushed concrete varies from 15% to 27%.

Table 2.3: Compressive strength of concrete (Khatib 2005)

Compressive strength results

Mix Mix ID Compressive strength (MPa)
1-DAY 7-DAYS 28-DAYS 90-DAYS
M1 Control 11.7 35.6 46.7 51.1
M2 CC25 9.2 25.8 35.3 43.6
M3 CC50 8.9 25.8 35.2 42.1
M4 CC75 8.6 25.5 35.1 39.9
M5 CC100 8.4 25.2 30 37.8

(14)
 M6 CB25 11.2 30.4 39.2 50.9
M7 CB50 10.3 28.5 37.7 48.9
M8 CB75 9 26.6 36.1 45.4
M9 CB100 8 25.8 33.2 46.7

Evangelista and Brito (2006) reported Compressive strength tests were carried out on 150 mm
cubes. Results of Compressive strength were for three stages, combined results for the second
and third stage were represented. First stage and Second/third stage differ by mixing method. In
second and third stage mixing was carried out for 10 more minutes. Compressive strength results
were not affected by the ratio was 30% after the replacement ratio was increased there was a
decrease in compressive strength.

Dabieb and Kenai (2007)- Reported that the compressive strength decreased with increase in
brick aggregates in the concrete. This reduction in the compressive strength could be due to high
water absorption of the brick aggregates. Substitution of fine brick aggregates should be done
with caution as it could affect the compressive strength of concrete.

Kou and Poon (2009) –Reported when using the same W/C ratio, generally, the compressive
strength of the FRA concrete decreased at all the ages with an increase in the FRA contents in
both series. This may be due to the high initial free water content used in the mixes rendered
bleeding and poorer interfacial bonding between the aggregates and the cement pastes.

Pereira et al (2012) – Reported that after 28 days curing all FRCs showed a decrease in
compressive strength due to the incorporation of FRA, with figures of 4.8%, 15.4% and 3.3% for
the WS, SP1 and SP2 families, respectively. These reductions are insignificant for the
superplasticizer-free and SP2 concrete mixes and it can even be said that the compressive
strength remains approximately constant. The addition of superplasticizer in the mixes led to
compressive strength gains of up to 34.8% and 69.5% for the SP1 and SP2 families respectively.
These strength gains increase with the water reducing the capacity of the superplasticizer, due to
a reduction in the water/cement ratio.

Fan et al. (2016) - tested the compressive strength of concrete specimens at 7, 14, and 28 days
and reported that there was a decline in the compressive strength of the specimens cast with an
increase in replacement ratio.

(15)
2.2.6 Split Tensile Strength
Evangelista and Brito (2006)- For Split tensile strength cylinders with diameter 150mm and
length 300 mm were used, these cylinders were wet cured for 31 days and were tested. The
tensile strength is not as affected by the cement content as the compressive strength, so the
tensile strength does not particularly benefit from the additional cement that is incorporated
along with the FNA. Therefore, a decrease in split tensile strength is natural and occurs as the
replacement ratio is increased, due to the more porous structure of the recycled aggregates.

Table 2.4: Split tensile strength Results (Evangelista and Brito, 2006)
Split Tensile Strength results
Mix % decrease
RC 3.85
C30R 3.65 -5.2
C100 R 2.95 -30.5

Pereiera et al. (2012)- The splitting tensile strength tests were performed on cylinders with
diameter 150 mm and length 300 mm. With an exception of 30% replacement, all other FRAC
has a reduction in split tensile strength with increase in replacement ratio.

2.2.7 Modulus of Elasticity

Evangelista and Brito (2006)-The modulus of elasticity of concrete is dependent upon the
stiffness of coarse aggregates, the porosity of bond and stiffness of mortar. It is possible that for
small replacement of aggregates the overall stiffness is influenced. There was a slight reduction
in the modulus of elasticity for concrete with 30% replacement ratio and for 100% replacement
the reduction in Modulus of elasticity was very high.

Table 2.5: Modulus of Elasticity (Evangelista and Brito, 2006)

Modulus of elasticity
Mix E (GPa) Reduction %
RC 35.5
C30R 34.2 -3.7
C100 R 28.9 -18.5

(16)
Dabieb and Kenai (2007)- The modulus of elasticity varies in the same way as the compressive
strength and decreases with the percentage of substitution of crushed brick aggregates. A
reduction up to 30%, 40% and 50% of the modulus of elasticity was observed for coarse, fine
and both fine and coarse crushed bricks concrete, respectively, as compared to natural aggregates
concrete.
Pereiera et al (2012) - The mixes with superplasticizers showed a significant increase in the
modulus of elasticity value. The concrete mix having FRAC showed an improvement of 20.7%
for Superplasticizer 1 and 33.0% for Superplasticizer 2. On the other hand, the mixes prepared
without the use of superplasticizer showed a reduction in the modulus of elasticity value.

2.2.8 Abrasion Resistance

Evangelista and Brito (2006)- Reported that the mixes prepared with FRCA had greater
abrasion resistance than the mixes prepared with FNA. That may be due to the bond of cement
paste with the aggregates which is better when recycled aggregates are used.

Pereira et al. (2012) – Reported that the test results showed the unfavorable influence of FRCA
on the abrasion resistance of Concrete. The addition of superplasticizers led to increases in
abrasion resistance of up to 23.7% and 33.2% for mixes with SP 1 and with SP 2. These results
contradict those of Evangelista and de Brito who found wear resistance gains in mixes with
100% FRA.

2.2.9 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity- Higher velocities indicate good quality and continuity of the
material, while slower velocities may indicate concrete with many cracks or voids.

Khatib (2005)- Reported an increase in Ultrasonic Pulse velocity between 1 and 7 days of curing
for every concrete. The increase in Ultrasonic pulse velocity slowed down between 7 and 90
days of curing. Concretes containing Crushed concrete and crushed brick shows a reduction in
Ultrasonic pulse velocity at all curing ages.

(17)
Fan et al. (2016) -The UPV declines with an increase in replacement ratio. With W/C = 0.35 and
a replacement ratio of 25% and 100%, concrete produced using R1 lost 3.87% and 12.16% of its
UPV, respectively. Concrete produced using R2 had higher UPV than did specimens using R1
when the two specimens shared the identical replacement ratio. As indicated by Fan et al. [17],
R1 and R2 are more porous than FNA; therefore, higher concentrations of R1 or R2 increase the
porosity of concrete, which in turn reduce UPV. Furthermore, R1 is more porous than R2;
therefore, using R1 in the production of concrete results in lower UPV than that obtained when
using R2.

(18)
 CHAPTER-3

Experimental Studies

This Chapter includes all the properties of the materials used, the procedure to obtain these
materials and details of the tests performed on the mixes prepared.

3.1 Materials Used

The materials used in this research are Cement, Natural Fine aggregates, Natural Coarse
aggregates, Fine Recycled concrete aggregates and Brick Dust.

3.1.1 Cement
Cement is a binder material which is used for its adhesion property in concrete production.
Ordinary Portland cement of Grade 43 manufactured by Ambuja Cement Ltd. has been used in
all the mixes prepared. The Properties of the cement has been mentioned in table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Physical Properties of cement

Physical Properties of Cement
Sr no. Properties Experimentally As Per IS 1489 1991
1 Standard Consistency 34
2 Fineness of Cement as retained 0.5 Minimum-0.1
on 90 sieves in %
3 Setting Time (in minutes)
Initial Setting Time 130 Minimum-30 mins
Final Setting Time 460 Maximum-600 mins
4 Specific Gravity 3.08

(19)
3.1.2 Fine Aggregates
Three types of fine aggregates were used in the entire process, all three are mentioned below-:
1. Fine Natural Aggregates.
2. Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates.
3. Brick Dust /Kiln Dust.
Fine natural aggregated used were available in the lab and were from a nearby crusher plant. The
Physical Properties of these Natural aggregates are as given in table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Physical Properties of Fine Natural Aggregates
Physical Properties of Natural Fine Aggregates
Sr no. Properties Experimentally
1 Specific Gravity 2.67
2 Bulk Density Loose (kg/ltr) 0.5
3 Fineness modulus 2.65
4 Water Absorption 1.80%
5 Grading Zone (Based on % passing 0.6mm) 2

Fine natural aggregates were sieved with a set of sieves for sieve analysis and determination of
fineness modulus results of which can be seen in table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Sieve Analysis of Fine natural Aggregates.
Sieve Analysis Fine Natural Aggregates
Weight Retained(g)
Cumulative % %
Sieves 1 2 3 Mean(g) % Wt. Retained retained Passing
4.75 37.5 42 46.5 42 4.24 4.24 95.76
2.36 162 170 151 161 16.26 20.5 79.5
1.18 243 241.5 229 237.83 24.03 44.53 55.47
600 165 155 161 160.34 16.2 60.73 39.27

(20)
300 320 307 305 310.67 31.38 92.11 7.89
150 60 73 92.5 75.17 7.6 99.71 0.29
Pan 2.5 1.5 4.5 2.84 0.29 100
989.85 321.82
Fineness Modulus 3.2182

3.1.3 Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates

These are the aggregates which are recycled from used concrete. There can be different
sources for these aggregates such as – building demolition waste, batching plant waste,
precast concrete waste and laboratory waste etc. The source used extract Fine recycled
concrete aggregates here is laboratory waste which is available in abundance and is recycled
to make concrete. Figure 3.1 shows the laboratory waste used.

Fig 3.1: Laboratory waste used for producing FRCA

(21)
 Fig 3.2: Jaw Crusher used to crush concrete waste from the laboratory.

Fine recycled concrete aggregates were produced using a Jaw Crusher. Figure 3.2 shows the
jaw crusher used in the lab for producing Fine recycled concrete aggregates. The aggregates
crushed by jaw crusher were further sieved. First, the aggregates crushed were sieved by 10
mm sieve all the aggregates which were retained were discarded and were thrown away, after
sieving it with 10mm sieve the aggregates were passed through 4.75 mm sieve and were
retained on 150 µm sieve and these aggregates were used as Fine recycled concrete
aggregates. Fig 27 shows a picture of these aggregates. Table 3.4 shows the physical
properties of Fine recycled concrete aggregates and Table 3.5 shows Sieve analysis of
FRCA.

(22)
 Fig 3.3: Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Table 3.4: Physical Properties of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Physical Properties of Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Sr no. Properties Experimentally
1 Specific Gravity 2.67
2 Fineness modulus 3.65
3 Water Absorption 7.06

Table 3.5: Sieve Analysis of FRCA

Sieve analysis Fine Recycled concrete aggregates

Weight Retained (g)
Mean Cumulative %
Sieves 1 2 3 (g) % Wt. Retained retained % Passing
4.75 28.5 25.5 27.5 27.17 2.717 2.717 97.283
2.36 282.5 260 277 273.17 27.317 30.034 69.966
1.18 316 320 311.5 315.83 31.583 61.617 38.383
600 160 152.5 143.5 152 15.2 76.817 23.183
300 167 187.5 177.5 177.33 17.733 94.55 5.45
(23)
150 41 48.5 55.5 48.33 4.833 99.383 0.617
Pan 5 6 7.5 6.17 0.617 100
1000 365.118
Fineness Modulus 3.65118

3.1.4 Brick Dust

Brick dust locally called as Keri was taken from Jindal Brick Kiln situated near Village
Kauli. This Brick Kiln Dust is usually used for unpaved roads in villages. It’s is rusty red in
colour. Figure 3.4 shows Brick Kiln Dust. Same Procedure to sieve Brick dust was used as it
was used for Fine recycled concrete aggregates. The Brick Kiln dust passing through 4.75
mm sieve and retained on the 150µm sieve was used in the concrete mixes prepared.

Fig 3.4: Brick Dust

The Physical Properties of brick dust can be seen in Table 3.6 and sieve analysis can be seen
in Table 3.7.
Table 3.6: Physical properties of Brick Dust

Physical Properties of Brick Dust

Sr no. Properties Experimentally
1 Specific Gravity 1.94
2 Fineness modulus 2.67
3 Water Absorption 15.13

Table 3.7: Sieve Analysis of Brick Kiln Dust

(24)
 Sieve analysis Brick Dust
Weight Retained(g)
Sieve Mean(g Cumulative %
s 1 2 3 ) % Wt. Retained Retained % Passing
156. 145.
4.75 5 5 154 152 15.2 15.2 97.8
2.36 65.5 72 75.5 71 7.1 22.3 77.7
167.
1.18 153 5 155 158.5 15.85 38.15 61.85
124.
600 117 5 120 120.5 12.05 50.2 49.8
300 68 77.5 69.5 71.67 7.17 57.37 42.63
277. 266.
150 5 256 5 266.67 26.67 84.04 15.96
162. 159.
Pan 5 157 5 159.66 15.96 100
1000 267.26
Fineness Modulus 2.6726

3.1.5 Natural Coarse Aggregates

Locally available crushed stone having a size in the range of 10mm to 20 mm is generally
used as coarse aggregate. Coarse aggregates in the lab were available in two sizes i.e. is 10
mm and 20 mm so for concrete a mix of both sizes were used. In which 60% was 20 mm and
40 % was 10 mm. Physical Properties of Natural Coarse aggregates are shown in Table 3.10.

(25)
 Coarse aggregates were sieved before they were used in the mix to ensure the size of
aggregates used. Table 3.8 and Table 3.9 shows the gradation of 20mm and 10 mm Coarse
aggregates.

Table 3.8: Gradation of 20 mm Natural Coarse Aggregates

Gradation of 20 mm Coarse Aggregates

Sieve Weight Cumulative % Weight
Size Retained(g) % Weight Retained Retained % Passing
40 mm 0 0 0 100
20 mm 42 0.42 0.42 99.58
10 mm 7156 71.56 71.98 28.02
4.75 mm 2355 23.55 95.53 4.47
Pan 444 4.44
Total 167.93
Fineness Modulus = (167.93+500) / 100 = 6.67
Table 3.9: Gradation of 10 mm Natural Coarse Aggregates
Gradation of 10 mm Coarse Aggregates
Sieve Weight Cumulative % Weight
Size Retained(g) % Weight Retained Retained % Passing
40 mm 0 0 0 100
20 mm 0 0 0 100
10 mm 897 8.97 8.97 91.03
4.75 mm 8202 82.02 90.99 9.01
Pan 900 9
Total 99.96

Fineness Modulus = (99.96+500) / 100 = 5.99

Sr. No. Property 20 mm 10 mm

(26)
 1 Specific Gravity 2.6 2.6

2 Water Absorption 2.86 1.47

3 Fineness Modulus 6.67 5.99

Table 3.10: Physical Properties of Natural Coarse Aggregates.

3.1.6 Water – Water is an important ingredient in concrete the quality and quantity of
water in the mix should be precisely taken care of. In the present investigation, Tap
water is used for the preparation of mix.

(27)
3.2 Concrete Mix
Concrete Mix was designed using IS 10262:2009 (Code of Practice for Mix design of
Concrete), Several trials were made to design a base mix of M25 concrete. After the desired
strength was attained Mix design was used to make 5 Concrete mixes which are mentioned in
Table 3.11. For each mix, the water-cement ratio was kept constant to 0.55. Out of the five
mixes made there was the replacement of Natural Fine Aggregates with Fine Recycled
concrete Aggregates and Brick Dust. The replacement percentage of Natural Fine aggregates
by both materials was 25% and 50%. The Mix made by replacement of natural fine
aggregates by Fine recycled aggregates had the same colour as of the control mix and the mix
prepared by replacement of Fine Natural aggregates by Brick dust had a Rusty Brown colour.
Mixing of materials was done using a concrete mixing machine which is shown in fig 3.5.
The machine was thoroughly cleaned by chipping dry concrete from the drum. After the dry
concrete was chipped out it was cleaned by rotating water in the drum for a few minutes and
later drying it for some time. The quantity of Concrete mix was calculated according to the
no of specimens to be cast.

(28)
 Fig 3.5: Concrete Mixing Machine.

Table 3.11: Mixes Prepared

Coarse Coarse
Aggregate aggregate Fine Water
Cement (20mm) (10mm) Aggregate FRCA FRBA Water Cement
Mix Kg/ Kg/ Kg/ Kg/ Kg/ Kg/ Kg/ Ratio
Control 360 640 427 698 0 0 199 0.55
FRCA 25 360 640 427 522.5 174.5 0 199 0.55
FRCA 50 360 640 427 349 349 0 199 0.55
FRBA 25 360 640 427 522.5 0 174.5 199 0.55
FRBA 50 360 640 427 349 0 349 199 0.55

3.3 Specimen Casting and Curing

 Before the casting of specimens, all the moulds were cleaned, oiled and tightened
properly.
 Tightening of the moulds was done precisely so as the dimensions of the specimens
cast are accurate and there are no spaces for the leakage of the slurry.
(29)
  Mixing was done for 10-12 mins till the mix had a uniform texture. For each mix 6
cubes of 150 mm, 6 cylinders of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm depth, 3 cylinders of
150 mm diameter and 300 mm depth and 3 Beams of 700mm x 150mm x150 mm
were cast.
 Concrete Specimens were taken out of the moulds after 24 Hours of casting.
Specimens were cured for 7 days and 28 days in water curing tanks according to the
testing procedures.

3.4 Tests Conducted

3.4.1 Test for Properties of Fresh Concrete – Slump Test

Workability Test

Slump test is used for the determination of the consistency of fresh concrete. The slump is a
measure of the sinking of unsupported fresh concrete due to its flow to the sides.
IS1199:1959 is used for slump test procedures and determination of slump values.

Procedure

 Firstly, the cone into which concrete is to be poured is cleaned and oiled.
 After oiling the mix prepared is pored in the cone in 4 layers each being one-fourth of
the cone, after pouring each layer is tamped 25 times with a tamping rod.
 After filling the concrete in cone strike off the extra concrete over the top with
tamping rod.

(30)
  Remove the cone slowly in the vertical direction and measure the settlement of the
concrete using tamping rod and scale.

Fig 3.6: Slump Test Apparatus

3.4.2 Tests for Mechanical Properties of Concrete

Compressive Strength

Compressive Strength of Concrete is determined using cube specimen of 150 mm. The
compressive strength of the concrete is determined at 7-days and 28-days of curing. The code
used for compressive strength test procedures is IS 516:1959.

Procedure

 For each Mix 6 cubes are cast out of which 3 cubes are tested after 7-days of curing
and other 3 are tested after 28-days of curing.
 Cubes to be tested are taken out of the water tank and are kept in open for at least 4
hours.
 After the cubes are dried for 4- hours they are cleaned with cloth so that there is no
water on the surface.

(31)
  For testing, a Compression Testing Machine is used. CTM used is of 5000 KN
capacity and is manufactured by Aimil Ltd.
 CTM is set on the pace of 5KN per second and dimensions of the cubes to be tested
are entered.
 Cube is placed on the machine and load is applied, the machine automatically stops
loading once peak load is reached. CTM can be seen in Figure 3.7.
 Average of Peak load of 3 Cubes is taken and results are compiled.

Fig 3.7: Compression Testing Machine

Splitting Tensile Strength

(32)
Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete is its ability to resist force which tends to pull it apart. The
Code used for Splitting Tensile Strength calculation procedures is IS 5816:1999. CTM machine
was used for Load application shown in fig 32. Splitting Tensile Strength test was done using
cylinders of 100mm diameter and 200mm length. Splitting Tensile Strength was tested at 7-Days
and 28-Days.

Procedure

 For each Mix, 6 cylinders are cast out of which 3 cylinders are tested after 7-days of
curing and other 3 are tested after 28-days of curing.
 Cylinders to be tested are taken out of the water tank and are kept in open for at least 4
hours.
 After the cylinders are dried for 4- hours they are cleaned with cloth so that there is no
water on the surface.
 For testing, a Compression Testing Machine is used. CTM used is of 5000 KN capacity
and is manufactured by Aimil Ltd.
 CTM is set on the pace of 1KN per second and dimensions of the cubes to be tested are
entered.
 The cylinder is placed on the machine and load is applied, the machine automatically
stops loading once peak load is reached. CTM is shown in Figure 3.8.
 Peak load data of 3 cylinders is noted for further calculations.
 Calculation of Splitting tensile strength of cylinder is done using the formula in
IS5816:1999 -:

= Splitting tensile strength, =Peak load, =length of cylinder and =Diameter of cylinder.

(33)
 Fig 3.8: Splitting Tensile Strength using CTM

Flexural Strength

The Specimens used for Modulus of Rupture Test were beams of Dimension 700x150x150.
Specimens of age 28-Days were tested for Modulus of Rupture test.

Procedure

 For each mix, 3 beams are cast and are tested after 28-days of curing.
 Testing of beams is done using Universal Testing machine of make Hung Ta. The
universal testing machine is shown in figure 3.8.
 Beams are taken out of curing tank 8 hours before testing is to be done. Beams are
wiped with a cloth to make sure there is no surface water.

(34)
 Lines are drawn on 50mm, 250mm, 450mm and 650mm on one face of each beam.
50mm and 650mm are marked for supports under the beam and 250mm and 450mm
are marked as loads application points on the top face.
 The beam is placed on 2 Point load assembly as shown in Figure 3.8 Dimensions of
the beam are added to the software and software is set to two-point load test setting.
 The load is applied on the beam and peak load value is noted. This peak load value is
used to calculate the modulus of rupture by formulas given in IS 516:1999.
Formula Used- ,when a > 20 cm

, when a < 20 cm

P- Peak load, L-Length od Specimen, b-width of the specimen, d- depth of specimen

and a- distance between the line of fracture and nearer support.

(35)
 Figure 3.9: Universal Testing Machine

Modulus of Elasticity

(36)
The Specimens used for Modulus of Elasticity were cylinders of diameter 150 mm and length
300 mm and age of specimens is 28-days. Modulus of Elasticity tests was performed using CTM
make Aimil Ltd.

Procedure

 For each mix, three cylinders were used for calculating the modulus of elasticity.
 Cylinders are taken out of the curing tank and are dried for 4 hours before testing.
Cylinders are cleaned with a cloth if there is any surface water on the cylinder.
 Three frames assembly is attached to the cylinder, frame assembly has a digital dial
gauge and an LVDT which measure lateral and axial compression in mm. Frame
assembles can be seen in figure 3.10. Digital Dial gauge and LVDT are connected to a
desktop which has software to calculate Modulus of elasticity.
 After attaching the frame assemble the cylinder is placed on CTM, using software
dimensions of the cylinder are added and the load is applied.
 The software gives the force and compression data which is used to evaluate Modulus of
elasticity.

Fig 3.10: Frame Assembly for Modulus of Elasticity test.

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

(37)
Ultrasonic pulse velocity is a non-destructive test and is done to check the quality of concrete.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test is performed on cubes used for 28-days compressive strength.
Ultrasonic Pulse velocity tells about the voids in the concrete.

Procedure

 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity apparatus consists of two transducers one being a transmitter
and other the receiver, set of wires and Ultrasonic Device. Components of Ultrasonic
device can be seen in Figure 3.11.
 The ultrasonic gel is applied on the transducers and both transducers are placed at the two
ends of the cube. The dimension of the cube is entered so as the machine knows the
distance between the transducers.
 Transmission of Ultrasonic pulse is done by hitting Run button on the device.
 Ultrasonic Pulse device calculates Velocity using the distance between the transducers
and time taken for the pulse to travel this distance.
 Ultrasonic Pulse velocity is calculated for 3 cubes of the same mix and their average is
taken as the Ultrasonic Pulse velocity of concrete.

Fig 3.11: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Apparatus

Rebound Hammer Test

(38)
Rebound Hammer test is done using Schmidtz Rebound hammer. It works on the principle that
Rebound of an elastic mass depends upon the hardness of the surface. This test helps to compare
the results of Compressive strength using CTM and Rebound Hammer.

Procedure

 Rebound Hamer is a Non-Destructive test, this test is done on cubes which are used for
28-days compressive strength testing.
 Cubes are placed on CTM and a load of about 20KN is applied so that CTM holds the
cube when rebound hammer impinges on the surface.
 Rebound Hammer impinges on five points on each cube. These points are shown in
Figure 3.12.
 After the Impingement, the Rebound Hammer device gives the compressive strength of
the concrete specimen.

Fig 3.12: Rebound Hammer test apparatus

CHAPTER-4
(39)
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This Chapter includes fresh and hardened properties of different concrete mixes prepared and
All the test results are discussed in this chapter.

Tests Conducted

1. Test for Fresh Concrete

 Slump Test
2. Test for Hardened Concrete Properties
 Compressive Strength Test
 Tensile Strength Test
 Flexural Strength Test
 Modulus of Elasticity Test
 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
 Rebound Hammer test
4.1 Workability
Slump value of all the mixes are shown in table 4.1 and represented using charts as shown in Fig
4.1(a) and 4.1(b).

Table 4.1(a): Slump values of all the mixes

Mix Slump Value
(mm)
Control 97
FRCA 25 72
FRCA 50 60
FRBA 25 63
FRBA 50 44

(40)
 Slump of Fresh Concrete with Slump of Fresh Concrete with
FRCA FRBA
120 120
97 97
100 100

80 72 80
60 63
Slump

Slump
60 60
44
40 40

20 20

0 0
Control FRCA 25 FRCA 50 Control FRBA 25 FRBA 50
Mix Mix

Fig 4.1: Slump Value of concrete mixes

Slump Value of the Control mix is 97mm which is desired value as per mix design. Slump Value
of concrete mix with replacement by FRCA and FRBA decreases as FRCA and FRBA have
greater water absorption than Natural Aggregates. The water absorption is most in FRBA, so it
has the least value in 50% replacement.
4.2 Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength results are shown in Table 4.2, Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3.
Table 4.2: Compressive Strength test results

Average Compressive Strength

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (N/ )
MIX 7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days
27 34.6
27.2 34.2
Control Mix 27.4 30.2 27.2 33
22.2 29.8
24.6 37
FRCA 25 24.4 31.4 23.73 32.73
20.8 30.4
25 28.6
FRCA 50 20.4 29.8 22.06 29.6
22.8 35
23 22.4
FRBA 25 22.2 28.4 22.67 28.6
16 24.4
23 23
FRBA 50 22.8 25 20.6 24.13
(41)
 Compressive Strength FRCA
35 33 32.73
29.6
30 27.2

Compressive strength
23.73
25 22.07
20
15
10
5
0
Control Mix FRCA 25 FRCA 50
Mix
7-Days 28-Days

Fig 4.2: Compressive strength FRCA

Compressive Strength FRBA

35 33

27.2 28.6
Compressive Strength

30
24.23
25 22.67
20.6
20
15
10
5
0
Control Mix FRBA 25 FRBA 50
Mix

7-Days 28-Days

Fig 4.3: Compressive Strength FRBA

The 28-days compressive strength of concrete mix with 25% replacement of Natural Fine
aggregate by Fine recycled concrete aggregates decreases by 0.81% which is a very small value
whereas with 50% replacement compressive strength decreases 10.3%. The 7-days compressive
strength of concrete mix with 25% replacement of Natural Fine aggregate by Fine recycled
concrete aggregates decreases by 12.75% which is a very small value whereas with 50%
replacement compressive strength decreases 18.88%.
The 28-days compressive strength of the concrete mix with 25% replacement of Natural Fine
aggregate by Fine Recycled Brick dust decreases by 13.33% whereas with 50% replacement
compressive strength decreases 26.88%. The 7-days compressive strength of the concrete mix

(42)
with 25% replacement of Natural Fine aggregate by Fine recycled Brick Dust decreases by
16.65% whereas with 24.46% replacement compressive strength decreases 10.3%.

4.3 Splitting Tensile Strength

Results of Splitting Tensile Strength can be seen in table 4.3 and Fig 4.4 (a) and 4.4 (b).
Table 4.3: Splitting Tensile Strength Test results
7-Days 28-Days Average Tensile Strength
Peak
Load Tensile Peak Load Tensile
MIX (KN) Strength (KN) Strength 7 days 28 days
86 2.74 122.8 3.9
Control
Mix 73.2 2.33 81 2.57 2.63 3.23
89.4 2.84 102 3.24
61.4 1.95 98 3.12
FRCA 25 74.2 2.36 73.2 2.33 2.07 2.73
59.2 1.88 86 2.74
51.8 1.65 94.2 2.99
FRCA 50 63.4 2.01 78 2.48 1.83 2.48
54.6 1.74 61.8 1.97
74.2 2.36 65 2.07
FRBA 25 50 1.59 89.2 2.84 1.98 2.55
61.8 1.97 86 2.74
67.6 2.15 85.4 2.72
FRBA 50 49 1.59 70.8 2.25 1.77 2.36
49 1.59 66.2 2.11

Split tensile Strength of FRCA

3.5 3.23
3 2.73
Split Tensile Strength

2.63
2.48
2.5 2.07
2 1.8

1.5
1
0.5
0
Control Mix FRCA 25 FRCA 50
Mix

7-days 28-days

(43)
 Fig 4.4 (a): Splitting tensile strength FRCA

Split Tensile Strength of FRBA

3.5 3.23
3
Split Tensile Strength

2.63 2.55
2.36
2.5
1.98
2 1.77

1.5
1
0.5
0
Control Mix FRBA 25 FRBA 50
Mix

7-days 28-days

Fig 4.4 (b): Splitting tensile strength FRBA

The 28-days Splitting tensile strength of the concrete mix with 25% replacement of natural fine
aggregate by Fine recycled concrete aggregates decreases by 15.47% whereas with 50%
replacement compressive strength decreases 23.22%. The 7-days Splitting tensile strength of the
concrete mix with 25% replacement of ntural fine aggregate by Fine recycled concrete
aggregates decreases by 21.29% whereas with 50% replacement splitting tensile strength
decreases 30.41%. The 28-days Splitting tensile strength of the concrete mix with 25%
replacement of Natural Fine aggregate by Fine recycled Brick Dust decreases by 24.71%
whereas with 50% replacement compressive strength decreases 32.69%. The 7-days Splitting
tensile strength of the concrete mix with 25% replacement of Natural Fine aggregate by Fine
recycled Brick Dust decreases by 21.05% whereas with 50% replacement Splitting tensile
strength decreases 26.93%.

(44)
4.4 Flexural Strength Test
Flexural Strength test results are shown in table 4.4 and Figure 4.5(a) and 4.5(b).

Flexural Strength 28-Days

Mix Peak Load Modulus of Rupture Average Flexural Strength
Control 28.77 5.96
26.42 5.47 5.7
27.34 5.67
FRCA 25 24.45 5.07
22.67 4.72 4.87
23.24 4.82
FRCA 50 20.73 4.3
14.54 3.01 3.94
21.78 4.51
FRBA 25 21.91 4.54
21.34 4.42 4.56
22.67 4.72
FRBA 50 18.35 4.24
16.73 3.47 3.64
15.56 3.23
Table 4.4: Flexural Strength test results

Flexural Strength FRCA

6 5.7
4.87
5
3.94
Flexural Strngth

0
Control FRCA 25 FRCA 50
Mix

Fig 4.5 (a): Flexural Strength of FRCA

(45)
 Flexural Strength FRBA
6 5.7

5 4.56
Flexural Strength
4 3.64

0
Control FRBA 25 FRBA 50
Mix

Fig 4.5(b): Flexural Strength of FRBA.

Flexural Strength at 28-days of concrete with 25% of fine recycled concrete aggregates decreases
by 14.46% whereas for 50% replacement flexural strength decreases by 30.87%. Flexural
Strength at 28-days of concrete with 25% of Fine recycled Brick Dust decreases by 20%%
whereas for 50% replacement flexural strength decreases by 36.14%.
4.5 Modulus of Elasticity
Results of the Modulus of Elasticity test are shown in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.6(a) and figure
4.6(b).
Table 4.5: Modulus of Elasticity test Results
28-Day Modulus of Elasticity
Mix MOE (Mpa) Average MOE (Mpa)
Control 28973
29112 28286.33
26774
FRCA 25 28369
27650 27705.42
27097
FRCA 50 26445
27146 26532
26006
FRBA 25 26576
27366 26898
26752
FRBA 50 24886
(46)
 24690 25106
25743

MOE OF FRCA 28-DAYS

28500 28286.33

28000 27705.42

27500
MOE (Mpa)

27000
26532
26500

26000

25500
Control FRCA 25 FRCA 50
MIX

Fig 4.6(a): MOE of FRCA 28-days

MOE OF FRBA 28-DAYS

29000
28286.33
28000
26898
27000
MOE (Mpa)

26000
25106
25000

24000

23000
Control FRBA 25 FRBA 50
MIX

Fig 4.6(b): MOE of FRBA 28-days

Modulus of elasticity for control mix at 28-days is 28286MPa, whereas for FRCA25 it is
27705.42MPa which is 2% less than the control mix and for FRCA50 it is 6% less than the
control mix. Similarly, for FRBA there is a reduction in MOE but the reduction is more in FRBA
than in FRCA, For FRBA the reduction is 5% whereas for FRBA50 reduction is 11.24%.
.

(47)
4.6 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
The results of ultrasonic Velocity can be seen in Table 4.7 and Figure 4.8.
Table 4.7: Results of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Mix Ultrasonic pulse velocity 28-Days (m/sec)
28-days Average
6300
Control 6200 6233
6200
5820
FRCA 25 6100 6176.67
6610
5980
FRCA 50 6000 5910
5750
6150
FRBA 25 6070 6073
6000
5920
FRBA 50 6000 5856.67
5650

Ultrasonic pulse Velocity FRCA

6300
6233
6200 6176.67

6100
UPV

6000
5910
5900

5800

5700
Control FRCA 25 FRCA 50
Mix

Fig 4.8(a): Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity FRC

(48)
 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
6300 6233
6200

6100 6073

6000
UPV 5900 5856.67

5800

5700

5600
Control FRBA 25 FRBA 50
mix

Fig 4.8(b): Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity FRBA

The Average Ultrasonic Pulse velocity of concrete made with natural aggregates is 6233m/s or
6.2Km/sec on comparing it with concrete with the replacement of natural fine aggregates with
FRCA it decreases the decrease is about 0.9% at 25% replacement and 5.18% at 50%
replacement. When fine natural aggregates are replaced with fine recycled brick dust aggregates
the reduction is 2.56% at 25% replacement and 6.04% at 50% replacement which is more than
FRCA.

4.7 Rebound Hammer Test

Rebound Hammer 28-days Test Results are shown in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.9.
Table 4.8: Rebound Hammer Test Results
28-Days Rebound Hammer Test
Mix Rebound Hammer Results (MPa) CTM Compressive Strength (MPa)
Control 30.95 33
FRCA 25 28.6 32.73
FRCA 50 25.55 29.6
FRBA 25 26.1 28.6
FRBA 50 24.8 24.14

(49)
 Rebound Hammer Compressive Strength
35 33 32.72
30.95

Compressive Strength (Mpa)

29.6 28.6
30 26.6 26.1
25.55
23.824.14
25
20
15
10
5
0
Control FRCA 25 FRCA 50 FRBA 25 FRBA 50
Mix

RHCS 28-days CS 28-days

Fig 4.9: 28-days Rebound Hammer Test Results

Figure 4.9 Blue bars represent Rebound Hammer strength and orange bar represent Compressive
strength at 28 days.

(50)
 CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION

This chapter deals with the conclusions from Results obtained from this study.

5.1 Conclusion

1. Workability of concrete with recycled aggregates decreased with an increase in

replacement ratios this is because of the water absorption by recycled aggregates which
in case of Fine recycled concrete aggregates is 7.06% and in case of brick dust is 15.13%.
2. Compressive strength value for concrete incorporating Fine recycled concrete aggregates
at replacement ratio of 25% and 50% were reduced by 0.81% and 10.3% while for Fine
Recycled brick aggregates reduction was 13.33% and 26.8%. There was less reduction in
concrete incorporating FRCA this must be due to cementing action of un hydrated
cement particles in FRCA. The reduction in FRBA is more than that of FRCA as there
was a greater water absorption by FRBA.
3. Splitting tensile strength of concrete incorporating FRCA with replacement ratios of 25%
and 50% was reduced by 15.47% and 23.22% while for FRBA reduction was 21.29% and
30.41%. Reduction in splitting tensile strength is due to the porous structure of Recycled
Aggregates.
4. Flexural strength value for concrete incorporating Fine recycled concrete aggregates at
replacement ratio of 25% and 50% were reduced by 14.46% and 30.87% while for Fine
Recycled brick aggregates reduction was 20% and 36.14%.
5. Modulus of elasticity of concrete incorporating FRCA with replacement ratios of 25%
and 50% was reduced by 2% and 6% while for FRBA reduction was 5% and 11.21%.
Modulus of elasticity is deeply related to the stiffness of coarse aggregates, the stiffness
of mortar and porosity. When the natural aggregates are replaced with recycled
aggregates there is a decrease in overall stiffness and porosity is also increased hence the
modulus of elasticity decreases with the replacement of Fine natural aggregates.
6. Ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete incorporating FRCA with replacement ratios of
25% and 50% was reduced by 0.9% and 5.18% while for FRBA reduction was 2.56%
and 6.04%. This reduction in the ultrasonic pulse velocity is due to the increase in the
voids when natural aggregates are replaced with recycled aggregates.

(51)
4.0 REFERENCES

[1] Khatib, J. M. (2005). Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled

aggregate. Cement and concrete research, 35(4), 763-769.
[2] Evangelista, L., & De Brito, J. (2007). Mechanical behavior of concrete made with fine
recycled concrete aggregates. Cement and concrete composites, 29(5), 397-401.
[3] Kou, S. C., & Poon, C. S. (2009). Properties of concrete prepared with crushed fine stone,
furnace bottom ash and fine recycled aggregate as fine aggregates. Construction and
Building Materials, 23(8), 2877-2886.
[4] Pereira, P., Evangelista, L., & De Brito, J. (2012). The effect of superplasticizers on the
workability and compressive strength of concrete made with fine recycled concrete
aggregates. Construction and Building Materials, 28(1), 722-729.
[5] Pereira, P., Evangelista, L., & De Brito, J. (2012). The effect of superplasticizers on the
mechanical performance of concrete made with fine recycled concrete
aggregates. Cement and concrete composites, 34(9), 1044-1052.
[6] Evangelista, L., Guedes, M., De Brito, J., Ferro, A. C., & Pereira, M. F. (2015). Physical,
chemical and mineralogical properties of fine recycled aggregates made from concrete
waste. Construction and building materials, 86, 178-188.
[7] Cartuxo, F., De Brito, J., Evangelista, L., Jimenez, J. R., & Ledesma, E. F. (2015).
Rheological behaviour of concrete made with fine recycled concrete aggregates–
Influence of the superplasticizer. Construction and Building Materials, 89, 36-47.
[8] Fan, C. C., Huang, R., Hwang, H., & Chao, S. J. (2016). Properties of concrete
incorporating fine recycled aggregates from crushed concrete wastes. Construction and
Building Materials, 112, 708-715.
[9] Brito J, Evangelista L.Using Fine Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition
waste-A state of art Review 2015.
[10] Behera, M., Bhattacharyya, S. K., Minocha, A. K., Deoliya, R., & Maiti, S. (2014).
Recycled aggregate from C&D waste & its use in concrete–A breakthrough towards
sustainability in construction sector: A review. Construction and building materials, 68,
501-516.

(52)
[11] Bui, N. K., Satomi, T., & Takahashi, H. (2017). Improvement of mechanical properties of
recycled aggregate concrete basing on a new combination method between recycled
aggregate and natural aggregate. Construction and Building Materials, 148, 376-385.
[12] Evangelista, L., Guedes, M., De Brito, J., Ferro, A. C., & Pereira, M. F. (2015). Physical,
chemical and mineralogical properties of fine recycled aggregates made from concrete
waste. Construction and building materials, 86, 178-188.
[13] Cartuxo, F., De Brito, J., Evangelista, L., Jimenez, J. R., & Ledesma, E. F. (2015).
Rheological behaviour of concrete made with fine recycled concrete aggregates–Influence
of the superplasticizer. Construction and Building Materials, 89, 36-47.
[14] Kumar, B. V., Ananthan, H., & Balaji, K. V. A. (2017). Experimental studies on
utilization of recycled coarse and fine aggregates in high-performance concrete
mixes. Alexandria Engineering Journal.
[15] Debieb, F., & Kenai, S. (2008). The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks as aggregate in
concrete. Construction and building materials, 22(5), 886-893.
[16] Solyman, M. (2005). Classification of recycled sands and their applications as fine
aggregates for concrete and bituminous mixtures (Doctoral dissertation, Verlag nicht
ermittelbar).
[17] Pedro, D., De Brito, J., & Evangelista, L. (2017). Structural concrete with simultaneous
incorporation of fine and coarse recycled concrete aggregates: Mechanical, durability and
long-term properties. Construction and Building Materials, 154, 294-309.
[18] Ge, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, R., Wu, X., & Guan, Y. (2015). Influence of ground waste clay
brick on properties of fresh and hardened concrete. Construction and Building
Materials, 98, 128-136.
[19] Aliabdo, A. A., Abd-Elmoaty, A. E. M., & Hassan, H. H. (2014). Utilization of crushed
clay brick in concrete industry. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 53(1), 151-168.
[20] Poon, C. S., & Chan, D. (2006). Paving blocks made with recycled concrete aggregate
and crushed clay brick. Construction and building materials, 20(8), 569-577.

(53)