Next Article in Journal
Analytic Hierarchy Process & Multi Attribute Utility Theory Based Approach for the Selection of Lighting Systems in Residential Buildings: A Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
The Design of Local-Authority Rental Housing for the Elderly That Improves Their Quality of Life
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/buildings8050072
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Retraction published on 11 June 2018, see Buildings 2018, 8(6), 79.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Properties of Normal and Recycled Brick Aggregates for Production of Medium Range (25–30 MPa) Structural Strength Concrete

by
Suvash Chandra Paul
1,*,
Adewumi John Babafemi
2,
Vivi Anggraini
1 and
Md. Minhaz Rahman
3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, 47500 Subang Jaya, Malaysia
2
Department of Building, Faculty of Environmental Design and Management, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife 220282, Nigeria
3
Structural Engineers Limited (SEL), West Panthapath, Dhaka 1209, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2018, 8(5), 72; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050072
Submission received: 13 May 2018 / Revised: 18 May 2018 / Accepted: 18 May 2018 / Published: 21 May 2018
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study compares the properties of normal and recycled brick aggregates to produce a medium range (25–30 MPa) compressive strength of structural grade concrete. Up to date, brick aggregates are commonly used in structural concrete in some South Asian and African countries. Many concrete structures which were built in the last century are made from brick aggregates and some of them are already in a position of ending of their service life. At the same time, population and economic growth is forcing the demolition of many old structures. Therefore, there is a huge flow of construction and demolition waste and thereby it is necessary to recycle the waste to overcome the problem of occupying the landfill sites. For this study, recycled brick aggregates were collected from the various demolished building sites and their physical and mechanical performance were then compared with the concrete made from normal brick aggregates. It is found that the mechanical properties of recycled brick concrete are comparable to that of normal brick aggregate at medium strength level. The production cost of recycled brick concrete is also found to be 10–12% lower than normal brick aggregates.

1. Introduction

Concrete is a commonly used construction material in many applications world-wide. However, in the last couple of decades, concrete production and construction methods have been improved significantly due to the availability of modern technologies [1,2]. Concrete construction has shifted from the conventional practice of in-situ method to the pre-cast method [3]. Very recently, 3D printing of concrete is being advanced rather than the conventional practice of casting concrete into formwork [4]. It is also worth mentioning that a vast pool of research has been carried out on various aspects of concrete such as changing conventional compositions to fiber reinforced concrete, high performance concrete, self-compacting concrete, green or no cement geopolymer concrete, etc. to adjust with these new methods [1,5,6,7]. Many developed countries have already adopted new concrete construction method, while some developing countries in South Asia and Africa are still practicing old conventional method. This may be due to the fact that developing countries have some limitations in adopting new technologies, since new technologies are usually expensive and also need skilled people.
This study investigates the properties of normal and recycled brick aggregates to produce structural concrete. As it is well known that the volumetric stability of concrete mainly comes from the aggregates where stone chips are commonly used as coarse aggregates in concrete. However, as with technology, many developing countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. still use brick aggregates in concrete [8,9]. Brick is artificially manufactured from clay. Typically, clay is burnt at high temperature in defined shape before been used as a brick. In Bangladesh, based on the quality of brick after burning, it is classified into different classes such as first-class brick (good quality), second-class brick (medium quality) and third-class brick (lower quality).
The cost of brick also varies for different classes. However; there is no simple test to identify the quality of brick rather than a visual inspection of its surface texture and shape. Good quality brick has brown colour all through the surface with proper shaping (no curve, crack and broken part in the surface). Typically, the absorption capacity of coarse aggregate made from brick is much higher than the stone chips. Also, properly burnt first-class brick has lower absorption capacity than that of second and third-class. The unit weight of the brick aggregates (1500–1800 kg/m3) is also lower than the stone chips and therefore the fresh concrete density is lower for brick aggregate [10]. However, for medium range compressive strength, brick aggregate is sufficient for many structural applications. Another objective of this paper is to compare the concrete properties made from both normal brick aggregate with recycled brick aggregates.
Recycling of waste materials is also a widely discussed issue in the last few decades since all natural resources have a limit and one way to reduce the dependency on them is to recycle as much material as possible. Nevertheless, the properties brick aggregates (both normal and recycled) vary greatly, especially the difference of the SiO2 and Al2O3 in different clay types affects the pozzolanic activity greatly [11]. Also, the lack of relevant technological standard on brick aggregates is the major drawback for it use in concrete. Therefore, this paper aims to scrutinize the properties of normal and recycled brick aggregate, which may increase confidence of engineers and researchers using brick aggregates in concrete.

2. Properties of Concrete with Recycled Brick Aggregates

Several studies are available where normal brick aggregate (as coarse and fine) properties were examined and even compared with stone chips/aggregates [12,13,14]. However, research on recycled brick aggregates is still limited. One of the major issues with recycled brick aggregates is the high water absorption capacity. Adhered old mortar paste in recycled aggregates tend to absorb water from the concrete mix and leaves less water for binder reaction [15]. This high water absorption together with the irregular shape of recycled aggregates may cause lower slump/workability of fresh concrete [16,17]. It is also worth mentioning that most old mortar paste structure are porous, i.e., the presence of lots of micro voids, which is also a reason for the high water absorption of this type of aggregates [14].
A contradiction in the mechanical properties of concrete with brick aggregate is reported by several authors. Bangwar et al. [18] found about 10% lower compressive strength of concrete at 28 days of testing when 50% of the coarse aggregates was replaced by brick aggregate. Similarly, Debieb & Kenai [19] reported about a 5 to 10% lower strength for 25% fine brick aggregate replacement. Authors have found a maximum 30% strength reduction for full fine aggregate replacement. Conversely, Khatib [20] reported that the utilization of fine crushed brick aggregate in concrete up to 25% with natural sand showed the same 90-day strength as the control mix without any brick aggregate. It was further proved by Mohammed et al. [8] that brick aggregates do improve the mechanical properties of concrete. The compressive strength and Young’s modulus of concrete made with brick aggregate were found to be higher than the concrete made with stone aggregate. The authors also concluded that recycled brick aggregates show better performance than the normal brick aggregates though the abrasion and absorption capacity of recycled brick is higher.
Although the durability of brick aggregate concrete is not covered in this study, however, some previous studies mentioned that the durability of concrete may be susceptible with brick aggregates. Bektas et al. [21] found that up to 30% replacement of natural sand with crushed fine brick aggregates increases the alkali-silica reaction (ASR), i.e., higher expansion in concrete. However, for the same mix composition, expansion was reduced for a further replacement of 50% and 100% natural sand with crushed brick. At 100% brick aggregate replacement, almost similar expansion was found in concrete with 100% natural sand. From the microscopic analysis, the authors [21] concluded that the additional hydrates produced by pozzolanic reactivity of fine crushed brick aggregates increased the density of the matrix and improve the pore structure. More research is required to confirm this statement. The expansion in concrete due to freeze-thaw attack was also increased as the brick aggregate contents in mortar increased [21]. Zong et al. [22] also performed different durability test on coarse recycled brick aggregates (at different percentages such as 30, 40 and 50) and the results was compared with natural stone aggregates. It was reported that the water absorption, water permeability coefficient, carbonation depth, air permeability and chloride ion permeability of concrete increased as the percentages of recycled brick aggregates content increased. Higher water absorption and permeability may lead to the corrosion of steel in concrete, which is an important durability issue when dealing with reinforced concrete structures. However, more research on durability of brick aggregates is required to come up with a conclusion. Similarly, for green and sustainable concrete, inclusion of various pozzolanic materials such as fly ash [23] and slag and their different mechanical [24,25] and durability [26] properties need to be characterized extensively.
This study is undertaken to present a comprehensive study on the use of normal and recycled coarse brick aggregates for medium strength (in a range of 25 MPa to 30 MPa) structural concrete. The main focus of the research is to present additional information in the field of both normal and recycled brick aggregates in order to explore the further uses of these materials in structural applications. The assessments of different physical and mechanical properties of normal and recycled brick aggregates are imperative from the cost and environmental aspects.

3. Materials and Experimental Design

3.1. Materials and Properties

Two types of aggregates have been used in this study: recycled brick (RB) and normal brick (NB) (first grade) aggregates. The classification of the aggregates and their properties are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.
It can be observed from Figure 1a that cement paste adhered to the recycled aggregate obtained from old demolished structures. In Table 1, NB1C denotes First Class normal brick aggregate. Three types of normal brick aggregates obtained from a local market were used. They have been classified as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Classes and designated as NB1C, NB2C and NB3C, respectively (see Table 1). For the recycled brick aggregates, RB1Y denotes one-year old recycled brick aggregate; RB20Y denotes twenty-year old recycled brick aggregate and RB55Y denotes fifty five-year old recycled brick aggregates. The recycled aggregates were collected from seven different demolished building sites in Dhaka, Bangladesh with seven different ages varied from a minimum of 20 years to a maximum of 55 years. However, for the one-year old recycled aggregate, previously tested samples were collected from the laboratory of a university. A close look at the properties shown in Table 1 reveals that the properties of the aggregates are not greatly different from one another except for the absorption, which has to do with the porosity of the aggregates.
Both the normal and recycled brick aggregates were crushed and sieved in the laboratory to obtain the desired sizes. Coarse aggregate sizes ranging from 10 mm to a maximum of 19 mm were chosen to produce a medium range structural grade concrete. The maximum size of sand was that passing through a sieve size of 2.36 mm with a fineness modulus (FM) of 2.6. Ordinary Portland cement (CEM I 32.5 N) was used as the binder and natural river sand as the fine aggregates for the concrete. In testing for the quality of the coarse aggregates, fineness modulus, specific gravity, water absorption and aggregate abrasion values were determined. These tests were performed following standard procedures. For example, ASTM C127-15 was followed to determine the water absorption of aggregates. In this case, aggregates were washed thoroughly to remove fine particles and kept in to water for 24 h. Thereafter, the water was properly drained, and aggregates made saturated and surface dry (SSD). Defined masses of aggregates were then placed in the oven at 105 °C to 110 °C for 24 h, removed from the oven, cooled in ambient air condition and weighted again. Water absorption was then calculated from the difference between these two weights.

3.2. Mixture Composition and Concrete Mixes

To determine the performance of the recycled brick aggregate concrete in comparison to normal brick aggregate concrete, a total of 22 different mixture compositions were prepared and tested. All the normal bricks used are commonly available in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Table 2 and Table 3 show the details of the different concrete mixes and mixture compositions.
It is important to note that all the coarse (both recycled and normal) and fine aggregates used in the mix were at SSD conditions according to the recommendation of Hansen [27]. Table 1 shows that the aggregates have high absorption due to their high porosity. Hence, pre-saturation will limit the water used during production of concrete. All aggregates were soaked in water for 24 h, thereafter removed from the water and air-dried to achieve a SSD condition. For finer aggregates, dry blankets were used to wipe the water from the surface of the aggregates. An observation noted during the experimentation was that, even at the SSD condition, mixing water for the concrete containing recycled aggregate with adhered mortar dries up quickly. It has been reported that the cement paste on recycled aggregate could prevent the ingress of water for saturation [28], hence, a naphthalene-based superplasticizer was used in the mixes to control workability. However, it should be noted that all the recycled brick aggregate had absorption values lower than those posited by Hansen [27], which is 22–25%.

3.3. Mechanical Properties of Brick Aggregate Concrete

To investigate the mechanical properties of samples produced from both types of aggregates, 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height cylinder concrete specimens were prepared and tested according to ASTM standards for compressive strength and Young’s modulus of concrete. For the Young’s modulus calculation, strain was measured by using two strain gauges in a length of 150 mm in the middle of each specimen. The details of specimens’ preparation and the determining of compressive strength and Young’s modulus of concrete are also described in [29]. Finally, the cost of the production of concrete using both recycled and normal brick aggregate was compared.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Non-Destructive Compressive Strength Test of Recycled Brick Aggregate

Prior to the processing of the recycled aggregate to produce new concretes, a non-destructive test (NDT) was performed on all the classes of the recycled brick aggregate concrete block collected from a demolished site using Schmidt hammer. Silva et al. [30] emphasize on the need to assess the strength of recycled aggregate to determine the quality of the parent material, hence gaining insight into the impact on the new concrete produced.
The compressive strength results obtained from the NDT are shown in Figure 2. It is evident from the result that the recycled brick with the least age gives the least NDT compressive strength, whereas the oldest recycled brick aggregate concrete (RB55Y) shows the highest NDT compressive strength. At 1, 20, 35 and 55 years, the NDT crushing strength of the aggregates are 31, 37, 38 and 41 MPa, respectively. This shows that the brick aggregate crushing strength is a function of the age of the parent concrete structure. Maximum crushing strength of recycled ceramic brick aggregate used by Cachim [10] was 30 MPa, though the age of the parent structure was not mentioned.

4.2. Workability Test Result

The workability of the concrete mixes produced using both the normal and recycled brick aggregates are presented in Figure 3. This test was performed according to the requirement of BS EN 12350-2 [31]. The slump was measured on the fresh concrete right after mixing using a standard slump cone. As expected, mixtures with a water-cement ratio of 0.55 showed more workability than those of 0.45 irrespective of the age of the recycled brick aggregate and the type (see Figure 3). First Class normal brick aggregate mixtures at a water-cement ratio of 0.55 show higher workability than their counterparts normal brick aggregate mixtures (Figure 3b). While a defined pattern cannot be seen in the workability of the normal brick and recycled brick aggregate mixtures, generally, recycled brick aggregate mixtures show lesser workability. This can be attributed to the higher demand for water by recycled aggregates caused by old adhered mortar which makes it porous due to high mortar content, inhomogeneous and less dense [32,33].

4.3. Compressive Strength Test Result

The compressive strength of the normal brick and recycled brick aggregate concrete was determined using a 300 mm length and 150 mm diameter cylinder according to the requirement of ASTM C39 [34]. The cylindrical compressive strength results are shown in Figure 4 at ages 7, 14 and 28 days. It should be noted that all specimens were cured by complete immersion in water.
As expected, the compressive strength of the specimen increases with curing age for both recycled and normal brick aggregate concretes. Also, specimens with lower water-cement ratio show higher compressive strength. In Figure 4a, while a definite pattern of increase or decrease in the compressive strength of recycled brick aggregate concrete could not be established with the age of the recycled brick aggregate, the highest 28-day compressive strengths were achieved with recycled brick aggregate of 52 and 55 years (31 and 29 MPa, respectively). The observed variability in the compressive strength results could be attributed to contaminants usually associated with recycled brick aggregate [35,36]. However, with recycled brick aggregate of 1 year, a compressive strength of 25 MPa was achieved at 28 days, which could be used for structural works. Note that at 28 days, the coefficient of variations (CoV) for compressive strength of recycled and normal brick concrete are found to be 19% and 20%, respectively. The failure pattern of the specimens tested under compression is shown in Figure 5.
Generally, the results in Figure 4a show that acceptable compressive strength can be obtained with recycled brick aggregate irrespective of the age of the recycled brick aggregate. Earlier studies on the use of recycled brick aggregate for concrete production have also verified this assertion [35].
For the normal brick aggregate concrete (Figure 4b), the class of the brick aggregate influences the performance of the normal brick aggregate concrete. 1st Class normal brick aggregate concrete out-performs the other two classes in compressive strength. Optimum compressive strength of 26 MPa was achieved with the 1st Class normal brick aggregate at a water-cement ratio of 0.40. 3rd Class normal brick aggregate concrete shows the least compressive strength. When the 1st Class normal brick aggregate was substituted with the 2nd Class at proportions between 10–30%, a decrease in the compressive strength was observed at a constant water-cement ratio of 0.55 when compared to those with purely 1st Class aggregate (Figure 4b). Optimum replacement of 1st Class normal brick aggregate with 2nd Class was achieved at a 10% replacement level (23.5 MPa).
From the results presented in Figure 4, 1st Class normal brick aggregate concrete (24–26 MPa) performs better than their counterparts made from recycled bricks (16–25 MPa), except for recycled brick aggregate concrete RB35Y45, RB52Y45 and RB55Y45 (28.5–32 MPa). Since the purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of recycled brick aggregate concrete from demolished old brick structures in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the compressive strength results of RB35Y45, RB52Y45 and RB55Y45 affirm their suitability as structural concrete. It should be mentioned though that these results could not be directly correlated to the NDT compressive strength of the recycled brick aggregates shown in Figure 2.

4.4. Young’s Modulus Test Result

To further investigate the suitability of concretes produced using recycled brick and normal brick aggregates, the elastic performance was studied. The result of the Young’s modulus of both types of brick aggregate is presented in Figure 6. Similar to the compressive strength test results, the Young’s modulus increases with age from 7 to 28 days. The Young’s modulus also increases with a decrease in the water-cement ratio.
The recycled brick aggregate concretes show a Young’s modulus ranging from 17 to 24 GPa on the 28-day. Unlike the compressive strength result where maximum strength was achieved with RB52Y45, the maximum Young’s modulus of the recycled brick aggregate concrete was achieved with RB1Y45 (24 GPa) on the 28-day. It should be noted that the compressive strength of RB1Y45 at 28-day is 25 MPa, which, as previously mentioned, is usable for structural concrete works. Result of new concrete produced from a recycled brick and concrete aggregates have shown far lesser values [37,38].
On the other hand, the normal brick aggregate concretes show lesser Young’s modulus, ranging from 12.5 to 17 GPa, compared to the counterpart recycled brick aggregate concrete. This result shows that the age of the brick aggregate somewhat has an influence on the elastic properties of the new brick aggregate concrete. Like the compressive strength result, the 1st Class normal brick aggregate concrete performs better than the other classes. Again, when the 1st Class aggregate was partially replaced by the 2nd Class aggregate using 10–30% replacement level, optimum performance was achieved at 10% replacement level. The coefficient of variations (CoV) for Young’s modulus of recycled and normal brick concrete are found to 17% and 13%, respectively. The relationship between the Young’s modulus and compressive strength of concrete is shown in Figure 7. A good correlation is found for concrete with normal aggregates than recycled aggregates. It may be due to the uncontrolled adhered old mortar paste on the surface of recycled aggregates, which may have led to the variation observed in the results. Further studies would be beneficial to prove this statement.

4.5. Abrasion Test Result

Figure 8 shows the result of the abrasion resistance of the recycled (between 1 and 55 years) and normal brick aggregate concretes. These results have also been correlated to the results of the 28-day compressive strength of the recycled and normal brick aggregate concretes as shown in Figure 8. It should be noted that the abrasion test result of the recycled and normal brick aggregate concretes has been performed at water-cement ratios of 0.45 and 0.55, respectively.
For the recycled brick aggregate concretes, the abrasion value ranges from 31–57%. The highest abrasion value (57%) coincides with the specimen with the lowest compressive strength. However, while the specimens with the highest compressive strength (RB1Y45 and RB50Y45) are not those with the lowest abrasion, generally, there is a somewhat correlation between the abrasion and the compressive strength; the higher the compressive strength, the higher the abrasion resistance (low abrasion value in per cent). The observed variation, as mentioned previously in relation to the compressive strength, can be related to the presence of contaminants and the high variability with the properties of recycled aggregates.
The same observation applies to the normal brick aggregate concrete shown in Figure 8b. The abrasion ranges between 48–77%. The lower the abrasion resistance (high abrasion value in per cent) of aggregates, the lower the compression strength of the concrete specimens. Specimens with 1st Class brick aggregate performed better in abrasion resistance compared to the 2nd and 3rd Classes. Again, when 2nd Class brick aggregate were substituted for the 1st Class at percentages ranging from 10–30%, 10% replacement level showed optimum performance.

4.6. Cost of Production for Normal and Recycled Brick Aggregate Concrete

A cost comparison based on brick type (recycled and normal), age of recycled brick, their corresponding compressive strength and aggregate class (1st, 2nd and 3rd) have been carried out. The results of the cost of production based on the aforementioned factors are presented in Figure 9. The cost of the concrete has been calculated based on the material cost in the local market in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In this case, the amount of cement, sand, coarse aggregates, water, superplasticizer per cubic meter was calculated and their corresponding cost is considered in calculation of production cost of concrete. It is worth mentioning that the cost of recycled aggregates is also considered zero since they can be collected directly from the demolition site or landfill site, which often are free of charge. Only the transportation and production of desire aggregate sizes can be considered. However, in this study, the transport cost of materials and labour cost of mixing concrete have not been included since they greatly vary from location to location and country to country as well.
As expected, the higher the compressive strength of the concrete, the higher the cost per cubic meter. The older brick aggregate concrete shows to be less expensive (10–12%) compared to the normal brick aggregate concrete and show better performance in terms of compressive strength as previously discussed. While this study did not look at recycled concrete aggregate and normal aggregate, it is believed that these costs will be lesser when compared to normal concrete and recycled concrete aggregates.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Concrete mixtures with good quality normal and recycled brick aggregates exhibit acceptable fresh and hardened properties of concrete. In some previous studies, results also indicated that brick aggregate concrete mixtures can exhibit mechanical properties comparable to that of conventional coarse aggregates. However, further research is required to develop confidence in using both normal and recycled brick aggregates in concrete, especially in high strength structural application as well as in severe environmental conditions. From the results found in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn.
(1)
The compressive strength of recycled brick aggregate is dependent on the age of the parent structure; the strength tends to increase as the age of the old brick structure increases.
(2)
Irrespective of the age of the brick aggregate, the workability of the brick aggregate concrete is a function of the water-cement ratio; it increases as the water-cement ratio increases. Generally, the recycled brick aggregate show lesser workability than their counterpart normal brick aggregate.
(3)
The compressive strength of brick aggregate concrete increases with age and influenced by water-cement ratio as in normal concrete. First Class normal brick aggregate shows better performance than the 2nd and 3rd Class aggregates.
(4)
Recycled brick aggregate concrete performs better than the normal brick aggregate in the elastic modulus. The Young’s modulus of recycled brick aggregate concrete ranges from 17–24 GPa, while normal brick concrete was 12.5–17 GPa.
(5)
There exists a relationship between the abrasion of brick aggregate concrete and the compressive strength. The higher the compressive strength, the higher the resistance to abrasion. The age of the aggregate also influenced the abrasion resistance. Recycled brick aggregate concrete tested in this study showed greater resistance than the normal brick aggregate concrete.
(6)
Recycled brick aggregate concrete show a costing saving of 10–12% compared to the normal brick aggregate concrete.

Author Contributions

Experiments were carried out by S.C.P. and M.M.R. Analysis of the experimental results were performed by S.C.P. and A.J.B. Writing was done by S.C.P., A.J.B. and V.A.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sbia, L.A.; Peyvandi, A.; Lu, J.; Abideen, S.; Weerasiri, R.R.; Balachandra, A.M.; Soroushian, P. Production methods for reliable construction of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) structures. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Paul, S.C.; Panda, B.; Garg, A. A novel approach in modelling of concrete made with recycled aggregates. Measurement 2018, 115, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Neithalath, N.; Schwarz, N. Properties of cast-in-place concrete and precast concrete blocks incorporating waste glass powder. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2009, 3, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Paul, S.C.; van Zijl, G.P.A.G.; Tan, M.J.; Gibson, I. A review of 3D concrete printing systems and materials properties: Current status and future research prospects. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Panda, B.; Paul, S.C.; Lim, J.H.; Tay, Y.W.D.; Tan, M.J. Additive manufacturing of geopolymer for sustainable built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heikal, M.; Zohdy, K.M.; Abdelkreem, M. Mechanical, microstructure and rheological characteristics of high performance self-compacting cement pastes and concrete containing ground clay bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Paul, S.C.; Babafemi, A.J. A Review of Mechanical and Durability Properties of Strain Hardening Cement-Based Composite (SHCC). J. Sustain. Cem. Based Mater. 2018, 7, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mohammed, T.U.; Hasnat, A.; Awal, M.A.; Bosunia, S.Z. Recycling of brick aggregate concrete as coarse aggregate. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khalaf, F.M. Using crushed clay brick as aggregate in concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006, 18, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cachim, P.B. Mechanical properties of brick aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1292–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cheng, H. Reuse research progress on waste clay brick. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 31, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sadek, D.M. Physico-mechanical properties of solid cement bricks containing recycled aggregates. J. Adv. Res. 2012, 3, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Letelier, V.; Tarela, E.; Moriconi, G. Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled aggregates and waste brick powder as cement replacement. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aliabdo, A.A.; Abd-Elmoaty, A.M.; Hassan, H.H. Utilization of crushed clay brick in concrete industry. Alex. Eng. J. 2014, 53, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Batayneh, M.; Marie, I.; Asi, I. Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1870–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Padmini, A.K.; Ramamurthy, K.; Mathews, M.S. Relative moisture movement through recycled aggregate concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 2002, 54, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Paul, S.C.; van Zijl, G.P.A.G. Mechanical and durability properties of recycled concrete aggregate for normal strength structural concrete. Int. J Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2013, 4, 89–103. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bangwar, D.K.; Saand, A.; Keerio, M.A.; Soomro, M.A.; Laghari, A.N. Replacement of coarse aggregate with locally available brick aggregate. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2017, 7, 2266–2267. [Google Scholar]
  19. Debieb, F.; Kenai, S. The use of coarse and crushed bricks as aggregate in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khatib, J.M. Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bektas, F.; Wang, K.; Ceylan, H. Effects of crushed clay brick aggregate on mortar durability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1909–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zong, L.; Fei, Z.; Zhang, S. Permeability of recycled aggregate concrete containing fly ash and clay brick waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 70, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Golewski, G.L. Generalized fracture toughness and compressive strength of sustainable concrete including low calcium fly ash. Materials 2017, 10, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Golewski, G.L. Green concrete composite incorporating fly ash with high strength and fracture toughness. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Golewski, G.L. Improvement of fracture toughness of green concrete as a result of addition of coal fly ash. Characterization of fly ash microstructure. Mater. Charact. 2017, 134, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Paul, S.C.; Babafemi, A.J. Performance of strain hardening cement-based composite (SHCC) under various exposure conditions. Cogent Eng. 2017, 4, 1345608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hansen, T.C. Recycling of Demolished Concrete and Masonry; RILEM Rep. 6; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  28. Neville, A.M. Properties of Concrete; Longman: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  29. Paul, S.C. Mechanical Behavior and Durability Performance of Concrete Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Master’s Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Silva, R.V.; de Brito, J.; Dhir, R.K. Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes suitable for concrete production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. BS EN 12350-2. Testing Fresh Concrete—Slump Test; BSI: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gómez-Soberón, J.M.V. Porosity of recycled concrete with substitution of recycled concrete aggregate: An experimental study. Cem. Concr. Res. 2002, 32, 1301–3011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Butler, L.; West, J.S.; Tighe, S.L. The effect of recycled concrete aggregate properties on the bond strength between RCA concrete and steel reinforcement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 1037–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM C39/C39M; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
  35. Cavalline, T.L.; Weggel, D.C. Recycled brick masonry aggregate concrete use of brick masonry from construction and demolition waste as recycled aggregate in concrete. Struct. Surv. 2013, 31, 160–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. American Concrete Institute. Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete; American Concrete Institute, Special Publication—ACI Committee: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2002; Volume 555, 26p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Katz, A. Properties of concrete made with recycled aggregate from partially hydrated old concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, H.J.; Yen, T.; Chen, K.H. Use of building rubbles as recycled aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 08 00072 g001 550
Figure 1. Aggregates for concrete production (a) recycled brick aggregate from demolished concrete structure and (b) normal brick aggregate (1st Class).
Figure 1. Aggregates for concrete production (a) recycled brick aggregate from demolished concrete structure and (b) normal brick aggregate (1st Class).
Buildings 08 00072 g001
Buildings 08 00072 g002 550
Figure 2. Non-destructive test (NDT) compressive strength of different ages of recycled brick concrete.
Figure 2. Non-destructive test (NDT) compressive strength of different ages of recycled brick concrete.
Buildings 08 00072 g002
Buildings 08 00072 g003 550
Figure 3. Measured slump value of (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete.
Figure 3. Measured slump value of (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete.
Buildings 08 00072 g003
Buildings 08 00072 g004a 550Buildings 08 00072 g004b 550
Figure 4. Ultimate compressive strength of (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete at different ages.
Figure 4. Ultimate compressive strength of (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete at different ages.
Buildings 08 00072 g004aBuildings 08 00072 g004b
Buildings 08 00072 g005 550
Figure 5. Failure surface of recycle brick concrete.
Figure 5. Failure surface of recycle brick concrete.
Buildings 08 00072 g005
Buildings 08 00072 g006 550
Figure 6. Young’s modulus of (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete at different ages.
Figure 6. Young’s modulus of (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete at different ages.
Buildings 08 00072 g006
Buildings 08 00072 g007 550
Figure 7. Relationship between the Young’s modulus and compressive strength of normal brick (NB) and recycled brick (RB) concrete at 28 days.
Figure 7. Relationship between the Young’s modulus and compressive strength of normal brick (NB) and recycled brick (RB) concrete at 28 days.
Buildings 08 00072 g007
Buildings 08 00072 g008 550
Figure 8. Relationship between abrasion value and 28 days compressive strength (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete.
Figure 8. Relationship between abrasion value and 28 days compressive strength (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete.
Buildings 08 00072 g008
Buildings 08 00072 g009 550
Figure 9. Relationship between cost per m3 volume of mix and 28 days compressive strength (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete.
Figure 9. Relationship between cost per m3 volume of mix and 28 days compressive strength (a) recycled brick concrete and (b) normal brick concrete.
Buildings 08 00072 g009
Table
Table 1. Physical properties of different aggregates.
Table 1. Physical properties of different aggregates.
IDFineness ModulusSpecific GravityAbsorption (%)
NB1C6.692.217.43
NB2C6.702.022.78
NB3C6.732.025.24
RB1Y6.702.410.00
RB20Y6.712.214.39
RB35Y6.712.016.17
RB45Y6.732.119.00
RB50Y6.712.310.70
RB52Y6.722.215.20
RB55Y6.722.119.46
Table
Table 2. Description of different mixes used.
Table 2. Description of different mixes used.
IDDescriptions
RB1Y451-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB1Y551-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
RB20Y4520-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB30Y4530-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB30Y5530-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
RB35Y4535-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB45Y4545-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB50Y4550-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB52Y4552-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
RB55Y4555-Year-Old Recycle Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
NB1C551st Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
NB1C451st Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
NB1C401st Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.40
NB2C552nd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
NB2C452nd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
NB2C402nd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.40
NB3C553rd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
NB3C453rd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.45
NB3C403rd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.40
NB1M5590% 1st Class & 10% 2nd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
NB2M5580% 1st Class & 20% 2nd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
NB3M5570% 1st Class & 30% 2nd Class Normal Brick Aggregate with W/C Ratio 0.55
Table
Table 3. Materials composition for concrete mixes (kg/m3).
Table 3. Materials composition for concrete mixes (kg/m3).
IDCementSandAggregateWaterPlasticizers
RB1Y45340820.0944.01531.02
RB1Y55340781.0899.01870.00
RB20Y45340827.1883.61531.02
RB30Y45340823.8891.81533.06
RB30Y55340784.7849.51870.00
RB35Y45340826.8843.71533.06
RB45Y45340826.8843.71532.38
RB50Y45340823.8803.41533.06
RB52Y45340827.1883.61533.06
RB55Y45340826.8843.71533.06
NB1C55340787.9841.71870.00
NB1C45340826.9883.71533.06
NB1C40340846.5904.71363.06
NB2C55340826.8803.51870.00
NB2C45340826.9803.41533.06
NB2C40340846.5822.41363.06
NB3C55340826.8803.51870.00
NB3C45340826.9803.41533.06
NB3C40340846.5822.41363.06
NB1M55340787.9841.71870.00
NB2M55340787.9803.71870.00
NB3M55340787.9803.71870.00

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Paul, S.C.; Babafemi, A.J.; Anggraini, V.; Rahman, M.M. Properties of Normal and Recycled Brick Aggregates for Production of Medium Range (25–30 MPa) Structural Strength Concrete. Buildings 2018, 8, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050072

AMA Style

Paul SC, Babafemi AJ, Anggraini V, Rahman MM. Properties of Normal and Recycled Brick Aggregates for Production of Medium Range (25–30 MPa) Structural Strength Concrete. Buildings. 2018; 8(5):72. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050072

Chicago/Turabian Style

Paul, Suvash Chandra, Adewumi John Babafemi, Vivi Anggraini, and Md. Minhaz Rahman. 2018. "Properties of Normal and Recycled Brick Aggregates for Production of Medium Range (25–30 MPa) Structural Strength Concrete" Buildings 8, no. 5: 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050072

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop