Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Use of recycled demolition aggregate in precast products, phase II: Concrete

paving blocks
Marios N. Soutsos a,, Kangkang Tang b, Stephen G. Millard c
a

Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GQ, UK

Arup, 12th Floor the Plaza, 100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool L3 9QJ, UK
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Xian Jiatong University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 August 2010
Received in revised form 21 November 2010
Accepted 7 December 2010

Keywords:
Recycling of materials
Sustainability
Construction and demolition waste
Recycled demolition aggregate
Concrete paving blocks
Aggregates
Environment

a b s t r a c t
A study undertaken at the University of Liverpool has investigated the potential for using construction
and demolition waste (C&DW) as aggregate in the manufacture of a range of precast concrete products,
i.e. building and paving blocks and pavement ags. Phase II, which is reported here, investigated concrete
paving blocks. Recycled demolition aggregate can be used to replace newly quarried limestone aggregate,
usually used in coarse (6 mm) and ne (4 mm-to-dust) gradings. The rst objective, as was the case with
concrete building blocks, was to replicate the process used by industry in fabricating concrete paving
blocks in the laboratory. The compaction technique used involved vibration and pressure at the same
time, i.e. a vibro-compaction technique. An electric hammer used previously for building blocks was
not sufcient for adequate compaction of paving blocks. Adequate compaction could only be achieved
by using the electric hammer while the specimens were on a vibrating table. The experimental work
involved two main series of tests, i.e. paving blocks made with concrete- and masonry-derived aggregate.
Variables that were investigated were level of replacement of (a) coarse aggregate only, (b) ne aggregate
only, and (c) both coarse and ne aggregate. Investigation of mechanical properties, i.e. compressive and
tensile splitting strength, of paving blocks made with recycled demolition aggregate determined levels of
replacement which produced similar mechanical properties to paving blocks made with newly quarried
aggregates. This had to be achieved without an increase in the cement content. The results from this
research programme indicate that recycled demolition aggregate can be used for this new higher value
market and therefore may encourage demolition contractors to develop crushing and screening facilities
for this.
2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Recycled demolition aggregate can be used to replace newly
quarried limestone aggregate, usually used in coarse (6 mm) and
ne (4 mm-to-dust) gradings in the production of paving blocks.
This study was done subsequently to phase I [1] which investigated the use of recycled demolition aggregate in the manufacture
of concrete building blocks. Paving blocks were selected as a promising precast concrete product where large quantities of recycled
demolition aggregate could be used but also because:
 Possible contamination from C&DW directly affecting reinforcement is not an issue as paving blocks are unreinforced.
 Unlike construction projects, paving block fabrication is essentially a manufacturing process where supply of input materials
and storage of output are more easily managed.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)151 794 5217; fax: +44 (0)151 794 5218.
E-mail address: marios@liverpool.ac.uk (M.N. Soutsos).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.024

 There may be local circumstances that would make the use of

secondary and recycled materials for high-grade use cost effective. Merseyside and more specically Liverpool has been
selected as a realistic illustrative example of a major UK conurbation undergoing regeneration [2].
 Resource supply or feed material can be guaranteed in an urban
area like Liverpool where replacement of infrastructure is
occurring, natural aggregate resources are limited, disposal
costs are high, and environmental regulations encourage
recycling.
Concrete block pavements (CBP) have been successfully used in
the UK for more than 30 years. Concrete paving blocks are composed of 8590% aggregates, mainly limestone and sand. Rectangular blocks, 200  100  60 mm in size appear to be the most
popular and they were therefore chosen to be investigated in this
project. Concrete paving blocks are precast products that are manufactured in factories. This gives concrete paving blocks good consistency and accuracy of dimensions. It even makes blocks from

3132

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

Table 1
Mix proportions used by industry in casting concrete paving blocks (kg/m3).

Target density
(kg/m3)
Cement (kg/m3)
Fine aggregate
(kg/m3)
Coarse
aggregate
(kg/m3)
Admixture

Factory No. #01

Factory No. #02

2250 2350

2350

CEM-I: 42.5, 380

M grade sand 1520

CEM-I: 42.5 455

Limestone dust & coarse sand
1290
Limestone (4 mm-to-dust) 600

6 mm single sized
limestone 380
Superplasticiser 0.6% of
cement content

Concrete water reducer 0.25%

of cement content

Table 2
Performance requirements for concrete paving blocks [5].
Property
Dimension tolerance (when block thickness
<100 mm):
Length
Width
Thickness

2
2
3

Strength performance:
Minimum characteristic tensile splitting strength

3.6 MPa

Weathering resistance:
Maximum water absorption (%) by mass
Maximum mass loss after freeze/thaw test

6% for class 2
1.0 kg/m2 for class 3

Abrasion resistance:
Maximum groove

different manufacturers interchangeable. Pavements can be constructed with different colours, textures, shapes and paving patterns [3].
Concrete paving blocks are manufactured from semi-dry mixtures with watercement ratios less than 0.40. However, unlike
concrete building blocks, paving blocks must be fully compacted
to achieve a higher density. The manufacturing process involves
placing the fresh concrete into steel moulds which are then levelled off before they are compacted by a combination of vibration
and compression force (>10 N/mm2). The concrete paving blocks
are demoulded immediately after casting and placed into a curing
chamber with humidity P80%. They are normally moist cured for
only 24-h and subsequently air cured up till 28 days.
Nowadays machines can be used for the laying of pavements
with paving blocks. Paving blocks have successfully been used
for areas where high loads are expected, e.g., airports and container areas. BS 6717 [4] requires a minimum cementitious content of 380 kg/m3 in order to achieve the required compressive
strength of 49 N/mm2. Ghafoori and Mathis [5] suggested a minimum cement content of 395 kg/m3 to satisfy the ASTM specications for the freezing and thawing resistance. BS EN 1338 [6].
which superseded BS 6717 [4] in 2003, requires a minimum characteristic tensile splitting strength of not less than 3.6 N/mm2. A
minimum cement content is not specied in BS EN 1338 [6]. Typical mix proportions used by industry to cast paving blocks are
shown in Table 1. The ne aggregate proportion, as a percentage
of the total, is 80%. This is much higher than used for concrete
building blocks but it is required to achieve a denser/better surface nish.
Although concrete block pavements have been widely and, in
the majority of cases, successfully used since World War II, there
have also been instances where they have not performed satisfactorily. Such instances include: (a) surface damage this is mainly a
durability problem which is caused by poor abrasion resistance,
arising from tyres, freezethaw damage or deterioration due to
an aggressive environment, etc., (b) spalling or cracking this
may be caused by a heavy concentrated load from vehicles or
stacking loads, and, (c) excessive localized deformation this appears to be a failure of part of the pavement.
Performance requirements for concrete paving blocks are given
in BS EN 1338 [6] which classies paving blocks under four classes,
see Table 2, according to the following mechanical properties: (a)
minimum tensile splitting strength or freezing/thawing resistance,
(b) minimum abrasion resistance, and, (c) minimum slip/skid resistance. The effect of using recycled demolition aggregate as a partial
replacement of limestone aggregate on the compressive and tensile strengths was investigated rst. This was necessary in order
to identify acceptable mixes that could be used for full scale factory
trials. These are still being planned and it is anticipated that they
will provide specimens for testing abrasion and slip/skid resistance
in the near future.

Recommended
values

23 mm for class 3
20 mm for class 4

2. Aims and objectives

Precast concrete factories normally operate 24 h/day. Stoppage
in production is expensive and hence the investigation into the effect of replacing quarried aggregate with recycled demolition
aggregate had to be done in the laboratory. The rst objective
was to replicate the industrial casting procedures using laboratory
equipment. Once this was achieved, the effect of partially replacing
quarried with recycled demolition aggregates was investigated.
The industrial collaborators required that there should be no increase in the cement content if recycled demolition aggregate
was to compete with quarried aggregate. The aim therefore was
to determine replacement levels that only caused small and insignicant changes to the mechanical properties of the end products.
3. Materials and experimental methods
3.1. Materials
Specic gravity, absorption, neness, and angularity are all important physical
properties that need to be taken into consideration if recycled demolition aggregate
is to be used in precast concrete products. The concrete C&DW that was crushed to
produce aggregates came from the foundations of a multi-storey reinforced concrete building while the masonry C&DW came from the demolition of low-rise
council houses. It was expected that the detrimental effect of masonry-derived
recycled demolition aggregate (RMA) on compressive strength would be higher
than that of concrete-derived recycled aggregate (RCA), due to the higher proportion of ne, dusty content. It was therefore decided to investigate the effects of
RCA and RMA separately. The percentage of masonry in the mixture is likely to vary
depending on what contract, whether multi-storey buildings or masonry houses,
the demolition contractor has secured.
The aggregate gradings for quarried limestone aggregate, supplied by a block
making factory, as well as RCA and RMA, supplied by local demolition companies,
are shown in Fig. 1. The gradings of both 6 mm RCA and RMA were found to be very
similar to the quarried limestone. However, the 4 mm-to-dust RMA was found to be
ner than natural medium grading sand. The opposite was found to be true for the
RCA.
Both the RCA and RMA had very high percentages of water absorption, see Table
3, which are similar to the behaviour of man-made lightweight aggregate. Water
absorption values ranging from 4 to 15% have been reported in previous studies
[714]. A mixing procedure adopted for making concrete using lightweight aggregates, i.e. pre-mixing of half the mix water with the aggregate rst and then adding
the cement and the remaining water, had thus been trialled and found to be successful when using recycled demolition aggregate. Two-stage mixing has also been
recommended by others [15,16].
3.2. Laboratory mixing and casting procedure for paving blocks
The technique used by industry for making paving blocks is similar to that for
building blocks [1], which was based on applying vibration and compaction at
the same time. A large bearing pad is brought down onto the top of the fresh mix
and is used to compress the concrete while it is vibrated. This procedure is similar
to that for building blocks which was replicated in the laboratory by the use of an
electric hammer, see Fig. 2a. It was believed that the same technique could success-

3133

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

Fig. 1. Grading of natural sand, quarried limestone, recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA) and recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA).

Table 3
Water absorptions and densities of aggregates.

Particle density (SSDa) (kg/m3)

Particle density (oven-dry) (kg/m3)
Water absorption (% by mass)
a

Fine aggregate (graded medium-ne sand)

Coarse aggregate (5 mm single size aggregate)

Sand

Concrete

Masonry

Limestone

Concrete

Masonry

2440
2410
1.5

2250
1820
13.56

2420
2010
13.42

2690
2670
0.65

2380
2270
7.24

2260
2110
8.83

Saturated and surface dry.

fully replicate the factory procedure for casting paving blocks as it did for building
blocks [1]. However, preliminary trials with varying watercement ratios from 0.27
to 0.39 indicated that the required compressive and tensile splitting strengths of
49 N/mm2 and 3.9 N/mm2 respectively could not be achieved. This was despite
using similar proportions to those recommended by a precast concrete factory.
The tensile splitting strength vs. watercement ratio also indicated that below a value of 0.30, full compaction was not being achieved. While the electric hammer was
sufcient to compact the concrete building blocks it proved not to be sufcient for
paving blocks which require more compaction to achieve a denser block (about 8%
void content by volume). Several techniques were tried to improve the compaction.
This included increasing the compressive force and dispensing with vibration. High
pressure was applied to compact the specimens using the laboratorys cube crushing machine. A load of 15 N/mm2 was applied to the fresh concrete. The resulting
low compressive strength obtained from paving blocks cast in this way indicated
that compression alone was not sufcient and vibration needed to be applied simultaneously in order to get adequate compaction.
Efforts concentrated on modifying the previously used frame with the electric
hammer, so that the specimens could be vibrated from a source other than the electric hammer, while they were being compacted. A small metal table was modied
to a vibrating table by mounting a clamp-on-vibrator on it, see Fig. 2b. This was
used together with a plasticiser to improve the wet density of the paving blocks.
2390 kg/m3 was achieved compared to 2230 kg/m3 achieved by the electric hammer alone. This was close to the compacted density achieved in factory production
and was considered to be acceptable. Compressive strengths greater than 49 N/
mm2 and tensile splitting strengths greater than 3.9 N/mm2 at the age of 28-days
were achieved using this method. The texture of concrete paving blocks cast in
the laboratory with the improved vibro-compaction technique compared well
with that of paving blocks obtained from the factory. This was in addition to having
similar mechanical properties to those from the factory. It was concluded that, since
the mix proportions used were the same as those used by the industrial collaborators, the factory casting procedure was successfully replicated in the laboratory.

Each series of mixes started with an initial cement content of 230 kg/m3. A
handful of the concrete mix was taken after mixing for 3 min. It had been found
from trials that if the concrete mix held together after it was squeezed tightly in
the hand then the mix would be of the required consistency which would enable
it to be compacted into the moulds. If it did not hold together then additional water
was added. There is currently no widely accepted consistency test for such dry
mixes. Factories rely on their employees experience in judging consistency of concrete by squeezing it tightly in the hand.
Three paving blocks were cast and an increment of additional cement was then
added. The concrete was re-mixed for a further 2 min, and a visual inspection again
determined whether it was of the desired consistency to be compacted into the
moulds. Incremental increase of the cement content in this manner resulted in
blocks with various cement contents, watercement ratios, and therefore compressive strengths.

3.3. Compressive and tensile splitting tests for concrete paving blocks
BS 6717 [4] required concrete paving blocks to have a compressive strength of
not less than 49 N/mm2 at 28 days. The current BS EN 1338 [6] only requires the
characteristic tensile splitting strength to be more than 3.6 N/mm2. Concrete block
specimens were sawn into two equal pieces 100  100  60 mm. One of these was
used for tensile splitting test, see Fig. 3, and the other was used to determine the
durability characteristics using a water absorption test. Both tests were carried
out according to BS EN 1338:2003 [6]. Values shown on the gures are from three
replicate specimens.
It is now generally accepted that the variation in concrete strengths follows a
normal distribution [17]. This normal distribution curve is symmetrical about its
mean, has a precise mathematical equation and is completely specied by two
parameters, its mean m and its standard deviation s. The standard deviation is a
measure of the variability calculated from the equation:

3134

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

Fig. 2. Electric hammer used to make paving blocks with clamped-on vibrator used together with an electric hammer.

the characteristic tensile splitting strength (>3.6 N/mm2) reported in BS EN

1338:2003 [6] could be converted to mean tensile strength (3.9 N/mm2). Blocks
were tested at 7- and 28-days with breboard packing on the ends to simplify
and speed up the testing procedure. The 28-day/7-day ratio of 1.1, which was determined from all strength results cast in the laboratory, was used to determine 7-day
target mean compressive and tensile splitting strengths. These were 45 N/mm2 and
3.5 N/mm2, respectively. All the results shown on gures are mean compressive/
tensile strengths and not characteristic strengths.

3.4. Durability characteristics of concrete paving blocks

Fig. 3. Tensile splitting strength test setup. 1 = Packaging pieces, 2 = rigid bars, and
3 = concrete paving bolcks.

s
P
2
x  m
n1

where x is the individual result, n the number of results and m is the mean of the n
results.
As a result of the variability of concrete in production, it is necessary to design
the mix to have a mean strength greater than the specied characteristic strength
by an amount termed the margin. Thus:

"

target
mean

strength

"

specified
characteristic

strength



margin
ks

In addition to compressive and tensile splitting strengths, with which paving

blocks need to comply, there are some other requirements: (a) slip resistance and
(b) water absorption.
Concrete paving blocks need to show a satisfactory slip/skid resistance during
the design life of a pavement. The measure of unpolished slip resistance value
(USRV) is required by BS EN 1338 [6]. The pendulum friction test rig incorporates
a spring loaded slider made of a standard rubber attached to the end of the pendulum. On swinging the pendulum the frictional force between the slider and test surface is measured by the reduction in length of the swing using a calibrated scale. A
USRV value of at least 63 is considered to be acceptable to good skid resistance
[18]. This test was not conducted in the laboratory but is going to be used for specimens cast during factory trials in the near future.
The weathering resistance of concrete paving blocks is believed to be related to
the water absorption. BS EN 1338 [6] requires paving blocks to have less than 6%
water absorption. The weathering resistance can also be determined by the
freezethaw resistance test according to BS EN 1338 [6]. A maximum mass loss
of 1.0 kg/m2 is required for the class three concrete paving blocks, after soaked in
a 3% NaCl solution for 28 freeze/thaw cycles from 20 to 20 C. This test was not
conducted in this project because such a low temperature cyclic freezer was not
readily available in the laboratory. It is anticipated that this as well as abrasion
and slip/skid resistance tests will be carried out on factory cast specimens by the
factorys quality control laboratory.

The margin M can be derived from:

M ks

4. Results and discussion

where k is the value appropriate to the percentage defectives permitted below the
characteristic strength. It is derived from the mathematics or the normal distribution
and increases as the proportion of defectives is decreased. For 5% defectives k = 1.64
and s is the standard deviation.
Target mean compressive and tensile splitting strengths were 49 N/mm2 and
3.9 N/mm2, respectively, at 28-days. These were set for this project after consultation with industrial collaborators. A margin of 0.3 N/mm2 was allowed for so that

The experimental work involved two main series of tests, i.e.

blocks made with RCA and RMA. In addition to the mechanical
properties, i.e. compressive and tensile splitting strength, recycled
demolition aggregate also affects the water absorption of paving
blocks and this is reported at the end of this section.

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

3135

Fig. 4. 7-day strength vs. cement content for paving blocks with coarse fraction replaced with recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA).

4.1. The effect of recycled demolition aggregate on mechanical

properties
4.1.1. Series I: The effect of RCA on mechanical properties
After successfully having replicated the industrial block-making
procedure in the laboratory, the replacement of quarried limestone
with concrete-derived aggregates was investigated. The mix pro-

portions of natural limestone aggregate used by several block making factories are shown in the Table 1. The mix proportions used at
Factory No. #01 were selected for this study as it is anticipated that
this is where full scale factory trials will take place. Each series of
mixes started with an initial cement content of 230 kg/m3 and this
was raised incrementally up to 380 kg/m3, the content identied as
being used at the Factory No. #01. Paving blocks are required to

Fig. 5. 7-day strength vs. free W/C ratio for paving blocks with coarse fraction replaced with recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA).

3136

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

have 28-days compressive and tensile strengths of 49 N/mm2 and

3.9 N/mm2 respectively. It was believed that the nes fraction
(4 mm-to-dust) would have the biggest detrimental effect on
strength. Studies therefore aimed to replace either the coarse or
the ne fraction only but not both in order to quantify the relative
effects of each.

The results from mixes with the coarse aggregate fraction replaced with RCA have been plotted as compressive and tensile
splitting strength vs. cement content, see Fig. 4, and vs. watercement ratio, see Fig. 5. It is seen that lower watercement ratios are
needed if blocks using RCA are to have the same strength as blocks
using quarried limestone aggregate. Associated with the low

Fig. 6. 7-day strength vs. cement content for paving blocks with ne fraction replaced with recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA).

Fig. 7. 7-day strength vs. free W/C ratio for paving blocks with ne fraction replaced with recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA).

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

watercement ratios is an increase in cement content as it appears

that the consistency of the mix depends to a large extent on its free
water content, i.e. the free water content needs to be the same for
high and low watercement ratios. This trend compares very well
with the design of normal concrete mixes.

3137

The effect of ne RCA on mechanical properties is shown in Figs.

6 and 7. Concrete paving blocks, unlike concrete building blocks,
use a much higher ne/coarse aggregate ratio. A typical value of
4:1, compared to about 1:1 for building blocks, is used to get a better surface nish. This caused concern since the ne fraction was

Fig. 8. Effect of replacing coarse fraction with recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA) on the strength of concrete paving blocks (all mixes had 380 kg/m3 of cement).

Fig. 9. Effect of replacing ne fraction with recycled concrete derived aggregate (RCA) on the strength of concrete paving blocks (all mixes had 380 kg/m3 of cement).

3138

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

shown to have a bigger detrimental effect on the compressive

strength of concrete building blocks than the coarse aggregate
[1]. Figs. 6 and 7 however show that although there is some detrimental effect this is similar to the coarse fraction.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the compressive strength vs. the percentage
of replacement of limestone aggregate with RCA (all mixes had

380 kg/m3 of cement). It can be concluded that reasonable replacement levels would be up to 60% for the coarse fraction. It is not surprising, since the coarse aggregate proportion is only 20% of the
total aggregate, that a high percentage replacement only causes a
small detrimental effect on strength. Dhir et al. [19] reported a
19% concrete strength reduction when 100% coarse RCA was used.

Fig. 10. 7-day strength vs. cement content for paving blocks with coarse fraction replaced with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA).

Fig. 11. 7-day strength vs. free W/C ratio for paving blocks with coarse fraction replaced with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA).

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

The reduction was attributed to the lower strength of the recycled

aggregates which was determined from the Los Angeles test. Fig. 9
shows that the detrimental effect due to a ne aggregate replacement is surprisingly small and similar to that of coarse aggregate
replacement. This is the case for even high replacement levels.
The tensile strength obtained showed considerable variability.
The results show that the tensile strength does not only show con-

3139

siderable variability but that it is also affected more than the compressive strength. Therefore a conservative recommendation of
60% maximum replacement was made.
It was regrettable that subsequent to the above experiments the
ne RCA ran out. A new delivery was prohibited because a small
amount of asbestos was detected in the samples. This problem is
expected to diminish in the future because asbestos, as a thermal

Fig. 12. 7-day strength vs. cement content for paving blocks with ne fraction replaced with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA).

Fig. 13. 7-day strength vs. free W/C ratio for paving blocks with ne fraction replaced with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA).

3140

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

insulation material, was banned in new construction after 1985

[20].
4.1.2. Series II: The effect of RMA on mechanical properties
The replacement of newly quarried limestone aggregate with
RMA has been investigated separately from RCA. The lower density
of ne RMA (4 mm-to-dust) was expected to be problematic. Poon

and Chan [21] reported a 10% reduction in density of paving blocks

when 75% crushed clay was used. The test results have been plotted as compressive strength and tensile splitting strength vs.
watercement ratio. It is seen that a lower watercement ratio is
needed if blocks using RMA are to have the same strength as blocks
using quarried limestone. Associated with the lower watercement
ratios is an increase in cement content as it appears that the con-

Fig. 14. Effect of replacing coarse fraction with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA) on the strength of concrete paving blocks (all mixes had 380 kg/m3 of cement).

Fig. 15. Effect of replacing ne fraction with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA) on the strength of concrete paving blocks (all mixes had 380 kg/m3 of cement).

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

sistency of the mix depends to a large extent on its free watercement ratio.
The effect of coarse RMA on mechanical properties is shown in
Figs. 10 and 11. Higher cement contents would be needed if blocks
using RMA are to have the same strength as natural aggregate
blocks. Dhir et al. [19] reported a 35% compressive strength reduction in concrete mixes with 100% coarse RMA. The increase in cement content required to counteract this was considerable, i.e.
from 214 to 310 kg/m3. A similar increase, i.e. 230380 kg/m3,
would have been needed for paving blocks with 75% coarse RMA.
Counteracting the strength reduction of higher percentages may
not be economically achievable with an increase in cement content.
The effect of ne RMA on mechanical properties is shown in
Figs. 12 and 13. The ne fraction, i.e. 4 mm-to-dust, was expected
to have an even bigger detrimental effect than RCA nes. Again
Figs. 12 and 13 show that higher cement contents would be needed
if blocks using RMA are to have the same strength as natural aggregate blocks. The correlation between compressive strength and cement content is also affected. The reduction in the slope indicates
that the detrimental effect of RCA nes will be higher for paving
blocks of higher compressive and tensile splitting strengths. Industrial collaborators have also commented that the scatter in the values for tensile splitting strength was a lot higher in the laboratory
than they achieve in their factories.
Fig. 14 shows that although there is some detrimental effect, a
reasonable replacement level would be up to 60% for the coarse
fraction with RMA. Similarly to concrete derived aggregate,
Fig. 15 shows that although there is some detrimental effect from
the replacement of the ne fraction with RMA this is not very dissimilar to the coarse fraction. Tensile splitting strength is again affected more than compressive strength. There is also an indication
that there may be a ceiling value to the compressive strength that
can be obtained with 100% RCA nes. It can be recommended that
a reasonable replacement level would be up to 40% for the ne
fraction with RMA. This recommendation is based on the compres-

3141

sive strength results. It is expected that the industrial casting procedure will be more efcient for compacting specimens as it was
shown in phase I for concrete building blocks [1].
In order to maximize the recycling, an investigation of the combined effect, i.e. replacement of both coarse (set at 60%) and varying ne fraction with RMA, was conducted in the laboratory. With
up to 60% of the coarse and 20% of the ne fractions replaced with
RMA, the target compressive strength was still achieved at the age
of 28 days, see Fig. 16.
4.2. Water absorption of paving blocks
The weathering resistance of concrete paving blocks is believed
to be related to the water absorption. 7-day old specimens were
cured in a water tank until they reached constant mass. They were
then oven dried to constant mass. The loss in mass is expressed as
a percentage of the mass of the dry specimen.
The high water absorption of recycled demolition aggregate appears to inuence adversely the concrete water absorption, see
Fig. 17. Similar and even higher values of water absorption have
been reported by Poon and Chan [21]. BS EN 1338 [6] requires paving blocks to have less than 6% water absorption and this can only
be achieved with the replacement levels indicated in Table 4.
Industry cast limestone aggregate specimens had on average a
water absorption of 4%. The critical or deciding factor for the level
of replacement of newly quarried limestone aggregates with recycled demolition aggregate may have to be the water absorption
rather than the strength. It is fortunate that the allowable percentage replacement level of coarse RCA is only slightly less than
that determined based on compressive strength of paving blocks.
The recommended 60%, based on strength, may have to be conservatively reduced to 55% for blocks to comply with the requirement
for less than 6% water absorption. Replacement with ne RCA is
however more problematic. The recommended 60% replacement
level based on strength may have to be conservatively reduced to

Fig. 16. Effect of replacing ne fraction (Inc. 60% coarse aggregate replacement) with recycled masonry-derived aggregate (RMA) on strength (all mixes had 380 kg/m3 of
cement).

3142

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

Fig. 17. Effect of recycled demolition aggregate on the water absorption of concrete
paving blocks.

Table 4
Standard requirements vs. replacement level (%).
Aggregate type

Compressive strength >49 MPa &

tensile splitting strength >3.6 MPa
(%)

Water
absorption
>6% (%)

Concrete
derived
aggregate

Coarse
aggregate
Fine
aggregate

60

55

60

25

Masonryderived
aggregate

Coarse
aggregate
Fine
aggregate

60

55

40

20

tained from the factory. The factory technique was successfully

replicated in the laboratory and therefore the effect of replacing
newly quarried aggregate with recycled demolition aggregate
could be investigated.
Concrete paving blocks use a much higher ne/coarse aggregate
ratio than building blocks (4:1 vs. 1:1), in order to get a better surface nish. The detrimental effect from using high replacement
levels for both coarse and ne fraction replacement of newly quarried aggregate with RCA was small. However, the tensile strength
obtained showed considerable variability, and a conservative recommendation of up to 60% replacement maximum for both coarse
and ne fractions was made.
The use of RMA leads to some detrimental effect at very high
replacement levels. However, because of the coarse content being
low, a replacement level of 60% for the coarse fraction with masonry-derived aggregates can still have the same strength as natural aggregate blocks. Reasonable replacement level with masonryderived aggregates as the ne fraction could be up to 40% if newly
quarried aggregate is used as the coarse aggregate. However, this
replacement level needs to be reduced down to 20% when 60% of
the coarse fraction is also replaced with RMA if the target 28-day
tensile splitting strength is to be achieved without increasing the
cement content.
The high water absorption of paving blocks made with recycled
demolition aggregate is however a concern. This may be attributed
to the higher water absorption of the recycled demolition aggregate and may therefore not be a good indicator for durability;
the freezethaw resistance of paving blocks needs therefore to be
investigated in order to determine whether this, in addition to
slip/skid resistance, will be a determining factor on the replacement level with recycled demolition aggregate.
The research showed that selection of appropriate replacement
levels of newly quarried with recycled demolition aggregate can
lead to paving blocks with similar mechanical properties without
the need to increase the cement content. It is expected therefore
that there will be signicant cost savings where recycled demolition aggregate can be supplied to the block manufacturer at a price
below that of newly quarried aggregates. This price may still be set
higher than that currently obtained for road sub-base aggregate.
This may encourage demolition contractors to develop crushing/
screening facilities for this new added/higher value market.
Acknowledgements

as low as 25% for blocks to comply with the requirement for less
than 6% water absorption. The same trend has also been shown
with ne RMA derived aggregate with the recommended level of
replacement having to be reduced from 55%, based on strength
down to 20%, based on water absorption. Tests are planned for factory cast specimens to conrm these ndings. It is also believed
that, because of the high water absorption of the recycled demolition aggregate, the water absorption by the blocks may not be
indicative of their durability. This will be conrmed with freeze
thaw tests to be carried out on factory cast specimens.
5. Conclusions
The electric hammer which was sufcient to compact the concrete building blocks proved not to be sufcient for paving blocks,
which required more compaction to achieve a denser block (about
8% void content by volume). The previously used frame with the
electric hammer was placed on a vibrating table so that the specimens could be vibrated from a source other than the electric hammer, while they were being compacted. The texture of concrete
paving blocks cast in the laboratory with the improved vibro-compaction technique compared well with that of paving blocks ob-

The authors are grateful to the Veolia Environmental Trust and

the Flintshire Community Trust Ltd. (AD Waste Ltd.) for funding
this Project. The authors would also like to thank the following
industrial collaborators for their assistance with the Project: Clean
Merseyside Centre, Marshalls Ltd., Forticrete Ltd., Liverpool City
Council, Liverpool Housing Action Trust (LHAT), Cemex Ltd., WF
Doyle & Co. Ltd., DSM Demolition Ltd. However, the views given
in this discussion are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of the funders, regulatory bodies or commercial
interests.
References
[1] Soutsos M, Tang K, Millard S. Concrete building blocks made with recycled
demolition aggregate. Constr Build Mater, in press, doi: 2010.10.1016/j.
[2] Soutsos M, Tang K, Millard S, Bungey J, Tickell G. Precast concrete products
made
with
recycled
demolition
material/Betonfertigteile
aus
Sekundrzuschlag. Betonwerk und Fertigteil-Technik/Concr Precast Plant
Technol 2008;74(06):3245.
[3] Tang K. Precast concrete paving products made with recycled demolition
aggregate. PhD thesis. University of Liverpool; 2008.
[4] BSI. BS 6717-1:1993 Precast, unreinforced concrete paving blocks
requirements and test methods. London: British Standards Institution (BSI);
1993.

M.N. Soutsos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31313143

[5] Ghafoori N, Mathis R. Prediction of freezing and thawing durability of concrete
paving blocks. J Mater Civil Eng 1998;10(1):4551.
[6] BSI. BS EN 1338:2003 Concrete paving blocks requirements and test
methods. British Standards Institution (BSI): London; 2003.
[7] Sri Ravindrarajah R, Tam CT. Properties of concrete made with crushed
concrete as coarse aggregate. Mag Concr Res 1985;37(130):2938.
[8] Shayan A, Xu A. Performance and properties of structural concrete made with
recycled concrete aggregate. ACI Mater J 2003;100(5):37180.
[9] Poon CS, Kou SC, Lam L. Use of recycled aggregates in molded concrete bricks
and blocks. Constr Build Mater 2002;16(5):2819.
[10] Levy SM, Helene P. Durability of recycled aggregates concrete: a safe way to
sustainable development. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(11):197580.
[11] Zaharieva R, Buyle-Bodin F, Skoczylas F, Wirquin E. Assessment of the surface
permeation properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Cem Concr Compos
2003;25(2):22332.
[12] Topcu IB, Guncan NF. Using waste concrete as aggregate. Cem Concr Res
1995;25(7):138590.
[13] Topcu IB. Physical and mechanical properties of concretes produced with
waste concrete. Cem Concr Res 1997;27(12):181723.

3143

[14] Khatib JM. Properties of concrete incorporating ne recycled aggregate. Cem

Concr Res 2005;35(4):7639.
[15] Tam VWY, Gao XF, Tam CM. Microstructural analysis of recycled aggregate
concrete produced from two-stage mixing approach. Cem Concr Res
2005;35(6):1195203.
[16] Khalaf FM. Using crushed clay brick as coarse aggregate in concrete. J Mater
Civil Eng 2006;18(4):51826.
[17] Teychenne DC, Franklin RE, Erntroy HC. Design of normal concrete mixes, 2nd
ed. Build Res Establishment; 1997.
[18] Shackel B. The challenges of concrete block paving as a mature technology. In:
Pave Africa 2003 7th international conference on concrete block paving 12
15 Sun City, South Africa: CPI; 2003.
[19] Dhir RK, Paine K, Dyer T. Recycling construction and demolition wastes in
concrete. Concrete 2004;38(3):258.
[20] HMSO. The asbestos (prohibitions) regulations 1992: Her majestys stationery
ofce (HMSO); 1992.
[21] Poon CS, Chan D. Paving blocks made with recycled concrete aggregate and
crushed clay brick. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(8):56977.