See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266798233

Effect of Replacing Natural Coarse Aggregate by Brick Aggregate on the

Properties of Concrete

Article · June 2012

CITATIONS READS

16 996

4 authors, including:

Mohammad A. Rashid Md. Abdus Salam

University of Dhaka Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
554 PUBLICATIONS   4,189 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sukanta Kumer Shill

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology
17 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reliability Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shallow Footings View project

Bangladesh Med Res Council Bulletin View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sukanta Kumer Shill on 06 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DUET Journal Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2012

Effect of Replacing Natural Coarse Aggregate by Brick Aggregate on the

Properties of Concrete

Mohammad Abdur Rashid1, Md. Abdus Salam1, Sukanta Kumar Shill1 and Md. Kowsur Hasan2

1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur, Bangladesh
2
Abul Bashar Consultant, Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh

E-mail: marashid63@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an experimental investigation on the properties of concrete obtained replacing stone aggregate
(partly or fully) by crushed clay-brick. The target compressive strength of stone aggregate concrete was 24 MPa.
Remaining concretes were made by replacing the stone aggregate (partly or fully) by equal volume of brick aggregate
while everything else was kept unchanged. The only variable considered in this study was the volumetric replacement
(0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%) of stone aggregate by brick aggregate. The use of brick aggregate as a replacement
of stone aggregate resulted reductions in unit weight, compressive strength, and modulus of elasticity of concrete by
about 14.5%, 33%, and 28% respectively. Different relations for determination of compressive strength, splitting
tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity of mix-aggregate concrete have been tentatively proposed.

1. INTRODUCTION stiffness of the concrete. However, the use of mixed

Concrete is the most widely used man-made construction
material. It is obtained by mixing cement, water and
aggregates (and sometimes admixture) in required
proportions. Aggregates impart higher volume stability and
better durability than hydrated cement paste in concrete and
provide around 75 per cent of the body of concrete [1]. The
aggregates are usually derived from natural sources but in
regions such as Bangladesh and parts of West Bengal, India
where natural rock deposits are scarce, burnt-clay bricks are
used as an alternative source of coarse aggregate. Here,
construction of rigid pavement, small-to medium-span
bridges and culverts and buildings up to six stories high
using crushed brick (brick aggregate) concrete is quite
common [2]. In Bangladesh, brick aggregates are easily
available and much cheaper than crushed stone aggregate.
Also concrete with compressive strength of around 20 MPa
are easily achieved by using crushed normal strength brick
and following the usual practice of concrete-making.
Besides the unit weight of brick aggregate concrete has
been reported to be much less than that of stone aggregate
concrete [3]. And the use of brick aggregate instead of
stone aggregate in various components of a building
structure can result in a significant reduction of dead load
on column as well as foundation. Hence, the replacement
(partly or fully) of stone aggregate by brick aggregate may
yield cost-effectiveness in making concrete.
So far a few numbers of researches on the performance of
crushed clay-brick as coarse aggregate in making concrete
has been reported in the literature [2-6]. And the reports
show that the use of crushed normal strength brick instead
of stone aggregate results a reduction in strength and
aggregate (a combination of brick aggregate and stone
aggregate) may improve the strength and stiffness of
concrete in comparison with those of purely brick aggregate
concrete. But, so far a very few researches on the mixed
aggregate concrete has been reported in the literature [2, 5].
Therefore, as a part of the feasibility study on the
volumetric replacement (partly or fully) of stone aggregate
by brick aggregate in making concrete, the present study
aimed at investigating the properties of mixed aggregate
concrete [7, 8].
2. TEST PROGRAM
In order to study the effect of replacing natural coarse
aggregate by crushed clay bricks on the properties of
concretes, several tests on the properties of coarse
aggregates as well as those of concrete made with such
aggregates were conducted. The volumetric replacement of
stone aggregate with brick aggregate considered in this
study were 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% while
everything else were left unchanged. The test specimens
were divided into five series and the corresponding
concrete mixes were identified as M0, M25, M50, M75, and
M100. Here ‘M’ stands for ‘concrete mix’ and the subscript
indicates the ‘percentage of stone aggregate replaced by
brick aggregate from the total coarse aggregate’. In each
series a total of fifteen 6′′ × 12′′ (152.4 mm × 304.8 mm)
concrete cylinders were cast and tested for compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity
(five cylinders for each property) and three 4′′ × 4′′ × 18′′
(101.6 mm ×101.6 mm × 457.2 mm) concrete prisms were
tested for flexural strength.

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur 17

DUET Journal Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2012

2.1 Materials Used and Mix Proportions 2.2 Preparation and Testing of Specimens

Ordinary Portland cement (ASTM Type-I) was used as The coarse aggregates were made saturated surface dry
binding material in this study. A mixture of locally condition before mixing with other ingredients. Whereas
available coarse and fine sands were mixed in the ratio of the fine aggregates were made oven-dry conditions before
1:1 (by volume) to be used as fine aggregate. The test mixing. At first, necessary amounts of aggregates and
values of specific gravity, water absorption, and fineness cement were placed in a drum-mixer and were mixed for
modulus of fine aggregate are presented in Table 1. about 2 minutes. Then the required amount of potable water
was added gradually into the mix and the mixing operation
Table 1: Properties of aggregates was continued for about 2 minutes to produce a uniform
mix. Additional water required for water absorption of fine
Coarse aggregates was also added into the mix. The workability of
Fine aggregate fresh concrete was measured with standard slump cone test
Properties
aggregate Stone Brick immediately after mixing. The values of slump of fresh
chips chips concretes for different mixes ranged from 30 mm to 55 mm.
Bulk specific gravity
2.65 2.61 2.03 The 150×300 mm cylindrical molds were filled with fresh
(SSD)
concrete in three equal layers, and each layer was rodded 25
Water absorption times with a standard tamping rod. The prism molds were
2.04 0.33 16.0
(percent of dry weight) filled with fresh concrete mix in three layers, with each
layer rodded one stroke for approximately each 2.0 in2. The
Fineness Modulus 1.62 7.25 7.17
top surface of fresh concrete for both the cylinder and prism
Unit weight, kg/m3 specimens was finished off with a trowel. The specimens
--- 1653.4 903.0 were demolded after 24 hours of casting. They were cured
(dry, compacted)
by immersing in a curing tank in the lab. The specimens
were taken out of water approximately 24 hours before
Crushed stones available in the local market were collected testing and were kept in the air dry condition in the
to be used as natural aggregates. Well-burnt bricks of well laboratory.
shaped and reddish in color were collected and then crushed
in the laboratory for making brick aggregates. The nominal The concrete cylinders for different test series were tested
dimension of each brick was 9.50′′ × 4.50′′ × 2.75′′ (using 1000 KN capacity universal testing machine) for
(241mm×114mm×70mm) and their average compressive compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and
strength was found as 2508.4 psi (17.3 MPa). The bricks modulus of elasticity at the age of 28 days. The prisms were
were crushed manually and then sieved into various size tested under single point loading to determine the modulus
fractions, and the flaky particles were separated for of rupture. The concrete specimens were tested following
rejection. Both types of coarse aggregates were size- appropriate ASTM Standards as per ASTM specifications
screened to a maximum of 0.75 in. (19 mm). Photographs [10].
of the coarse aggregates used in this study are presented in
Fig. 1. The various physical properties of the two types of 3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
coarse aggregates considered are given in Table 1.
Various test values of concretes considered in this study are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Properties of test concretes

Ratio
wc f c′ f sp Ec
Mix Vba fr
(Kg/ (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Vca m3)

(a) Brick aggregate (b) Stone aggregate

M0 0.00 2449 27.25 6.38 2.43 15731
Fig. 1: Coarse aggregates used in the study
M25 0.25 2381 25.04 6.35 2.24 14924
The concrete mix proportion was obtained following the
ACI Committee 211 [9] specifications of concrete mix M50 0.50 2326 24.63 5.59 2.08 13806
design. And the mix proportioning ratio, for a targeted
compressive strength of 3500 psi (24.2 MPa) concrete with M75 0.75 2237 19.89 4.10 1.61 10703
stone aggregate, was found as 1:1.91:3.19 (by weight). The
water to cement ratio considered was 0.50 (by weight) in all
cases. M100 1.00 2096 18.29 5.18 1.56 11289

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur 18

DUET Journal Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2012

3.1 Effect of Brick Aggregate to Coarse Aggregate Ratio due to the use of coarse aggregate obtained from bricks
on Concrete Properties with a quite high compressive strength (153 MPa) in
comparison with that of brick considered in the present
3.1.1 Unit Weight study (17.3 MPa).

The bulk unit weights of stone aggregate concrete (M0) and 35

brick aggregate concrete (M100) are found 2449 Kg/m3 and

Compressive strength, f'c (MPa)

2096 Kg/m3 respectively (Table 2). Whereas the unit Test data
weight of mixed aggregate concretes are 2381 Kg/m3, 2326 30 Regression line
Kg/m3 and 2237 Kg/m3 for the stone replacement of 25%,
50% and 75% respectively. The unit weight of 100% brick 25
aggregate concrete places that concrete in between normal
weight concrete (2200 – 2600 Kg/m3) and light weight 20
concrete (300 – 1850 Kg/m3) [11]. Therefore, it may be
classified as medium weight concrete. f'c = -9.23 (Vba/Vca) + 27.63
15
R2 = 0.94
The variation of concrete's unit weight with the variation of
the volume of brick aggregate to the volume of total coarse 10
aggregate ratio (Vba/Vca) is shown in Fig. 2. From this 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
figure it is seen that the actual unit weights of mixed
aggregate concretes are higher than the corresponding Vba/Vca
values obtained from the linear variation from 100% stone
aggregate concrete to 100% brick aggregate concrete. The Fig. 3: Effect of brick aggregate to total coarse aggregate
rate of decrease in unit weight of mixed aggregate concrete ratio on compressive strength
is found to decrease linearly with increase in Vba/Vca ratio.
In comparison with the unit weight of 100% stone Test results (Table 2) show that 50% and 100%
aggregate concrete the average amount of decrease in unit replacement of stone aggregate with brick aggregate result
weights of concretes with 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% the reductions in concrete compressive strength of 9.6%
crushed brick as coarse aggregates are 2.8%, 5.0%, 8.6% and 32.9% respectively. However, Khaloo A. R.[5]
and 14.4% respectively. reported the strength reductions of 15.8% and 6.9% for the
stone aggregate replacements of 50% and 100%
respectively. This opposite trend in strength reduction of
2600 mixed-aggregate concrete may be due to the higher strength
Test data concretes studied (35 MPa – 39.2 MPa) using special types
2500
Linear variation of clinker brick aggregates (unit weight less than 1120
Unit weight (Kg/m 3 )

2400 Kg/m3) in their study [5].

2300
In Fig.3 a least square linear regression shows the following
2200 relationship (Eq.1) to predict the compressive strength of
mixed aggregate concrete for the strength-range studied.
2100
⎛V ⎞
2000 f c′ = − 9 . 23 ⎜⎜ ba ⎟⎟ + 27 . 63 (1)
1900
⎝ V ca ⎠
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 in which f c′ is in MPa and Vba/Vca is the volumetric ratio of
Vba/Vca brick aggregate to total coarse aggregate.
Fig. 2: Effect of brick aggregate to total coarse aggregate 3.1.3 Tensile Strength
ratio on unit weight
Test values of the modulus of rupture ( f r ) and the splitting
3.1.2 Compressive Strength
tensile strength ( f sp ) are presented as a function of Vba/Vca
Fig. 3 shows the variation of the cylinder compressive ratio and are shown in Fig.4. Like compressive strength, it
strength of concrete ( f c′ ) with the variation of Vba/Vca ratio. is seen from Fig. 4 that a replacement of stone aggregate
A significant amount of strength reduction (33%) is found with brick aggregate results in a decrease in both f r and
for 100% brick aggregate concrete with respect to 100% f sp values. The decreases in f r and f sp values for 100%
stone aggregate concrete. This is contrary to what Mansur
et. Al. [2] reported by comparing brick aggregate concrete replacement of stone aggregate by brick aggregate are seen
strength (72 MPa) with that of conventional concrete (64 to be 18.8% and 35.8% respectively. This decrease in both
MPa) both with a water-cement ratio of 0.30. This may be f r and f sp is insignificant up to stone replacement of 25%

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur 19

DUET Journal Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2012

beyond which the rate of this decrease increases
significantly. However, 100% replacement of stone
aggregate (i.e. brick aggregate concrete) results a
significant improvement of f r value over that of 75%
replaced concrete whereas the f sp values for these two
cases are seen almost the same. The average value of the
100% stone aggregate concrete the average amount of
decrease in elastic modulus of concretes with 25%, 50%,
75% and 100% crushed brick as coarse aggregates are
5.1%, 12.2%, 32.0% and 28.2% respectively.
18000

Modulus of elasticity, Ec (MPa)

ratio fsp/fr for stone aggregate concrete and the mixed
aggregate concretes is 0.36 with a standard deviation of 16000
0.0359. Whereas this ratio is 0.30 for brick aggregate
concrete. Hence, from tensile strength consideration, it may 14000
be suggested to replace stone aggregate with Vba/Vca value
either from 0.0% to 50% or 100%. 12000

8 10000
Modulus of rupture
7
Split tensile strength
Tensile strength (MPa)

8000
6
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
5
Vba/Vca
4 Fig. 5: Effect of brick aggregate to total coarse aggregate
3 ratio on modulus of elasticity of concrete
2 Mansur et. al. [2] reported approximately 23% lower initial
1 tangent modulus ( E it ) for brick aggregate concrete than that
0 of granite aggregate concrete. Whereas Akhtaruzzaman and
Hasnat [6] reported approximately 30% lower E it for brick
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Vba/ Vca aggregate concrete than that predicted by following the
specifications of ACI 318 [12].
Fig. 4: Effect of brick aggregate to total coarse aggregate
ratio on tensile strength 3.2 Tensile Strength-Compressive Strength Relation

Khaloo A. R. [5] reported an increase in f r values for both
50% replacement (13.3%) and 100% replacement (15.5%)
of stone aggregate by crushed clinker brick. However, he
found a decrease (8.3%) for 50% replacement and an
increase (1.7%) for 100% replacement of stone aggregate in
case of f sp values. This may be due to the higher strength
concretes studied (35 MPa – 39.2 MPa) using special types
of clinker brick aggregates (unit weight less than 1120
Kg/m3).
The modulus of rupture f r and splitting tensile strength f sp
obtained in this study are presented, as the function of
concrete compressive strength, in Figs. 6 and 7
respectively. As expected, both type of tensile strengths
increase with an increase in compressive strength f c′ . The
expressions as suggested by researchers [2,3,6] for
prediction of the properties of purely brick aggregate
concrete are shown in Table 3.

3.1.4 Modulus of Elasticity 10

Rashid et al. [3]
Modulus of rupture, fr (MPa)

Fig. 5 shows the plot of the secant modulus E c (at 0.45 f c′ ) Mansur et al. [2]
8 Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat [6]
of concrete against the corresponding value of Vba/Vca ratio.
From this figure it is seen that, as expected like
6
compressive and tensile strengths, the elastic modulus of
concrete decreases with the increase in Vba/Vca ratio.
Mansur et. al. [2] also reported the same trend between 4
stone aggregate concrete and the brick aggregate concrete.
2
From Fig. 5 it is also seen that the rate of this decrease
increases with the increase in the ratio Vba/Vca up to a value
of 0.75 above which the elastic modulus increases. A higher 0
amount of modulus for 100% brick aggregate concrete than 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
that of 75% brick aggregate concrete may be attributed to
the more homogeneity of former concrete than the later Compressive strength, f'c (MPa)
one. In comparison with the value of the elastic modulus of Fig. 6: Modulus of rupture-compressive strength relation

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur 20

DUET Journal Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2012

6 strength. As expected, an increase in compressive strength

Mansur et al. [2] increases the elastic modulus. It is seen from Fig. 8 that
Spliting tensile strength, fsp (MPa)

5 Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat [6] both the relations as suggested by Mansur et al. [2] and
Regression line Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat [6] highly overestimate the E c
4 values while the relation as suggested by Rashid et al. [3]
marginally overestimate the E c values. A least-square
3 regression analysis of the test values of E c (Fig. 8) gives
the following relation [Eq. (3)] with a correlation
2 coefficient of 0.92.
fsp = 0.0514( f'c)1.164
1
R2 = 0.98 E c = 5324 f c′ − 12182 (3)

0 in which both Ec and f c′ are in MPa. This relationship is

20 22 24 26 1628 18
30 valid for the f c′ ranging from 4500 to 6600 psi.
Compressive strength, f'c (MPa)
Fig.7: Splitting tensile strength-compressive strength 30000
relation Mansur et al. [2]
Akhtaruzzaman a nd Hasnat [6]

Modulus of elasticity, Ec (MPa)

Table 3: Relationships proposed by researchers for 25000 Rashid et al. [3]
prediction of the properties of brick aggregate concrete Regression line

Concrete 20000
Suggested expressions
property
Mansur et al.[2]: f r = 0.85 f c′ MPa 15000
Modulus
f r = 12.8 f c′ psi
Rashid et al.[3]:
of 10000 Ec = 5324( f'c)0.5 - 12182
rupture Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat[6]: R2 = 0.92
f r = 8.3 f c′ psi
5000
Splitting Mansur et al.[2]: f sp = 0.69 f c′ MPa 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6
tensile Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat[6]: Compressive strength, ( f'c)0.5 (MPa)
strength f sp = 7.5 f c′ psi
Fig. 8: Variation of modulus of elasticity with square root
Mansur et al.[2]: Ec = 4050 f c′ MPa of compressive strength
Modulus Rashid et al.[3]: Ec = 37500 f c′ psi
of 4. CONCLUSIONS
elasticity Akhtaruzzaman and Hasnat[6]:
Ec = 40000 f c′ psi Following conclusions can be drawn from the study
performed –

It can be seen from Figs. 6 and 7 that both the relations as
suggested by Mansur et. al. [2] and Akhtaruzzaman and
Hasnat [6] underestimate the f r values while the
corresponding relations overestimate the f sp values.
However, the relation as suggested by Rashid et al. [3]
shows a reasonable conservative estimate of modulus of
rupture f r . On the other hand, a least-square regression
analysis of the test values of f sp (Fig. 7) gives the following
relations [Eq. (2)] with a correlation coefficient of 0.98.
f sp = 0.0514( f c′)
1.164
(2)
in which both f sp and f c′ are in MPa.
1. Brick aggregate concrete weighs about 14.5% less than
that of natural aggregate concrete. The rate of decrease
in unit weight of mixed aggregate concrete decreases
with the increase in Vba/Vca ratio up to 50% beyond
which the rate of decrease increases.
2. A 33% reduction in compressive strength of concrete is
found due to the use of brick aggregate instead of stone
aggregate for the strength range of concrete studied.
3. The reduction in tensile strength of mixed aggregate
concrete is found to be less significant up to 50%
replacement of stone aggregate by brick aggregate.

4. About 28% reduction in elastic modulus of concrete is

3.3 Modulus of Elasticity-Compressive Strength Relation found due to the use of brick aggregate instead of stone
aggregate.
Fig. 8 shows the plot of the secant modulus (at 0.45 f c′ ) of
concrete E c against the corresponding cylinder compressive 5. Eq. (2) may be used to determine the splitting tensile
strength of mixed aggregate concrete.

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur 21

DUET Journal
6. Eq. (3) may be used to determine the secant modulus of
elasticity of mixed aggregate concrete.
NOTATIONS
Ec = Modulus of elasticity (secant) of concrete
Eit = Initial tangent modulus of concrete
f c′ = Cylinder compressive strength of concrete
fr = Modulus of rupture of concrete
f sp = Splitting tensile strength of concrete
Vba = Volume of brick aggregate
Vca = Volume of total coarse aggregate
wc = Unit weight of concrete
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The experimental work described was supported by and
executed at the Department of Civil Engineering, Dhaka
university of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur-1700,
Bangladesh. This support is greatly appreciated by the
authors.
REFERENCES
[1] M. L. Gambhir, Concrete Technology, Tata McGraw-
Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India,
1993.
[2] M. A. Mansur, T. H. Wee, and L. S. Cheran, “Crushed
Bricks as Coarse Aggregate for Concrete”, ACI
Materials Journal, Vol.96, No.4, pp.478-484, 1999.
[3] M. A. Rashid, T. Hossain, and M. A. Islam, “Higher
Strength Concrete Using Crushed Brick as Coarse
Aggregate”, Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 82, No. 10,
pp.18-23, 2008.
[4] F. M. Khalaf, “Using Crushed Clay Brick as Coarse
Aggregate in Concrete”, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.18, No.4, pp.518-526, 2006.
Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology, Gazipur
View publication stats
Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 2012
[5] A. R. Khaloo, “Properties of Concrete Using Crushed
Clinker Brick as Coarse Aggregate”, ACI Materials
Journal, Vol.91, No.2, pp.401-407, 1994.
[6] A. A. Akhtaruzzaman, and A. Hasnat, “Properties of
Concrete Using Crushed Brick as Aggregate”,
Concrete International, Vol.5, No.2, pp.58-63, 1983.
[7] M. K. Hasan, M. M. U. Khan, and M. S. Uddin,
“Properties of Concretes Obtained Replacing Stone
Chips by Brick Aggregates”, B. Sc. Engineering thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Dhaka University of
Engineering & Technology (DUET), Gazipur,
Bangladesh, September 2007.
[8] S. K. Shill, K. C. Sarkar, and M. A. Islam, “A
Comparative Study between the Properties of Brick
Aggregate Concrete with those of Stone Aggregate
Concrete”, B. Sc. Engineering thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, Dhaka University of Engineering &
Technology (DUET), Gazipur, Bangladesh, September
2007.
[9] Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
heavyweight and Mass Concrete, Part 1, ACI
Committee 211.1-91, ACI Manual of Concrete
practice, 1994.
[10] Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, Vol. 04.02, 2001.
[11] A. M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, Longman,
Malaysia, 4th edition, reprint 1996.
[12] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318M-08) and Commentary, ACI Committee
318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 2008.
22