Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Application of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition

waste with Portland cement and hydrated lime as pavement subbase in
Brazil
Igor Amorim Beja ⇑, Rosângela Motta, Liedi Bariani Bernucci
Transportation Engineering Department, Polytechnic School, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, trav. do Biênio, n. 83 – Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP
05508-070, Brazil

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

Mechanical response of RCDW under

high volume and heavy traffic over
time.

Addition of Portland cement or lime
to improve mechanical behavior and
reduce variability.

Laboratory tests: resilient modulus
and permanent deformation tests.

Experimental test tracks: deflection
measurements and backcalculation
over time.

RCDW aggregates may be
successfully used as pavement
subbase material under high volume
and heavy traffic.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The feasibility of using recycling construction and demolition waste (CDW) as aggregate in pavements
Received 18 May 2018 under high-volume and heavy traffic is studied herein. Laboratory tests evaluated the resilient modulus
Received in revised form 27 April 2020 and permanent deformation. Pavement deflections were measured on field test tracks and resilient mod-
Accepted 10 May 2020
uli were back-calculated. Stabilizing the CDW with Portland cement or lime improved the mechanical
behavior of the aggregate material, reducing the variability of the mechanical responses. Laboratory
and field results confirmed that the stiffness of CDW aggregates significantly increases over time.
Keywords:
Therefore, CDW could be an alternative for subbase layers of pavements under heavy traffic.
Construction and demolition waste
Recycled aggregate
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Hydraulic binders
Pavement
Mechanical behavior

1. Introduction
Due to Brazil’s economic growth, the amount of construction
and demolition waste (CDW) currently produced is significant,
especially in medium and large cities. Approximately 20 million
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: igorabeja@usp.br (I.A. Beja),
(R. Motta), liedi@usp.br (L.B. Bernucci).
tons of CDW are generated in São Paulo State annually [1], which
is the most industrialized state in Brazil, with more than 44 million
inhabitants. During the past few decades, sustainable pavements
using recycled materials have become essential for maintaining
natural resources. Instead of disposing CDW in landfills, it has been
considered as a recycling material for replacing natural aggregates,
such as crushed rocks, reducing potential environmental impacts,
and improving the potential economic value of recycling [2].
rosangela.motta@usp.br

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119520
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 I.A. Beja et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520
Recycled construction and demolition waste (RCDW) aggre-
gate has been successfully used as a granular pavement mate-
rial, particularly in structural layers such as pavement bases
and subbases [3–7]. Because the composition of RCDW aggre-
gate can vary significantly depending on its constituent mate-
rials (e.g., cement concrete, mortar, ceramic, and crushed
stones), the characterization process of physical-chemical and
mechanical properties should be performed for pavement
applications.
Arulrajah et al. [7] argued that RCDW aggregate for use as road
base and subbase materials has to be evaluated by a rational
approach by determining the resilient modulus and the permanent
deformation in laboratory tests. Additionally, according to Leite
et al. [8] proper compaction effort is an important issue to be
addressed when using RCDW aggregate because this mechanical
procedure breaks down part of the particles, depending on their
composition and strength, affecting their shape, grain-size distri-
bution, and mechanical properties. Likewise, Molennar and Van
Niekerk [9] concluded that the degree of compaction is the main
factor affecting the stiffness of RCDW aggregate, such that the
higher the compaction effort, the greater the resilient modulus.
Furthermore, RCDW aggregate usually undergoes particle breakage
in the compaction process, increasing the amount of fines and cre-
ating new surfaces [8].
In this context, the material may still contain non-hydrated
cement from mortar or recycled concrete aggregates or fine parti-
cles from ceramic bricks and tiles. The combination of these mate-
rials with water during the compaction process can provide, after
curing, a substantial increase in stiffness through the pozzolanic
reaction [10–12].
Although researchers have commonly observed that stiffness
increases over time due to pozzolanic reactions by non-hydrated
cement and ceramic fines, incorporating additional amounts of
hydraulic binders (e.g., hydrated lime or Portland cement) can
result in a substantial increase in stiffness. The RCDW aggregate
may contain components such as silicates, carbonates as calcite,
hydroxides, and quartz. The addition of hydrated lime or cement
and water may induce hydration of these components, as reported
by [13–15].
In the case of adding these binders (hydrated lime and cement),
the mechanical behavior of RCDW aggregate becomes more similar
to a cement-treated material rather than a granular one, as
observed by [3,16]. For field performance, Agrela et al. [3] evalu-
ated RCDW aggregate mixed with 3% of Portland cement as a pave-
ment subbase layer; pavement deflections were measured using a
falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and the results were consid-
ered useful as they showed low variability. However, the traffic
volume was 200–799 heavy vehicles per day.
Herrador et al. [5] comparatively analyzed a base layer with
recycled aggregate composed of concrete waste, asphalt mix, and
ceramic materials and obtained satisfactory deflections results.
However, the study does not present a descriptive statistical anal-
ysis or the eventual response variability. Furthermore, the pave-
ment test track was built for rural roads, with limited traffic [3].
Tavira et al. [6] analyzed road characteristics and recommended
applying RCDW as a pavement layer for traffic volumes of 25–49
heavy vehicles/day. Typically, previous studies limited the applica-
tion of RCDW to rural roads or roads with low traffic volumes;
however, they have not applied RCDW to heavy-traffic roads,
which directly impacts its potential use at large scales.
The application in pavement structures subjected to high and
heavy traffic roads may be reckless, due to the inherent variability
of this material. However, the addition of hydraulic binders could
reduce variability and increase mechanical strength, so the appli-
cation on a real road with heavy trucks operation could be used
with a field verification.
Considering the presented literature review and identified
knowledge gap, this study aimed to evaluate the application and
behavior of RCDW aggregate as pavement subbase material. More-
over, the benefits of adding Portland cement or hydrated lime to
RCDW were evaluated. Laboratory tests were performed to deter-
mine the physical characteristics of RCDW and mechanical proper-
ties such as resilient modulus and permanent deformation of
RCDW and mixtures of RCDW and blends of RCDW with Portland
cement and hydrated lime.
The in-situ performance was evaluated using three test tracks
constructed with RCDW as subbase material in the control section.
One test track was constructed using only RCDW, whereas the
other two were constructed using mixtures of RCDW and hydraulic
binders. The second test track had 3% of Portland cement and the
third track had 3% of hydrated lime. The test track deflections were
measured using FWD over a specific time (6, 12, and 18 months
after construction); in situ resilient moduli were subsequently
determined using back-calculation and compared with laboratory
test results.
2. Materials and methods
The material came from the demolition of the São Vito and Mer-
cúrio buildings in the city of São Paulo. Subsequently, the material
was processed in a recycling plant recommended by the municipal
government. The RCDW used in this study contained crushed
stones (44%), recycled mortar/concrete aggregates (42%), and recy-
cled bricks/clay tiles aggregates (13%). About 1% was classified as
other materials, such as wood, plastic, paper, and glass (undesir-
able for pavement applications). These measurements were made
considering coarse fractions retained on a 4.75-mm sieve and con-
sidering the dry mass of the constituents, according to Brazilian
standard NBR 15,115 [17].
RCDW was analyzed in three conditions, with and without
hydraulic binders (stabilizers): (i) unbound RCDW aggregate
(without stabilizers, namely RCDW); (ii) RCDW aggregate mixed
with 3% of Portland cement; and (iii) RCDW aggregate mixed with
3% of hydrated lime. All three studied materials came from the
same RCDW aggregate source.
Mechanical properties were analyzed through resilient modulus
and triaxial tests of permanent deformation. Moreover, due to the
pozzolanic reaction (RCDW) and the use of hydraulic binders that
react over time (cement and lime), mechanical tests were also per-
formed after different curing times. To complement these tests,
physical characterization of RCDW aggregate was performed con-
sisting of analysis of grain size distribution, uniformity coefficient,
particle shape, Los Angeles abrasion, and ten percent fines value.
Finally, compaction, Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR), and uncon-
fined compressive strength were also investigated.
2.1. Physical characterization
Table 1 presents the physical characteristics of the RCDW
aggregate (without stabilizers) used in this study. Grain-size distri-
bution was obtained through a sieve analysis, and the results are
presented in Fig. 1. Although Los Angeles abrasion and ten percent
fines tests are not required for RCDW aggregates by Brazilian stan-
dards, both were evaluated as they are typical for granular pave-
ment materials, such as well-graded crushed stone [9,15].
2.2. Compaction, CBR, and unconfined compressive strength
Leite [18] reported that it is not very easy to accurately deter-
mine the optimum moisture content of RCDW, mainly due to the
large variability of the constituent materials (concrete, ceramic,
 I.A. Beja et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520 3

Table 1
Physical characteristics.

Tests Testing standard Brazilian standard limits [17] RCDW aggregate

Nominal maximum aggregate size [mm] ASTM C136-06 63.5 50.0
Percent passing 0.42 mm sieve [%] ASTM C136-06 10 to 40 17
Uniformity coefficient ASTM D2487-11  10 50
Flat particles in coarse aggregate (proportion 1:3) [%] ASTM D4791-10  30 14
Los Angeles abrasion [%] ASTM C131-06 – 43
Ten percent fines value (dry condition) [kN] BS EN 1097-10 – 50

2.3. Resilient modulus

The behavior under repeated loading was assessed through the

Fig. 1. Grain-size distribution curve of the RCDW aggregate.
bricks, etc.) and particle dimensions, as well as particle breakage
during the compaction process. Hence, to obtain the same particle
size distribution in all samples, coarse aggregates (19 mm) were
replaced by the same weight of smaller particles (between 19.0
and 4.75 mm), as recommended by ASTM D1557-09.
Therefore, the compaction results (maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content) were used to prepare the specimens
to perform CBR and unconfined compressive tests. Table 2 presents
the compaction, CBR, and unconfined compressive strength results.
CBR was not evaluated in the case of adding stabilizers as this test
was originally designed to characterize the shear strength of gran-
ular materials and soils via penetration resistance. For cemented
materials, the CBR standard piston presses and fractures the sam-
ple, not measuring the same mechanical characteristics as in
unbound materials.
As specified by the Brazilian standard requirements [17], the
minimum CBR value for applying RCDW as a pavement subbase
layer must be at least 20%, with a maximum axial swell after 4-
day soaking of 0.5%. Additionally, the unconfined compressive
strength of RCDW stabilized with lime or Portland cement or both
must be higher than 2.1 MPa (tested after seven days of curing in a
controlled humidity chamber).
resilient modulus estimated using a triaxial test (AASHTO T307-
14). For each material, three specimens with a diameter of
150 mm and a height of 300 mm were used.
The stabilized mixtures were cured for three different periods
(7, 28, and 60 days) in a controlled humidity chamber. The resilient
moduli of the RCDW were determined at these three curing condi-
tions to evaluate the stiffness gain over time, as mentioned by
Baronio and Binda [14] and Contreras et al. [15]. Different curing
periods were also considered for the RCDW without stabilizers to
assess possible gains in stiffness due to the pozzolanic activity of
the non-hydrated cement or ceramic fines present in RCDW
cementitious fractions. Motta [19] evaluated an RCDW in Brazil
containing a similar percentage of recycled mortar/concrete com-
pounds (42%) through a Chapelle modified test [20], in which the
pozzolanic potential may be observed in terms of CaO (calcium
oxide) consumption. According to [20], the material should con-
sume at least 0.33 g of CaO to be considered a pozzolan. Although
it demonstrated a consumption of 0.13 g, Motta [19] concluded
that the pozzolanic reactivity test of the RCDW could positively
influence the mechanical behavior of the pavement because the
consumption is a near to a half of consumption of 0.33 g (limit
value for test specimens of Portland cement concrete). Another
study in Brazil [21] evaluated two types of RCDW (cementitious
and red ceramic combined with lime) and their possible stiffness
gains due to pozzolanic activity. The study also concluded that
both present chemical characteristics for developing cementitious
chemical reactions, contributing to the stabilization process. Other
studies have also observed increasing resilient modulus values for
RCDW over time [19,21].
In the case of RCDW with Portland cement and RCDW with
hydrated lime, the variation of the resilient modulus over time
and the improvement in stiffness were observed and compared
with those of the RCDW without hydraulic binders. The model
for describing the resilient behavior is presented in Equation (1),
in which the bulk stress was defined as in Equation (2):
MR ¼ k1 hk2 ð1Þ
h ¼ rd þ 3r3 ¼ r1 þ r2 þ r3 ð2Þ

Table 2
Compaction, CBR and unconfined compressive strength results.

Tests Testing standard RCDW RCDW + Portland cement RCDW + hydrated lime
Results
Proctor compaction (modified effort) Maximum dry density [kN/m3] ASTM D1557-09 18.3 18.4 18.3
Optimum moisture content [%] 12.0 12.3 12.5
CBR (mean of 3 specimens) [%] ASTM D1883-07 51 – –
Swelling [%] 0.0 – –
Unconfined compressive strengthAfter 7 days of curing (unsoaked ASTM D1633-07 0.42 4.60 3.60
condition, mean of 3 specimens) [MPa]
4 I.A. Beja et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520

Fig. 2. Effect of curing time on RCDW with and without hydraulic binders.
Fig. 4. Permanent deformation results based on the shakedown concept.

where MR – resilient modulus [MPa]; k1 and k2 – coefficients from Moreover, as the stiffness gain of the RCDW with hydrated lime
regression analysis of test results; h – bulk stress [MPa]; rd – devi- usually takes long periods, 90 days of curing was defined.
atoric stress [MPa]; r3 – confining stress [MPa]. The resilient mod- For the Portland cement stabilized mixture, shorter periods are
ulus results are presented in Fig. 2 as a function of the bulk stress sufficient because the pozzolanic reaction of crushed bricks cou-
(mean values of three specimens of each material). Table 3 summa- pled with cement hydration occurs faster than with lime [13].
rizes the regression and determination coefficients of the resilient Fig. 3 shows the average of the permanent deformation results
modulus tests. for the three specimens obtained under the conditions previously
mentioned. Fig. 4 presents the average of the permanent deforma-
tion results for the three specimens using the shakedown concept
2.4. Permanent deformation that was conceived and developed for pavement unbound materi-
als by Werkmeister et al. [22], as used for RCDW by Leite et al. [8].
The permanent deformation behavior was also evaluated
through triaxial tests with cyclic loading. The following conditions
were assumed: (i) 90 days of curing; (ii) cycling frequency of 3 Hz; 3. Experimental pavement test tracks with RCDW as subbase
(iii) up to 100,000 cycles; and (iv) stress-states rd/r3 = 1 and rd/
r3 = 3. In this study, three replicates were produced for each blend. The experimental sections of this study were part of a project by
the city of Sao Paulo – Brazil, at a location with high-volume and
heavy traffic (1  107 NESAL). The original pavement design con-
Table 3 sisted of an asphalt concrete wearing course, reclaimed asphalt
Regression and determination coefficients of the resilient modulus tests.
pavement (RAP) with foamed asphalt (bitumen stabilized material
Material k1 k2 R2 – BSM) as the base layer, RCDW aggregate as the subbase layer, and
RCDW – 7 days 502.3 0.664 0.98 coarse crushed stone aggregates as the subgrade reinforcement
RCDW – 28 days 540.8 0.596 0.97 layer or capping layer once the subgrade presented a very low
RCDW – 60 days 660.5 0.593 0.99 resistance (MR = 75 MPa). Two other test sections were proposed
RCDW + lime – 7 days 2731.4 0.517 0.99
with different subbase materials. In the second section, 3% of Port-
RCDW + lime – 28 days 3845.3 0.338 0.98
RCDW + lime – 60 days 4406.7 0.343 0.99
land cement was added to the RCDW, and in the third section, 3% of
RCDW + cement – 7 days 3032.1 0.484 0.97 hydrated lime was added to the RCDW. Three pavement sections
RCDW + cement – 28 days 4763.8 0.318 0.99 measuring 100 m each were constructed, as shown in Fig. 5.
RCDW + cement – 60 days 4948.0 0.264 0.98 Field assessments were performed three times after the con-
struction (6, 12, and 18 months later) to evaluate structural condi-
tions, which were studied through FWD to determine deflections.
Back-calculation was also performed using the BAKFAA software

Fig. 5. Experimental pavement sections using RCDW as subbase with and without
Fig. 3. Permanent deformation results. hydraulic binders.
 I.A. Beja et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520
Fig. 6. FWD deflections measured after 6, 12, and 18 months on the three
experimental pavement test tracks.
Fig. 7. Back-calculated subbase resilient modulus.
to estimate the resilient modulus of each material and each pave-
ment layer, focusing on the resilient modulus of the RCDW
subbase.
According to ASTM D4695-08, the FWD deflection measure-
ments were performed on the top of the asphalt pavement every
20 m on all test tracks, using a plate radius of 300 mm and FWD
loads of 4.1 kN. The FWD maximum pavement deflections below
the load plate are shown in Fig. 6. Using the same FWD survey data,
a back-analysis of the deflections (mean values of each section)
was conducted following ASTM D 5858-08, and using the BAKFAA
software to determine the resilient modulus of each layer. The
pavement structures used for back-calculation were the ones
shown in Fig. 5. The back-calculated elastic modulus of the subbase
layer of each test track is shown in Fig. 7.
4. Analysis and discussion
Poon and Chan [23] tested recycled clay brick and obtained 49
kN in the ten percent fines test, which was similar to the RCDW
studied in this work (50 kN). The result showed that the RCDW
reached the minimum value recommended for pavement granular
materials. Delongui et al. [24] and Leite et al. [8] showed 57% and
51%, respectively, in the Los Angeles loss of mass test; in this study,
the material presented a higher abrasion resistance (43%), probably
related to the differences in the material composition. Materials
with higher contents of ceramic bricks and tiles (30% to 35%) - as
in the mentioned above studies are more susceptible to particle
breaking than are recycled concrete and crushed rock aggregates
used in the present study.
5
The RCDW aggregate presented no swelling and high CBR val-
ues within acceptable limits for the application as a pavement sub-
base layer in Brazil. Moreover, the results from the RCDW
aggregate also agreed with the results obtained by Tavira et al.
[6] and Leite et al. [8].
The mixtures with 3% of Portland cement and 3% of hydrated
lime are suitable for application as a subbase layer as the compres-
sive strength values of 4.6 and 3.6 MPa respectively, exceeded the
limit of 2.1 MPa after seven days of curing, as indicated in the
Brazilian standard [17]. Similarly, in Spain, compressive strength
tests for a mixture of RCDW aggregate with 3% of Portland cement
after seven days of curing showed an average value of 3.5 MPa [3].
Delongui et al. [24] obtained resilient modulus values in the
laboratory between 200 and 300 MPa; similar results were
achieved in this study for the RCDW aggregate (Fig. 2). The resilient
modulus of RCDW increases with increasing bulk stress, as men-
tioned by [7,25,26], evidencing the behavior of unbound material,
even though it shows a certain degree of cementitious reaction
over time. Based on the increase in RCDW resilient moduli over
time observed in the laboratory (Fig. 2), it can be affirmed that
cementitious and pozzolanic reactions occurred due to the pres-
ence of ceramic fines and non-hydrated cement in the RCDW
aggregates, which increasing the material stiffness.
As observed in Fig. 6, RCDW with no stabilizer presented a
slight increase in stiffness over time in the field, probably caused
by the pozzolanic reaction, as previously observed in the labora-
tory tests. Vegas et al. [10] indicate that this pozzolanic reaction
after post compaction may improve the stiffness of the RCDW
aggregate. Arm [11] showed self-cementing properties of this
material by measuring FWD responses with crushed demolished
concrete, as well as a three-fold growth in stiffness after two years
of opening to traffic.
By adding 3% of lime or 3% of cement to the RCDW aggregate,
the resilient modulus values increased significantly due to the
higher stiffness provided by the hydraulic binders. Moreover, the
laboratory tests showed that RCDW with stabilizers is less depen-
dent on bulk stress than the RCDW without lime or cement,
demonstrating the bounded material behavior of the treated
RCDW (Fig. 2). This can also be evidenced by the reduction in the
slope of the curves in Fig. 2 with the addition of binders (decreas-
ing k2 in Eq. (1)).
In the laboratory, the mechanical responses based on the values
of the resilient modulus revealed that the mixtures treated with
Portland cement presented the best structural performance at
early stages, better than the RCDW treated with lime. However,
at the test sites, after 6, 12, or 18 months, the resilient behavior
of the cement-treated RCDW was very similar to that of RCDW sta-
bilized with lime (Fig. 7). Comparison of the mean maximum
deflection of each test track over the three survey periods indicates
a reduction in the maximum deflection, which in turn indicates a
gain in stiffness (Fig. 6).
The back-calculated resilient moduli of the RCDW showed an
increase of stiffness over time; however, it must be considered that
the asphalt foam stabilized RAP used as the pavement base also
exhibited a stiffness increase over time, as shown by Guatimosim
et al. [27]. Additionally, when comparing the maximum deflections
of each material, the RCDW with cement and lime presented a
lower variability (SD ranging from 115 to 168, and 120 to
194 MPa, respectively) than the RCDW without stabilizers, as
shown in Fig. 6.
Simultaneously, the stabilized RCDW materials showed less
variability and better performance, reducing one of the most cru-
cial aspects of using RCDW, i.e., the effect of its variability on
mechanical responses.
As shown in Fig. 7, the RCDW presented a resilient modulus of
approximately 400 MPa as a pavement subbase in the field. Tavira
6 I.A. Beja et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520
et al. [6] reported a good behavior of RCDW aggregate when com-
pared with crushed limestone aggregate applied as a pavement
base on low volume roads; the back-calculated resilient modulus
showed a value of 349 MPa for RCDW aggregate compared with
the crushed rock aggregate (481 MPa). Herrador et al. [5] con-
ducted test tracks using RCDW aggregate and reported good struc-
tural performance for deflections. Agrela et al. [3] showed the
benefits of using RCDW with 3% of cement in test tracks, reducing
deflections by 70%. In this research, deflections were reduced by 40
to 50% in comparison with the RCDW without cement addition.
When comparing permanent deformation results (Fig. 3) at the
stress level of rd/r3 = 1, the three materials did not show substan-
tial differences between them throughout the test (from around
0.20 to 0.39  103 mm/mm at 100,000 cycles). Leite et al. [8] eval-
uated RCDW (without stabilizers) and found permanent deforma-
tion of 1.27  103 mm/mm after 100,000 cycles at rd/r3 = 2.
Permanent deformation may be associated with several factors,
such as stress level, ceramic bricks and tiles content, fine fraction
percentage, compaction energy used to prepare the samples, and
grain size distribution.
Furthermore, by analyzing the shakedown concept (Fig. 4) it
was possible to understand that the RCDW without stabilizers
could develop a permanent deformation, whereas the stabilized
RCDW remained at a small deformation level. Comparing the
results at higher stress levels (rd/r3 = 3), the RCDW without sta-
bilizers displayed significantly higher permanent deformation,
increasing rapidly in the first 2000 cycles (Fig. 4). According to
Werkmeister et al. [22], the material can be classified as Range
B–C (intermediate response – plastic creep – incremental collapse)
concerning permanent deformation. This result shows that aggre-
gate breakage exists along with the loading cycles at higher stress
levels, thereby confirming the risk of rutting when using this mate-
rial as a pavement base layer under heavy traffic. However, the
addition of 3% cement or lime to RCDW, in this case, can help to
maintain the material in Range A (plastic shakedown), demonstrat-
ing the stabilization effect under loading.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the feasibility of using RCDW aggregates as pave-
ment subbase material under high-volume and heavy traffic was
evaluated through field and laboratory tests. Furthermore, the ben-
efits of adding hydraulic binders such as Portland cement or
hydrated lime to RCDW were also studied. The main findings of
this study can be summarized as follows:

RCDW aggregates may be successfully used as pavement sub-
base material under heavy traffic load.

Stiffness of RCDW aggregate increased over time, probably
because of the pozzolanic reaction caused by the combination
of water and non-hydrated cement from the mortar or concrete
aggregates, or fine particles from ceramic bricks and tiles, dur-
ing the compaction process. Hence, the use of high compaction
energy is crucial to promote aggregate breakage and
interlocking.

Adding cement or lime significantly increases the resilient mod-
ulus of RCDW. Consequently, it reduces the pavement deflec-
tion and its variation. The laboratory results showed that the
structural performance at early stages when using Portland
cement was higher compared with the structural performance
of RCDW treated with lime. However, in the field, after one year,
the back-calculated resilient modulus of the cement-treated
RCDW was quite similar to that of the RCDW stabilized with
lime.

RCDW can be classified as Range B–C in terms of permanent
deformation behavior, which confirms the risk of rutting using
this material as a pavement base layer under heavy traffic.
However, adding 3% cement or lime to RCDW, in this case,
can help to maintain the material in Range A, demonstrating
the stabilization effect under loading.

Finally, the purpose of this study is limited to municipal traffic
loads. Most heavy vehicles consist of single axels, dual/single
axes, and dual tandem. Future studies are justifiable to improve
the application of RCDW as a layer in pavements for the heavy
traffic of various axis compositions, such as highways, freeways,
corridors, and arterials. The results of this study are the first
step towards a more extensive application of RCDW in pave-
ment subbase under high-volume and heavy traffic.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Igor Amorim Beja: Methodology, Writing - original draft, Vali-
dation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation. Rosângela
Motta: Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Liedi Bariani Ber-
nucci: Conceptualization, Supervision, Resources.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work r
eported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank National Council for Scientific and Techno-
logical Development (CNPq) for supporting this work.
References
[1] L.P. Rosado, P. Vitale, C.S.G. Penteado, U. Arena, Life cycle assessment of
construction and demolition waste management in a large area of São Paulo
State, Brazil, Waste Manag. 85 (2019) 477–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2019.01.011.
[2] B. Dong, J. Wang, H. Wu, Q. Song, L. Zheng, W. Jiang, J. Zuo, G. Liu, H. Duan, H.
Zhang, Characterizing the generation and flows of construction and demolition
waste in China, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 405–413, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.055.
[3] F. Agrela, A. Barbudo, A. Ramírez, J. Ayuso, M.D. Carvajal, J.R. Jiménez,
Construction of road sections using mixed recycled aggregates treated with
cement in Malaga, Spain, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 58 (2012) 98–106, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.11.003.
[4] J.R. Jiménez, J. Ayuso, F. Agrela, M. López, A.P. Galvín, Utilisation of unbound
recycled aggregates from selected CDW in unpaved rural roads, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 58 (2012) 88–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2011.10.012.
[5] R. Herrador, P. Pérez, L. Garach, J. Ordóñez, Use of recycled construction and
demolition waste aggregate for road course surfacing, J. Transp. Eng. 138
(2012) 182–190, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000320.
[6] J. Tavira, J.R. Jiménez, J. Ayuso, M.J. Sierra, E.F. Ledesma, Functional and
structural parameters of a paved road section constructed with mixed recycled
aggregates from non-selected construction and demolition waste with
excavation soil, Constr. Build. Mater. 164 (2018) 57–69, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.195.
[7] A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan, M.M. Disfani, M.W. Bo, Resilient moduli response
of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement subbase
applications, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (2012) 1920–1928, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000766.
[8] F.D.C. Leite, R.D.S. Motta, K.L. Vasconcelos, L. Bernucci, Laboratory evaluation of
recycled construction and demolition waste for pavements, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (2011) 2972–2979, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2010.11.105.
[9] A. Molenaar, A. van Niekerk, Effects of gradation, composition, and degree of
compaction on the mechanical characteristics of recycled unbound materials,
Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. 1787 (2002) 73–82, https://doi.org/
10.3141/1787-08.
 I.A. Beja et al. / Construction and Building Materials 258 (2020) 119520
[10] I. Vegas, J.A. Ibañez, A. Lisbona, A. Sáez De Cortazar, M. Frías, Pre-normative
research on the use of mixed recycled aggregates in unbound road sections,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2674–2682, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2010.12.018.
[11] M. Arm, Self-cementing properties of crushed demolishing concrete in
unbound layers: results from triaxial tests and field tests, Waste Mater.
Constr. 1 (2000) 579–587, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(00)00095-7.
[12] C.S. Poon, X.C. Qiao, D. Chan, The cause and influence of self-cementing
properties of fine recycled concrete aggregates on the properties of unbound
sub-base, Waste Manag. 26 (2006) 1166–1172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2005.12.013.
[13] J.M. Khatib, Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled aggregate, Cem.
Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 763–769, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2004.06.017.
[14] G. Baronio, L. Binda, Study of the pozzolanicity and clays *, Constr. Build.
Mater. 11 (1997) 41–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(96)00032-3.
[15] M. Contreras, S.R. Teixeira, M.C. Lucas, L.C.N. Lima, D.S.L. Cardoso, G.A.C. da
Silva, G.C. Gregório, A.E. de Souza, A. dos Santos, Recycling of construction and
demolition waste for producing new construction material (Brazil case-study),
Constr. Build. Mater. 123 (2016) 594–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.07.044.
[16] D.X. Xuan, L.J.M. Houben, A.A.A. Molenaar, Z.H. Shui, Mechanical properties of
cement-treated aggregate material – a review, Mater. Des. 33 (2012) 496–502,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.04.055.
[17] ABNT, Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Agregados reciclados de
resíduos sólidos da construção civil – Execução de camadas de pavimentação –
Procedimentos [in Portuguese], (2004) 1–9.
[18] F.D.C. Leite, Comportamento mecânico de agregado reciclado de resíduo sólido
da construção civil em camadas de base e sub-base de pavimentos, 2007 [in
Portuguese]. doi: 10.11606/D.3.2007.t de-09012008-162141.
7
[19] R.D.S. Motta, Estudo laboratorial de agregado reciclado de resíduo sólido da
construção civil para aplicação em pavimentação de baixo volume de tráfego,
Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo, 2005 [in Portuguese]. doi:
10.11606/D.3.2005.tde-19072006-114729.
[20] M. Raverdy, F. Brivot, A.M. Paillere, R. Dron, Appréciation de I’activité
pouzzolanique des constituants secondaires, in: Congrès Int. La Chim. Des
Ciments [in French], 1980: p. 6.
[21] P.B. da Silva, Estabilização de misturas de resíduos sólidos de demolição e da
indústria cerâmica para uso em camadas de pavimentos viários, 2014 [in
Portuguese]. doi: 10.11606/T.3.2013.tde-03112014-113759.
[22] S. Werkmeister, A.R. Dawson, F. Wellner, Permanent deformation behavior of
granular materials and the shakedown concept, Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res.
Board. 1757 (2007) 75–81, https://doi.org/10.3141/1757-09.
[23] C.S. Poon, D. Chan, Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates and crushed
clay brick as unbound road sub-base, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006) 578–585,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.045.
[24] L. Delongui, J.A.P. Ceratti, M. Matuella, L.C.P. da Silva Filho, W.P. Núñez, W.
Fedrigo, Construction and demolition waste parameters for rational pavement
design, Constr. Build. Mater. 168 (2018) 105–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.02.086.
[25] M.R. Mitchell, R.E. Link, C. Grégoire, A.G. Correia, R. De Bel, B. Dethy,
Mechanical behavior of natural and recycled granular materials for roads, J.
Test. Eval. 39 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE103471 103471.
[26] J.O. Bestgen, M. Hatipoglu, B. Cetin, A.H. Aydilek, Mechanical and
environmental suitability of recycled concrete aggregate as a highway base
material, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (2016) 04016067, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001564.
[27] F.V. Guatimosim, K.L. Vasconcelos, L.L.B. Bernucci, K.J. Jenkins, Laboratory and
field evaluation of cold recycling mixture with foamed asphalt, Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 19 (2018) 385–399, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2016.1261726.