Properties and Performance of Concrete Made

with Recycled Low-Quality Crushed Brick

Jafar Bolouri Bazaz1 and Mahmood Khayati2

Abstract: During the past decades, in most industrialized countries, a large number of old buildings have been demolished and millions of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tons of construction debris have been produced. Demolition wastes around cities have become a serious environmental issue and a threat to
underground water quality and result in unpleasant views. Today, less than 5% of clay bricks taken from demolition sites are being separated
and recycled, whereas the proportion of concrete waste being recycled is above 90%. This low rate of brick recycling is due to a lack of
understanding about the performance of crushed brick material as aggregate in concrete or road base. In the case of concrete, the high water
absorption of crushed brick and its relatively low compression strength in comparison with natural aggregate makes it difficult to meet
traditional concrete specifications. The present research is an effort to investigate the properties of crushed clay bricks taken from demolition
sites and experimentally evaluate the strength and durability characteristics of the concrete prepared using the crushed clay bricks. The
experimental data reveal that, in spite of high porosity and absorption of recycled crushed brick, using this material as aggregate results
in a semilightweight, durable, and low-permeability concrete. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000385. © 2012 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Recycling; Bricks; Aggregates; Concrete; Durability; Freeze and thaw; Permeability.
Author keywords: Recycle; Crushed brick; Aggregate; Concrete; Durability; Freezing and thawing; Permeability.

Introduction The disposal of this huge quantity of construction and demoli-

In most developing countries, the process of replacing old struc-
tures with new urban fabrications is the most sophisticated charac-
teristic of urbanization and modernization. This pattern of
urbanization in these countries is more evident in the central parts
of large and developing cities. Iran, similar to developing countries,
has been facing rapid population growth during recent decades, re-
sulting in more housing demands and new industrialization. The
modern urbanization causes environmental degradation and pollu-
tion in large cities (Hadizadeh and Afchangi 2005). In addition,
urbanization demands the renovation of the old structures, resulting
in a huge amount of construction and demolition debris annually,
which is a serious threat to the environment. In most large cities in
Iran, more than 1 million tons of construction and demolition waste
(CDW) are generated annually (Municipality of Mashhad 2007).
This reaches up to 5 million tons in Tehran, the capital of Iran.
Approximately 50% of demolition waste consists of recyclable
clay brick or cement block (Municipality of Mashhad 2007). Even
in developed countries, such as the United Kingdom and Finland,
the annual amount of construction debris reaches 12 million
and 7 million tons, respectively (Johnson et al. 1998; Wahlstrom
et al. 2000).
1 imately 5% of bricks taken from demolition sites are being sepa-
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Ferdowsi Univ. of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail: bolouri@um
.ac.ir
2
Former Graduate Student, Civil Engineering Dept., Ferdowsi Univ. of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 7, 2010; approved on
September 14, 2011; published online on September 16, 2011. Discussion
period open until September 1, 2012; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 4, April 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2012/4-330–338/$25.00.
tion waste has become a severe social and environmental problem
all around the world (Jang and Townsend 2001; Wahlstrom et al.
2000). The possibility of recycling waste from the construction
industry is thus of increasing importance (Robinson et al. 2004).
According to the current practice, most of the construction waste
is buried in landfills, especially around rivers and roads. This not
only creates unpleasant views around cities but also causes under-
ground water pollution and occasional destructive floods. There-
fore, proper recycling of demolition wastes is important to have
an alternative material for utilization in concrete (structural or non-
structural) production (Poon et al. 2002; Rao et al. 2007; Topcu and
Sengel 2004), in paving blocks (Poon and Chan 2006), in road
construction (Wahlstrom et al. 2000), and even for agricultural pur-
poses. A huge amount of CDW is generated annually in large cities.
CDW is a mixture of different building materials. Its composition
depends on the type of building, the age, the region in which the
building is located, the technique of demolition, and so forth. The
main components of CDW are generally soil, brick, concrete,
wood, and ceramic tile. Except for soil and fine aggregates, the
predominant materials, especially in buildings from the last cen-
tury, are brick and cement block.
At present, approximately 10% of bricks, which are unbroken
and roughly in original form, taken from demolition sites are being
reused for new masonry buildings. It is also reported that approx-
rated and recycled. Although the proportion of concrete being
recycled is up to approximately 90% around the world, only a
few percent of the brick waste is being recycled (Municipality
of Mashhad 2007). This low rate of brick recycling is due to a lack
of research related to the performance of crushed brick material in
some applications such as road base material. It is also worth men-
tioning that the masonry brick in most developing countries is
produced in small, nonautomated factories without quality control.
This type of brick, therefore, is not high quality and may be

330 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.

 Table 1. Analysis of CDW Shape and Texture
Brick Cement Gypsum Asphalt The crushed clay brick aggregate had well-defined edges and was
10–42% 8–49% 0–7% 0–5% angular in shape, which resulted in a high surface-to-volume ratio.
The surface of the crushed brick aggregate was rough and highly
porous due to the mineral structure of the brick. No physical testing
thought of as inappropriate for concrete aggregate or road layer was performed to quantify the angularity of the material; however,
it was visually classified as having 100% crushed face.
construction.
Considering the possibility of recycling this type of material, a Porosity and Water Absorption
study was conducted on the feasibility of recycled crushed clay
brick as coarse and fine aggregate in the production of concrete. The water absorption (W abs ) and dry roded unit weight (γdry ) of
The major objective of this experimental study was to provide a brick in original and crushed forms and also rock and natural
aggregate were measured in accordance with ASTM C128
concrete that is durable and resistant to abrasion. To achieve this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2007b). The results are summarized in Table 2.

aim, the mechanical properties of recycled crushed brick, such
as specific gravity, water absorption, soundness, freezing-and-
thawing resistance, and Los Angeles abrasion, were determined.
In the next step, the application of recycled crushed brick as
aggregate in a durable concrete was studied by the evaluation of
the compressive strength, freezing-and-thawing resistance, and
permeability. The first step in the present research was to identify
the components of CDW. To achieve this aim, 50 samples were
taken from three different sites in which CDW is deposited. The
weight of each sample was approximately 25 kg. The samples were
sieved over a 1″ sieve (25.4 mm opening diameters) to separate
soils and fine particles. The predominant composition of material
< 25:4 mm was soil, which is not suitable for concrete. Different
components of sieved samples were then separated and weighted.
Table 1 shows the percentage of different materials in the analyzed
samples. The percentages of different materials vary by location
and time of sampling. The amount of recyclable materials including
brick and concrete, however, is noticeable.
Mechanical Properties of Clay Bricks
The significant difference in water absorption for crushed brick
and natural aggregate (average of 28% and 1.5%, respectively) is
thought to be the main reason of reduction in strength and durabil-
ity of concrete made with crushed brick. The low dry roded unit
weight (γdry ) of clay brick in comparison with natural aggregate
resulted in the concrete made with crushed bricks being lighter than
traditional concrete and potentially being classified as lightweight
concrete. This will be discussed subsequently.
Soundness
To determine the soundness of aggregate when subjected to weath-
ering, a standard test method is recommended by ASTM C88
(2005) or AASHTO T104 (1999). The test is accomplished by re-
peated immersion of specimens in saturated solution of sodium or
magnesium sulfate followed by oven drying to dehydrate the salt
precipitated in permeable pore spaces. This test is designed for all
materials used as road construction material, including recycled
concrete and brick. However, for many materials for which chemi-
cal attack and abrasion are anticipated, the results may be mislead-
ing. The crushed brick was subjected to five cycles of immersion of
samples in sodium sulfate solution followed by drying in the oven.

Strength and durability of concrete depend on various factors, Table 2. Water Absorption and Specific Gravity of Materials
among which the most important are the quality and properties
Material W abs (%) (γdry ) (kN∕m3 )
of aggregate, such as porosity, water absorption, specific gravity,
soundness, freezing-and-thawing resistance, and compressive Brick 25–28 14–17
strength. The following sections describe the necessary tests and Crushed brick 26–30 11.0–12.0
the pertinent results for better identification of clay brick properties. Natural rock 0.5–2.0 23–26
Natural aggregate 1.0–3.0 16–18
Compressive Strength
The importance of using good-quality aggregate cannot be overem-
phasized, because the fine and coarse aggregates generally occupy
60% to 75% of the concrete volume and strongly influence the
physical and mechanical properties of concrete (Debieb and Kenai
2008). Among these, the compressive strength of hardened con-
crete is relatively dependent on the strength of rocks, which are
the main source of sand and gravel. The compressive strength
of concrete made with crushed brick as aggregate is mainly due
to the strength of brick in its original form. To examine this matter,
different bricks in their original form were randomly selected and
loaded to failure at a prescribed rate of 0:3 MPa∕s, using a
load-control-testing machine (ASTM E74 2007a). The compres-
sive strength and the specific gravity of 30 samples were in the
range of 3–7 N∕mm2 and 1.9–2.0, respectively. However, the
compressive strength and specific gravity of natural rocks, as
the main source of aggregate for traditional concrete, are in the
range of 70–280 N∕mm2 and 2.6–2.8, respectively. This is the main
Fig. 1. The effect of five cycles of immersion of brick in sodium sulfate
reason that the compressive strength of concrete made with crushed
solution followed by drying in the oven (image by Mahmood Khayati)
clay brick is much lower than traditional concrete.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 331

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.

 Fig. 1 shows a piece of brick after five cycles of immersion in
sodium sulfate solution followed by drying. The cracks that
appeared in the sample indicate relatively low resistance of brick
to weathering action, but better performance than recycled concrete
and cement mortar.
Regarding the size, according to ASTM C33 (2008b), aggregates
are divided into coarse (9.5 mm to 50 mm) and fine (0.3 mm to
9.5 mm) aggregates (Fig. 2). After the completion of the final cycle
and washing and drying, the samples were sieved over the same sieve
on which they were retained. The percentage of the weight loss for
coarse and fine crushed brick aggregates in proportion of the initial
weight, known as aggregate soundness, is shown in Table 3.
The soundness test results indicate that cement mortar or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concrete specimens should not be tested with this method because
of the destructive effect of sulfate on cement mortar and concrete.
Perhaps for evaluation of cement mortar or concrete durability, the
freezing-and-thawing test, described in the following section, could
lead to more realistic results.
Freezing-and-Thawing Resistance
Durability of concrete is defined as its ability to resist weathering,
chemical attack, abrasion, or any other process of deterioration.
Among these factors, the resistance of aggregate to cycles of
freezing and thawing has a noticeable effect. This test covers the
procedure for determining the weight loss of aggregate produced
by repeated freezing and thawing (AASHTO T103 2008). After sat-
uration, the sample must be fully immersed in water and placed in a
freezer having a constant temperature of −23°C for 24 h, after which
it is removed and placed in a moist room having a constant temper-
ature of 21°C for 24 h. This procedure constitutes one cycle. After
completion of 10 cycles and rinsing and drying of samples, the
weight loss of samples may be determined in the same manner
as described previouslys for the soundness test. The results of the
freezing-and-thawing test are summarized in Table 3.
It is shown that the weight loss of recyclable materials is rela-
tively high. This clearly indicates that these materials possess high
porosity, causing water to fill the voids more easily. When water
Fig. 2. Gradation curve for coarse and fine natural and recycled brick
aggregate with ASTM specifications
Table 3. Soundness, Freezing-and-Thawing, and Los Angeles Test Results
Type of test Soundness (weight loss, %)
Aggregate type Coarse Fine
Crushed brick 10.9 4.1
Cement mortar/concrete 65.9 38.5
332 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.
freezes, it produces osmotic and hydraulic pressures in the capil-
laries and pores of aggregates, causing the cavities to dilate and
rupture. Considering the test results, it is anticipated that the
durability of concrete made with crushed brick shows better per-
formance when subjected to freezing weather in comparison with
concrete made with crushed cement blocks.
Degradation of Aggregates in the Los Angeles Test
The Los Angeles test is designed to determine the ability of coarse
aggregates smaller than 37.5 mm to resist abrasion, using the Los
Angeles Testing Machine in accordance with ASTM C131 (2006b)
(or AASHTO T96 2002). Abrasion resistance is essential when ag-
gregates, to be used in concrete or base and subbase of pavement,
are subject to abrasion. In this test, a specified quantity of aggre-
gates is placed in a steel drum containing steel balls, the drum is
rotated, and the percentage of material worn away is measured.
Specifications often set an upper limit on this weight loss. Table 3
gives the test results for crushed brick and concrete/cement mortar.
The test results reveal that the resistance of recycled crushed
brick to abrasion is relatively low in comparison with natural
aggregate, which is approximately 5–10% (Khaloo 1994), possibly
reducing the compressive strength of concrete made with such low-
quality aggregates.
Mechanical Properties of Concrete Made with
Crushed Brick
Successful use of recycled concrete as aggregate in concrete has
been reported in some European and American countries, as re-
viewed by Desmyster and Vyncke (2000). Although recycled con-
crete as aggregate has been used extensively, the use of low-quality
crushed brick is very limited. It should be noted that the clay bricks
that are used in the construction industry in developing countries
are produced in small and nonautomated factories. Therefore, most
clay bricks do not meet standard specifications. This fact can be
well understood when the mechanical properties of brick aggregate
are compared with natural aggregate (see Tables 2 and 3). Little
research has been devoted to studying the properties of crushed
bricks as aggregate, and only a few cases have been reported on
the use of brick aggregate in concrete (Khaloo 1994). Khaloo used
crushed hard-burned brick as concrete aggregate. This type of
brick, with a distorted or bloated shape, has much higher strength
in comparison with normal brick (which has been used in the
present study).
Test Procedure and Materials
In this paper, the properties of concrete made with fine and coarse
brick aggregates are studied. The following sections describe the
properties of concrete made with three types of crushed brick
aggregate in terms of size and material.
Both fine and coarse aggregates consist of only crushed clay
brick: the first- and second-series samples, and also samples
BBN, HBB, BBF, BBS, and BBFS of the third series.
Freezing and thawing (weight loss, %) Los Angeles abrasion (%)
Coarse Fine Smaller than 37.5 mm
2.3 12.6 49.6
35.3 44.3 46.5
 (kN∕m3 )
weight
The coarse and fine aggregates consist of crushed clay brick and

Unit

19.7
20.8
21.6
20.3

23.9
19.6
19.7
19.9
21.8
21.7
natural sand, respectively: this includes samples BNN, BGN, BNS,
and BNFS of the third series.
Both fine and coarse aggregates consist of only granite: this in-
< No.
100
cludes sample GGN of the third series, and it is just for comparison.

20
28
30
20

30
20
20
20
28
28
No additive is used for both first- and second-series samples,
and therefore no abbreviation was assigned for these two series.
No. 100

The objective of the first- and second-series samples was to inves-

The weight of aggregate retained on each sieve (kg∕m3 )

35
48
49
35

49
35
35
35
48
48
tigate the effect of the cement content and water–cement ratio
(w/c), respectively, on the compressive strength of concrete. The
third-series samples, with or without additives, aim to evaluate
No. 50

115
122

122

115
115
85

85

85
85
85
the durability. Depending on the type of the sample, a unique code
is assigned to each sample of the third series (see Table 4).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

No. 30

Gradation of Aggregate
145
196
206
145

206
145
145
145
196
196
Bricks taken from building demolition waste were crushed using a
laboratory jaw crusher. The grading of all types of aggregates fell
No. 16
215
215
215
215

287
215
215
215
215
215 within the allowable limits for the respective aggregate as specified
in ASTM C33 and shown Fig. 2. Coarse aggregate was size-
screened to a maximum 19 mm. The fineness modulus of fine ag-
No. 8
130
130
130
130

171
130
130
130
130
130

gregate, calculated on the basis of ASTM C125 (2009), was 3.7.

Saturation of Aggregate
No. 4
490
490
490
490

660
490
490
490
490
490

One of the main concerns of crushed brick is its porosity and high
water absorption. To prepare concrete for laboratory samples, all
fine and coarse crushed brick aggregates were immersed in water
mm
320
320
320
320

430
320
320
320
320
320
9.5

for 24 h. The fully saturated aggregates were then taken out of the
water, and after surface drying, they were mixed with cement and
12.5
mm
45
45
45
45

58
45
45
45
45
45

water in a mixer. This means that the aggregates were in saturated

surface dry (SSD) condition and no additional water (for absorption
compensation) was required.
Plasticizer
(mL∕m3 )

5,250
5,250
5,250
5,250

In practice, however, it is not necessary to saturate the crushed

—
—
—
—

—
—

brick aggregates before mixing. The crushed brick aggregate can be

Admixture

used in dry condition, and the amount of the water that is needed for
full saturation of aggregates can be added to the required water for
Silica fume

absorption compensation. Different absorption tests conducted by

(kg∕m3 )

——

the authors revealed that just after 5 min moisture content in the
—
—
—
—

—
28
—
28

28

brick sample or crushed brick aggregate reaches 80–90% of its

Table 4. Specifications, Mix Design, and Unit Weight of the Third-Series Samples

maximum capacity, and after approximately 20 min, it reaches

97% of its maximum capacity. This clearly indicates that all addi-
(kg∕m3 )
Cement

tional water will be absorbed during mixing and transportation (by

350
350
350
350

350
322
350
322
350
322

truck mixer), and the required water–cement ratio will remain

unchanged.
(kg∕m3 )

Specimens
Water

157.5
157.5
157.5
157.5

157.5
157.5
122.5
122.5
122.5
122.5

Cubic casting concrete molds, 100 mm in dimension, were used for

strength and durability testing, whereas cylindrical molds, 100 mm
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45

0.45
0.45
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
w∕c

in diameter and height, were used for permeability testing. All

specimens were kept in their molds for 24 h, after which they were
removed from the molds. The samples were then cured by storage
Natural sand

Natural sand
Natural sand
Hard-burned

in lime-saturated water at 20°C. The saturated water prevents leach-

Granite

Granite
Brick

Brick
Brick
Brick
brick
Fine

ing of calcium hydroxide from the samples (ASTM C511-09

Type of aggregate

2006a). After 28 days of curing, the samples were taken out from
the storage tank and prepared for compression test or durability and
permeability test. For each test, three samples were selected and the
Hard-burned

reported results are the average of three data.

Granite
Coarse
Brick
Brick
Brick

Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
Brick
brick

Mixing and Mix Design

For preparing each concrete batch, coarse and fine aggregates
(in SSD condition) and cement were placed in the mixer and mixed
for approximately 1 min. Then water was added gradually for a
period of approximately 2 min, and the batch was mixed for
Sample

BNFS
BBFS
GGN
BNN
BGN

3 min to produce a uniform concrete mix. The mix design for

BBN

HBB

BNS
BBF
BBS
code

the third series is described in the relevant section.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 333

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.

 Cement and Additives
Portland cement Type II was used in this research. No additive was
used for the first- and second-series samples. For the third-series
samples, superplasticizer in liquid state and silica fume in solid
state were added to water and cement, respectively. Superplasti-
cizers are high-range water reducers that are added to concrete with
a low to normal slump and water–cement ratio to make high-slump
concrete (ASTM C494 2008a). Silica fume as a pozzolanic admix-
ture reduces permeability even when the cement content is rela-
tively low. Concrete containing silica fume is generally reported
to have good freeze-thaw durability (Kosmatka and Panarese
2002). The amount of superplasticizer for samples with w∕c ¼
0:35 was 5,250 mL/m3 of concrete. Silica fume was replaced with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
could be a significant advantage in using recycled crushed brick
as aggregate.
Second Series (The Effect of Water–Cement Ratio)
The main objective of the second series was to evaluate the com-
pressive strength of concrete in which fine and coarse recycled
brick aggregates were used (similar to the first series). In this series,
however, the cement content was held constant (350 kg∕m3 ), and
the water–cement ratio varied from 0.45 to 0.7, for which slump,
unit weight, and compressive strength were measured. Fig. 4 shows
the variations of compressive strength, slump, and unit weight
versus water–cement ratio.

The workability for samples with slump of approximately

cement (i.e., the amount of cement was reduced 28 kg/m3 of 100 mm was acceptable for practical purposes. The corresponding
concrete). strength and w∕c were approximately 18 N∕mm2 and 0.6, respec-
tively. This low strength is good enough only for nonstructural
Workability purposes, such as paving blocks. In addition, the test results indi-
cate no significant increase in strength is observed with reducing
The workability of all mixtures was measured in terms of slump
slump lower than 100 mm.
(ASTM C143 2008d). The mixtures containing recycled crushed
The unit weight reduced from 19:9 kN∕m3 (for w∕c ¼ 0:45) to
brick aggregate were observed to be coarser and stiffer, resulting
19:4 kN∕m3 (for w∕c ¼ 0:7). This is attributable to the increasing
in relatively lower slump in comparison with traditional concrete
voids in concrete after drying, which results from increasing w∕c
made with natural aggregate (with identical w∕c). The high friction
(i.e., increasing water). The relatively low unit weight indicates that
between brick particles (in comparison with natural aggregate) is
concrete made with recycled brick aggregate can be classified as
thought to be the main reason of low slump in comparison with
semilightweight concrete.
traditional concrete (with natural aggregate).
Third Series (Durability Evaluation)
First Series (The Effect of Cement Content)
The first series aims at evaluating the compressive strength of In the third series, complementary tests were conducted to evaluate
concrete in which fine and coarse recycled brick aggregates were durability of samples. These tests include freezing-and-thawing and
used. A w/c of 0.5 was held constant for different cement content
150–350 (kg∕m3 ). The observed slump for all samples was
20–50 mm, indicating low slump in comparison with traditional
concrete. Although the slump was low (which is thought to be be-
cause of the high friction between crushed brick particles), the
workability of concrete was satisfactory because it was easy to fill
the mold. The test results of compressive strength for different
amounts of cement are depicted in Fig. 3. The figure clearly shows
that increasing cement content causes an increase in strength up to a
certain value (approximately 225 kg∕m3 ), after which no signifi-
cant increase is observed. This is mainly due to the low strength
of brick aggregates. The maximum unit weight of fresh concrete
was 19:9 kN∕m3 for the sample with 350 kg∕m3 of cement content.
This clearly indicates that concrete produced with crushed brick
aggregates can be classified as semilightweight concrete. This

Fig. 3. Compressive strength of concrete samples made with crushed Fig. 4. Variations of compressive strength and slump of the second-
brick as aggregate (first series) series samples with constant cement content and different w∕c values

334 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.

 permeability tests. In addition, the compressive strength of all sam-
ples was determined after 28 days and 90 days of curing and after
subjecting to cycles of freezing and thawing. Table 4 summarizes a
brief description, specifications, mix design, and unit weight of all
samples in this series. The main points of the third samples follow.
The cement content was held constant at 350 kg∕m3 and
w∕c ¼ 0:45 for all samples except for those with superplasticizer
admixture, in which the water–cement ratio was reduced to 0.35.
The role of superplasticizer is to increase the slump. When constant
slump is desired (e.g., w∕c ¼ 0:45), with adding plasticizer the
w∕c must be reduced to hold slump constant. This enhances the
durability of concrete.
The coarse aggregate of all samples, except samples GGN and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
HBB, is low-quality crushed brick.
The fine and coarse aggregates of sample HBB are recycled
hard-burned brick (this type of brick with distorted or bloated shape
has a relatively higher quality and more strength in comparison
with normal brick).
The fine and coarse aggregates of sample GGN are crushed
granite (very high strength rock). Samples HBB and GGN were
merely prepared to compare with samples made with recycled
crushed brick as aggregate.
The fine aggregate of samples BNN, BNS, and BNFS is natural
sand, and sample BGN is granite.
The amounts of silica fume and superplasticizer were 28 kg∕m3
and 5; 250 mL∕m3 , respectively. Silica fume was replaced with
cement (i.e., cement content was reduced 28 kg∕m3 ).
Further details of specimens for the determination of compres-
sive strength and durability tests are given subsequently, followed
by the main results for each mixture.
Compressive Strength
All samples listed in Table 4 were cured for 28 days and 90 days,
after which they were tested for compressive strength. For each test,
three samples were selected, and the reported results are the average
of these data. The test results are illustrated in Fig. 5 for the third
series.
The following points can be drawn from the test results:
• A comparison between 90-day strength of samples BBN, HBB,
and GGN (21.5, 35.5, and 57 N∕mm2 ) shows the significant
effect of aggregate strength on concrete strength. Although
the strength of the sample BBN (low-quality brick) is relatively
low and cannot be used as structural concrete, it may be used for
concrete products such as tiles and paving bricks.
Fig. 5. The 28-day and 90-day compressive strength of the third-series
samples
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 335
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.
• Silica fume or superplasticizer has no significant effect on
compressive strength when used alone (sample BBF or
BBS); however, when added together to the concrete mix,
the compressive strength will be improved (sample BBFS). This
is mainly due to the low strength and low unit weight of the
brick as the source of aggregate, which results in a lightweight
and low-strength concrete. Reducing the water–cement ratio in-
creases the compressive strength up to a certain limit, after
which no strength increase will be observed. That is why the
strength of sample BBN (with w∕c ¼ 0:45) is a little lower than
sample BBS (with w∕c ¼ 0:35 and plasticizer). However, when
silica fume and plasticizer are added to concrete together
(sample BBFS), their combination causes the crushed brick ag-
gregate to absorb cement paste better and increases compressive
strength.
• When natural sand was replaced with recycled crushed brick
(as fine aggregate), no increase in compressive strength was
observed (compare samples BBN and BNN). This could be
due to the low friction of natural sand in comparison with fine
crushed brick. However replacement of fine granite with
crushed brick (sample BGN) will improve the strength com-
pared with sample BBN. The reason is that the compressive
strength of granite rock is much higher than brick (in original
form). In addition, fine crushed granite (which has been used as
fine aggregate in sample BGN) is more frictional than crushed
clay brick.
Durability
Freezing-and-thawing resistance of concrete made with recycled
aggregate is still questionable due to the great variations in quality
and composition of the demolished concretes (Gokce et al. 2004).
The durability of concrete made with crushed brick was defined in
terms of resistance of the samples to the repeated cycles of freezing
and thawing and was determined from changes in mass and reduc-
tion in compressive strength (ASTM C666 2008c). The test was
performed by testing concrete prism in accordance with ASTM
C666, procedure B. The samples (three specimens for each sample)
were cured for 28 days in a fully saturated condition, after which
they were subjected to the freezing-and-thawing cycle. The
freezing-and-thawing cycles consisted of leaving samples in a
freezer with constant temperature of
18°C for 24 h, followed
by removal from the freezer and placement in water at 4°C for an-
other 24 h. This is considered as one cycle. The results of durability
testing of the specimens may be divided in two groups: group A
and group B.
Group A: In this group, many cracks appeared in the specimens
in the first cycle of freezing, and after a few cycles (approximately
five), samples split off. These specimens were selected from the
second-series samples for which w∕c varied from 0.55 to 0.7. This
is obviously due to the destructive effect of the high water–cement
ratio. Fig. 6 shows cracks and split-off samples in this group.
Although in many samples (including BBF and BNN with
w∕c ¼ 0:45) no cracks were observed during the first 50 cycles,
they could not sustain 120 cycles and many cracks were observed.
This indicates that although silica fume improves durability but
has no proper effect on reducing permeability.
Group B: In the second group, the samples sustained 120 cycles
and no cracks were observed. In the following sections, compres-
sive strength, weight loss, and permeability of these samples are
presented.
Compressive Strength
The samples that sustained 120 cycles and for which no cracks
were observed were then subjected to the compression test. Fig. 7

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. The effect of w∕c on freezing resistance (images by Mahmood
Khayati)
Fig. 7. The compressive strength of samples that sustained 120 cycles
of freezing and thawing
depicts the compressive strength of the samples (average of three
specimens for each sample) after 28 days and 90 days of curing
(i.e., the data of Fig. 5) and also after being subjected to 120 cycles
of freezing and thawing.
The following points can be drawn from the durability test
results:
• The effect of silica fume is generally to increase the resistance to
the freezing phenomena. Sample BBF, however, gave no appro-
priate response. This may be due to the low effect of this ad-
mixture on permeability (see next section).
• Replacement of natural sand with fine crushed brick (samples
BNN and BBN) has no significant effect on the 28-day and 90-
day compressive strength. Durability testing, however, revealed
that using natural sand instead of fine crushed recycled brick
reduces the resistance of samples to the cycles of freezing
and thawing.
• Samples BBN, HBB, BBS, and BBFS, for which both coarse
and fine aggregates are recycled crushed brick (the main objec-
tive of this research), showed the proper durability (i.e., after
being subjected to 120 cycles of freezing and thawing, no cracks
were observed in the samples). In addition, compression testing
336 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.
on samples (after 120 cycles of freezing and thawing) showed
that the compressive strength of these samples was equal to the
samples that were not subjected to cycles of freezing and thaw-
ing. This clearly indicates that the samples have both good
resistance to freezing and thawing and proper durability.
Weight Loss: The weight loss of samples (average of three spec-
imens for each sample) was measured after 10 cycles of freezing
and thawing. Due to the good resistance, no significant weight loss
was observed. This is a good reason for high performance and
durability of concrete products with recycled crushed bricks in
comparison with concrete made with natural aggregate. Recent re-
search also shows similar results (Esfahani and Hadizadeh 2008). It
was reported that the weight loss of concrete samples with natural
aggregate after 108 cycles of freezing and thawing reaches to
approximately 0.3–1%. In addition, experimental research on resis-
tance of concretes produced with recycled concrete aggregate
showed proper durability against freezing and thawing (Salem et al.
2003).
Permeability: The degree of concrete permeability has a direct
effect on its durability. The more permeable the concrete, the less
durable it is against harsh environmental conditions. It is, therefore,
another method for durability evaluation. To measure the per-
meability of the concrete sample, a sophisticated apparatus in frus-
tum cone shape was designed. Fig. 8 illustrates the conical mold,
which is made from hard Teflon. The water pressure on the samples
was 200 kN∕m2 . After 28 days of curing, a waterproof adhesive
was applied to the lateral surface area of the fully saturated conical
samples [Fig. 8(a)], which were then placed in the mold [Fig. 8(b)].
The adhesive around the sample prevented water passage from the
boundary of the sample and mold.
Because the permeability of concrete is very low, it was neces-
sary to leave the samples under 2 bars of water pressure for at least
50 days. The water pressure that was applied to the sample during
this period caused enough water to be discharged from the samples,
and it was possible to measure the weight of discharged water. The
discharged water was collected in an airtight bottle to prevent water
evaporation. The samples BBF, BBS, BNS, and BNS were selected
for permeability testing. The test was terminated when the rate of
discharged water was constant during successive weeks. Table 5 is
a summary of the permeability test.
The test results shows that sample BBF, containing silica fume,
suffers from high permeability. This indicates that silica fume,
when added to the concrete in absence of superplasticizer, has
no significant effect on reduction of the permeability.
Fig. 8. View of the permeability apparatus: (a) concrete sample and
mold; (b) samples subject to 2 bars water pressure during testing
(images by Mahmood Khayati)
 Table 5. Permeability of the Third-Series Samples
Sample code Permeability (×10
9 mm∕s)
BNN 3.98
BBF 21.63
BBS 0.632
BNS 6.67
Although both fine and coarse aggregates of sample BBS are
prepared from recycled low-quality brick, due to the use of super-
plasticizer and low w∕c, its permeability is very low. This will result
in durable concrete.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Generally, the low water–cement ratio efficiently reduces the
concrete permeability. This results in durability increase, which
was outlined in the previous section.
Concluding Remarks
The present research was an attempt to review the possibility of
brick recycling and use as aggregate in concrete. The general find-
ings of interest are that the concrete produced with crushed
brick possesses the following features: proper durability, low
permeability, light weight, and acceptable compressive strength.
Because the main results have been included at the end of each
section of the manuscript, the main points will be outlined in this
section.
The primary test results indicate that the compressive strength of
brick (in original form) is very low in comparison with natural rock.
However, crushed brick as aggregate showed high performance in
soundness and freezing-and-thawing tests. This is due to the clayey
structure and high porosity of brick.
The compressive strength of concrete made with crushed bricks
is relatively low in comparison with ordinary concrete. This is
mainly due to the low-quality of recycled crushed brick used as
concrete aggregate. The compressive strength of brick and rock
are approximately 3–7 and 70–280 N∕mm2 , respectively, which
could be the main reason for low strength for concrete made with
recycled brick. However, the main point is that in spite of the very
low quality and strength of crushed brick, the compressive strength
of concrete produced with crushed brick as aggregate is approxi-
mately 21:5 N∕mm2, which is acceptable and can be used in non-
structural purposes.
Samples BBN, HBB, BBS, and BBFS, for which both coarse
and fine aggregates are recycled brick, showed no significant re-
duction in compressive strength and weight loss after being sub-
jected to 120 cycles of freezing and thawing. This could be a
significant result because this research aimed to use crushed re-
cycled brick as aggregate.
In spite of the high permeability of recycled crushed brick, the
permeability of concrete made with crushed brick was very low,
indicating the high performance of low water–cement ratio of re-
cycled brick aggregate concrete (sample BBS with w∕c ¼ 0:35 and
use of superplasticizer). The results indicate that the permeability of
concrete is mainly related to its porosity and somehow independent
of aggregate permeability. In this research, in spite of the high water
absorption of brick, which is more that 20%, the permeability of
sample BBS is very low (0:632 × 10
9 mm∕s). This is only due
to the low porosity and permeability of the cement paste that covers
the particles.
Finally, although the quality of crushed recyclable bricks may
be questionable, and the process of concrete and brick recycling
seems to be noneconomical, the results of the present research
showed that the performance of concrete made with crushed brick
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 337
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.
is acceptable. If the cost of damage to the environment is consid-
ered, the recycling and reuse of crushed brick as concrete aggregate
is unavoidable.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the
Recycling and Transformation of Materials Organization,
Municipality of Mashhad through the research project “Recycling
of construction debris,” for carrying out this work.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
W abs = water absorption;
w∕c = water–cement ratio; and
γdry = dry roded unit weight.
References
AASHTO. (1999). “Standard method of test for soundness of aggregate by
use of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate.” T104, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2002). “Standard method of test for resistance to degradation of
small-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles
machine.” T96-02, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2008). “Standard method of test for soundness of aggregates by
freezing and thawing.” T103-08, Washington, DC.
ASTM. (2005). “Standard test method for soundness of aggregates by use
of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate.” C88-05, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2006a). “Standard specification for mixing rooms, moist cabinets,
moist rooms, and water storage tanks used in the testing of hydraulic
cements and concretes.” C511-09, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2006b). “Standard test method for resistance to degradation of
small-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles
machine.” C131-06, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007a). “Standard practice of calibration of force-measuring in-
struments for verifying the force indication of testing machines.”
E74-06, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007b). “Standard test method for density, relative density
(specific gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate.” C128-07, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008a). “Standard specification for chemical admixtures for con-
crete.” C494, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008b). “Standard specification for concrete aggregates.” C33,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008c). “Standard test method for resistance of concrete to rapid
freezing and thawing.” C666, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008d). “Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement con-
crete.” C143, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2009). “Standard terminology relating to concrete and concrete
aggregates.” C125-11b, West Conshohocken, PA.
Debieb, F., and Kenai, S. (2008). “The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks
as aggregates in concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 22(5), 886–893.
Desmyster, J., and Vyncke, J. (2000). “Properties recycled of construction
materials.” Proc. of the First ETNRecy, net/Rilem Workshop, on use of
Recycled Materials as Aggregates in Construction Industry, Paris.
Esfahani, M. R., and Hadizadeh, M. (2008). “Combination of silica fume
and the admixture of air entraining agent and stone powder for
increasing the durability of concrete against freeze and thaw cycles.”
Amirkabir J., 19(68), 9–17.
Gokce, A., Nagataki, S., Saeki, T., and Hisade, M. (2004). “Freezing and
thawing resistance of air-entrained concrete incorporating recycled
coarse aggregate: The role of air content in demolished concrete.”
Cem. Concr. Res., 34(5), 799–806.
 Hadizadeh, M., and Afchangi, A. (2005). “The impact of the
environmental-tourism project on the urban rehabilitation.” Int. Conf.
Innovative Technologies for Infrastructures and Housing, Lille, Ouvr-
age imprime a I’imprimerie de I’Universite d’Artois, Paris.
Jang, Y., and Townsend, T. (2001). “Sulfate leaching from recovered con-
struction and demolition debris fines.” Adv. Enviro. Res. J., 5(3),
203–217.
Johnson, A., Dawson, A., and Brown, G. (1998). “Recycled concrete
aggregate: An alternative concept.” Proc. of the Int. Symposium on
Sustainable Construction, K. Ravindra, A. Dhir, and C. Mukesh, eds.,
London.
Khaloo, A. R. (1994). “Properties of concrete using clinker brick as coarse
aggregate.” ACI Mater. J., 91(4), 401–407.
Kosmatka, S. H., and Panarese, W. C. (2002). Design and Control of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Muhammad Kashif Razzaq on 10/30/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Concrete Admixture, 14th Ed., Portland Cement Association (PCA),
Skokie, IL.
Municipality of Mashhad. (2007). “Annual report of construction and dem-
olition debris.” Technical Rep. No. RTMO-85, Research Centre for
Mashhad City Council, Mashhad, Iran.
Poon, C. S., and Chan, D. (2006). “Paving blocks made with recycled
338 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:330-338.
concrete aggregate and crushed clay brick.” Constr. Build. Mater.,
20(8), 569–577.
Poon, C. S., Kou, S. C., and Lam, L. (2002). “Use of recycled aggregates in
molded concrete bricks and blocks.” Constr. Build. Mater., 16(5),
281–289.
Rao, A., Jha, K. N., and Misra, S. (2007). “Use of aggregates from recycled
construction and demolition waste in concrete.” Resour., Conserv.
Recycl., 50(1), 71–81.
Robinson Jr., G. R., Menzie, W. D., and Hyun, H. (2004). “Recycling of
construction debris as aggregate in the mid-Atlantic Region, USA.”
Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 42(3), 275–294.
Salem, R. M., Burdette, E. G., and Jackson, N. M. (2003). “Resistance to
freezing and thawing of recycled concrete aggregate.” ACI Mat. J.,
100(3), 216–221.
Topcu, I. B., and Sengel, S. (2004). “Properties of concretes produced with
waste concretes aggregates.” Cem. Concr. Res., 34(8), 1307–1312.
Wahlstrom, M., Laine, Y. J., Maattanen, A., Luotojarvi, T., and Kivekas, L.
(2000). “Environmental assurance system for use of crushed mineral
demolition waste in road construction.” Waste Manage., 20(2–3),
225–232.