Applicability of The Accelerated Mortat Bar Test For Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol. 2, No.
1
Paper ID ACEM20120030
www.astm.org
Matthew P. Adams,1 Angela Jones,2 Sean Beauchemin,3 Robert Johnson,4

Benoit Fournier,5 Medhat Shehata,6 Jennifer E. Tanner,7 and
Jason H. Ideker8
Applicability of the Accelerated Mortar Bar

Test for Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled
Concrete Aggregates
REFERENCE: Adams, Matthew P., Jones, Angela, Beauchemin, Sean, Johnson, Robert, Fournier, Benoit,
Shehata, Medhat, Tanner, Jennifer E., and Ideker, Jason H., Applicability of the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test
for Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates, Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol.
2, No. 1, 2013, pp. 7896, doi:10.1520/ACEM20120030. ISSN 2165-3984.
ABSTRACT: Using recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as a replacement for natural aggregate in new concrete
is a promising way to increase the overall sustainability of new concrete. This has been hindered, however, by a
general perception that RCA is a sub-standard material because of the lack of technical guidance, specically
related to long-term durability, on incorporating RCA into new concrete. The goal of this research was to
determine whether current testing methods (namely, ASTM C1260) for assessing natural aggregate susceptibility to alkali-silica reactivity could be used to assess the potential reactivity of concrete incorporating RCA.
Seven different RCA sources were investigated. It was determined that ASTM C1260 was effective in detecting
reactivity, but expansion varied based on RCA processing. Depending on the aggregate type and the extent of
processing, up to a 100 % increase in expansion was observed. Replicate testing was performed at four university laboratories to evaluate the repeatability and consistency of results. The authors recommend modications
to the mixing and aggregate preparation procedures when testing the reactivity of RCA using ASTM C1260.
KEYWORDS: recycled concrete aggregate, alkali-silica reactivity, sustainable construction, accelerated test
Introduction
Over 150 million tons of concrete construction and demolition (C&D) debris are produced each year
in the United States alone [1,2]. As the demand for sustainable construction practices increases, more
of an emphasis is being placed on recycling waste concrete instead of disposing of the material in
landlls. Reusing waste concrete as recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) can provide three main environmental benets: it reduces the amount of debris sent to landlls, decreases the amount of natural
Manuscript received August 27, 2012; accepted for publication February 19, 2013; published online March 20,
2013.
1
Ph. D. Candidate, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331,
United States of America (Corresponding author), e-mail: Matthewpadams@gmail.com
2
Graduate Research Assistant, College of Engineering and Applied Science, Dept. of Civil & Architectural
Engineering, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, United States of America.
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Geology and Engineering Geology, Universite Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada
G1V0A6.
4
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ryerson Univ., Ryerson Univ., Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5B2K3.
5
Professor, Dept. of Geology and Engineering Geology, Universite Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada G1V0A6.
6
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ryerson Univ., Ryerson Univ., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B2K3.
7
Associate Professor, College of Engineering and Applied Science, Dept. of Civil & Architectural Engineering,
Univ. of Wyoming, WY, Laramie, WY 82071, United States of America.
8
Assistant Professor and Kearney Faculty Scholar, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State
Univ., OR, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States of America.
C 2013 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
78
Copyright V
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Nov 24 08:33:27 EST 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST
aggregates mined from the earth, and can reduce the amount of transportation required to bring
aggregates from a source location to a concrete-making facility. About 66 % of the concrete waste in
the United States is recycled, most of which is used as road base [3]. Only 6 % of the RCA that is
recycled in the United States is used as aggregate in new concrete, with the remaining RCA being
used as riprap, as ll, in hot-mix asphalt, or in other applications [3]. Sending concrete demolition
waste to landlls also has a signicant nancial effect on a project. The cost to dispose of C&D waste
in landlls can be as high as $50 a cubic yard [2]; reducing the amount of material sent to a landll
can therefore reduce the costs incurred by the construction industry. Increasing the rate of RCA use
in new concrete is an interesting approach to further reducing the amount of waste sent to landlls.
RCA is produced by crushing demolished concrete into the appropriate grading for use in civil
engineering applications. Large concrete elements are broken up using mobile impact units, which
have attachments able to remove reinforcing steel during the initial crushing phase. The rubble is
then typically shipped to a large-scale crushing facility where it is crushed further into the sizes
needed for use in construction. At this phase, magnets can be passed over the crushed material to
remove any remaining reinforcing steel in the concrete [4].
An RCA particle consists of two phases: the original natural aggregate and the adhered mortar
[5]. The original natural aggregate is the coarse aggregate that was used in the creation of the parent concrete. The adhered mortar consists of cement paste and the original ne aggregate. The
adhered mortar content of RCA increases as the RCA particle size decreases; this is due to weaker
componentsnamely, the adhered mortarbreaking off rst in crushing operations and being
fractured into smaller sizes [6]. In general, the porosity of RCA is typically higher than that of natural aggregates, reaching up 12 percentage points higher depending on the amount of adhered mortar and the aggregate size [7]. Subsequently, the absorption capacity of RCA has been found to be
up to eight percentage points higher than that of natural aggregates [8,9].
Past work has shown that concrete made with RCA can undergo up to a 30 % reduction in compressive strength [7,10,11]. Additionally, reductions in the modulus of elasticity of up to 50 % have
been noted [9,11,12]. These mechanical property values vary depending on the quality of the RCA
and the replacement level of RCA for natural aggregates, as well as the mixture design. Further
research has shown, however, that when designed properly, concrete made with RCA can actually
attain the same or better mechanical properties as concrete made with natural aggregates [1315].
In order for RCA to be used as a replacement material, new concrete made with it must meet or
exceed the current standards for concrete strength and durability. Currently, within the concrete
industry, there is a perception that RCA is a substandard building material, and this has inhibited
its inclusion in concrete mixtures [16,17]. This can be attributed to a lack of signicant research
proving the acceptability of RCA as a replacement material for natural aggregate, as well as a lack
of technical guidance on how to specify RCA for new construction. A study performed in 2003 by
the Federal Highway Administration showed that 11 U.S. state transportation agencies used RCA
as a replacement for natural aggregates in new concrete. That study found that the states using
RCA in new concrete were particularly concerned about its potential alkali-silica reactivity [16].
Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is a leading cause of concrete deterioration worldwide that often
results in a reduction of service life in affected structures and pavements. ASR was rst reported in
the 1940s by Stanton after he examined pavements in California that had deteriorated because of excessive expansion [18]. ASR is the result of the reaction of alkalis (Na and K), hydroxyl ions
(OH), and reactive silica. In concrete made with natural aggregates, the reactive alkalis are provided
mainly by the cement, and the reactive silica is present in the aggregates [19,20]. The RCA might
79
80
ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS
contribute more alkalis to the system than natural aggregates. There might be alkalis in the adhered
mortar, or RCA that comes from parent concrete that was exposed to deicing salts might contain
higher levels of alkalis than natural aggregates [21]. The presence of alkalis in the pore solution results
in a high concentration of hydroxyl ions needed in order to maintain charge balance, which in turn
causes the high pH of the pore solution. The chemical reaction that occurs during ASR causes a gel
to form in and around aggregates and in the surrounding pores in the cement paste matrix. The ASR
gel is hygroscopic, and as it absorbs water, it expands. This expansion exerts a tensile force on the
surrounding concrete matrix that, if it exceeds the tensile capacity of the concrete, can cause cracking.
Cracks in the concrete provide a path for more moisture to enter the system, which will cause more
expansion of the ASR gel and further cracking. The ingress of moisture into the system can also lead
to failure via other mechanisms such as corrosion or freeze-thaw attack [19,20].
One of the most common tests to determine whether a particular aggregate will cause deleterious expansions due to ASR in new concrete is ASTM C1260, Standard Test Method for Potential
Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method), also known as the accelerated mortar
bar test (AMBT) [22]. However, the use of this test has not been approved for use with RCA. One
of the rst studies to test RCA using the AMBT method was performed by Shayan and Xu, but
they followed the Australian standard RTA T363, which differs slightly from ASTM C1260, mainly
in mortar mixing procedures [23,24]. Their study tested an RCA that contained an original natural
basalt/dolerite aggregate. The authors noted that this natural aggregate is known to exhibit potentially deleterious expansions in the AMBT but performs satisfactorily in the eld. In the AMBT,
the RCA did exhibit potentially deleterious expansions. However, because the reactive component
in the RCA (the original natural basalt/dolerite aggregate) is known to give false negative results in
the AMBT, this information is not fully appropriate for rating the suitability of the AMBT to evaluate the potential alkali-silica reactivity of RCA.
Li and Gress performed a study that evaluated the alkali-silica reactivity of an RCA that came
from a concrete pavement that had deteriorated because of ASR and which contained an original
natural coarse quartzite aggregate that was known to be reactive [25]. This study indicated that
ASTM C1260 was capable of exhibiting the potential alkali-silica reactivity in RCA. The study also
compared the expansion results of ASTM C1260 testing for the RCA and the original natural aggregate. The mortar bars consisted of either 100 % RCA or 100 % natural aggregate. The results
showed that the RCA had lower levels of reactivity than the original natural aggregate [25].
Work by Shehata et al. did seek to understand whether the AMBT would be suitable for use
with RCA [26]. The study was performed on RCA that contained a well-known reactive original
natural siliceous limestone coarse aggregate from Ottawa, ON, Canada, known as Spratt. The study
conrmed that the AMBT was capable of determining whether RCA was reactive. The authors also
observed that the crushing procedure used to reduce the RCA to the grading requirements of the
AMBT test affected the reactivity of the RCA [26].
In these studies it was demonstrated that ASTM C1260 was capable of detecting potential aggregate reactivity [23,25,26]. It is still unclear, however, whether the test can accurately predict the level
of reactivity seen in eld concrete. The following key pieces of information have not been elucidated:
1. the reproducibility of results,
2. the effect of crushing procedures on measured reactivity due to changes in particle composition
during the crushing process, and
3. the reliability of results when compared to other ASR testing procedures and results from eld
exposure.
This study examined the rst two points noted above, including the applicability of the current
ASTM C1260 test method for detecting RCA reactivity due to ASR. This study was performed in
two phases as a multi-laboratory study. The same materials were used in each of the four laboratories, so that testing differences occurred only in laboratory equipment and researchers preparing,
monitoring, and analyzing the samples. Phase I was completed using four laboratory-created
RCAs. This phase specically investigated the effects of the crushing procedure on the reactivity of
RCA when tested using ASTM C1260. Expansions of mortar bars containing RCA prepared using
two different crushing procedures are presented and discussed. Multi-laboratory precision results
from four university laboratories are also presented for these four aggregates, showing the reproducibility of results across the four laboratories. Phase II was completed with three stockpiled or
demolished eld structure RCAs to conrm whether the precision results shown in phase I would
be comparable to precision results obtained using non-laboratory created RCA, and whether reactivity can be detected using RCAs of younger and older ages than that of the laboratory-created
RCAs. Multi-laboratory precision results from two university laboratories are presented and discussed for these three aggregates. Overall reactivity trends for all seven RCAs used as part of this
study are also presented and discussed. This information provides data on current test methods for
ASR when using RCA that contribute to our understanding of whether ASTM International standards need to be modied to allow the usage of RCAs. It is essential that the reliability of the test
methods be understood before their use is allowed for new types of aggregates.
Materials
Aggregates
Seven different RCAs were obtained for this study. Four RCAsAl-R, Be-R, Po-R, and Sp-R
were produced from the crushing of outdoor exposure blocks that were used in a long-term aggregate alkali-silica reactivity testing and correlation study performed at CANMET, in Ottawa, ON,
Canada [27,28]. The exposure blocks were cast under controlled laboratory conditions and measured nominally (15 15 28) in.3 [(40 40 70) cm3]. The mixture design for the blocks did
not contain any supplementary cementitious materials. The blocks chosen for this study were chosen based on their age, extent of ASR damage, and variation in mineralogy of reactive original natural aggregate. The other three RCAs, Ca-R, St-R, and Op-R, were chosen to determine whether
reactivity can still be detected with RCAs of differing ages and original concrete sources.
The Ca-R RCA was created by crushing slabs that had been produced from returned concrete at
a ready-mix concrete facility in Oregon. The St-R and Op-R aggregates were created from demolished structures that had deteriorated because of ASR in Wyoming. The RCA produced from the
ready-mix facilitys returned concrete represented a stockpiled material consisting of parent concretes that had different mixture designs, including varying water-to-cement ratios, amounts of y
ash, and chemical admixtures. The concrete was young when demolished (<1 month) relative to
the laboratory-created RCAs used in phase I; the returned concrete slabs were crushed and stored
shortly after setting. The RCA from the structures in Wyoming was from a parent concrete of
which little is known, including the type of aggregate, except that it had undergone ASR damage.
Although the exact age of these concrete structures was unknown, these RCAs came from a source
that was signicantly older than that of the RCAs used in phase I. The various sources of RCA represent a wide range of the potential types of RCA that might be encountered in the eld, including
those with relatively little known information and those with increased amounts of known information. Table 1 summarizes the following information concerning RCAs used in this test: RCA
81
82
TABLE 1Recycled concrete aggregate mineralogy and source.
Recycled
Concrete
Aggregate
Origin
Aggregate
Concrete
Natural Aggregate
Prism
Mortar Bar
Expansion in
Expansion
in ASTM C1260 ASTM C1293
Test (1-year
Test (14-day
expansion), %
expansion), %
24-hour
Absorption
Capacity of
Recycled
Concrete
Aggregate, %
Recycled
Concrete
Aggregate
Natural
Aggregate
Mineralogy
Al-R
Sandstones
and
greywackes
(CA)
Exposure block
from Ontario,
Canada
Laboratorycreated
0.36
0.09
6.66
Be-R
Argillaceous
(CA)
Laboratorycreated
0.17
0.04
6.18
Po-R
Quartzitic
sandstone
(CA)
Silicious
(CA)
Exposure block
from Ontario,
Canada
Exposure block
from Ontario,
Canada
Exposure block
from Ontario,
Canada
Laboratorycreated
0.09
0.13
4.22
Laboratorycreated
0.46
0.22
7.78
Sp-R
Source
Type
Ca-R
Silicious river
gravel (CA
and FA)
Returned concrete
stockpile at
Oregon readymix
facility
Stockpile
FA: 0.81
CA: 0.59
Unknown
9.32
St-R
Unknown
Field structure
Unknown
Unknown
3.01
Op-R
Unknown
ASR-affected stairs
in Wyoming
ASR-affected
foundation in
Wyoming
Field structure
Unknown
Unknown
3.62
Notes: CA, coarse aggregate; FA, ne aggregate.
source, original natural aggregate type, expansion in ASTM C1260 [22] and ASTM C1293 [29]
(where available), and absorption capacity of the RCA.
Cement
An ASTM C150 type I/II Portland cement with a high alkali content and Na2Oeq of 0.91 % was
used in this study. All laboratories used the same cement for the multi-laboratory study. Table 2
shows the oxide analysis for this cement.
Procedures
The ASTM C1260 test method was used in this study to assess the potential alkali-silica reactivity
of the selected RCAs. According to ASTM C1260, mortar prisms that measure (1 1 11.25) in.3
[(25 25 285) mm3] were cast at a ne-aggregate-to-cement ratio of 2.75:1 and a w/cm of 0.47.
A stainless steel gauge stud was cast into both ends of each bar to provide an effective 10.00 6 0.10
in. (254 6 2.54 mm) gauge length. After curing for 24 6 2 h in 95 % or greater relative humidity at
73 F 6 3 F (23 C 6 2 C), the mortar bars were submerged in tap water and placed in a
176 F 6 3.6 F (80 C 6 3.6 C) oven where they equilibrated before the next reading. The initial, or
zero, reading of the bars was taken 24 6 2 h later, and the bars were quickly transferred to a
TABLE 2Cement oxide analysis.

Oxide
Oxide Short
Type I/II High-Alkali Cement
Silicon dioxide
Aluminum oxide
SiO2
Al2O3
19.57
4.88
Iron oxide
Fe2O3
2.91
Calcium oxide
Magnesium oxide
CaO
MgO
60.82
2.52
Sodium oxide
Na2O
0.27
K2O
Na2Oeq
0.97
0.91
SO3
3.32
Potassium oxide
Total alkalis
Sulfur trioxide
Loss on ignition
2.82
solution of 1 N NaOH that was already at 176 F 6 3.6 F (80 C 6 3.6 C). The bars then remained
in 1 N NaOH at 176 F 6 3.6 F (80 C 6 3.6 C) for a period of 28 days [22]. Several measurements
were taken throughout this time period at approximately the same time each day. For this study,
length measurements were taken at 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 21, 24, and 28 days. Length change
was recorded to the nearest 0.0001 in. (0.0025 mm), calculated to 0.001 %, and results are presented
for the average of three prisms to the nearest 0.01 %, per ASTM C1260 [22].
Expansion criteria for this test fall into three categories within ASTM C1260 based on expansion
measured 16 days after casting (14 days after immersion in 1 N NaOH). Expansions of less than
0.10 % are generally considered as indicative of innocuous behavior. Expansions of more than
0.20 % indicate that the aggregates are potentially deleterious. Expansions that fall between 0.10 %
and 0.20 % indicate that the aggregate might exhibit either innocuous or deleterious performance
in the eld [22]. The above expansion criteria, as described in ASTM C1260, are not actually used
by many researchers or agencies; instead, many ASR researchers and engineers use an expansion
limit of 0.10 % after 14 days of immersion in the soak solution to indicate aggregate reactivity [30].
Some testing agencies and researchers monitor the specimens longer, often up to 28 days after initial submersion in the 1 N NaOH solution, with continued periodic measurements. However,
research has shown that using the 0.10 % expansions limit at 28 days after immersion does not correlate well with eld performance for natural aggregates; some aggregates will be considered as
potentially deleterious when they actually perform satisfactorily in the eld [30]. An expansion
limit of 0.10 % at 14 days after submersion in 1 N NaOH at 176 F 6 3.6 F (80 C 6 3.6 C) was
used for the purposes of this study. Therefore, any mixtures that resulted in an expansion above
0.10 % at the 14-day limit were considered as indicative of potentially deleterious expansions [22].
The multi-laboratory precision for this test states that for expansions greater than 0.1 %, the average coefcient of variation is 15.2 % at 14 days after submersion in 1 N NaOH, and the difference
between tests conducted in two different laboratories (i.e., the multi-laboratory reproducibility
limit) should not exceed 43 % from the mean expansion for natural aggregates [22]. The multilaboratory reproducibility limit, or d2s % value, of 43 % and the average coefcient of variation of
15.2 % currently set forth in ASTM C1260 were originally developed through a multi-laboratory
study of 46 laboratories conducting the AMBT method [31]. These tests were performed using natural aggregates, however, and therefore the values are not necessarily applicable for use with RCA.
The reproducibility limit dened in ASTM E177, Standard Practice for Use of the Terms Precision
83
84
and Bias in ASTM Test Methods, was used to determine the reproducibility limit for the testing
performed as a part of this study and is calculated as follows [32,33]:
p
d2s % 1:960 2COV
where:
d2s % reproducibility limit, and
COV multi-laboratory coefcient of variation.
Aggregate Preparation
The ASTM C1260 test is a mortar bar test and requires that the aggregate be a specic ne aggregate grading as specied in Ref 22. The RCA must be crushed using mechanical methods in order
to reach this grading. The parent concretes were rst broken up on site using large mechanical
means into pieces less than 4 in. (10 cm) in diameter. These were then brought to a pilot-scale
crushing facility that reduced the material into pieces nominally 0.005 to 0.75 in. (0.127 to 19 mm)
in diameter. If required, these pieces were then further crushed using laboratory-scale crushing
machines to the appropriate grading for the ASTM C1260 test.
Gress speculated that using the ASTM C1260 grading required aggregate crushing that is too
aggressive because it can destroy the integrity of the two-phase RCA particle (original natural aggregate and adhered mortar) and thus alter its reactivity [34]. Shehata et al. also evaluated this
problem by performing ASTM C1260 testing on ne RCA produced through one level of crushing
and then a second set of testing on RCA that was produced by crushing coarse RCA of 19 mm
nominal maximum size. The study found that processing can have a signicant effect on the reactivity of RCA, which was attributed to the amount of reactive aggregate relative to residual mortar
in the produced RCA [26]. However, that study examined only one source of RCA. To further
investigate the effect of processing, material from the crushing facility produced from the four exposure blocks from Ottawa, ON, Canada (i.e., aggregates labeled Al-R, Be-R, Po-R, and Sp-R) that
met the ASTM C1260 grading (i.e., <0.157 in. (4 mm)) was put aside and labeled as crushers
nes (CF). The larger material (i.e., 0.157 in. (4 mm) to 0.75 in. (19 mm)) produced from the
pilot-scale crushing was then re-crushed using laboratory crushers to the appropriate grading for
ASTM C1260 and labeled re-crushed (RC). These two materials were then tested separately as
part of the multi-laboratory study. Generally, the CF were observed (visually) to have a high
adhered mortar content, whereas the RC aggregate had a more even distribution of adhered mortar
and original natural aggregate. Petrographic analysis was carried out to determine the residual
mortar content in the ne RCA material, and those results are presented in Ref 35. The three aggregates used in phase II, Ca-R, St-R, and Op-R, were evaluated using only the RC material.
Aggregate Washing
Previous researchers have speculated that washing aggregates might result in a reduction in expansion due to the washing away of available alkalis [25,26]. However, ASTM C1260 states that aggregates that need to be crushed in order to meet the grading requirements must be washed free of
dust and ne particles and then dried prior to use [22]. This is typically done by placing the
crushed aggregate over a sieve of a ner mesh size than the minimum aggregate size and spraying
with tap water until the water that passes through the aggregate runs clear. It was necessary to
modify the aggregate-washing procedure prior to incorporating RCA into sample mixtures. When
doing this with the RCA, it was found that the water did not run clear after 1 h of continuous washing. A prolonged washing period might alter the characteristics of the RCA by eroding away
adhered mortar, hydrating unhydrated cement particles in the RCA, washing away (e.g., leaching)
calcium hydroxide or alkalis from the RCA, or washing away existing ASR gel within the RCA. In
order to counter these effects while still providing a basic level of washing for the aggregate, an
alternate procedure was adopted as follows:
1. Sieve each aggregate and keep aggregates separated according to each fraction retained on various
sieve sizes.
2. Measure out about 3.5 lb (1600 g) of material onto a ne sieve.
3. Wash aggregate using a rubber hose with a fanned-spray hose nozzle for the following times for
each sieve size:
#8 sieve: 3 min 30 s
#16 sieve: 5 min
#30 sieve: 6 min
#50 sieve: 7 min
#100 sieve: 8 min
4. Place aggregate into a 230 F (110 C) oven to dry for 24 6 2 h before using.
Absorption Capacity
As noted earlier, the absorption capacity of RCA has been shown to be signicantly higher than
that of virgin aggregate, depending on the composition of the RCA [8,9]. The standard test method
for determining the absorption capacity of aggregates, ASTM C128 [36], is not currently approved
for use with RCA [37], because it states that a soak time of 24 6 4 h is required in order for full saturation to be reached. This soak time might not be valid for aggregates with high absorption
capacities. In order to nd the appropriate soak time for RCA, a laboratory-created RCA was
soaked for 24, 48, and 72 h. The absorption capacity was checked for each soak time, and it was
determined that the RCA reached 95 % of its absorption capacity within 24 h of soaking and exhibited minimal gain in water uptake at 48 and 72 h. Furthermore, a soak time of only 30 min was
required to reach 85 % of the total absorption capacity of the aggregate. It was determined that
ASTM C128s 24 h soak period could be used to determine the absorption capacity of the RCA.
The 24 h absorption capacity of the RCA used in this study can be seen in Table 1.
Mortar Bar Mixing Procedure

Previous work by Scott and Gress using the concrete prism test (ASTM C1293) showed that using
RCA in the oven-dry state in ASR testing could result in early expansion of the test specimens.
This is thought to be because the highly absorptive RCA takes in water from the concrete matrix
and swells. It was shown that presoaking aggregates prior to running the ASR tests produced less
early expansion [21]. Also, the high absorption capacity can result in a signicant reduction in
workability when using RCA [38]. Therefore, it was decided that the RCA should be soaked in the
mixing water, with an adjustment to account for the absorption capacity of the aggregates. The
RCA was soaked for 30 min to allow 85 % of the absorption capacity of the RCA to be met prior to
its use in the ASTM C1260 test. This was determined based on the absorption rate of the RCA.
ASTM C1260 [22] states that the mixing procedure for casting the mortar bars should follow
ASTM C305 [37]. This standard states that the mixing water should be placed in the bottom of a
1.25 gal (4.73 l) three-speed commercial mixer, with the cement placed on top. This then soaks for
85
86
30 s before the aggregate is mixed in [37]. Because of this, the mixing procedure needed to be modied to accommodate the presoaking of the RCA. The modied mixing procedure was as follows:
1. After washing and drying the aggregates, soak in the mixing water, which has been corrected for
95 % of the aggregate absorption, for a period of 30 min.
2. Mix soaked aggregate for 30 s in mixer on low speed.
3. Slowly add cement over a 30 s period while mixing on low speed.
4. Stop the mixer and let the mortar stand for 1 min and 30 s. During the rst 15 s of this rest period,
scrape down into the mixture any mortar that might have collected on the side of the bowl; then
cover the bowl with a lid.
5. Finish mixing the mortar on medium speed for 1 min.
6. Cast specimens.
Testing Program
The testing program for this work was performed in two phases. Phase I included the fourlaboratory multi-laboratory study. This phase of the study used the Al-R, Be-R, Po-R, and Sp-R
RCAs. In order to examine the effects of the crushing procedure, different mixtures were cast using
the CF and RC versions of this RCA. Specimens with 100 % RCA, 50 % RCA, and 25 % RCA were
cast for both the CF and RC versions with non-reactive natural sand (i.e., expansions below 0.10 %
in the ASTM C1260 test) used for the remaining portion of the material required for the mixtures.
This phase also provided data from the multi-laboratory study with which to assess the tests
repeatability and the applicability of the precision statements listed in ASTM C1260. Phase II
involved further ASR testing of RCA in a second, two-laboratory study using the Ca-R, St-R,
and Op-R RCAs to determine whether stockpiled and eld-structure-sourced RCA produced
repeatability results similar to those produced with the laboratory aggregates. Specimens with
100 % RCA, 50 % RCA, and 25 % RCA replacement levels were cast using the Ca-R RCA, and
specimens with 100 % RCA, 50 % RCA, and 20 % RCA replacement levels were cast using the St-R
and Op-R RCAs. The number of ASTM C1260 mortar bar sets cast by each laboratory in both
phases can be seen in Table 3.
The naming convention for mortar mixtures used in this study is as follows: original natural aggregate namerecycled (R)replacement level of RCA for natural aggregatecrushers nes (CF) or
re-crushed (RC) (for phase I only). Thus, for an RCA with Be as its original natural aggregate at a
25 % replacement level using the CF, the mixture name is Be-R-25-CF.
Results
Figure 1 presents the 14-day expansions (average of all bars for each mixture from all laboratories)
for mortars bars containing each of the different RCAs used in the multi-laboratory study. This gure is split into two parts: side A, which shows the results of the phase I study that examined the
effects of crushing procedures on the reactivity of RCA, and side B, which shows the results of the
phase II study that examined the reactivity of stockpiled and eld-structure-sourced RCA.
The results from the phase I study show that Al-R-25-CF, Al-R-50-CF, Al-R-100-CF, and Sp-R50-CF were the only sample sets of CF aggregates to exceed the expansion criteria of 0.10 %, classifying them as potentially deleterious. For the RC material, however, there are seven sample sets
that exceeded the expansion criteria: Al-R-25-RC, Al-R-50-RC, Al-R-100-RC, Be-R-100-RC, Sp-R25-RC, Sp-R-50-RC, and Sp-R-100-RC. Of all the RCAs, Po-R was the only set that exhibited less
expansion when made with RC aggregate. Al-R, Sp-R, and Be-R showed increased expansion when
TABLE 3Multi-laboratory mortar bar sets for phase I and II.

Phase I Sets
Crushers Fines RCA
a
Mixture Type
Po-R
Sp-R
Be-R
Al-R
100 % RCA
50 % RCA
25 % RCA
Re-crushed RCA
Mixture Typea
Po-R
Sp-R
Be-R
Al-R
100 % RCA
50 % RCA
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
25 % RCA
Phase II Sets
Mixture Typea
Ca-R
St-R
Op-R
100 % RCA
50 % RCA
25 % RCA
20 % RCA
2
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
2
Note: Each set composed of three mortar bars.

Percent replacement of natural aggregate by RCA.
using the RC aggregate. It should be noted that the original natural aggregate used in the Po-R was
a quartzitic sandstone (see Table 1) that generates low expansion in the ASTM C1260 test. This is a
result of the crushing process, which can reduce or eliminate the reactive siliceous phase from the
size fractions used for mortar bar testing [39].
FIG. 1Average expansion at 14 days for all sample sets using all RCAs.
87
88
The Sp-R and Al-R showed signicantly higher expansions in the RC RCA sets (over 100 %
increase in expansion at 100 % replacement levels for both aggregates). There is also a general trend
that higher replacement levels produced higher expansions for both the CF and the RC nes,
though there are exceptions to this in the CF sets, particularly the Be-R-50-CF and Sp-R-50-CF
sets. Also observed is that for all four aggregates shown, the expansion increase between different
levels of processing decreased as the aggregate replacement level decreased.
Table 4 shows the average expansions, the coefcients of variation, and the reproducibility limits
among laboratories for each RCA replacement level and aggregate type used in phase I of this study
for the CF and RC nes.
The coefcient of variation (COV) for this group of results varied greatly. The sample sets cast
with the CF showed multi-laboratory COVs that varied from 10.8 % to 27.6 %. The sample sets
TABLE 4Multi-laboratory expansion averages, coefcients of variation, and reproducibility limits for phase I RCAs.
RCA Replacement
Level and
Aggregate Type
Number of
Samples (Bars)
Average
Expansion, %
Coefficient of Variation
Between Laboratories, %
Reproducibility
Limit Between
Laboratories, d2s, %
Re-Crushed Al-R, Sp-R, Po-R, and Be-R RCA

Al-R-25-RC
Al-R-50-RC
24
24
0.20
0.28
11.5
11.5
32.0
31.8
Al-R-100-RC
12
0.31
5.8
16.1
Be-R-25-RCa
12
0.08
22.8
63.1
Be-R-50-RCa
Be-R-100-RC
24
12
0.09
0.11
8.5
17.5
23.4
48.4
Po-R-25-RCa
Po-R-50-RCa
12
12
0.05
0.06
27.5
7.3
76.2
20.3
Po-R-100-RCa
12
0.07
10.4
28.7
Sp-R-25-RC
12
0.20
16.5
45.7
Sp-R-50-RC
Sp-R-100-RC
12
36
0.29
0.32
7.9
20.2
21.9
56.0
Crushers Fines Al-R, Sp-R, Po-R, and Be-R RCA

Al-R-25-CF
Al-R-50-CF
24
24
0.10
0.14
19.0
27.6
52.7
76.6
Al-R-100-CF
12
0.15
21.1
58.6
Be-R-25-CFa
12
0.07
20.5
56.9
Be-R-50-CFa
24
0.06
21.0
58.1
Be-R-100-CFa
12
0.08
16.9
46.8
Po-R-25-CFa
Po-R-50-CFa
12
12
0.06
0.07
22.9
13.1
63.4
36.2
Po-R-100-CFa
12
0.08
10.8
29.9
Sp-R-25-CF
12
0.08
22.2
61.6
Sp-R-50-CF
12
0.11
27.1
75.1
Sp-R-100-CFa
24
0.09
26.8
74.2
Indicates mixtures for which average 14-day expansion was less than 0.10 %.
TABLE 5Multi-laboratory expansion averages, coefcients of variation, and precision limits for phase II RCAs.
Number of
Samples (Bars)
Average
Expansion, %
Coefficient of
Variation Between
Laboratories, %
Reproducibility
Limit Between
Laboratories, d2s, %
Ca-R-25
12
0.28
3.4
9.4
Ca-R-50
12
0.44
3.3
9.2
Ca-R-100
St-R-20a
12
12
0.50
0.08
3.8
8.7
10.5
24.1
St-R-50a
12
0.07
14.3
39.7
St-R-100a
Op-R-20a
12
12
0.06
0.07
4.6
7.7
12.8
21.5
Op-R-50a
12
0.06
3.0
8.2
Op-R-100a
0.05
14.2
39.5
RCA Replacement
Level and
Aggregate Type
Indicates mixtures for which average 14-day expansion was less than 0.10 %.
cast with the RC material showed multi-laboratory COVs that varied from 5.8 % to 27.5 %. The
highest multi-laboratory COV was for the Al-R-50-CF at 27.6 %. Compared to the current version
of ASTM C1260 (for natural aggregates), 10 of 12 sets exceeded the 15.2 % COV limit in the CF
set. However, six of these had average expansions below 0.10 %, for which a COV is not given in
ASTM C1260 precision and bias statements [22]. Five of 12 sets exceeded the 15.2 % COV limit in
the RC nes sets, two of which had average expansions below 0.10 %. The reproducibility limit for
the RC material varied from 16.1 % to 76.2 %, and for the CF material it varied from 29.9 % to
76.6 %.
Figure 1, side B, shows the expansion of mortar bar specimens at 14 days for the phase II study.
Of the aggregates tested as part of phase II, the Ca-R was the only one to present as reactive enough
to cause potentially deleterious expansions according to the ASTM C1260 14-day expansion limit.
Neither St-R nor Op-R exceeded this limit.
Table 5 shows the mean expansions, the COVs, and the reproducibility limit between laboratories for each RCA replacement level and aggregate type used in phase II of this study. The COVs
for this set of aggregates ranged from 3.0 % to 14.3 % and were all within the 15.2 % COV limit outlined in ASTM C1260. The reproducibility limits (d2s %) calculated from the COVs for the phase
II materials varied from 8.2 % to 39.7 %. This also falls within the current 43 % outlined in ASTM
C1260.
The phase I and phase II results show that expansions were highly varied and dependent on aggregate type and RCA replacement level. For all aggregates except the two produced from eld
structures in Wyoming (St-R and Op-R), the higher replacement levels produced higher expansions. The St-R and Op-R, however, showed an opposing trend to this: higher replacement levels
produced lower expansions. When comparing the ASTM C1260 14-day average expansions for the
mortar bars made with RCAs shown in Fig. 1 with the corresponding original natural aggregate
mortar bar expansions listed in Table 1, it is observed that no RCA caused greater expansions than
its original natural aggregate in the ASTM C1260 test.
Discussion
The data presented here conrm the results of previous work [23,25,26] showing that the ASTM
C1260 testing method is able to detect the potential alkali-reactivity of RCA by measuring
89
90
expansions in mortar bars in which the RCA is incorporated. The data show that the level of reactivity is signicantly affected by the following:
the crushing procedure used to reduce the RCA to the appropriate grading for ASTM C1260,
the amount of RCA incorporated into the mixture, and
the reactivity of the original natural aggregate.
Figure 1, side A, shows that the crushing procedure has a signicant impact on the level of expansion seen in the ASTM C1260 test. This was attributed to a reduction in adhered mortar that occurs
during the crushing process. As an RCA goes through successive crushing, the adhered mortar is
more likely to be crushed off rst, leaving higher percentages of original natural aggregate content in
the RCA [6]. The petrographic examination of the ne aggregate particles (CF and RC) in this study
indicated that the proportion of adhered mortar varied as a function of the nature of the original natural aggregate [rock type (possibly because of the relative hardness of the rock compared to that of
the adhered cement paste) and type of material (i.e., crushed aggregate versus well-rounded river
gravel)] and the particle size [35]. An extra level of crushing generally caused the RC aggregate to
have a higher original natural aggregate content than the CF, which provided more reactive aggregate. Subsequently, the mortar bars made with RC material exhibited higher expansions than those
made with the CF, at least for three out of the four aggregates tested (Al-R, Be-R, and Sp-R). In the
case of the Po-R material, the behavior in the AMBT was found to be different (Fig. 1), which is
related to the petrographic nature of the material [39]. Research in progress at Laval University has
shown that using the RC material with ASTM C1260 better correlates with expansions obtained with
the different coarse RCAs in the concrete prism test (ASTM C1293) and therefore is more representative of coarse RCA used in new concrete [40]. A similar observation was reported by Shehata et al.
[26]: a strong correlation was found between the 14-day expansion of the accelerated mortar bar and
the one-year expansions, or two-year in the case of mixtures with supplementary cementitious materials, of concrete prisms with coarse RCA containing reactive aggregate from Ottawa, ON, Canada.
A general trend observed in expansions of the mortar bars presented here is that their expansions increase as their RCA replacement levels increase (from 20 % or 25 % to 50 % to 100 %). This
increase in expansion can be attributed to factors similar to those that caused more expansion in
the RC RCA than in the CF RCA: as more RCA is included in the mixture of the mortar bar, more
of the reactive original natural aggregate is also included in the mortar bar. This observation is consistent for most of the presented RCAs; however, the St-R and Op-R aggregates do not follow this
trend. This might be a result of the age of the parent concrete, or perhaps ASTM C1260 was not
able to properly indicate the reactivity of these particular RCAs.
Though the expansions of these two aggregates decrease as the replacement amount increases,
the difference in expansion is not signicantly different (a difference of 0.01 % between each
replacement level for both aggregates). This suggests that the reactivity difference relative to the
other aggregates might be caused by a lack of available reactive silica. The eld structures that were
the parent concrete for St-R and Op-R were older at the time of removal from service than the exposure blocks and the returned concrete slabs were at the time of their demolition. A longer time
span allows more time for the ASR to occur. This might have depleted some of the available reactive silica in the original natural aggregates, leaving less reactive silica in the aggregate to react in
the ASTM C1260 test. Further testing and petrographic examination of the RCAs and mortar bars
following ASTM C856 [41] should be performed in order to conrm whether there was depletion
of reactive material. When RCA is used in new concrete, it is often used as a partial replacement
for natural aggregate, typically recommended to be limited to 30 % to 50 % coarse RCA or 20 % to

30 % ne RCA [10,23,42]. This differing trend shows that at all replacement levels, testing is
required in order to ensure that the reactivity of the RCA is characterized accurately.
The highest average expansions exhibited in this study are those of the mortar bars made with
the Ca-R aggregate at a 100 % RCA replacement. These mortar bars had an average expansion of
0.50 %. The main reactive component of RCA is provided by the original natural aggregate. The
original natural aggregate for the Ca-R has the highest expansion in the ASTM C1260 test out of
all the known expansions for the original natural aggregates used in the creation of the RCA parent
concretes used in this study. Additionally, the Ca-R aggregate contained both a reactive original
natural ne and original natural coarse aggregate; however, a pessimum effect was not observed.
All of the RCAs produced from the laboratory-cast exposure blocks were made with an original
natural reactive coarse aggregate. The Ca-R would contain comparatively more reactive material in
it, because there would be reactive material in both the adhered mortar and the original natural aggregate. All of the RCAs with original natural aggregates that caused expansions exceeding the
ASTM C1260 14-day expansion limit of 0.10 % after submersion in 1 N NaOH at 176 F 6 3.6 F
(80 C 6 3.6 C) also resulted in expansions that exceeded the ASTM C1260 expansion limit. It is
important to note, however, that this might not always be the case.
It is important to note that this set of results is true for the ASTM C1260 testing environment
only. Further research needs to be completed in order to correlate the results presented here with
other tests, particularly ASTM C1293 (also known as the concrete prism test) [29], which is widely
regarded as the most reliable test for determining whether reactive aggregates will cause deleterious
expansions in the eld. These results should also be correlated with outdoor exposure block testing
and eld performance, as the ASTM C1293 test has not yet been accepted as a valid test method
for evaluating the reactivity of RCA. This correlation is important because the two tests, ASTM
C1260 and ASTM C1293, can sometimes produce conicting results [27,28,30]. ASTM C1260 is
often preferred, though, because it can be completed in 16 days, whereas ASTM C1293 requires a
year-long testing program.
Shayan and Xu [23] performed ASTM C1260 and ASTM C1293 testing on an RCA with an
original natural aggregate with a basalt/dolerite mineralogy. The RCA presented as reactive according to the ASTM C1260 14-day expansion limit of 0.10 %; however, in the ASTM C1293 test, the
prisms did not exceed the expansion limit (0.04 % at 1 year). This particular original natural aggregate, however, was known to react dissimilarly in the ASTM C1260 and C1293 tests. Research by
Shehata et al. [26] has shown that testing performed on RCA can exhibit good correlation between
the ASTM C1260 and C1293 tests. However, this testing was performed on only a single RCA and
cannot be assumed to be indicative of RCA as a material. It is important to note that the testing
limits used (both as part of this study and in Refs 23 and 26) are from standards that are written
for use with natural aggregates. Further research with outdoor exposure block testing and eld performance correlation needs to be completed in order for those interested to understand whether
these expansion limits can be applied to RCA.
Figure 2 presents the average 14-day expansions with the highest and lowest 14-day expansion
values obtained by any one laboratory that participated in the multi-laboratory study for the CF sample sets (phase I study) and the RC sample sets (phase I study), as well as the phase II study in a
graphical format. These graphs show the average expansion, the highest measured expansion (triangles), and the lowest measured expansion (squares). These graphs illustrate the inherent variability
in the material, as well as the range of results obtained during the multi-laboratory study. The
91
92
FIG. 2Multi-laboratory study expansion data for (a) crushers nes sample sets (phase I study), (b) re-crushed sample sets
(phase I study), and (c) phase II study.
multi-laboratory COV limit set by ASTM C1260, 15.2 %, does not correlate well with four of the
RCAs studied (Al-R, Sp-R, Po-R, and Be-R). Seven of these sample sets exhibited COVs higher than
15.2 % when the average 14-day expansions exceeded 0.10 %. The CF sets had a signicantly higher
average COV than the RC RCA. This difference may be attributed to the experience of the laboratories working with these materials in these tests. The CF material was the rst to be tested in all laboratories, followed by the RC material. Although well versed in ASTM C1260 testing with natural
aggregates, the laboratories were not as experienced in using RCA. As the laboratories gained more
experience with the RCA, the variation between tests might have decreased. The stockpile and eld
structure RCA reproducibility limits were all lower than what is suggested for natural aggregates in
ASTM C1260 They also were all within the 15.2 % COV limits; this might be because these were
tested in only two laboratories, whereas the set tested in phase I was tested in four laboratories, which
allowed room for further variation. Additionally, the phase II study was completed after the phase I
study, so laboratory experience might have affected the variation within these samples as well. From
these results, it can be concluded that the COV limit might need to be broadened.
The reproducibility limit varied signicantly, with values ranging from 8.2 % to 76.6 % for all
aggregates and replacement levels tested. The multi-laboratory reproducibility limit set in ASTM
C1260 states that the results of two tests conducted on the same materials in different laboratories
should not differ from the mean expansion by more than 43 % [22]. When the reproducibility limits calculated for the materials used in this study were compared to the current version of ASTM
C1260, it was found that 15 of the 33 sets had reproducibility limits higher than those provided for
in ASTM C1260. In particular, 10 of the 12 CF sets had reproducibility limits higher than the 43 %
specied in ASTM C1260. This shows that the reproducibility limit set by ASTM C1260 for natural
aggregates might not be applicable for use with RCA. As stated earlier, the multi-laboratory reproducibility limit currently set forth in ASTM C1260 was developed through a multi-laboratory study
of 46 laboratories conducting the test method [31]. ASTM C670 states that in order for multilaboratory precision to be reliable, at least ten laboratories and tests involving at least 30 degrees of
freedom need to be performed and compared [33]. The study conducted herein did not include
enough laboratories to be considered a reliable assessment of the multi-laboratory precision per the
standard. Additionally, the wide range of COVs and reliability limits indicates that RCA might
present substantially variable results between laboratories in the ASTM C1260 test. A determination of whether the ASTM C1260 precision statements are applicable for use with RCA can be
made only once further testing, using different RCAs and at least ten laboratories that have experience running the ASTM C1260 test with RCA, has been performed. This might be best established
through a larger multi-laboratory study than that conducted as a part of this study. The results presented herein, however, provide a strong basis for establishing and conducting a larger multilaboratory study in order to develop precision and bias statements for assessing the potential ASR
of mortar bars containing RCA.
Conclusion
The results of this study of RCA have shown that the ASTM C1260 test can be used to assess the
potential alkali-silica reactivity of RCAs. The following conclusions are made based on the results
presented herein:
The absorption capacity testing using ASTM C128 methods [36] required a 24 h soaking period
in order to reach 95 % of the RCAs total absorption capacity. Additionally, the RCA reached 85 %
of its total absorption in 30 min.
93
94
Modications to the standard mixing procedure are required in order to properly mix mortars
containing RCA. Modications include an addition of a 30 min soaking period in the mixing
water for the aggregates prior to mixing because of the high absorption capacity of RCA and the
possibility of aggregate swelling.
Increased amounts of crushing of the RCA will provide more access to original ne natural aggregates, resulting in higher expansions than in RCA produced from the initial crushing of the parent
concrete (CF).
Further testing is required, however, in order to determine reproducibility limits when using
ASTM C1260 with RCA. Additionally, further testing to correlate expansion results of the ASTM
C1260 test to those seen in the ASTM C1293 test, exposure blocks, and eld performance is required.
Acknowledgments
The funding of this project was provided by a grant from the Oregon Transportation Research and
Education Consortium (OTREC). Several undergraduate research assistants helped with the collection of data for this project: Brian Gray, Daniel Alexander Bleu, Deanna Amneus, and Benjamin
Sohn. The support of all above-named parties is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Lauritzen, E. K., Recycling Concrete: An Overview of Challenges and Opportunities, ACI
SP-219: Recycling Concrete and Other Materials for Sustainable Development, T. C. Liu and
C. Meyer, Eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004, pp. 110.
[2] Meyer, C., The Economics of Recycling in the US Construction Industry, Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Y.-M. Chun, P. Claisse, T. R. Naik, and E. Ganjian, Eds.,
Taylor & Francis, Coventry, UK, 2007, pp. 509513.
[3] Goonan, T. G., 2000, USGS Fact Sheet FS-181-99: Recycled AggregatesProtable Resource
Conservation, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0181-99/fs-0181-99po.pdf (Last accessed 14 Oct 2011).
[4] American Concrete Institute, Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001.
[5] Fathifazl, G., Razaqpur, A. G., Isgor, O. B., Abbas, A., Fournier, B., and Foo, S., Proportioning
Concrete Mixtures With Recycled Concrete Aggregate: A Novel Method, Concr. Int., March
2010, pp. 3743.
[6] Nagataki, S., Gokce, A., Saeki, T., and Hisada, M., Assessment of Recycling Process Induced Damage Sensitivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 34(6), 2004, pp. 965971.
[7] Gomez-Soberon, J. M. V., Porosity of Recycled Concrete With Substitution of Recycled Concrete Aggregate: An Experimental Study, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 32(8), 2002, pp. 13011311.
[8] Rao, A., Jha, K. N., and Misra, S., Use of Aggregates from Recycled Construction and Demolition Waste in Concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., Vol. 50(1), 2007, pp. 7181.
[9] Katz, A., Properties of Concrete Made With Recycled Aggregate from Partially Hydrated Old
Concrete, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 33(5), 2003, pp. 703711.
[10] Dhir, R. K., Limbachiya, M. C., and Leelawat, T., Suitability of Recycled Concrete Aggregate for
Use in BS 5328 Designated Mixes, Structures and Buildings, Vol. 134(3), 1999, pp. 257274.
[11] Khatib, J. M., Properties of Concrete Incorporating Fine Recycled Aggregate, Cem. Concr.
Res., Vol. 35(4), 2005, pp. 763769.
[12] Muller, C., Requirements on Concrete for Future Recycling, Sustainable Construction: Use
of Recycled Concrete Aggregate, R. Dhir, N. A. Henderson, and M. C. Limbachiya, Eds.,
Thomas Telford, London, 1998, pp. 445457.
[13] Sagoe-Crentsil, K. K., Brown, T., and Taylor, A. H., Performance of Concrete Made With
Commercially Produced Coarse Recycled Concrete Aggregate, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 31(5),
2001, pp. 707712.
[14] Kou, S.-C., Poon, C.-S., and Etxeberria, M., Inuence of Recycled Aggregates on Long Term
Mechanical Properties and Pore Size Distribution of Concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos., Vol.
33(2), 2011, pp. 286291.
[15] Fathifazl, G., Abbas, A., Razaqpur, A. G., Isgor, O. B., Fournier, B., and Foo, S., New Mixture
Proportioning Method for Concrete Made With Coarse Recycled Concrete Aggregate,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., Vol. 21(10), 2009, pp. 601611.
[16] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2003, Recycled Concrete Aggregate, http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/rca.cfm (Last accessed 27 Nov 2011).
[17] Melton, J. S., Guidance for Recycled Concrete Aggregate Use in the Highway Environment,
ACI SP-219: Recycling Concrete and Other Materials for Sustainable Development, T. C. Liu
and C. Meyer, Eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004, pp. 4760.
[18] Stanton, T. E., Expansion of Concrete through Reaction between Cement and Aggregate,
Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., Vol. 66, 1940, pp. 17811811.
[19] Hobbs, D. W., Alkali-Silica
Reaction in Concrete, Thomas Telford Ltd., London, 1988.
[20] Lindgard, J., Andic-Cakr, O., Fernandes, I., Rnning, T. F., and Thomas, M. D. A., Alkali
Silica Reactions (ASR): Literature Review on Parameters Inuencing Laboratory Performance
Testing, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 42(2), 2012, pp. 223243.
[21] Scott, H. C., IV, and Gress, D. L., Mitigating Alkali Silica Reaction in Recycled Concrete,
ACI SP-219: Recycling Concrete and Other Materials for Sustainable Development, T. C. Liu
and C. Meyer, Eds., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004, pp. 6176.
[22] ASTM C1260, 2007, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates
(Mortar-Bar Method), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
[23] Shayan, A. and Xu, A., Performance and Properties of Structural Concrete Made With
Recycled Concrete Aggregate, ACI Mater. J., Vol. 100(5), 2003, pp. 371380.
[24] Shayan, A. and Morris, H., A Comparison of RTA T363 and ASTM C1260 Accelerated Mortar Bar Test Methods for Detecting Reactive Aggregates, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 31(4), 2001,
pp. 655663.
[25] Li, X. and Gress, D. L., Mitigating Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete Containing Recycled
Concrete Aggregate, Transportation Research Record. 1979, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 3035.
[26] Shehata, M. H., Christidis, C., Mikhaiel, W., Rogers, C., and Lachemi, M., Reactivity of
Reclaimed Concrete Aggregate Produced from Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction,
Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 40(4), 2010, pp. 575582.
[27] Fournier, B., Nkinamubanzi, P.-C., and Chevrier, R., Comparative Field and Laboratory
Investigations on the Use of Supplementary Cementing Materials to Control Alkali-Silica
Reaction in Concrete, 12th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, T. Mingshu and D. Min, Eds., International Academic Publishers World Publishing
Corporation, Beijing, China, 2004, pp. 528537.
95
96
[28] Lu, D.-y., Fournier, B., and Grattan-Bellew, P. E., A Comparative Study on Accelerated Test
Methods for Determining Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Concrete, 12th International Conference
on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, T. Mingshu and D. Min, Eds., International Academic Publishers World Publishing Corporation, Beijing, China, 2004, pp. 377385.
[29] ASTM C1293, 2008, Standard Test Method for Determination of Length Change of Concrete
Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[30] Thomas, M. D. A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K. J., Ideker, J. H., and Shehata, M., Test Methods
for Evaluating Preventive Measures for Controlling Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction
in Concrete, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 36(10), 2006, pp. 18421856.
[31] Rogers, C. A., Multi-Laboratory Study of the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test (ASTM C1260) for
Alkali Silica Reaction, Cem., Concr., Aggregates, Vol. 21(2), 1999, pp. 185194.
[32] ASTM E177, 2010, Standard Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in ASTM Test
Methods, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 14.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[33] ASTM C670, 2010, Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test
Methods for Construction Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[34] Gress, D. L. Accelerated ASR Testing of Concrete Prisms Incorporating Recycled Concrete
Aggregates, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction,
Quebec City, QC, Canada, June 1116, 2000, M. A. Berube, B. Fournier, and B. Durand, Eds.,
Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Beton, Quebec City, QC, Canada, pp. 11391147.
[35] Beauchemin, S. and Fournier, B., Petrographic Analysis of Aggregate Particles Used in the
Accelerated Mortar Bar Test for Evaluating the Potential Alkali-Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate
Reactivity, Austin, TX, May 2025, 2012, T. Drimalas, J. H. Ideker, and B. Fournier, Eds.
[36] ASTM C128, 2007, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specic Gravity),
and Absorption of Fine Aggregate, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM
[37] ASTM C305, 2006, Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes
and Mortars of Plastic Consistency, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.01, ASTM
[38] Poon, C. S., Shui, Z. H., Lam, L., Fok, H., and Kou, S. C., Inuence of Moisture States of Natural and Recycled Aggregates on the Slump and Compressive Strength of Concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res., Vol. 34(1), 2004, pp. 3136.
[39] Lu, D.-y., Fournier, B., and Grattan-Bellew, P. E., Evaluation of Accelerated Test Methods for
Determining Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Concrete Aggregates, Cem. Concr. Compos., Vol.
28(6), 2006, pp. 546554.
[40] Fournier, B., personal communication, July 1, 2012.
[41] ASTM C856, 2004, Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[42] Limbachiya, M. C., Leelawat, T., and Dhir, R. K., RCA Concrete: A Study of Properties in the
Fresh State, Strength Development and Durability, Sustainable Construction: Use of Recycled
Concrete Aggregate, R. K. Dhir, N. A. Henderson, and M. C. Limbachiya, Eds., Thomas Telford, London, 1998, pp. 227237.

Applicability of The Accelerated Mortat Bar Test For Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applicability of The Accelerated Mortat Bar Test For Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol. 2, No.

Matthew P. Adams,1 Angela Jones,2 Sean Beauchemin,3 Robert Johnson,4

Applicability of the Accelerated Mortar Bar

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

TABLE 1Recycled concrete aggregate mineralogy and source.

Notes: CA, coarse aggregate; FA, ne aggregate.

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

TABLE 2Cement oxide analysis.

Type I/II High-Alkali Cement

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

Mortar Bar Mixing Procedure

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

TABLE 3Multi-laboratory mortar bar sets for phase I and II.

Note: Each set composed of three mortar bars.

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

Re-Crushed Al-R, Sp-R, Po-R, and Be-R RCA

Crushers Fines Al-R, Sp-R, Po-R, and Be-R RCA

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

for natural aggregate, typically recommended to be limited to 30 % to 50 % coarse RCA or 20 % to

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

ADAMS ET AL. ON ACCELERATED MORTAR BAR TEST

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

You might also like