Recycled refractory brick aggregate (RRBA) offers a potential means of reducing natural-sand consumption while improving the post-heating performance of concrete. However, comparisons among previous studies are frequently affected by differences in aggregate grading. In this study, a grading-controlled design was therefore adopted by blending two RRBA fractions to closely match the particle-size distribution of natural sand. Nine concretes with 0–60% fine-aggregate replacement were characterised at 28 days. All mixtures exceeded the target mean compressive strength of 50 MPa, while mean flexural strengths showed limited variation without a systematic trend with RRBA content. Separate specimens were heated at an age of 90 days to 100, 150, 200, 400, 600 and 800 °C. Mass loss and macroscopic damage were assessed after heating and cooling, while compressive strength, water-accessible porosity and saturated electrical resistivity were determined following 28 days of moist reconditioning. Thermal deterioration was generally less pronounced at 100–200 °C and intensified from 400 °C onwards. At 600 °C, the reference concrete retained only 25.4% of its unheated compressive strength, compared with 62.2% for RRBA-10. At 800 °C, the reference exhibited negligible compressive strength, whereas RRBA-15 achieved the highest observed mean post-thermal compressive strength, at 24.38 MPa (41.8% of its unheated strength). At 600 °C, RRBA-05 limited the relative porosity increase to approximately 10%, compared with 54.9% for the reference. Electrical resistivity losses for RRBA-05 to RRBA-15 ranged from 42.2% to 45.8%, compared with 75.8% for the reference mixture. A weighted geometric index combining compressive-strength, porosity and resistivity conservation identified 5–10% RRBA as a favourable interval at 600 °C, with RRBA-05 and RRBA-10 also occupying the first two positions under all eight alternative weighting schemes examined. The favourable replacement level therefore depended on exposure temperature and the performance criterion considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lliso-Ferrando et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: