ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Performance of Recycled Concrete Aggregate and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Concrete: A Systematic Review of Mechanical, Physical, and Durability Characteristics.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing generation of construction and demolition waste, along with the depletion of natural aggregates, has driven growing interest in recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) as sustainable alternatives in concrete production. However, a direct and systematic comparison between the two materials remains limited. This review addresses this gap by applying PRISMA guidelines to analyze 82 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2026. Both materials are evaluated across three key domains: physical properties, mechanical performance, and microstructural characteristics. The findings indicate that RCA can reduce compressive strength by up to 26%, mainly due to the presence of porous adhered mortar and a complex interfacial transition zone (ITZ). In contrast, RAP weakens bonding with cement paste because of its hydrophobic bituminous coating, leading to adhesive failure at the mortar asphalt interface. Despite these limitations, RCA and RAP exhibit distinct behaviors in terms of shear capacity, ductility, energy absorption, and durability. Enhancement techniques such as surface treatment, carbonation, supplementary cementitious materials, and fiber reinforcement show potential in improving performance. Additionally, life cycle and economic analyses reveal that RAP can reduce total costs and carbon emissions when efficiently processed. This study provides a unified comparative framework to support sustainable material selection and design optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.