Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in ...

Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /conbui ldmat

Review

Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in concrete: A review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.1080950-0618/� 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A. Siddika), [email protected] (R. Alyousef), [email protected] (Y.H.M. Amran)

[email protected] (F. Aslani), [email protected] (H. Alabduljabbar).

Ayesha Siddika a,⇑, Md. Abdullah Al Mamun b, Rayed Alyousef c, Y.H. Mugahed Amran c,Farhad Aslani d,e, Hisham Alabduljabbar c

aDepartment of Civil Engineering, Pabna University of Science and Technology, Pabna 6600, BangladeshbDepartment of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi 6204, BangladeshcDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942 Alkharj, Saudi ArabiadMaterials and Structures Innovation Group, School of Engineering, University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australiae School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

� Review of the recent progress on the uses of waste tire in concrete.� Rubber can be used in concrete as replacement of aggregates, binders, and fibers.� Rubberized concrete leads to satisfactory mechanical and durability performances.� Finer rubber aggregates showing better performance than coarser ones.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 April 2019Received in revised form 20 June 2019Accepted 14 July 2019

Keywords:Rubberized concreteWaste tireRecycled rubber aggregateDurabilityMechanical performance

a b s t r a c t

Accumulation of waste is subsequently increased to hazardous levels. Tire waste is one of them thatcause serious environmental issues because of the rapid rise in and numerous variations of moderndevelopments worldwide. Thus, recycling waste tire rubber in the form of aggregates as supplementaryconstruction material is advantageous. This paper reviews the source of waste tire rubbers and rubber-ized cementitious composites along with their material properties, usages, durability, and serviceabilityperformances. This study also aims to provide a fundamental insight into the integrated applications ofrubberized concrete (RuC) composite materials to improve construction methods, including applicationsto enhance environmental sustainability of concrete structures in the construction industry. Inclusion ofrecycled rubber aggregate (RA) lightens concrete, increases its fatigue life and toughness, advances itsdynamic properties, and improves its ductility. Concrete with recycled RA performs well in hot and coldweather and achieved significant results under critical exposure and various loading conditions. ThoughRuC possesses low mechanical strength in general, specific treatment and additives inclusion can be agood solution to improve those properties reliably. Investigations of RuC as materials are available signif-icantly, but researches on the structural members of RuC should be enriched.

� 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7122. Source of waste tire rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7133. General recycling of rubber waste from waste tire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7144. Characteristics of tire rubber aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7145. Rubberized cementitious composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714

5.1. Rubberized mortar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7145.2. Rubberized composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7165.3. Rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716

, farhad.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.108&domain=pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.108

mailto:[email protected]








http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09500618

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

712 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

6. Fresh properties of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
6.1. Workability and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7176.2. Rheological properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
7. Physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
7.1. Shrinkage properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7187.2. Creep behavior of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
8. Mechanical properties of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
8.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7188.2. Compressive stress–strain curves and modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7198.3. Tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7208.4. Flexural strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7218.5. Resistance to abrasion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7218.6. Resistance of impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7218.7. Resistance to fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
9. Dynamic properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72210. Durability properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722

10.1. Water permeability and water absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72210.2. Carbonation resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72410.3. Chloride ion penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72410.4. Sound absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

11. Functional properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
11.1. Fire resistance and thermal conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72511.2. Freeze-thaw resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72511.3. Electrical resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
12. Present state of utilization of rubber in concrete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
12.1. Pre-treatment of tire rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72612.2. Rubber as binder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72612.3. Rubber as fine aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72712.4. Rubber as coarse aggregates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72712.5. Rubber as fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
13. Future trends of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72714. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728

Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728

1. Introduction

Tire production for vehicles is increasing exponentially giventhe rapidly growing population and transportation development.Substantial rubber waste is produced from waste tires past theirservice time. Raffoul et al. [1] stated that tire waste is nearly pro-portional to tire production given that the world’s yearly tire pro-duction exceeded 2.9 billion tires in 2017. This massive amount ofnon-biodegradable waste occupies a large area and causes environ-mental hazards. Burning or using tire as fuel may produce toxicgases that are harmful for environment and may cause destructivepollution of natural air [2,3]. Tire rubber contains styrene, astrongly toxic component that is highly damaging to humans [4].Therefore, dumping of waste tires may be very dangerous tohuman health. Recycling of waste in any way is beneficial. In recentyears, researchers have attempted to establish a proper guidelinefor recycling tire waste in different ways. The global tire recyclingmarket was valued at USD 0.95 billion in 2016 and is expected togrow at a compound annual growth rate of 2.1% during the forecastperiod [5]. The same report revealed that North America accountsfor approximately 31% of the revenue share of the global tire recy-cling market. In response to the growing environmental concerns,waste tires are now being recycled in a manner that not only ben-efits the environment but also contributes to economic growth. Asshown in Fig. 1, based on the report of the US Tire ManufacturersAssociation [6], only 16% of scrap tires are dumped in landfillswhile the rest are being recycled in different ways. The energyrecovered from waste tires also contribute to the economy ofindustries in developed countries. Around 6% to 8% of waste tiresare being recycled as civil engineering materials in the US and in

EU countries, but only around 0.4% of waste tires are being recycledin Australia [6–8] (Fig. 1).

Concrete is the most used construction material in the world.Optimizing the cost while maximizing the strength and durabilityof concrete along with improving the greenness of concrete con-struction are current global challenges. This issue requiresadvanced materials that can replace the traditional componentsof concrete. Given the good strength, ductility, and strain controlproperties of tire waste, it may be utilized as a substitute for con-crete components. Rubber can be applied to concrete and mortarby replacing fine aggregates (FA) and coarse aggregates (CA) orused as binder. The advantages of incorporating crumb rubber(CR) into any engineering cementitious composite (ECC) includelowering the CO2 emissions and increasing the greenness of theenvironment [9,10]. Moreover, the collection of natural sand ischanging the direction of river flow and causing the loss of riverbed stability. Such effects could be minimized through saving nat-ural sand by supplanting it with CR in construction purpose. Theaddition of flexible rubber into rigid concrete alters the overall per-formance and properties of concrete [11] and may help producelow self-weight structures with cost sustainability by reducingthe use of natural aggregates. A 14–28% reduction in unit weightof concrete can be obtained by replacing 10–30% sand with CR[12]. Mechanical strength is generally decreased when the naturalaggregates in plain concrete (PC) is replaced by rubber. A range of30–63% compressive strength reduction may occur [13] when5–20% of FA in PC is replaced by powdered rubber to producedrubberized concrete (RuC). Thomas and Gupta [2] concluded thatreplacement of 12.5% FA in concrete by CR is optimumwith respectto better resistance to water absorption and carbonation, as well as

Disposal of scrap tires in the US (2017) [6]

Destination of waste tires in Australia (2016-2017) [7] Materials recovery from waste tires in the EU (2016) [8]

0% 5.60%

0.40%

1.80%

38.70%

2.90%

6.70%

33%

10.90%

Energy recovery (local)

materials reuse &recycling (local)Civil Engineeringapplica�on (local)Steel recycling

Exporetd ( �re derivedfuel, baled & casings)Opera�onal stockpiles

Landfill

Mining landfill

Unknown des�na�on

75%

15%

1%

2% 1%

6%

Granulation

Incorporation incement

steel mills & foundries

Reuse for otherpurposes

Pyrolysis

Civil engineeringpublic works &backfilling

Fig. 1. Recycling status of waste tires in developed countries.

A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731 713

attainment of moderate compressive strength. Senin et al. [14]advised not to exceed 20% rubber content in concrete. In somecases, when rubber-concrete adhesion is satisfactory, the tensilestrength of RuC outperforms PC by replacing a small percentageof sand with rubber [15]. Most research reveals that the ductility,fatigue resistance, and impact resistance of RuC is better than thoseof PC [16–18]. Inclusion of rubber may help the uniform and easydilation of concrete under load [19]. RuC can be applied in the con-struction of structural elements with requirements of moderatestrength, low density, and high toughness [12,20]. Other desirableapplications of RuC involve vibration damping in structures, indus-trial floors, road pavements, retaining structures, bridge sidewalks,and decks [14,15,21,22]. RuC could be also utilized in hydraulicstructures, such as in tunnels and dam spillways, where high abra-sion resistance is needed [23]; in thermal and acoustic insulationsystem [24]; in running tracks and roadside barriers, where highimpact energy absorption capacity is needed [25]; in parking areas[26]; and in cold climate zones with considerable freeze thaweffects [27]. This study aims to provide a fundamental backgroundof rubberized concrete. Using tire in concrete can reduced pollu-tion in environment. Mechanical performance, durability, behaviorunder various loading conditions of rubberized concrete with pre-sent guidelines and benefits are also presented. However, thispaper reviews the source of waste tire rubbers, rubberized cemen-titious composites, material properties, applications, and durabilityand serviceability performances. This review also aims to provide acomprehensive insight into the integrated applications of concrete

composite materials to improve the methods of construction,including the applications towards a better environmental sustain-ability of concrete structures in the construction industry today.

2. Source of waste tire rubber

Major source of rubber waste is tire waste, which is broadlyclassified into automobile and truck tires [13]. Mostly tires fromvarious sources are different in physical properties and composi-tions. Thus, they have different effect on concrete strength whenused. The common ingredients of tire are natural and syntheticrubbers, carbon black, metal, textile fabric and additives. RA canbe extracted from tires by using mechanical grinding either atambient or cryogenic or pyrolysis temperature [28]. A typical dia-gram of tire showing its all parts is presented in Fig. 2 [29]. Thecontent of rubber with other major ingredients of different tiresare listed in Table 1.

The constituents of rubber are vulcanized together to get thespecific characteristics of tires. Meanwhile, the incorporation ofvarious additives such as stabilizers, antioxidants and antiozonantsin production of tire rubbers are making it non-biodegradable,resistant to photochemical decomposition, chemical reagents andhigh temperatures [33]. Thus waste tire management are techno-logically, economically and ecologically challengeable. Thoughcar and truck tires are composed of special combination of con-stituents, most of them contain nearly same amount of natural

Fig. 2. Raw materials of tire [29].


and synthetic rubber content. Approximately 14%-55% rubber canbe extracted from any types of tire depending upon the actualcompositions. Most of the share of rubber comes from the treadand sidewall parts of tires.

3. General recycling of rubber waste from waste tire

Waste tire can be recycled through reconstruction, recovery ofengineering materials, or deriving energy from such waste [33].In industry, waste tire can be used as fuel with high heat value,and the by-products of rubber ash and steel fibers can be appliedto concrete production [33]. As can be seen in Fig. 1, waste tiresare mostly utilized for energy recovery and are being reused as fueland construction materials in developed countries. Different typesof composites derived from waste tires are also being recycled inthe construction sector. The flow chart in Fig. 3 [29] presents thewhole life cycle of a tire up to its disposal. As observed, a waste tirecan be recycled in various ways. This study aims to determine theuse of waste tires as cementitious materials. Waste tire containsrubber and steel fibers, which can be separated by applying differ-ent techniques and could act as alternatives to raw engineeringmaterials. CR recycled from waste tire can be used in concrete asFA and CA. Steel fibers derived from tire waste can be used in con-crete [34]. The recycled rubber fibers and steel fibers make con-crete stronger and tougher and exhibit improved post crackingbehavior [35] and higher fatigue life [36]. Recycled fibers also pro-vide economic benefits in construction. The overall process ofextracting RA from waste tires is illustrated in Fig. 4 [37], whichalso shows each step in using a mechanical grinding system tomanufacture different types of RA from waste tires.

4. Characteristics of tire rubber aggregate

RA can be used in varying sizes to generate proper gradation.Chipped rubber is generally used to replace CA, irregularly-shaped CR is employed as FA, and powdered rubber may be

Table 1Typical composition of tires.

Refs. Type of tire Composition (%)

Natural rubber Synthetic rubber Carbon bla

[30] Car tire 14 27 28Truck tire 27 14 28

[31] 23.1 17.9 28[32] Car tire 21–42 40–55 30–38[33] Car tire 41–48 22–28

Truck tire 41–45 20–28

utilized as filler, binder, or fine sand in concrete [13,38]. Fiberobtained from waste tire is relatively efficient in terms of improv-ing strength properties of RuC [22]. Different types of recycled rub-ber aggregates (RAs), as they appeared in [24], are shown in Fig. 5and their typical sizes are listed in Table 2. Density of recycled tirerubber may vary between 0.5 and 0.55 g/cm3 [3,39]. The low waterabsorption capacity and density of recycled RA suits the require-ment of light weight aggregates. The typical physical propertiesof recycled tire rubber as reported in previous studies are pre-sented in Table 3. The general composition of CR involves naturaland synthetic rubber, carbon black, zinc, silicon, and other compo-nents listed in the Table 4. The major component of carbon blackacts as reinforcement [40].

5. Rubberized cementitious composites

5.1. Rubberized mortar

Rubberized mortar can be produced by replacing FA in mortarcomposites using crumb or powdered rubber at certain degreesof replacement. Rubberized mortar is lighter than plain mortar,but shows the same irregular morphological pattern, thereby lead-ing to a porous structure [48]. Angelin et al. [46] investigated thevoids in rubberized mortar by scanning electron microscopy(SEM) technique and found that the density of rubberized mortardecreased with the addition of rubber due to the rubber’s lightnessand the void spaces entrapped in the cement matrix by RA. Rub-berized mortar has high sound absorption capacity because of itshigh porosity [48]. Moreover, rubberized mortar has lowerstrength than plain mortar. The compressive and flexural strengthof mortar with 5% CR is nearly 85% and 96% of normal mortar,respectively; furthermore, rubberized mortar exhibits a ductilefailure mode with high deformation resistance [49]. The strengthproperties of rubberized mortar can be improved by adding a com-posite with rubber. Pre-coating of RA with limestone powder alongwith the addition of silica fume may help enhance the bondingbetween cement paste and rubber in mortar; it also increases theoverall strength and decreases capillary absorption [49]. Abd. Azizet al. [50] used CR with oil palm fruit fiber to produce a green com-posite of mortar with low cost and modified strength. Their studyrevealed improvements in the compressive strength, split tensilestrength, and flexural strength following inclusion of 0.5% oil palmfruit fiber in 0–40% CR used mortar. Rubberized mortar also exhi-bits high durability and can be utilized for protective plastering.Such characteristic is due to the fact that hydrophobic performanceof rubberized mortars are better than that of its conventional coun-terpart, and such performance can be magnified by increasing theamount of smaller rubber particles [51]. Oikonomou and Mavridou[52] investigated chloride ion penetration in rubberized mortar.Approximately 56% more resistance to chloride penetration wasobserved when 12.5% sand was replaced by CR with bitumenemulsion in the mortar. The drying shrinkage damage and alkalisilica reaction of mortar can be reduced by the incorporation of

ck Steel Ash Others (fabric, textiles, fillers, and accelerators)

14–1514–1514.5 5.1 16.5

3–713–16 4–620–27 0–10

Fig. 3. The various stages in the life of a tire [29].

Fig. 4. Industrial production process of tire waste as rubber aggregates [37].


Fig. 5. Rubber aggregates: (A) shredded, (B) crumb, (C) granular, and (D) fiber [24].

Table 3Physical characteristics of tire rubber.

Refs. Size in (mm) Water absorption (%) Specific gravity Density (t/m3)

[1] 0–5 – – 0.40–0.465–10 5.30–8.90 1.10 0.4510–20 0.80–1.30 1.10 0.48

[41] 0.15–2.36 – 0.83 0.530[42] 2–6 0.65 1.12 0.489

Table 4Chemical composition of CR from tire waste.

Refs. Compositions (%)

Carbon Black Oxygen Zinc Sulfur Silicon Magnesium Aluminum Nitrogen Hydrogen Ash Polymer Organic compounds

[43] 87.51 9.23 1.76 1.08 0.20 0.14 0.08 – – – – –[44] 31.3 – – 3.23 – – – – – 5.43 38.3[45] 40 – – – – – – – 45 15[46] 91.5 3.3 3.5 1.2 – – – – – –[39,3] 30–38 – – 0–5 – – – – – 3–7 40–55 –[47] 81.2–85.2 1.72–2.07 – 1.52–1.64 – – – 0.31–0.47 7.22–7.42 – – –

Table 2Typical sizes of RAs.

Refs. Size of aggregates (mm)

Chipped/ shredded rubber Crumb Rubber Ground/powdered rubber Fiber rubber

[13] 25–30 3–10 <1[38] 13–76 0.425–4.75 0.075–0.0475[28] 13–76 0.5–5 0.15–19 8.5–21.5


rubber particles [53]. Rubber fiber increases the matrix ductility,allows for bridging between cracks, and reduces capillary pressure.Overall, a 97.5% shrinkage crack area can be minimized by adding0.4% tire rubber fiber [54]. Therefore, the overall performance ofrubberized mortar is sustainable.

5.2. Rubberized composites

Rubberized composites from different polymers can be speciallyformed. To do this, composites in tire rubber must be separatedand mixed with required additives. A special geopolymer compos-ite can be formed using NaOH and Na-K water glass activator withthe homogenous mixer of fly ash and tire-based steel fiber mixedat a specific proportion [55,56]. However, the quality of rubberizedgeopolymer may not be as high as that of a pure one because of theinvolvement of rubber waste. A non-effloresced 3rd class brick

with 3.98 MPa compressive strength can be molded using rubber-ized geopolymer [56]. Furthermore, any rubberized ECC has highdurability, high flexural deformation resistance, and high resis-tance to control shrinkage and cracks [9]. Baricevic et al. [57] inves-tigated the uses of recycled polymer from waste tire rubber in wetsprayed concrete as replacement for polypropylene fibers; therecycled polymer had lower capillary absorption and high resis-tance to freeze-thaw conditions. Crushed rubber particles can berecycled with elastomers or thermoplastics to create eco-friendlyrubber-polymer composites [58].

5.3. Rubberized concrete

The density of RuC is lower than that of PC. Noaman et al. [59]found a 3% reduction in density when 15% of the sand was replacedby CR, whereas Youssf et al. [60] found a 6.9% reduction when 50%


of the sand was replaced by CR. RuC density decreases withincreasing amount and size of RAs; for instance, approximately38% lower density was observed for RuC with a 10% replacementlevel [61]. This phenomenon occurs due to rubber’s air adhesionand hydrophobicity [43], as well as the formation of porous con-crete matrix. The density of CR added concrete is between 1800and 2100 kg/m3 [62]. Conversely, Herrero et al. (2013) confirmedthe largest density reduction for RA with a small particle size.Demir et al. [63] created a tire rubber concrete block and discov-ered higher porosity in structures with higher rubber content. Bycontrast, Nacif et al. [64] found no effects of rubber addition onthe porosity of cementitious composites. Addition of rubberchanges the compositions and chemical reactions in concrete,and has an adverse effect on the hydration process. The carbonand sulfur impurities in RuC are much higher than those in PC,thereby causing poor chemical reactions during hydration and gen-erating an undesirable reduction in concrete strength [65]. Givenits porosity and impurities, RuC has lower mechanical strengththan PC. Meanwhile, the addition of RA causing an increase in set-ting time of RuC also, which increases with the content of RA [66].Despite such disadvantages, RuC has more elastic behavior [67]and ductility [68] compared with PC. The energy absorption capac-ity of RuC is likewise better than that of PC [59]. RuC outperformsPC in terms of abrasion resistance, and the former could be used infloors as heavy duty tiles [23]. Finally, RuC displays better durabil-ity against chemical absorption than PC [69].

6. Fresh properties of rubberized concrete

6.1. Workability and density

RuC has a lower workability compared with PC. The slumpvalue of RuC decreases along with the increasing percentage orreplacement of aggregates by rubber [61,70,71]. Specifically, slumpvalue reductions of around 19% to 93% were observed at replace-ment levels of 20% to 100% [72]. The reduction in workability canbe mainly attributed to the higher water absorption capacity ofrubber compared with that of sand, whereas the low slump valuecan be ascribed to the small particle size of the RA [71]. Workabil-ity increases along with the high specific surface area of the con-crete constituents even though a finer RA has a higher surface

(a) Workability of rubberized concrete

Fig. 6. Variation in the slump value and unit weight o

area compared with a coarser RA; therefore, a higher reduction isalso observed in workability [73]. This finding is more pronouncedfor the high roughness of RA. Because the rough surface of RA caus-ing the increasing particle friction within concrete and reacquiresmore energy to flow [45]. Therefore, to obtain similar workabilitywater requirement in RuC is higher than PC. Fig. 6a [74] showsthe variations in slump value along with rubber content in con-crete and reveals that the workability significantly decreases whenthe rubber content exceeds the replacement level by 15%. Althoughprevious studies have proposed a dosage of superplasticizers toenhance the workability of RuC [66,75]. Some contradiction foundin literatures also, where workability increased by up to 93% alongwith an increasing fine RA (for the 30% replacement level) [76,77].

RAs have a lower density compared with natural aggregates,and the replacement of natural aggregates by RA can reduce thedensity of concrete. The very low adhesion between rubber andcement paste in concrete can also explain the reduction in densitygiven that rubber acts as a void in the concrete matrix thatincreases its porosity, thereby resulting in a low unit weight[38,78]. Increasing the RA content corresponds to reducing the unitweight of RuC as shown in Fig. 6b [74]. The density of RuC typicallydecreases along with the RA content and size (as described in Sec-tion 5.3). In most cases, the density of RuC reduces by around 20%to 30% (about 1800 kg/m3 to 2100 kg/m3) compared with PC. Inaddition, replacing 6% to 18% of FA with RA reduced the densityof RuC by 1.6–4.9% compared with PC [79].

6.2. Rheological properties

Along with static and dynamic yield stresses, plastic viscosity isa rheological property of cementitious mix that greatly depends onwater content, aggregate properties, gradation of aggregates, mix-ing time, mixing system, and temperature. The shapes and texturesof aggregates have a strong influence on the rheological propertiesof concrete. Güneyisi et al. [80] performed a rheometer test andfound that at the same rotational speed, the use of RA in concreteincreased the applied torque because RAs are not as spherical asthe natural aggregates. They also observed the highest torqueincrement in the self-compacting RuC with an RA that has a longi-tudinal size of 10 mm to 40 mm. As shown in Fig. 7 [66], replacingFA with CR gradually increases the value of viscosity; therefore, ahigh shear rate mixing system is required in the preparation of a

(b) Unit weight of rubberized concrete

f RuC with rubber content [74]. SF = silica fume.

Fig. 7. Viscosity of self-compacting RuC [66]. R = rubber; FA = fly ash.


workable RuC. To reduce this negative effect of RuC, fly ash shouldbe added as a binder [66].

7. Physical properties

7.1. Shrinkage properties

The RA with low stiffness plays an important role in limiting thenumber of cracks resulting from shrinkage by reducing the internalrestraint, lowering the elastic modulus, and bridging the cracksthat propagate within the concrete [81]. The low elastic modulusof materials has been proven to reduce the thermal and shrinkagestresses. Although the addition of RA can reduce the modulus ofelasticity [82] and subsequently reduce the shrinkage stress andcontrol the shrinkage cracks up to a reliable limit, using RA toreplace the natural aggregates by 20% can improve the resistanceof the material to shrinkage cracking [83]. In [81], the plasticshrinkage of RuC decreases along with the addition of RA. The plas-tic shrinkage gradually increases after exceeding the 20–25%replacement level. By contrast, previous studies reveal that theaddition of RA can increase the drying shrinkage in concrete. Asshown in Fig. 8 [81], the drying shrinkage in concrete increasesalong with the RA and water content. The analysis of the testresults obtained by [73] reveals that the shrinkage may increaseby 43% when 15% of FA is replaced by RA. These authors alsoreported that RA significantly affects the shrinkage of concreteuntil a full drying shrinkage takes place (evaporation of water fromconcrete); after this point, RA does not produce any noticeableeffect on the shrinkage of concrete. Additionally, Yung et al. [84]revealed that compared with PC, increasing the content of pow-dered RA from 5% to 20% increases the shrinkage length by about35% to 95%.

Fig. 8. Drying shrinkage of rubberized concrete [81].

7.2. Creep behavior of rubberized concrete

Given that the creep level is generally controlled by the stiffnessof aggregates, these aggregates must be stiff in character to resistthe creep deformation up to reliable limit. Creep is measured asa long-term inelastic deformation that generally decreases withtime and is proportional to 0–40% of the compressive strength ofconcrete [85]. A densely compacted concrete matrix can controlthe highest creep deformation when hardened. As observed in pre-vious studies and listed in Table 4, fillers and softeners account fora high percentage of constituents in rubber tires. Therefore, theaggregates derived from rubber tires are usually soft. For this rea-son, the creep deformation must be increased after the addition ofRA in concrete. After one year of loading, the creep strains in high-strength PC are about 35% lower than those in RuC with 60% RAreplacing the natural aggregates [86]. In Adamu et al. [85], the totalcreep strain in the specimen with 10% CR increased by 61.04%,78.44%, 81.07%, and 43.94% relative to the specimen with PC at 7,30, 90, and 365 days, respectively (Fig. 9). Therefore, creep defor-mation starts to decrease after the concrete experiences a fullstrength gain.

8. Mechanical properties of rubberized concrete

8.1. Compressive strength

The compressive strength of RuC is generally lower than that ofPC [78,87,88]. Approximately 4–70% strength reduction wasobserved in concrete with rubber content of 5–50% of naturalaggregates, which may vary in size from 0.075 mm to 6 mm[42,89]. Results of compressive strength reduction from the litera-ture are listed in Table 5. The overall reduction in the strength ofRuC depends on the size, shape, mechanical properties, and per-centage replacement level of RA [38]. The causes of the decreasingtrend of RuC’s compressive strength with increasing rubber con-tent is illustrated in different ways in various studies. One of themajor causes for this decreasing trend is the very low adhesionbetween rubber and the cement paste in concrete, as the rubberacts as a void in the concrete matrix and lowers the density of suchmatrix [38,78]. The smooth surface of rubber causes low adhesionwith cement paste. Thomas and Chandra Gupta [23] performed anSEM test and confirmed the presence of voids and cracks in therubber–cement paste interface, thereby indicating a weak bondingcondition. Another cause of strength reduction was the fact thatwhen RuC is subjected to compressive stress, tensile stressesdevelop along the surface rubber particles and the attached cementpaste, thereby causing premature RuC cracking [87]. Such stressesoccur because of the softness of rubber particle cracks, which startnear the joint of the rubber and cement paste in concrete and

Fig. 9. Creep coefficient in the RuC mixture [85]. M = mix; C = CR; N = nano-silica.

Table 5Reduction in compressive strength of RuC from PC.

Refs. RA size(mm)

Replacementlevel

Specimen Properties Variation in compressivestrength

Variation in modulus ofelasticity

Remarks

[59] 1.18–2.36 5–15% FA Cube (w/c = 0.47 withproportion 1:1.7:2.1)

Reduced by 12.7–26% Reduced by 9.4–18.5% Compressive strength decreasesalong with the increasing sizeand RA content

[79] average1.18

6–18% FA Cylinder (w/c = 0.5 withproportion 1:1.5:2.7)

Reduced by 10.9–30.9% Reduced by 2.2–10.1% Ductility increases with theinclusion of rubber

[18] 1.18 and2.36

6–18% FA Cylinder (w/c = 0.5 withproportion 1:1.7:2.7)

Reduced by 11.5–31.9% Reduced by 4.4–13.7% RA improved the energyabsorption capacity andtoughness of concrete

[38] <10 5–10% CA Cylinder (w/c = 0.5 withproportion 1:2.26:2.44)

Reduced by 10–23% Reduced by 17–25% Rubber acts as a cavity, and anyconcentrated load in the ITZresulted in the rapid breakdownof concrete

45 mm-1.2 5–10% Binder Reduced by 20–40% Reduced by 18–36%


quickly propagate toward failure. A very wide and porous weakinterfacial transition zone (ITZ; the weakest part of concrete mix)is observed in RuC, because the hydrophobic nature of RA tendsto repel cement paste [43]. Researchers used additional materialsto overcome such problems. Silica fumes can be added to enhancethe bonding in ITZ [23,90]. Another possibility is using a non-homogenous matrix in concrete, because RA rises to the upper sur-face of the mold when compacted due to its lower specific gravity[38]. The bigger the size of RA, the greater the reduction in thecompressive strength of RuC is (Fig. 10) [91]. Turki et al. [92] sug-gested mineral fillers (siliceous or limestone) with rubber toenhance the mechanical properties of RuC. Xie et al. [93] used silicafumes with rubber and steel fiber used in concrete to enhance thestrength; they obtained positive results for up to 20% of the rubbercontent. Additionally, pre-treatment of RA by using specified sol-vent, modifier such as emulsion, resin or other specific provenhelpful for improving the bonding between rubber and concrete[3,41,90,94,95]. Improved bond strength within RuC progressivelyresulting a good and reliable mechanical strength.

8.2. Compressive stress–strain curves and modulus of elasticity

Ductility and strain control capacity can be increased by theinclusion of rubber in concrete [30,42,59,96]. This increment inductility was highest when mixed crumb and chipped rubber

Fig. 10. Variation of the compressive stren

replaced both FA and CA [91]. Given RA’s soft structure, multipletensile cracks developed within RuC under force, thereby leadingto high energy absorption and ductility before failure [87]. Largeelastic deformation before failure appeared in RuC [28]. Duarteet al. [88] found a 170% increase in strain ratio of RuC to PC for15% uses of rubber content, and this ratio increases with rubbercontent and renders RuC more ductile. Accordingly, PC specimensfail in a brittle manner, but RuC did not exhibit brittle failure undercompressive stress due to rubber’s plastic nature [28,97]. RuCshows wide strain softening and higher peak strain before failurecompared with PC. A general stress–strain relationship of RuC isshown in Fig. 11 [59]. The stress–strain behavior of RuC is similarto that of PC for up to 40% rubber content used in replacing FA, butit has a lower peak than PC [72]. Moreover, the uses of RA in con-crete increases the rupture strain and toughness value of concrete[59,98]. RuC requires high plastic energy to fail after the elasticrange, and this trait makes RuC tougher. Higher rubber contentindicates RuC’s increasing toughness [72].

Studying previous investigations, it can be summarized that thestress-strain performance of RuC is normally more nonlinear com-pared to that of PC and pre-peak behavior of concrete is extremelyinfluenced by addition of rubber particles. The ultimate strain ofRuC increases for higher RA content and finer RA size, and the crackprevention and plastic deformation ability of RuC is expected toobserve higher for finer RA rather than the coarser ones.

gth of RuC with rubber content [91].

Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves of RuC with varying rubber contents [72].


The static and dynamic moduli of elasticity of RuC are lowerthan those of PC, whereas the percentage of reduction increasesalong with the increasing percentage of rubber used [38,82] andmay be indicative of a positive increase in the overall flexibilityof the structure [42,43] and in the suitability of pavement concretewhere a lower elasticity is needed [99]. Zheng et al. [82] observed a19% and 5.7% reduction in the static and dynamic moduli of elastic-ity, respectively, when FA is replaced by 15% ground rubber. A fur-ther reduction in the modulus of elasticity was observed when

Fig. 12. Variation in the elasticity moduli of RuC with CR content [100].

Fig. 13. Variation of split tensile strengt

crushed rubber was used. Using recycled tire fiber on concrete alsoresulted in a higher modulus of elasticity compared with using CR[22]. Noaman et al. [59] increased the rubber content in plain andfibrous concrete from 5% to 15% and observed a 9.1% additionalreduction in modulus of elasticity, whereas Mohammed et al.[99] observed an additional 3.4% reduction when the CR contentin concrete was increased by 20% to 30%. Therefore, the size andquantity of RA negatively affect the modulus of elasticity of RuC(Fig. 12). Previous studies [38,100] and Fig. 12 reveal that thereductions in the dynamic and static moduli of elasticity of RuCwith rubber were more pronounced in a 10% replacement leveland that such reductions decelerate when this level is exceeded.The typical variation in the modulus of elasticity of RuC asobserved in previous research is summarized in Table 5. As shownin this table, the reduction in elastic modulus for an RuC with acoarser RA is greater than that for an RuC with finer aggregates.Moreover, the replacement of the binder with rubber powder dras-tically reduced the strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete.The addition of RA generated a ductile concrete matrix in all inves-tigated cases.

8.3. Tensile strength

Generally, the tensile strength of the RuC specimen is lowercompared with that of PC [45]. Akinyele et al. [65] revealed a41% decrease in tensile strength when 4% CR was added to concretea replacement of FA and a 58% decrease when 16% CR was used.Therefore, higher RA caused lower strength. When aggregates arereplaced by chipped rubber, the reduction in the tensile strengthof concrete is more than that of RuC with powdered rubber forcement replacement [97]. The variation of split tensile strengthof RuC with RA content and size is shown in Fig. 13 [91]. Severalreasons for this phenomenon were previously provided byresearchers. The surface where RA and cement paste come in con-tact acts as a micro-crack, whereas the RA acts as cavity; therefore,the overall tensile strength of RuC is lower than that of PC [38].Weak ITZ and stress concentration along the ITZ constitute oneof the causes of rapid failure of RuC under tensile stress. Aslaniet al. [45] reported minimum reduction in tensile strength when5 mm sized RA was used instead of the 2 and 10 mm sized aggre-gate. This situation can happen due to high surface area, but thesame volume of 2 and 5 mm aggregate was used as FA in RuC.

h of RuC with rubber content [91].

Fig. 15. Variation of the abrasion depth of RuC with rubber content [105].


The 10 mm sized aggregate used to replace CA caused a larger vol-ume occupied by rubber. Gesoglu et al. [26] explained this behav-ior as the smaller sized RAs being isolated with one another andproducing weak bonding between cement pastes, whereas largeraggregates act as reinforcing fibers and cause lower strength lossthan their smaller counterparts. Splitting occurs in the RuC speci-men along the aggregate particle or paste rather than at the ITZ.To improve the tensile strength of a structure constructed withRuC, a hybrid construction technique may be applied. In a hybridRuC structure, the top layer consists of RuC, the bottom layer ismade of PC, and maximum bending load capacity is reached. Thebenefit of the hybrid structures is that they provide high energyabsorption capacity with RuC on top and high tensile strength withPC along the bottom layer [101].

8.4. Flexural strength

The decreasing trend of flexural strength of RuC is nearly similarto the compressive and the split tensile strength, as reported in lit-erature [72] and shown in Fig. 4. Similarly, Thomas and Gupta [2]found a 25–27% reduction in flexural tensile strength when 20%sand was replaced by CR in concrete. Improved flexural toughnesswas observed in self-compacting rubberized concrete [42]. Earlystage flexural strength of RuC is not substantially lower than thatof PC for up to 30% inclusion of rubber with low water–cementratio [28]. The positive aspect is that RuC does not fail suddenlyas ordinary concrete under bending [102]. Thus, RuC does not exhi-bit brittle failure under flexural loading and fails with a certainamount of deformation but does not achieve full disintegration[23,97]. The weak bond of rubber and cement paste causes a stee-per reduction of flexural strength compared with the reduction ofits compressive strength [78], as shown in Fig. 14 [72]. For a smal-ler sized RA, less reduction in strength was revealed in the bendingtest. This behavior is due to the high compact capacity of smallsized materials. In some cases with additional filling materials,flexural strength can be increased up to a certain limit for 20% rub-ber content [103]. Addition of silica fume is advantageous in termsof decreasing the strength reduction under flexural loading of RuC[104]. Additionally, researchers recommend to use steel or syn-thetic fibers in RuC to improve the flexural strength and crackingresistance of it [67].

8.5. Resistance to abrasion

RuC exhibits better abrasion resistance than PC [23,97,105].Increase in abrasion resistance continues with the addition of rub-ber in concrete [106]. The abrasion depth of RuC decreased from73% to 61% compared with PC when the RA content increased by10–30%. A denser matrix always shows better abrasion resistance.The density of concrete increases with the addition of finer rubberparticles, hence the abrasion resistance also increased. A typical

Fig. 14. Variation of strength reduction with rubber content [72].

representation of the variation in abrasion resistance with rubbercontent and rubber size is shown in Fig. 15 [105]. In Fig. 7, theRuC with finer CR exhibits lower abrasion depth, whereas theincreased RA content shows increased abrasion resistance. Theincrease in wear resistance may be due to the soft nature of rubber,which acts like a brush. On the contrary, higher abrasion damage inRuC may occur when excessive rubber content is used, because theagglomeration of rubber may cause reduction in the surface stiff-ness of the matrix [107]. During the specimen’s molding, the vibra-tion of RA tends to head for surfaces of the concrete specimenbecause of its lower specific gravity than natural aggregates. Thistrend can be pronounced when rubber content is excessive. Conse-quently, the bond strength between rubber and cement paste islower, and higher abrasion occurs due to wear. At the same time,the RA at the surface of the concrete specimen has more contactarea for the abrasion test rotating disc, which causes more wearin the soft surface of RA [89].

8.6. Resistance of impact

RuC has better performance under impact loading than understatic loading [101]. Improved impact energy was observed inRuC for higher content of rubber by up to 50% replacement of sand[61,96,101]. Youssf et al. [60] concluded that the replacement ofsand in concrete by 10% and 50% CR could increase impact resis-tance by 1.55 and 3.52 times, respectively, compared with PC.Addition of 18% rubber as sand replacement in concrete canimprove the toughness index by up to 11.8% [18], where the frac-ture energy under impact loading can be increased by up to 279%by the addition of 20% CR instead of sand in concrete [101]. Thehigh toughness of RuC is produced from rubber’s ability to absorbhigh tensile loads [3]. RA could absorb sudden shock because of itsnature, which cannot be achieved by natural aggregates because oftheir brittle nature. Under impact force, RuC shows better resis-tance to crack control, because it has better ductility than PC[20]. Hameed and Shashikala [16] claimed that the RuC sleeperhelps increase the resistance to crack formation under impactloads of up to 80–110% in comparison with PC. The impact strengthof the RuC sleeper is almost 1.5 times that of the prestressed con-crete sleeper, when sand replacement level is at 15%. Kaewunruenet al. [4] found that the best performance of railway concrete slee-per is achieved with 5% CR as micro-filler with silica fume. Sukon-tasukkul al. [108] investigated the bullet resistance of a RuC panelby firing 11 mm bullets from 15 m distances. Addition of a layer ofRuC on the concrete panel absorbs the kinetic energy of bullet andlowers its velocity, an ability which may stop bullets or preventthem from bouncing back. The impact energy absorption capacityof the RuC column increases with increasing rubber content, and


the said column can double the deflection of the PC column beforefailure [25,109]. Pham et al. [25] confirmed up to 63% increment inimpact energy in the RuC column with 30% CR compared with thePC column. A typical variation of the energy dissipation in differentconcrete mixtures with varying rubber content is shown in Fig. 16[110], which depicts an increasing trend of energy dissipationcapacity in concrete with rubber content. Therefore, RuC is suitableunder impact loading condition, but the use of excessive rubber isnot allowed, because excessive rubber content leads to porosity,thereby resulting in lower impact load carrying capacity. In a pre-vious study [110], substituting natural aggregates by 100% rubberin concrete caused approximately 72% decrease in impact loadcapacity.

Fig. 17. Fatigue life variation of RuC with varying rubber content [102]. RC = rubbercontent.

8.7. Resistance to fatigue

The fatigue resistance of bridge and road pavement structuresare crucial. Using RA improves the fatigue strength of concrete.Fatigue performance of reinforced pavement with RuC is much bet-ter than that of PC for the same stress level [111]. RA acts as amicro spring in RC composites given their elastic and fiber-like nat-ure, which delays crack initiation, integrates the micro-cracksunder the repeated load, and increases overall fatigue life [112].Trilok Gupta et al. [113] found that the number of load cycles inRuC increased by 14.39% and 16.23% from PC for stress levels 0.9and 0.8, respectively, when FA was replaced by 20% rubber ash.Interestingly, the highest (52.33%) increment of load cycle forstress level 0.8 was observed, when 10% rubber ash with 25% rub-ber fiber replaced FA in PC. Therefore, high rubber content leads tohigh fatigue life. Warm mix asphalt concrete with CR provides bet-ter fatigue life under repeating loads [17,114] because CR increasesthe toughness of the asphalt mix [40], as well as its elasticity, vis-cosity, and aging resistance [114]. Only a minimal change in pave-ment slab thickness was noted by increasing the amount of rubberfraction (up to 5% rubber content) under the same fatigue loading[115], a feature that makes road constructions economical. A typi-cal variation in fatigue life cycle under different stress ratiosapplied in RuC with various rubber content is shown in Fig. 17[102]. The graph shows an increase in fatigue life cycle withincreasing rubber content in RuC at a similar stress level. Therefore,inclusion of rubber in concrete enhances the resistance againstrepeated loading condition.

9. Dynamic properties

The dynamic properties of concrete improved after adding RA[24,93]. The damping ratio of RuC is much better than that of PC[42,70,116]. RuC can absorb more vibrational energy than PC and

Fig. 16. Average energy transferred at maximum dynamic impact load with varyingrubber content [110].

could be used in the construction of railway sleepers. The vibrationabsorption and damping ratio increases with the amount of RA inRuC [117]. The damping ratio of fine grained RA incorporated intoconcrete was higher than the coarser one [118]. A characteristicdiagram showing the variation in damping ratio with the rubbercontent in concrete is shown in Fig. 18 [100]. The graph indicatesa common increasing trend in the damping ratio with increasingrubber content, and the increment is significant up to the earlystage of the load cycle. Therefore, under dynamic loading, RuC willbe superior to PC [19], because the former delayed crack initiationand rebar fracture under seismic loading, thereby indicating lowerdemand of rebar [119] and has economic benefits. RuC can be usedin earthquake resistance structures due to its high hysteric damp-ing ratio and energy dissipation capacity [70,120]. Columns con-structed with RuC exhibit 13% higher hysteretic damping ratioand 150% energy dissipation but possess lower viscous dampingthan PC [121]. The natural frequency of the RuC column is higherthan that of the PC column considering the high initial stiffnessof the former. An RuC columnwith rubber instead of 20% sand usedin a bridge structure could maintain integrity up to 5.4% drift, butan RC column loses 20% strength capacity before a drift level of4.8% [119]. A study [121] reveals that although an RuC columncan reach up to 91.5% ultimate drift level relative to a PC counter-part, the overall fracture and damage can be delayed and reducedin the RuC column under seismic loading. Unfortunately, increas-ing the amount of rubber makes concrete weak in terms of overallmechanical strength. Sometimes, the poor adhesion and agglomer-ation of rubber within the concrete mix may result in the reductionof energy dissipation capacity [118]. The dynamic modulus of RuCalso decreased with increasing rubber content in concrete [21,121],and low elasticity may cause heavy deflection. Inclusion of RuC insteel tubes produced a high seismic performance by taking advan-tage of RuC’s high energy absorption capacity and ductile nature[88]. Nevertheless, addition of excessive rubber content can showa negative impact on the energy absorption capacity of concrete[93], which is vulnerable under a dynamic load.

10. Durability properties

10.1. Water permeability and water absorption

Although the absorption capacities of natural aggregates andRAs are close to each other [43], the water absorption capacity ofRuC was higher than that of PC [23,43,97]. The water absorptionincreased by approximately 20–73% in RuC with 10–70% rubberinstead of FA [61]. The increase in water absorption in RuC as dri-ven by the inclusion of coarser RA was greater than that driven by

Fig. 18. Variation of the damping ratio of RuC with CR content [100].


the inclusion of finer RA [73]. However, despite this characteristic,rubberized cementitious composites are suitable for the plasteringof outside walls and flat roofs that may be exposed to water flowsbecause of their hydrophobic nature [51]. The water absorption ofRuC can also be reduced by the inclusion of FA. Previous studies[122] found that replacing 25% of FAs by CR in self-compactingRuC with 60% FA significantly reduced the water absorption capac-ity of concrete. Meanwhile, water permeability and water absorp-tion both increased along with the RA size and content [38,71]. Awater permeability increment of around 114–150% was alsoobserved after replacing CA by 5–10% of RA [38]. Meanwhile,

Fig. 19. Water absorption capacity of R

Table 6Water absorption of RuC with varying RA size and content.

Ref. Replacement Size of RA (mm) Water absorption Remarks

[38] 5–10% CA 2–10 Increased by 2.75–3.95% The size and[73] 5–15% FA 0–4 Increased by 3–14%[43] 5–20% FA 0–1.9 Increased by 11–154% Depends on[124] 0–12% FA 0–0.8 Reduced by 5–23% Densely pac[123] 0–7.5% FA 0–4 Reduced by 0–1.7% Long-term e

10–20% FA Increased by 0–2.5%

compared to using PC, using 0.3 mm and 3 mm RA in concreteincreased the water permeability of the material by 38% and209%, respectively [71]. Fig. 19 [123] shows how the replacementof natural aggregates changes the water absorption capacity ofconcrete. The long-term water absorption capacity of RuC is signif-icantly higher than that of PC, although only slight differences areobserved during the early curing period.

Table 6 shows how the water absorption capacity of RuCchanges along with the CR content and reveals that the RA sizeand content as well as the water–cement ratio of the mixturecan negatively affect water absorption resistance.

uC with varying RA contents [123].

content of RA have negative effects on water absorption resistance

the water–cement ratio and RA contentked matrix formed by fine RA, which is resistant to water absorptionxposure drives a significant increase in the water absorption of RuC than of PC.


10.2. Carbonation resistance

The carbonation resistance of RuC is generally lower than thatof PC [96]. Previous studies [125] reveal that using up to 12.5% rub-ber in concrete results in a lower carbonation depth comparedwith using PC. Any further addition of RA increases the carbonationdepth in RuC. When 15% CA is replaced by RA, the carbonationdepth increases by around 56% [73]. Another study [73] reportedthat the water absorption and carbonation trends are similar foran RuC with varying RA content and size. Although the waterrequirements for the RuC mixture are higher than those for PC,therefore it is a general case of formation more porous RuC matrixand consequently more liquid absorption after hardened. The car-bonation depth in RuC increases along with the age of concrete.Gupta et al. [43] argued that the carbonation depth of RuCincreases along with the content of powdered rubber. They alsofound that the carbonation depth increases along with CO2 expo-sure duration for any replacement level. Given its hydrophobic nat-ure, RA tends to repel cement paste [43], thereby forming a porousmatrix with weak ITZ in concrete. Another study [23] revealed thepresence of additional voids and cracks within RuC that created apath for carbon dioxide to easily invade the internal concrete.The compacted and densely packed matrix of RuC is always bene-ficial in lowering the carbonation depth. Given that a larger RA pro-duces a more porous RuC, carbonation depth also increases alongwith the RA size and content.

10.3. Chloride ion penetration

While the porosity of RuC is higher than that of PC, the chemicalabsorption of the former is generally higher than the latter. Someprevious experiments [43,76] have returned positive results andconfirmed the high resistance of RuC to chloride ion and water

Fig. 20. Variation in chloride

Table 7Chloride ion penetration with the addition of RA.

Ref. Replacement Size of RA (mm) Chloride penetration de

[52] 2.5–15% FA 0.75–1.18 Reduced by 14–36%[74] 5–25% FA 0–4 Increased by 6–40%[123] 0.7–5% FA 0–4 Reduced by 0–4.8%

10–20% FA Increased by 4.8–19%

penetration. According to Si et al. [53], the total volume of perme-able voids in RuC is lower than those in PC; therefore, the liquidabsorption of the former is also lower than that of the latter. Liuet al. [94] found that replacing 20% of FA in concrete with CR couldlead to the highest durability. Other studies [73,125] reveal thatusing up to 5–7.5% CR could result in a greater reduction in chlo-ride ion penetration in RuC compared with that in PC. Exceedingthis figure will reduce the penetration resistance due to the lowinternal packing density of RuC. The finer size of RA results in a clo-sely packed matrix because of the filler effects of the rubber con-tent. Conversely, increasing the size of the aggregates canincrease porosity and subsequently increase chemical and waterabsorption. Furthermore, RuC faces a lower long-term loss instrength compared with PC under acid exposure conditions, andsuch loss in strength decelerates as the amount of rubber increases[125]. This trend can be explained by the fact that rubber particlesact as reinforcing media and hold the constituents of concrete. Asobserved in previous research [122], the incorporation of FA inthe self-compacting RuC may enhance its resistance to chlorideion penetration if a short curing period is maintained. Meanwhile,the results of another study [74] revealed that even though theaddition of RA reduced the resistance of the material to chlorideion penetration, RA can be reduced by the addition of silica fume(SF) with concrete. Fig. 20 [123] reveals that replacing the CR inRuC up to 7.5% of the fine aggregates can reduce chloride penetra-tion, and any further addition of CR can reduce the resistance ofconcrete to chloride penetration and consequently increase thechloride penetration depth.

Table 7 presents the significant findings of previous studies onthe chloride penetration resistance of RuC. These findingsreveal that the water absorption and chloride penetration of RuCshow a similar trend as both the RA and water–cement ratioincrease.

penetration in RuC [123].

pth Remarks

As the density of RuC increases, the chloride penetration decreasesChloride penetration increases along with the water–cement ratio

Fig. 21. Sound transmission in RuC with varying rubber content [127]. S = silica;F = fly ash.


10.4. Sound absorption

Concrete with high porosity (15–25%) is sufficient to absorbsound [126]. RuC possesses a higher porous structure than PC.Thus, the sound absorption and noise reduction properties of RuCis superior to those of PC [15,31,107]. Najim and Hall [24] revealedthat the improvement of the sound absorption capacity of RuC isnoticeable beyond 500 Hz and significantly greater above1000 Hz compared with PC. RuC contains 80–100% fibers alongwith CR, replacing CA, exhibit 33–48.6% improved sound absorp-tion capacity in the frequency ranged 800–1000 Hz [126]. Mortarcontaining 25% CR showed higher sound absorption capacity thanplain mortar in the range of 600–24 Hz [48]. Acoustic emissionamplitudes and cracks are also well distributed in RuC than in PC[120]. Given the high damping coefficient observed in RuC, thevibration produced from the sound wave was rapidly dampenedand sound was absorbed shortly [118]. The bar chart shown inFig. 21 [127] represents the variation of sound transmission classin the RuC specimens with different CR contents. The figure indi-cates that RA’s increasing amount in concrete increases soundabsorption capacity.

Fig. 22. Disparity in mass loss in RuC with freeze-thaw cycles [105]. TC = tire chips;CR = crumb rubber; FCR = fine CR.

11. Functional properties

11.1. Fire resistance and thermal conductivity

Rubber is combustible under fire and has low decompositiontemperature [128]. Therefore, RuC is not safe as PC under a directfire condition. However, the structural component made by RuCexhibited lower spalling damage under fire [129]. After exposingthe RuC specimens with 5%, 10%, and 15% CR at 800 �C for 1 h,the residual compressive strength were found to be 37.3%, 55.4%,and 69.5% of the control specimens [128]. Therefore, increasingthe rubber content causes a significant reduction in fire resistanceof concrete. Such result was also pronounced for coarser RA. Asobserved in research [75], average mass loss in concrete with30% and 40% CR of size 5–10 mm are almost twice than the massloss observed for concrete with 2–5 mm sized CR.

In addition, RuC has better thermal insulation property due tothe lower thermal conductivity of rubber, a feature which mayvary between 0.1 and 0.25 W/mK, whereas the conventional aggre-gate’s thermal conductivity is approximately 1.5 W/mK [62,130].The thermal conductivity of concrete can be lowered by up to50% by the incorporation of RA [31], and this reduction continueswith the finer size of RAs [32]. Constructional elements (slab andbricks) made by RAmay ensure the consistency of the interior tem-perature while the exterior temperature fluctuates, and a temper-

ature gradient of up to 5.6% is possible between the interior andexterior parts [44]. Approximately 20–50% reduction in thermalconductivity and 17–54% reduction in heat transfer have beenreported in previous research when 10–30% rubber is used in con-crete instead of sand. The risk of bursting of the concrete compos-ite can be lowered by incorporating RA to concrete subjected totemperatures above 600 �C [92]. Youssf et al. [60] found no cracksin RuC when exposed to 100 �C temperature for 24 h with up to20% sand replacement level, but further increase in rubber contentalso increased the crack formation. As found in previous research,when RuC with 15% rubber content was exposed to 800 �C for 1 h,it lost its 69% of its compressive strength and 63% of its split tensilestrength [128]. On the contrary, the RuC specimens with 10% rub-ber in the experiment of Gupta et al. [131] fully deteriorated whenexposed at 750 �C for 120 min because of the decomposition ofrubber. The authors emphasized the fact that the cause of thisdeterioration is the very porous structure of RuC, and decomposi-tion occurs beyond the 150 �C temperature. At elevated tempera-tures (over 400 �C), the calcium silica hydrates start to denigrate,thereby degrading the bond strength within the concrete matrixand leading to strength reduction [132]. Again, the porosity ofthe concrete matrix increases due to the evaporation of waterentrapped in the voids of RuC after heating at high temperature,thereby weakening the concrete. Strength loss of RuC at elevatedtemperature was illustrated as a natural characteristics, and forthis reason structural application of RuC shall not be stopped [128].

In addition, crumb rubberized binders have noticeably betterperformance at low temperature. The replacement of sand by rub-ber also bridged the micro-cracks developed upon exposure to ele-vated temperatures [61]. Thermal expansion contraction of RuC ismuch lower than that of PC, and the risk of shrinkage cracking isvery low [79].

11.2. Freeze-thaw resistance

The freeze-thaw resistance of concrete can be increased by theinclusion of rubber [93,94,105]. The average weight loss of RuCspecimens exposed to freeze-thaw experiment was very low(approximately 2–3.5%) after 240 freeze-thaw cycles [27,105]. Ingeneral, increasing the content of rubber in concrete increases itsfreeze-thaw resistance. Finer RA produces densely packed RuC,which prevents the interior bonding from deterioration due tothe continuous freeze-thaw condition as the finer rubber particlesentrained and trapped air bubbles within the cement paste andlowered the permeability. However, when the rubber contentexceeds the optimum limit, agglomeration occurs and a porousstructure is formed, thereby resulting in low resistance of concreteunder freeze-thaw cyclic conditions. A typical graphical represen-tation of mass loss in RuC with different fractions and sizes of RAdue to the continuous freeze-thaw cycles are shown in Fig. 22

Fig. 23. Electrical resistivity of RuC with varying content of ingredients [127].S = silica fume; F = fly ash; CR = crumb rubber.


[105]. The size of the aggregate adversely affects freeze-thaw resis-tance, as shown in Fig. 22. When water enters the porous concretematrix and becomes ice at freezing temperatures, its volumeincreases, and pressure is produced in the voids, thereby generat-ing micro-cracks [20]. These cracks are the weakest parts underrepeated freeze-thaw cycle. Through the addition of air-entraining additives and with the creation of consistent sphericalvoids, the frost-induced ice pressure is reduced significantly, andfreeze-thaw resistance thereby increases [20].

11.3. Electrical resistivity

RuC possesses better electrical resistivity compared with PC,because rubber acts as a dielectric material and is used as insulatorfor different purposes [69]. The electrical resistance of concretedecreases by the addition of finer RA, and approximately 17% sur-face resistance was found after inclusion of 0.6 mm sized 50% RA[127]. In addition, Kaewunruen et al. [4] discovered increased elec-trical resistance by up to 47%. Pre-treated RA in NaOH solutionshows better electrical resistivity than ordinary RA [21]. Si et al.[53] found an inverse relation between rubber content and electri-cal resistivity of RuC, but over 50% increase in rubber volume maypositively affect concrete’s electrical resistance. With increasingage of the RuC, the electrical resistivity increases; after full hydra-tion, more end products (calcium silicate hydrate) are produced,and they act as barriers to the transmission of electrical charges[127]. The electrical resistivity of RuC increases with increasingamount of RA, as shown in Fig. 23 [127]. Addition of silica fumeis recommended by researchers to improve RuC’s electrical resis-tivity [127].

12. Present state of utilization of rubber in concrete

12.1. Pre-treatment of tire rubber

To increase the adhesion between concrete and RA, pre-treatment of rubber is needed [41,95]. A general technique of rub-ber pre-treatment involves submerging rubber in any solvent (ace-tone, ethanol, methanol, NaOH, polyvinyl alcohol, Ca(OH)2, acid,and silane coupling agent) for a specified time [3,90]. Syntheticresin, amino-acrylate (contact glue), chloroprene adhesive andunsaturated resins (marble glue), emulsion, and ethoxyline resinsare also used as modifiers for RA pre-treatment and have satisfac-tory performance to enhance bonding [94]. Waste tire aggregatescan also be treated by organic sulfur compounds and mineral acids[50]. Pre-treatment helps remove zinc stearate film from the sur-

face of rubber particles and increases roughness and bonding withconcrete [116]. Pre-treatment of RA by NaOH produces a weakbasic condition along the rubber-cement interface and acceleratescement hydration [69], which in turn creates a highly dense com-posite through the enhancement of bonding [53] and increases inelectrical resistivity [21]. After ponding for a specific time, rubberneeds to be washed to reduce its pH level to 7. Youssf et al. [41]ponded rubber in 10% NaOH solution for 30 min only at controlledtemperature (around 25 �C) for pre-treatment. Rubber stiffnessmay decrease when treatment with NaOH solution exceeds30 min [41]. Conversely, Su et al. [133] found no significantimprovement in the properties of rubber particle after treatmentwith NaOH solution for less than 24 h. Therefore, pre-treatmenttime and temperature should be controlled. Rubber treatment withacetone solvent may help increase the mechanical strength of thecomposite [95]. Pre-coated RA also facilitated the improvementof the mechanical properties of RuC. Pre-coating may be done byusing carbon tetrachloride and an aqueous latex additive, cementpaste, cellulose ether, amphiphilic organosulfur compounds [3],mortar paste [134], and silica fume [90]. Najim and Hall [134]experimented on various types of pre-treatment and coating sys-tems of RA, such as normal water washed rubber, cement pastepre-coated rubber, mortar pre-coated rubber, and NaOH pre-treated RA. Their experiment revealed that by using mortar pre-coated RA, the stress distribution, compressive strength, and splittensile strength of RuC can increased to a reliable level. Su et al.[133] stated that pre-treatment of RA by silane coupling agenthas a more positive effect than saturated NaOH on RuC’s surfacecharacteristics and strength properties. In addition, Aslani et al.[45] found that pre-treatment of RA by water-soaking is practica-ble and cost effective. By contrast, Raffoul et al. [90] stated thatpre-washing by water and pre-coating by silica fume of RA hasno effect on RuC’s strength. Therefore, the performances ofpre-treated and pre-coated RA are better, but the best method ofpre-treatment is still up for debate.

12.2. Rubber as binder

Powder from waste tire rubber can be used with binders in var-ious engineering constructions. In polymer concrete, ground tirerubber can be used as a cementitious material [38]. Supplementaryaddition of CR with asphalt in pavement construction is one of thegeneral uses of rubber particles as a binder. Sofi [97] stated thatwhen 5–10% of cement content in PC was replaced by rubber pow-der of particle size ranging from 45 mm to 1.2 mm, only 5–23%reduction in compressive strength of specimens were observed.Addition of 2.5–10% ground tire rubber in polymer concrete alsocaused a reduction in compressive strength by approximately28–37%; flexural strength decreased by 18–21% [135]. Moreover,5–10% cement replacement caused approximately 20–40% com-pressive strength in another research [38]. The reduction instrength usually depends on the size and gradation of ground rub-ber and the pre-treatment adopted. In comparing the replacementof aggregates, the replacement of cement by rubber caused higherstrength reduction because of the low adhesion of rubber with theconstituents of concrete. Nevertheless, adding ground rubber toconcrete showed a flatter post-peak behavior, which is an expectedproperty of concrete for seismic design [135]. The crack resistantcapacity of RuC with a rubber binder is better than that of PC upto an optimum level of replacement. In cold weather zone, crumbrubberized asphalt pavement showed better crack resistancecapacity than normal asphalt pavements [40]. In concrete, 0–10%cement could be replaced by rubber composites, which must beprepared to achieve the desired dispersion and binding action[33] before being used in the mix. Very limited information


regarding rubber binders is available, and research on rubber bin-der in concrete is still lacking.

12.3. Rubber as fine aggregates

CR and powdered rubber could replace FA in concrete. The size,density, and fineness modulus of crumb or powdered rubber con-trol the overall strength and durability of RuC. Previous researchrevealed that finer rubber particles ensures better strength of rub-berized composites [64]. Thomas and Gupta [2] replaced up to 20%of natural FA in concrete using CR of different sizes in powder formof 30 mesh, 0.8–2 mm, and 2–4 mm. The results revealed the opti-mum content of 12.5% of crumb RA. Hameed and Shashikala [16]used 15% CR to replace FA in a concrete sleeper made for a railway,and trustworthy impact strength, fatigue, and ductility property inRuC were found. Gheni et al. [70] used 20% CR to replace sand in arubberized concrete masonry unit and confirmed improved dura-bility under a critical condition. Gupta et al. [43] replaced FA inconcrete with rubber ash with particle sizes of 0.15–0.19 mmobtained by incinerating tire rubber at 850 �C for 72 h. They alsoused rubber fiber of 2–3 mm width and maximum length of20 mm to replace FA up to 25% level. In all types of ECCs, rubbercan be used after replacing sand. The modulus of elasticity ofRuC decreases with increasing FA content in such composites, atrait that benefits pavement concrete by making it more flexiblein nature [99]. Maximum replacement percentages of FA by CRhave been identified by the literature as up to 25% [67,69], 20%[100], and 10% [27].

12.4. Rubber as coarse aggregates

Chipped rubber of various sizes can be used in concrete as CA,because RuC that has well-graded RA of various sizes performs bet-ter with applied load than single sized aggregates [23]. Jafari andToufigh [98] used chipped rubber and CR in concrete to test theeffectiveness of rubber size on strength. They found greater reduc-tion in strength for chipped rubber than CR in concrete. By con-trast, higher reduction in density was observed for CR inconcrete. Inclusion of rubber as a replacement of FA is more reli-able than as replacement for CA in terms of strength properties,although coarser RA particles produce more workable RuC thanfiner ones [71]. As found by Jafari and Toufigh [98], a 75–100%increase in energy absorption capacity occurs more in CR concretethan in chipped rubber concrete. On the contrary, the split tensilestrength of RuC increases with coarser rubber, because such a com-ponent acts as a reinforcing fiber in cement paste [91]. A similarconclusion was revealed by Filipe et al. [136]. They stated thatcoarse RA in RuC offers better performance in terms of compressivestrength and split tensile strength than finer RA. Additional supple-mentary materials can reduce this strength reduction. For example,EA helps improve the bond strength between concrete and rubber,and the compressive strength of RuC was higher than that of PC foran EA/cement ratio of up to 0.10 [137]. RuC in which CA wasreplaced by 80–100% fibers of steel or plastic coated with CR canbe used in the marketplace where high noise (frequency rangesfrom 700 Hz to 1300 Hz) may occur [126]. The optimum level ofreplacement is margined by 30% of coarse aggregate in most previ-ous studies [24].

12.5. Rubber as fiber

Recycled tire polymer fibers can be used to enhance themechanical properties of concrete. Rubber fiber can also be usedas FA replacement. Rubber fiber concrete (RfC) is generally porousand possesses low compressive strength. As revealed in the litera-ture, 77% reduction in compressive strength was observed after

replacing natural sand by 50% rubber fiber of size under 1 mm[138], because the lower stiffness and low adhesion of rubber fiberwith the ingredients in concrete creates voids within the concretematrix [139]. Additionally, the tensile strength and flexuralstrength of RfC is higher than those of PC. Research showed thatapproximately 6.75% increased split tensile strength and 5.4%improved flexural strength can be obtained by replacing 0–30%rubber fiber instead of FAs [139]. Moreover, 18% flexural strengthimprovement was reported in another research for a 20% replace-ment level [138]. Rubber fibers have a crack bridging effect and alonger term grip than natural aggregates, and such characteristicsresulted in a ductile matrix of concrete and reduced the width ofcracks under tension and bending action. The overall improvementdepends on the size of rubber fibers and the level of fiber content,because excess fiber may create agglomeration and strength reduc-tion may be caused by porous matrix formation [138]. RfC also pos-sesses high durability and high resistance to the freeze-thaw effect,as well as reduces early stage deformation by almost 75–100%[140]. The recommended amounts of rubber fiber content in con-crete are 1% [140], 5%, [131], and 20% [138] to maintain stabilityand strength to an optimum level. However, investigations onthe inclusion of rubber fiber in concrete remain lacking. Further-more, the use of rubber in concrete can lower the bonding propertycompared with the natural aggregates. Thus, this issue is addressedby the incorporation of epoxy resins and fibers in the RuC mixdesign [98,141]. Modified RuC can be an alternative to improvethe compressive and tensile strength of RuC by including steelfibers [142,143]. Noaman et al. [59] found a 24.5% increase in com-pressive strength of RuC by mixing 0.5% steel fiber with 15% CR.RuC also possesses high durability [143]. Other additional materi-als could be used in RuC to enhance its overall performance, suchas silica fume [93], fly ash [144], and polypropylene fibers [67].Addition of nano-silica in RuC increases elasticity but reduces duc-tility; it also makes RuC rigid [99]. Increasing rubber content inconcrete leads to poor hydration reaction [65], which can beimproved by adding nano-silica in concrete [111]. Nano-silicaincreases the density of the overall concrete mixture by increasingthe bonding of cement paste and rubber in the ITZ. Confining thestructural member constructed using RuC by fiber-reinforced poly-mers [19,145] and steel tubes [77,88] increases the overallperformance.

13. Future trends of rubberized concrete

Several studies conforms that the uses of waste tire rubber inconcrete are sustainable in terms of economy, environment andmechanical performance of concrete. But there is very a limitedinvestigations on applications of RuC in reinforced structural mem-bers were observed. As observed from the present available studyon application of RuC in full-scale RC beams and columns that theRuC can be successfully implemented in those members under ser-vice load as well as extreme loading conditions [41,121,146–150].It was reviewed that the RuC columns can be able to undergo morethan two times lateral deformation without buckling failure com-pared to the conventional one [150]. Meanwhile the investigationson uses of advance materials to confinement the structural col-umns incorporating RuC also have a good potential [60,145,151].Additionally, prestressed members with RuC gaining attention,because it was proven that the negative effect of RA addition inconcrete at the structural level are not as much as the materiallevel [152]. For protective structure against blast and impact load-ing RuC with special arrangement can be a good alternative. Asobserved in the previous study [153], RuC can be helpful to reduceimpact force of up to 50% with extended impact duration.Meanwhile, the impact resistance can be further more increased


by confining the RuC member through any fiber reinforced poly-mer sheet or tube. Therefore, advance protective structure couldbe possible by using RuC and extensive research needed on thisfield to establish proper guidelines for the best results.

Meanwhile, Rubber aggregates are being used in self-compacting concrete [45,75,154], high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete [155], and showing reliable performance underhigh temperature and service loading. Though uses of rubber inself-compacting concrete is showing negative effect, but additionof fibers and silica fume are a good solution to improvement theproperties of self-compacting RuC [156]. Investigations on theapplication of self-compacting and fibrous RuC on structural mem-ber under service and extreme loading conditions are not sufficientin present state. Meanwhile, modellings on the materials proper-ties to establish proper relation among properties and serviceabil-ity should have to add in this research filed.

14. Conclusions

Tire production is continuously increased in parallel with theeconomic and industrial development of the world, thereby pro-ducing massive waste per year. Disposal and burning of waste tirehave been proven as harmful for environmental safety and recy-cling of rubber is the most desirable alternative. The applicationof recycled waste tire rubber in concrete construction is an effec-tive and sustainable process. Waste tire rubber can be utilized inconcrete as a replacement of fine aggregates, coarse aggregates,binders, and fibers. Moreover, waste tire rubber can be employedin other cementitious composites, such as in mortar, polymer com-posites, and geopolymers. Using RA in any ECC changes the physi-cal, mechanical, durability, and functional properties of thatcomposite. Therefore, the present use of RA with its results andguidelines must be ascertained before any further application. Thisstudy provides a general discussion of the uses of recycled tire rub-ber in cementing composites and the behavioral changes thatoccur with the current guidelines. The wide-ranging considera-tions in using RuC are also discussed in this paper. The general con-clusions of this review are as follows:

� Concrete mix with RAs possess low workability. The addition ofRAs in concrete makes it porous and lightweight because of airadhesion and rubber’s hydrophobicity, which are characteristicsthat depend on the size and content of rubber. Generally, uses ofcoarser RAs produce more porous concrete matrixes, but thisfact may be contradictory in special cases.

� In general, the addition of rubber in concrete can reducemechanical properties, and this trend increases with rubber’ssize and content. A wide and porous weak ITZ was observedin RuC due to the low adhesion of rubber with cement paste.The reduction in tensile strength and flexural strengthwas lower than the reduction in compressive strength.Pre-treatment process and additives, such as silica fume andmineral filler, enhance RuC’s strength.

� Ductility and strain control capacity of concrete is higher afteradding rubber. As rubber is a soft material, it increases theenergy absorption capacity and deflection capability withoutcracking. Therefore, a flatter stress–strain relationship isobserved with increasing rubber content. The size and quantityof rubber negatively affect the modulus of elasticity of concrete.

� RuC has very high impact energy absorption capacity but lowabrasion resistance because of RA’s soft nature and low specificgravity. The soft and elastic nature of RA makes it hard for con-crete to absorb sudden shock, but the ultimate load carryingcapacity of RuC is lower than that of PC. The repeating cyclicload resistance and damping ratio of RuC improves with

increasing rubber content. This feature helps increase fatiguelife, sound absorption capacity, and seismic resistance ofstructures.

� Rubberized concrete can survive up to a reliable limit in coldand hot regions. However, the addition of rubber to concretemakes it porous, thereby lowering durability because of theincreased water and chemical absorption and easy access offrost and temperature action. Surface resistance to passing elec-trical charges improves because of the non-conductive nature ofrubber. The problem associated with the risk of fire and thermalresistance must be addressed.

� The optimum level of replacement by RA of the conventionalingredients in concrete depends on the design strength, struc-tural requirements, loading condition, and environmental expo-sure conditions. Generally, researchers suggest higher optimumreplacement level for fine aggregates than for coarse aggregates.The replacement of cement by rubber powder remains underconsideration in many studies. Addition of rubber fiber showsmoderate results on RuC’s mechanical properties.

This review reveals a lack of guidelines and modeling of thegeneral relationship of RA addition and other functional and dura-bility properties. Extensive researches required on the applicationof RuC in structural reinforced concrete members. Investigationsare required to increase the application of RuC in the constructionfield to provide safe and reliable strength and durability, as well asprevent accidental damage associated with RuC.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-vided by the Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineer-ing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.

References

[1] S. Raffoul, R. Garcia, D. Escolano-Margarit, M. Guadagnini, I. Hajirasouliha, K.Pilakoutas, Behaviour of unconfined and FRP-confined rubberised concrete inaxial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 388–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.175.

[2] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, Long term behaviour of cement concrete containingdiscarded tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 102 (2015) 78–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.072.

[3] B. Muñoz-Sánchez, M.J. Arévalo-Caballero, M.C. Pacheco-Menor, Influence ofacetic acid and calcium hydroxide treatments of rubber waste on theproperties of rubberized mortars, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) 75, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0912-7.

[4] S. Kaewunruen, D. Li, Y. Chen, Z. Xiang, Enhancement of dynamic damping ineco-friendly railway concrete sleepers using waste-tyre crumb rubber,Materials (Basel) 11 (2018) 1169, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11071169.

[5] Global Tire RecyclingMarket Share, Size, Trends Analysis | Forecast 2024, (n.d.).https://www.goldsteinresearch.com/report/global-tire-recycling-industry-market-trends-analysis (accessed April 8, 2019).

[6] U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association | The national trade association for tiremanufacturers that make tires in the U.S., (n.d.). https://www.ustires.org/(accessed April 8, 2019).

[7] Interesting statistics on the destination of old tyres in Australia, (n.d.). https://www.gdtc6.com/statistics-old-tyres-in-australia/ (accessed April 8, 2019).

[8] ETRMA’s statistics on scrap tire collection and recycling in Europe, (n.d.).https://weibold.com/etrmas-statistics-on-scrap-tire-collection-and-recycling-in-europe/ (accessed April 8, 2019).

[9] Z. Zhang, H. Ma, S. Qian, Investigation on properties of ECC incorporatingcrumb rubber of different sizes, J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 13 (2015) 241–251,https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.13.241.

[10] F. Azevedo, F. Pacheco-Torgal, C. Jesus, J.L. Barroso de Aguiar, A.F. Camões,Properties and durability of HPC with tyre rubber wastes, Constr.Build. Mater. 34 (2012) 186–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.062.



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.072


https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0912-7

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0912-7

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11071169

https://www.goldsteinresearch.com/report/global-tire-recycling-industry-market-trends-analysis

https://www.goldsteinresearch.com/report/global-tire-recycling-industry-market-trends-analysis

https://www.ustires.org/

https://www.gdtc6.com/statistics-old-tyres-in-australia/

https://www.gdtc6.com/statistics-old-tyres-in-australia/

https://weibold.com/etrmas-statistics-on-scrap-tire-collection-and-recycling-in-europe/

https://weibold.com/etrmas-statistics-on-scrap-tire-collection-and-recycling-in-europe/

https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.13.241




[11] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Cerro-Prada, F. Escolano, F. Varela, Fatigue performanceof waste rubber concrete for rigid road pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 176(2018) 539–548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.030.

[12] P. Asutkar, S.B. Shinde, R. Patel, Study on the behaviour of rubber aggregatesconcrete beams using analytical approach, Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J. 20(2017) 151–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.07.007.

[13] N.N. Gerges, C.A. Issa, S.A. Fawaz, Rubber concrete: Mechanical anddynamical properties, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00184 e00184.

[14] M.S. Senin, S. Shahidan, S.R. Abdullah, N.A. Guntor, A.S. Leman, A review onthe suitability of rubberized concrete for concrete bridge decks, IOP Conf. Ser.Mater. Sci. Eng. 271 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/271/1/012074 012074.

[15] A. Grinys, H. Sivilevicius, M. Daukšys, Tyre rubber additive effect on concretemixture strength, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 18 (2012) 393–401, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.693536.

[16] A.S. Hameed, A.P. Shashikala, Suitability of rubber concrete for railwaysleepers, Perspect. Sci. 8 (2016) 32–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.01.011.

[17] F. Xiao, P.E. Wenbin Zhao, S.N. Amirkhanian, Fatigue behavior of rubberizedasphalt concrete mixtures containing warm asphalt additives, Constr. Build.Mater. 23 (2009) 3144–3151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.06.036.

[18] D. Li, Y. Zhuge, R. Gravina, J.E. Mills, Compressive stress strain behavior ofcrumb rubber concrete (CRC) and application in reinforced CRC slab, Constr.Build. Mater. 166 (2018) 745–759, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.142.

[19] A. Moustafa, M.A. ElGawady, Strain rate effect on properties of rubberizedconcrete confined with glass fiber-reinforced polymers, J. Compos. Constr. 20(2016) 04016014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000658.

[20] T. Gonen, Freezing-thawing and impact resistance of concretes containingwaste crumb rubbers, Constr. Build. Mater. 177 (2018) 436–442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.105.

[21] R. Si, J. Wang, S. Guo, Q. Dai, S. Han, Evaluation of laboratory performance ofself-consolidating concrete with recycled tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 180(2018) 823–831, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.180.

[22] G. Li, S.-S. Pang, S.I. Ibekwe, FRP tube encased rubberized concrete cylinders,Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 233–243, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9622-8.

[23] B.S. Thomas, R. Chandra Gupta, Properties of high strength concretecontaining scrap tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 86–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.019.

[24] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, A review of the fresh/hardened properties andapplications for plain- (PRC) and self-compacting rubberised concrete(SCRC), Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 2043–2051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.056.

[25] T.M. Pham, X. Zhang, M. Elchalakani, A. Karrech, H. Hao, A. Ryan, Dynamicresponse of rubberized concrete columns with and without FRP confinementsubjected to lateral impact, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 207–218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.146.

[26] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, G. Khoshnaw, S. _Ipek, Investigating properties ofpervious concretes containing waste tire rubbers, Constr. Build. Mater. 63(2014) 206–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.046.

[27] _I.B. Topçu, A. Demir, Durability of Rubberized Mortar and Concrete, J. Mater.Civ. Eng. 19 (2007) 173–178, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007) 19:2(173).

[28] _I.B. Topçu, A. Unverdi, Scrap tires/crumb rubber, in: Waste Suppl. Cem. Mater.Concr., Elsevier, 2018, pp. 51–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102156-9.00002-X.

[29] Krishna C. Baranwal, Akron rubber development laboratory, astm standards &testing of recycle rubber, in: Rubber Div. Meet. Am. Chem. Soc., San Francisco,California, 2003.

[30] L. Li, S. Ruan, L. Zeng, Mechanical properties and constitutive equations ofconcrete containing a low volume of tire rubber particles, Constr. Build.Mater. 70 (2014) 291–308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.105.

[31] P. Sukontasukkul, Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and soundproperties of pre-cast concrete panel, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1084–1092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.021.

[32] S. Herrero, P. Mayor, F. Hernández-Olivares, Influence of proportion andparticle size gradation of rubber from end-of-life tires on mechanical, thermaland acoustic properties of plaster–rubber mortars, Mater. Des. 47 (2013)633–642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.063.

[33] S. Ramarad, M. Khalid, C.T. Ratnam, A.L. Chuah, W. Rashmi, Waste tire rubberin polymer blends: A review on the evolution, properties and future, Prog.Mater. Sci. 72 (2015) 100–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.02.004.

[34] A. Caggiano, H. Xargay, P. Folino, E. Martinelli, Experimental and numericalcharacterization of the bond behavior of steel fibers recovered from wastetires embedded in cementitious matrices, Cem. Concr. Compos. 62 (2015)146–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.04.015.

[35] M.A. Aiello, F. Leuzzi, G. Centonze, A. Maffezzoli, Use of steel fibres recoveredfrom waste tyres as reinforcement in concrete: Pull-out behaviour,compressive and flexural strength, Waste Manag. 29 (2009) 1960–1970,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.002.

[36] A.G. Graeff, K. Pilakoutas, K. Neocleous, M.V.N.N. Peres, Fatigue resistance andcracking mechanism of concrete pavements reinforced with recycled steelfibres recovered from post-consumer tyres, Eng. Struct. 45 (2012) 385–395,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.030.

[37] Eldan Recycling A/S Værkmestervej 4 – 5600 Faaborg, Denmark, (2018).http://www.eldan-recycling.com.

[38] E. Ganjian, M. Khorami, A.A. Maghsoudi, Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement foraggregate and filler in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1828–1836,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.09.020.

[39] O. López-Zaldívar, R. Lozano-Díez, S. Herrero del Cura, P. Mayor-Lobo, F.Hernández-Olivares, Effects of water absorption on the microstructure ofplaster with end-of-life tire rubber mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 150 (2017)558–567, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.014.

[40] T. Wang, F. Xiao, S. Amirkhanian, W. Huang, M. Zheng, A review on lowtemperature performances of rubberized asphalt materials, Constr. Build.Mater. 145 (2017) 483–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.031.

[41] O. Youssf, R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, Retrofitting square columns using FRP-confined crumb rubber concrete to improve confinement efficiency, Constr.Build. Mater. 153 (2017) 146–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.108.

[42] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, Mechanical and dynamic properties of self-compactingcrumb rubber modified concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (2012) 521–530,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.07.013.

[43] T. Gupta, S. Chaudhary, R.K. Sharma, Assessment of mechanical and durabilityproperties of concrete containing waste rubber tire as fine aggregate, Constr.Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 562–574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.102.

[44] E. Fraile-Garcia, J. Ferreiro-Cabello, M. Mendivil-Giro, A.S. Vicente-Navarro,Thermal behaviour of hollow blocks and bricks made of concrete doped withwaste tyre rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 176 (2018) 193–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.015.

[45] F. Aslani, G. Ma, D.L. Yim Wan, V.X. Tran Le, Experimental investigation intorubber granules and their effects on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 1835–1847, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.003.

[46] A.F. Angelin, F.M. Da Silva, L.A.G. Barbosa, R.C.C. Lintz, M.A.G. De Carvalho, R.A.S. Franco, Voids identification in rubberized mortar digital images using K-Means and Watershed algorithms, J. Clean. Prod. 164 (2017) 455–464,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.202.

[47] J.H. Chen, K.S. Chen, L.Y. Tong, On the pyrolysis kinetics of scrap automotivetires, J. Hazard. Mater. 84 (2001) 43–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00180-7.

[48] A.C. Corredor-Bedoya, R.A. Zoppi, A.L. Serpa, Composites of scrap tire rubberparticles and adhesive mortar – Noise insulation potential, Cem. Concr.Compos. 82 (2017) 45–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.05.007.

[49] O. Onuaguluchi, Effects of surface pre-coating and silica fume on crumbrubber-cement matrix interface and cement mortar properties, J. Clean. Prod.104 (2015) 339–345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.116.

[50] F.N.A. Abd, S.M. Aziz, N.A.M. Bida, M.S. Jaafar Nasir, Mechanical properties oflightweight mortar modified with oil palm fruit fibre and tire crumb, Constr.Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 544–550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.100.

[51] R. Di Mundo, A. Petrella, M. Notarnicola, Surface and bulk hydrophobiccement composites by tyre rubber addition, Constr. Build. Mater. 172 (2018)176–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.233.

[52] N. Oikonomou, S. Mavridou, Improvement of chloride ion penetrationresistance in cement mortars modified with rubber from worn automobiletires, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (2009) 403–407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.04.004.

[53] R. Si, S. Guo, Q. Dai, Durability performance of rubberized mortar andconcrete with NaOH-Solution treated rubber particles, Constr. Build. Mater.153 (2017) 496–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.085.

[54] O. Onuaguluchi, N. Banthia, Durability performance of polymeric scrap tirefibers and its reinforced cement mortar, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) 158, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1025-7.

[55] G. Mucsi, Á. Szenczi, S. Nagy, Fiber reinforced geopolymer from synergeticutilization of fly ash and waste tire, J. Clean. Prod. 178 (2018) 429–440,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.018.

[56] B.S. Mohammed, M.S. Liew, W.S. Alaloul, A. Al-Fakih, W. Ibrahim, M. Adamu,Development of rubberized geopolymer interlocking bricks, Case Stud.Constr. Mater. 8 (2018) 401–408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.03.007.

[57] A. Baricevic, M. Pezer, M. Jelcic Rukavina, M. Serdar, N. Stirmer, Effect ofpolymer fibers recycled from waste tires on properties of wet-sprayedconcrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 176 (2018) 135–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.229.

[58] M. Sienkiewicz, H. Janik, K. Borzedowska-Labuda, J. Kucinska-Lipka,Environmentally friendly polymer-rubber composites obtained from wastetyres: A review, J. Clean. Prod. 147 (2017) 560–571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.121.

[59] A.T. Noaman, B.H. Abu Bakar, H.M. Akil, Experimental investigation oncompression toughness of rubberized steel fibre concrete, Constr. Build.Mater. 115 (2016) 163–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.022.


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.07.007

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00184

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00184

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/271/1/012074

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/271/1/012074

https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.693536

https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.693536

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.01.011

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2016.01.011





https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000658




https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9622-8

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9622-8








https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:2(173)


https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102156-9.00002-X

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102156-9.00002-X




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.063

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.02.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.02.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.04.015

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.030

http://www.eldan-recycling.com















https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00180-7

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00180-7










https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1025-7

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1025-7


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.03.007








[60] O. Youssf, R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, Mechanical performance of FRP-confined andunconfined crumb rubber concrete containing high rubber content, J. Build.Eng. 11 (2017) 115–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.04.011.

[61] V. Corinaldesi, J. Donnini, Waste rubber aggregates, in: New Trends Eco-Efficient Recycl. Concr., Elsevier, 2019, pp. 87–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102480-5.00004-X.

[62] V.P. Swapna, R. Stephen, Recycling of rubber, in: Recycl. Polym., Wiley-VCHVerlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2016, pp. 141–161, https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527689002.ch5.

[63] F. Demir, B. Yesilata, P. Turgut, H. Bulut, Y. Isiker, Investigation of the effects ofpH, aging and scrap tire content on the dissolution behaviors of new scraptire-concrete mixture structures, J. Clean. Prod. 93 (2015) 38–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.043.

[64] G.L. Nacif, T.H. Panzera, K. Strecker, A.L. Christoforo, K. Paine, Investigationson cementitious composites based on rubber particle waste additions, Mater.Res. 16 (2012) 259–268, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392012005000177.

[65] J.O. Akinyele, R.W. Salim, W.K. Kupolati, The impact of rubber crumb on themechanical and chemical properties of concrete, Eng. Struct. Technol. 7(2016) 197–204, https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2016.1152169.

[66] E. Güneyisi, Fresh properties of self-compacting rubberized concreteincorporated with fly ash, Mater. Struct. 43 (2010) 1037–1048, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-009-9564-1.

[67] Y. Park, A. Abolmaali, M. Mohammadagha, S.-H. Lee, Flexural characteristic ofrubberized hybrid concrete reinforced with steel and synthetic fibers, Adv.Civ. Eng. Mater. 3 (2014) 20140011, https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20140011.

[68] X. Huang, R. Ranade, W. Ni, V.C. Li, On the use of recycled tire rubber todevelop low E-modulus ECC for durable concrete repairs, Constr. Build.Mater. 46 (2013) 134–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.027.

[69] S. Guo, Q. Dai, R. Si, X. Sun, C. Lu, Evaluation of properties and performance ofrubber-modified concrete for recycling of waste scrap tire, J. Clean. Prod. 148(2017) 681–689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.046.

[70] A.A. Gheni, M.A. ElGawady, J.J. Myers, Mechanical characterization ofconcrete masonry units manufactured with crumb rubber aggregate, ACIMater. J. 114 (2017) 65–76, https://doi.org/10.14359/51689482.

[71] H. Su, J. Yang, T.-C. Ling, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Properties of concreteprepared with waste tyre rubber particles of uniform and varying sizes, J.Clean. Prod. 91 (2015) 288–296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.022.

[72] M.K. Batayneh, I. Marie, I. Asi, Promoting the use of crumb rubber concrete indeveloping countries, Waste Manag. 28 (2008) 2171–2176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.035.

[73] M. Bravo, J. de Brito, Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: durability-related performance, J. Clean. Prod. 25 (2012) 42–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.066.

[74] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, Strength development and chloride penetration inrubberized concretes with and without silica fume, Mater. Struct. 40 (2007)953–964, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9279-0.

[75] F. Aslani, M. Khan, Properties of high-performance self-compactingrubberized concrete exposed to high temperatures, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31(2019) 04019040, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002672.

[76] O. Onuaguluchi, D.K. Panesar, Hardened properties of concrete mixturescontaining pre-coated crumb rubber and silica fume, J. Clean. Prod. 82 (2014)125–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.068.

[77] R. Abendeh, H.S. Ahmad, Y.M. Hunaiti, Experimental studies on the behaviorof concrete-filled steel tubes incorporating crumb rubber, J. Constr. Steel Res.122 (2016) 251–260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.03.022.

[78] F. Aslani, Mechanical properties of waste tire rubber concrete, J. Mater. Civ.Eng. 28 (2016) 04015152, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001429.

[79] R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, D. Li, T. Benn, Experimental and numerical study on thebehavior of rubberized concrete, Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 6 (2017) 20160026,https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20160026.

[80] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoglu, N. Naji, S. _Ipek, Evaluation of the rheological behaviorof fresh self-compacting rubberized concrete by using the Herschel-Bulkleyand modified Bingham models, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 16 (2016) 9–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.09.003.

[81] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, Shrinkage performance of Crumb RubberConcrete (CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for rigidpavements, Cem. Concr. Compos. 62 (2015) 106–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.02.010.

[82] L. Zheng, X.S. Huo, Y. Yuan, Strength, modulus of elasticity, and brittlenessindex of rubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 692–699, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008) 20:11(692).

[83] J. Kang, Y. Jiang, Improvement of cracking-resistance and flexural behavior ofcement-based materials by addition of rubber particles, J. Wuhan Univ.Technol. Sci. Ed. 23 (2008) 579–583, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-006-4579-8.

[84] W.H. Yung, L.C. Yung, L.H. Hua, A study of the durability properties of wastetire rubber applied to self-compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 41(2013) 665–672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.019.

[85] M. Adamu, Effect of crumb rubber and nano silica on the creep and dryingshrinkage of roller compacted concrete pavement, Int. J. Geomate. 15 (2018),https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.47.22082.

[86] D.V. Bompa, A.Y. Elghazouli, Creep properties of recycled tyre rubberconcrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 209 (2019) 126–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.127.

[87] M.M. Reda Taha, A.S. El-Dieb, M.A. Abd El-Wahab, M.E. Abdel-Hameed,Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of rubber concrete, J.Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 640–649, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:10(640).

[88] A.P.C. Duarte, B.A. Silva, N. Silvestre, J. de Brito, E. Júlio, J.M. Castro, Tests anddesign of short steel tubes filled with rubberised concrete, Eng. Struct. 112(2016) 274–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.018.

[89] E. Ozbay, M. Lachemi, U.K. Sevim, Compressive strength, abrasion resistanceand energy absorption capacity of rubberized concretes with and withoutslag, Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 1297–1307, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9701-x.

[90] S. Raffoul, R. Garcia, K. Pilakoutas, M. Guadagnini, N.F. Medina, Optimisationof rubberised concrete with high rubber content: An experimentalinvestigation, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 391–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.054.

[91] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, O. Hansu, S. _Ipek, D.S. Asaad, Influence of wasterubber utilization on the fracture and steel–concrete bond strengthproperties of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 1113–1121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.030.

[92] M. Turki, I. Zarrad, E. Bretagne, M. Quéneudec, Influence of filler addition onmechanical behavior of cementitious mortar-rubber aggregates:experimental study and modeling, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (2012) 1350–1358,https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000512.

[93] J. Xie, C. Fang, Z. Lu, Z. Li, L. Li, Effects of the addition of silica fume and rubberparticles on the compressive behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete withsteel fibres, J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2018) 656–667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.237.

[94] H. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Jiao, T. Sha, Experimental investigation of the mechanicaland durability properties of crumb rubber concrete, Materials (Basel) 9(2016) 172, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9030172.

[95] L.P. Rivas-Vázquez, R. Suárez-Orduña, J. Hernández-Torres, E. Aquino-Bolaños, Effect of the surface treatment of recycled rubber on themechanical strength of composite concrete/rubber, Mater. Struct. 48 (2015)2809–2814, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0355-y.

[96] A.M. Rashad, A comprehensive overview about recycling rubber as fineaggregate replacement in traditional cementitious materials, Int. J. Sustain.Built Environ. 5 (2016) 46–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe. 2015.11.003.

[97] A. Sofi, Effect of waste tyre rubber on mechanical and durability properties ofconcrete – A review, Ain Shams Eng. J. (2017) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2017.08.007.

[98] K. Jafari, V. Toufigh, Experimental and analytical evaluation of rubberizedpolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 155 (2017) 495–510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.097.

[99] B.S. Mohammed, M. Adamu, N. Shafiq, Establishing relationship betweenmodulus of elasticity and strength of nano silica modified roller compactedrubbercrete, Int. J. Geomate. 13 (2017) 103–110, https://doi.org/10.21660/2017.39.23401.

[100] A. Moustafa, M. ElGawady, Dynamic properties of high strength rubberizedconcrete, ACI Spec. Publ. (2017) 1–22.

[101] M.M. Al-Tayeb, B.H. Abu Bakar, H.M. Akil, H. Ismail, Performance ofrubberized and hybrid rubberized concrete structures under static andimpact load conditions, Exp. Mech. 53 (2013) 377–384, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9651-z.

[102] F. Liu, W. Zheng, L. Li, W. Feng, G. Ning, Mechanical and fatigue performanceof rubber concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 711–719, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.055.

[103] A. Yilmaz, N. Degirmenci, Possibility of using waste tire rubber and fly ashwith Portland cement as construction materials, Waste Manag. 29 (2009)1541–1546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.11.002.

[104] M. Elchalakani, High strength rubberized concrete containing silica fume forthe construction of sustainable road side barriers, Structures 1 (2015) 20–38,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2014.06.001.

[105] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, G. Khoshnaw, S. _Ipek, Abrasion and freezing–thawingresistance of pervious concretes containing waste rubbers, Constr. Build.Mater. 73 (2014) 19–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.047.

[106] J. Kang, B. Zhang, G. Li, The abrasion-resistance investigation of rubberizedconcrete, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Sci. Ed. 27 (2012) 1144–1148, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-012-0619-8.

[107] K.E. Ridgley, A.A. Abouhussien, A.A.A. Hassan, B. Colbourne, Evaluation ofabrasion resistance of self-consolidating rubberized concrete by acousticemission analysis, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2018) 04018196, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002402.

[108] P. Sukontasukkul, S. Jamnam, M. Sappakittipakorn, N. Banthia, Preliminarystudy on bullet resistance of double-layer concrete panel made of rubberizedand steel fiber reinforced concrete, Mater. Struct. 47 (2014) 117–125, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0049-x.

[109] A.Y. Elghazouli, D.V. Bompa, B. Xu, A.M. Ruiz-Teran, P.J. Stafford, Performanceof rubberised reinforced concrete members under cyclic loading, Eng. Struct.166 (2018) 526–545, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.090.

[110] A.O. Atahan, A.Ö. Yücel, Crumb rubber in concrete: Static and dynamicevaluation, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 617–622, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.068.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.04.011

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102480-5.00004-X

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102480-5.00004-X

https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527689002.ch5

https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527689002.ch5



https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392012005000177

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392012005000177

https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2016.1152169

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-009-9564-1

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-009-9564-1

https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20140011




https://doi.org/10.14359/51689482







https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9279-0

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002672


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.03.022



https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20160026

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.09.003

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.09.003





https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-006-4579-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-006-4579-8


https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.47.22082






https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9701-x

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9701-x








https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9030172

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0355-y

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.11.003

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2017.08.007

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2017.08.007



https://doi.org/10.21660/2017.39.23401

https://doi.org/10.21660/2017.39.23401

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0950-0618(19)31779-9/h0500

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0950-0618(19)31779-9/h0500

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9651-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-012-9651-z




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2014.06.001


https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-012-0619-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-012-0619-8



https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0049-x

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0049-x





[111] M. Adamu, B.S. Mohammed, N. Shafiq, M. Shahir Liew, Effect of crumb rubberand nano silica on the fatigue performance of roller compacted concretepavement, Cogent Eng. 5 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1436027.

[112] F. Liu, L. Meng, G.-F. Ning, L.-J. Li, Fatigue performance of rubber-modifiedrecycled aggregate concrete (RRAC) for pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 95(2015) 207–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.042.

[113] T. Gupta, A. Tiwari, S. Siddique, R.K. Sharma, S. Chaudhary, Responseassessment under dynamic loading and microstructural investigations ofrubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2017) 04017062, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001905.

[114] S.M. Saeed, M.Y. Aman, K.A. Ahmad, A. Batari, A.T.A. Yero, A.U. Chinade, Effectof crumb rubber modifier on the fatigue performance of warm mix asphalt,Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 1367–1376, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8016-6_98.

[115] F. Hernández-Olivares, G. Barluenga, B. Parga-Landa, M. Bollati, B. Witoszek,Fatigue behaviour of recycled tyre rubber-filled concrete and its implicationsin the design of rigid pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 1918–1927,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.06.030.

[116] P. Sugapriya, R. Ramkrishnan, Crumb rubber recycling in enhancing dampingproperties of concrete, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 310 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/310/1/012013 012013.

[117] R. Meesit, S. Kaewunruen, Vibration characteristics of micro-engineeredcrumb rubber concrete for railway sleeper applications, J. Adv. Concr.Technol. 15 (2017) 55–66, https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.15.55.

[118] A. Nadal Gisbert, J.M. Gadea Borrell, F. Parres García, E. Juliá Sanchis, J.E.Crespo Amorós, J. Segura Alcaraz, F. Salas Vicente, Analysis behaviour of staticand dynamic properties of Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Methylene crumbrubber mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 50 (2014) 671–682, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.018.

[119] A. Moustafa, A. Gheni, M.A. ElGawady, Shaking-table testing of high energy-dissipating rubberized concrete columns, J. Bridg. Eng. 22 (2017) 04017042,https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001077.

[120] Q.-H. Han, G. Yang, J. Xu, Experimental study on the relationship betweenacoustic emission energy and fracture energy of crumb rubber concrete,Struct. Control Heal. Monit. 25 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2240e2240.

[121] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Experimental investigation of crumbrubber concrete columns under seismic loading, Structures 3 (2015) 13–27,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.02.005.

[122] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, Permeability properties of self-compactingrubberized concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 3319–3326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.021.

[123] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, V.J. Panicker, Recycling of waste tire rubber asaggregate in concrete: durability-related performance, J. Clean. Prod. 112(2016) 504–513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.046.

[124] A.C. Marques, J.L. Akasaki, A.P.M. Trigo, M.L. Marques, Influence of the surfacetreatment of tire rubber residues added in mortars, Rev. IBRACON Estruturase Mater. 1 (2008) 113–120, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-41952008000200001.

[125] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, P. Mehra, S. Kumar, Performance of high strengthrubberized concrete in aggressive environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 83(2015) 320–326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.012.

[126] N. Flores Medina, D. Flores-Medina, F. Hernández-Olivares, Influence of fiberspartially coated with rubber from tire recycling as aggregate on theacoustical properties of rubberized concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 129(2016) 25–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.007.

[127] B.S. Mohammed, K.M. Anwar Hossain, J.T. Eng Swee, G. Wong, M. Abdullahi,Properties of crumb rubber hollow concrete block, J. Clean. Prod. 23 (2012)57–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.035.

[128] A.M. Marques, J.R. Correia, J. de Brito, Post-fire residual mechanical propertiesof concrete made with recycled rubber aggregate, Fire Saf. J. 58 (2013) 49–57,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.02.002.

[129] F. Hernández-Olivares, G. Barluenga, Fire performance of recycled rubber-filled high-strength concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 109–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00253-9.

[130] M.M. Abdel Kader, S.M. Abdel-wehab, M.A. Helal, H.H. Hassan, Evaluation ofthermal insulation and mechanical properties of waste rubber/natural rubbercomposite, HBRC J. 8 (2012) 69–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2011.11.001.

[131] T. Gupta, S. Siddique, R.K. Sharma, S. Chaudhary, Effect of elevatedtemperature and cooling regimes on mechanical and durability propertiesof concrete containing waste rubber fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 137 (2017)35–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.065.

[132] H. Mahir Mahmod, A.A. Farah Nora Aznieta, S.J. Gatea, Evaluation ofrubberized fibre mortar exposed to elevated temperature using destructiveand non-destructive testing, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (2017) 1347–1358, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0721-0.

[133] H. Su, J. Yang, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Surface modified used rubber tyreaggregates: effect on recycled concrete performance, Mag. Concr. Res. 67(2015) 680–691, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00255.

[134] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, Crumb rubber aggregate coatings/pre-treatments andtheir effects on interfacial bonding, air entrapment and fracture toughness inself-compacting rubberised concrete (SCRC), Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 2029–2043, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0034-4.

[135] M.A. Fernández-Ruiz, L.M. Gil-Martín, J.F. Carbonell-Márquez, E. Hernández-Montes, Epoxy resin and ground tyre rubber replacement for cement inconcrete: Compressive behaviour and durability properties, Constr. Build.Mater. 173 (2018) 49–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.004.

[136] F. Valadares, M. Bravo, J. De Brito, Concrete with used tire rubber aggregates:mechanical performance, ACI Mater. J. 109 (2012) 283–292, https://doi.org/10.14359/51683818.

[137] C. Bing, L. Ning, Experimental research on properties of fresh and hardenedrubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2014) 04014040, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000923.

[138] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, T. Langlet, K. Mezreb, J.M. Roucoult, M.Quéneudec, Physico-mechanical properties and water absorption of cementcomposite containing shredded rubber wastes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29(2007) 732–740, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.07.001.

[139] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, I. Luhar, Development of rubberized geopolymerconcrete: Strength and durability studies, Constr. Build. Mater. 204 (2019)740–753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.185.

[140] A. Baricevic, M. Jelcic Rukavina, M. Pezer, N. Štirmer, Influence of recycled tirepolymer fibers on concrete properties, Cem. Concr. Compos. 91 (2018) 29–41,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.04.009.

[141] C. Coelho Martuscelli, J. Cesar dos Santos, P. Resende Oliveira, T. HallakPanzera, M.T. Paulino Aguilar, C. Thomas Garcia, Polymer-cementitiouscomposites containing recycled rubber particles, Constr. Build. Mater. 170(2018) 446–454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.017.

[142] Y. Wang, J. Chen, D. Gao, E. Huang, Mechanical properties of steel fibers andnanosilica modified crumb rubber concrete, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018 (2018) 1–10,https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6715813.

[143] A. Alsaif, S.A. Bernal, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Durability of steel fibrereinforced rubberised concrete exposed to chlorides, Constr. Build. Mater.188 (2018) 130–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.122.

[144] Y. Park, A. Abolmaali, Y.H. Kim, M. Ghahremannejad, Compressive strength offly ash-based geopolymer concrete with crumb rubber partially replacingsand, Constr. Build. Mater. 118 (2016) 43–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.001.

[145] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, X. Ma, An experimental investigation ofcrumb rubber concrete confined by fibre reinforced polymer tubes, Constr.Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 522–532, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.12.007.

[146] M.K. Ismail, A.A.A. Hassan, Ductility and cracking behavior of reinforced self-consolidating rubberized concrete beams, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2017)04016174, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001699.

[147] A.S.M. Mendis, S. Al-Deen, M. Ashraf, Effect of rubber particles on the flexuralbehaviour of reinforced crumbed rubber concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater.154 (2017) 644–657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat. 2017.07.220.

[148] R. Hassanli, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, Experimental investigations of reinforcedrubberized concrete structural members, J. Build. Eng. 10 (2017) 149–165,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.03.006.

[149] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Static cyclic behaviour of FRP-confinedcrumb rubber concrete columns, Eng. Struct. 113 (2016) 371–387, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.033.

[150] K. Strukar, T. Kalman Šipoš, I. Milicevic, R. Bušic, Potential use of rubber asaggregate in structural reinforced concrete element – A review, Eng. Struct.188 (2019) 452–468, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.031.

[151] O. Ali, D. Bigaud, H. Riahi, Seismic performance of reinforced concrete framestructures strengthened with FRP laminates using a reliability-basedadvanced approach, Compos. Part B Eng. 139 (2018) 238–248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.051.

[152] R. Hassanli, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, Seismic performance of precastposttensioned segmental FRP-confined and unconfined crumb rubberconcrete columns, J. Compos. Constr. 21 (2017) 04017006, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000789.

[153] T.M. Pham, M. Elchalakani, A. Karrech, H. Hao, Axial impact behavior andenergy absorption of rubberized concrete with/without fiber-reinforcedpolymer confinement, Int. J. Prot. Struct. 10 (2019) 154–173, https://doi.org/10.1177/2041419618800771.

[154] F. Aslani, G. Ma, D.L. YimWan, G. Muselin, Development of high-performanceself-compacting concrete using waste recycled concrete aggregates andrubber granules, J. Clean. Prod. 182 (2018) 553–566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.074.

[155] F. Aslani, J. Kelin, Assessment and development of high-performance fibre-reinforced lightweight self-compacting concrete including recycled crumbrubber aggregates exposed to elevated temperatures, J. Clean. Prod. 200(2018) 1009–1025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.323.

[156] B.H. AbdelAleem, A.A.A. Hassan, Development of self-consolidatingrubberized concrete incorporating silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 161(2018) 389–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.146.

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1436027

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1436027




https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8016-6_98

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8016-6_98


https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/310/1/012013

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/310/1/012013

https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.15.55



https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001077

https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2240

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.02.005




https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-41952008000200001

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-41952008000200001




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.02.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00253-9

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00253-9

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2011.11.001

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2011.11.001


https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0721-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0721-0

https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00255

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0034-4



https://doi.org/10.14359/51683818

https://doi.org/10.14359/51683818







https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6715813








https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.03.006




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.051

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.051



https://doi.org/10.1177/2041419618800771

https://doi.org/10.1177/2041419618800771





Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in ...

Documents

Transcript of Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in ...