Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Construction and Building Materials

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

A comprehensive review on the mechanical properties of waste tire


rubber concrete
Rajeev Roychand a, Rebecca J. Gravina a,⇑, Yan Zhuge b, Xing Ma b, Osama Youssf b,c, Julie E. Mills b
a
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
b
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
c
Structural Engineering Department, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

 More than 100 scientific papers published in last 30 years have been reviewed.
 Effect of rubber on 12 different mechanical properties have been studied.
 Effect of 20 different rubber treatment methods have been explored.
 Presented comparative graphs on the effect of rubber particle sizes and w/c ratios from the database.
 Presented a comparative graph on the effect of various rubber treatment methods from the database.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recycling of ‘End of Life Tyres’ (ELT) is one of the major environmental concerns faced by the scientific
Received 19 July 2019 community and the government organisations, worldwide. Every year, an estimated one billion tyres
Received in revised form 15 November 2019 reach their end of life, out of which only about 50% are currently being recycled and the remaining form
Accepted 18 November 2019
part of the landfills. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve the existing and develop new applica-
Available online 26 November 2019
tions of recycled tyre products to address this shortfall in the utilisation rate of the ELT. One application
which is actively being researched is the use of waste tyre rubber as a partial replacement of conventional
Keywords:
aggregates in concrete applications. Although it shows tremendous potential, it comes with its own chal-
Waste tyre
Crumb rubber
lenges such as weak inherent strength of the rubber and poor bond performance with the cement matrix,
Rubber particle size which hinders its use as an aggregate in large quantities. To overcome this challenge, researchers have
Rubber content looked at various rubber treatment methods that not only improve the bond performance but also signif-
Rubber treatment icantly improve the mechanical properties of rubber concrete. This review paper considers the effect of
Rubber concrete rubber particle size, percentage replacement and various treatment methods on different mechanical
properties of rubber concrete, studied over the last 30 years. However, to be accepted by the concrete
industry, the researchers have to come up with a rubber treatment method that can address the concerns
of high flammability and the resultant release of noxious gases from the rubber particles, when exposed
to fire.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Research methodology and a snapshot of literature review database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Properties and shredding cost of waste tyre rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Chemical composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Categories and physical properties of shredded rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Rajeev.Roychand@rmit.edu.au (R. Roychand), Rebecca.Gravina@rmit.edu.au (R.J. Gravina), Yan.Zhuge@unisa.edu.au (Y. Zhuge), Xing.Ma@unisa.edu.au
(X. Ma), Osama.Youssf@mymail.unisa.edu.au (O. Youssf), Julie.Mills@unisa.edu.au (J.E. Mills).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117651
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

3.3. Processing and shredding cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


4. Properties of rubber concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Fresh concrete (Workability) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Hardened concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Flexural, split tensile strength and modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Modulus of rigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6. Abrasion resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. Fatigue life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.8. Fracture energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.9. Fracture toughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.10. Micro/Macro cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.11. Static impact resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.12. Dynamic impact resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.13. Bond behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. Introduction particles with the cement paste results in a significant reduction


in its mechanical [13,14] and potentially its durability properties
As per the 2018 world bank report ‘‘What a Waste 2.0: A Global [15,16]. To overcome this challenge, researchers have looked at
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050” [1] global annual various ways to improve the bond performance of rubber particles
waste generation is expected to grow by 70 percent to 3.4 billion and to improve the mechanical and durability properties of rubber
tonnes over the next 30 years, up from 2.01 billion tonnes in concrete. They have studied the effect of (i) particle size of rubber
2016. Globally, it has been recognized that the make, use and [17,18], (ii) percentage of rubber content [19,20], and the treat-
throw model is unsustainable and has detrimental impact on the ment of the rubber particles by/with (iii) water washing [21,22],
economic, environmental and public health fronts. Realising this
concern the government organisations, private stakeholders and
the scientific community have joined hands to look for the scien-
Table 1
tific solutions for the recycling of all forms of waste materials that
Research methodology.
can support closed loop circular economy. Recycling solutions for
various forms of waste materials are currently being investigated Databases Searched Google Scholar, Scopus, Science
Direct, Web of science
[2–6] that not only would create new business and employment
but would also help in minimizing the generation of waste Keywords Rubber and ‘‘tyre or tire” and ‘‘cement
or concrete”
materials.
Year range 1990–2018
Recycling of the ‘end of life tyres’ (ELT) is one of the major con- Language English
cerns shared by the scientific community and the environmental Types of publications Original research articles, conference
organisations because of their large volume of production and papers, review papers, reports
non-biodegradable properties. It is estimated that worldwide, Criteria used to produce the  All publications showing under
preliminary database for initial the search results, using the above
about one billion end of life tyres are produced annually [7]. Of review selection criteria, up to the last
these, <50% are recycled and the remaining form part of landfills page of the search index were
[8]. They not only consume valued space in landfills but also pose downloaded
dangers of accidental fires, leaching of toxic substances into the  A database was created in excel
using the following: paper title,
ground and act as a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Therefore,
year published, crumb rubber par-
governments around the world are introducing schemes and regu- ticle size, replacement levels, w/c
lations to encourage the recycling of ELT to improve their utiliza- ratio, rubber treatment methods
tion rate. With extensive research on the use of ELT, various used, fresh and hardened concrete
applications have been discovered. They include: retreading of properties studied.
Criteria used to shortlist the final  Priority was given to a journal
ELT; manufacture of rubber-molded products; tyre pyrolysis to database for a detailed article where similar studies were
produce carbon black and oil/gas that can be used as a fuel; use comprehensive review that is reported by various authors in a
as an alternate fuel in cement kilns; in geotechnical applications presented in this manuscript journal and conference paper
such as sub-grade fill in roads and embankments; in rubber mod-  Where there were > 3 articles
available on the same type of
ified asphalt pavements and as partial replacement of aggregates in
treatment and properties studied,
concrete [9,10]. an oldest, a mid-range and a latest
Although the use of waste tyre rubber provides great potential article was selected, having the
as a fine and coarse aggregate replacement material, it poses a sig- highest citations
nificant challenge in the performance of its bond behavior within  Studies on asphaltic concrete
were excluded
the cement matrix [11,12]. Poor bond performance of rubber
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 3

Table 2 Table 3
Basic composition of tyre rubber [4]. Potential tyre processing and shredding costs in Canada [10].

Material Main ingredients Composition Particle size Cost per tonne Processing rate (tonnes/hour)
Rubber Natural rubber, synthetic rubber 51% >5 cm $12 10–12
Reinforcing agent Carbon black, silica 25% <5 cm $31 7
Softener Petroleum process oil, petroleum 19.5% <1.25 cm $31 - $68 2–3
synthetic resin, etc.
Vulcanizing agent Sulphur, organic vulcanizers 1.0%
Vulcanizing Thiazole accelerators, sulfenic amide 1.5%
accelerator accelerator acid/sulfate attack [16,63], (xxi) effect of sea water [64], (xxii) cor-
Vulcanizing Zinc oxide, stearic acid 0.5% rosion performance [65], (xxiii) thermal conductivity [28,64] and
accelerator aid acoustic [28,66] properties and (xxiv) electrical resistivity [67].
Antioxidant Amine antioxidants, phenol 1.5%
Although, there have been a few review papers published in the
antioxidants, wax
Filler Calcium carbonate, clay past that cover the effect of some rubber treatment methods on the
mechanical and durability properties, they do not cover all the
treatment methods and all of the mechanical and durability prop-
erties studied so far [68–74]. Therefore, to address this gap in the
(iv) water soaking [23], (v) cement paste and mortar coating [21], review of available literature on ELT rubber concrete, this paper
(vi) NaOH [22,24–26], (vii) Silane coupling agent [11,27], (viii) covers all of the various rubber treatment methods and their effect
polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [26,28], (ix) partial oxidation [29,30], (x) on the mechanical properties of crumbed rubber concrete studied
organic sulfur compounds [31], (xi) acrylic acid and polyethylene in the last 30 years.
glycol [32], (xii) UV [33] and gamma [34] radiation, (xiii) solvents
like methanol, ethanol and acetone [35], (xiv) CSBR latex [36], and
(xv) KMnO4 & NaHSO3 [37], (xvi) heat treatment [38], (xvii) acid 2. Research methodology and a snapshot of literature review
treatments with H2SO4 [22,39], HCl [40], HNO3 [41], CH3COOH database
[39,40], (xviii) Ca(OH)2 [39], (xix) CaCl2 [22], (xx) H2O2 [22], (xxi)
CS2 [42]. The mechanical and durability properties of rubber con- Table 1 provides the methodology used in compiling the data-
crete that have been investigated to date have included: (i) work- base for the review of literature.
ability [17,19,43], (ii) bulk density [17,19], (iii) compressive
strength [19,21,24,29,44], (iv) flexural strength [24,29,45], (v) split
tensile strength [19,21,29,46], (vi) modulus of elasticity [24,47,48], 3. Properties and shredding cost of waste tyre rubber
(vii) modulus of rigidity [21], (viii) abrasion resistance [12,24], (ix)
fatigue life [43,49,50], (x) fracture energy and toughness 3.1. Chemical composition
[19,24,51], (xi) crack resistance [51–53] (xii) impact resistance
[32,47,51,54] (xiii) bond behavior [55,56], (xiv) water absorption Table 2 outlines the chemical composition of waste tyre rubber
[24,46,57,58], (xv) porosity [16,21], (xvi) chloride ion permeability showing various constituent materials with their corresponding
[36,54,59], (xvii) carbonation [16,59] (xviii) shrinkage [48,60,61] options of main ingredients and their percentage material
and expansion [48], (xix) freeze thaw resistance [18,19,62], (xx) compositions.

Fig. 1. Different stages of tyre shredding (modified image from original Source [77,78]).
4 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

3.2. Categories and physical properties of shredded rubber Table 4


Effect of various rubber treatment methods on the workability of fresh concrete.

Recycled tyres that are shredded to be used as aggregates in Rubber treatment method Workability References
cement concrete are classified into three categories: Particle Size Decreases with the [20,80,88,89]
decrease in particle
(i) shredded or chipped rubber, used as coarse aggregate, is size
produced in a two stage process in which the primary stage Particle Size Decreases with the [19,51]
increase in particle
shreds the tyre rubber to a size of 300–460 mm long by 100– size
230 mm wide, followed by the secondary stage that pro- Percentage replacement Decreases with the [19,20,51,59,79,88–
duces particle sizes ranging between 13 mm and 76 mm [75] increase in percentage 93]
(ii) crumb rubber, used as fine aggregate, is produced by two replacement
Soaking of rubber particles Increases workability [43]
methods: (a) at ambient temperature using cracker mills
Treatment with a chemical Increases workability [32]
and (b) at temperatures less than 80 °C using liquid nitro- blend of anhydrous
gen by a cryogenic process, to produce particle sizes ranging ethanol, acrylic acid and
from 4.75 mm to < 0.075 mm [75,76] polyethylene glycol
(iii) fine ground rubber, used as very fine aggregate, of particle Saturated NaOH for 30 min No considerable [46]
followed by water wash change
size ranging from 0.5 mm to as small as 0.075 mm, produced
and drying
using micro milling or wet grinding process [75,76]. 10% NaOH for 120 min No considerable [85]
followed by water wash change
Fig. 1 shows the different stages of tyre shredding. and drying
10% NaOH for 120 min Decreases workability [22,84]
followed by water wash
3.3. Processing and shredding cost and drying
Saturated NaOH for 30 min Decreases workability [39]
followed by water wash
The cost of processing and shredding of scrap tyres involves and drying
labour, power, equipment and its maintenance. The smaller the Treatment with H2O2 Decreases workability [22]
particle size, the higher is the cost associated with its production Treatment with CaCl2 Decreases workability [22]
[10]. Table 3 summarises the potential shredding cost based on Treatment with KMNO4 & Decreases workability [22]
NaHSO4
particle size in Canada, with costs in other countries likely to be
Coating of rubber particles No considerable [85]
comparable/proportional. with potassium change
permanganate
Coating of rubber particles No considerable [85]
4. Properties of rubber concrete with cement change
Coating of rubber particles Decreases workability [85]
4.1. Fresh concrete (Workability) with silica fume
10% H2SO4 for 120 min Increases workability [85]
followed by water wash
Workability is a very important property of fresh concrete that and drying
has a significant impact on its final strength. It largely depends 95% H2SO4 for 1 min followed Increases workability [86]
upon the properties of the raw material used in the concrete mix by water wash and drying
35% H2SO4 for 24 h followed Decreases workability [22]
design. Workability of a rubber concrete mix decreases with the
by water wash and drying
increase in rubber content [19,20,51,59,79], however conflicting 32% H2SO4 for 1 h followed Decreases workability [39]
results about the rubber particle size effect have been reported by water wash and drying
by various researchers. Khatib and Bayomy [20] reported that the Treatment with SCA Decreases workability [87]
workability of rubber concrete decreases with the decrease in rub- Treatment with SCA No considerable [54]
change
ber particle size because of the increase in surface area of the angu-
Treatment with CS2 Decreases workability [42]
lar sized particles. Similar results were reported by Su et al. [80]. Saturated Ca(OH)2 solution Decreases workability [39]
Interestingly, Eldin and Senouci [19] and Reda Taha et al. [51] 32% acetic acid solution Decreases workability [39]
observed a totally contradictory results. They found that the the Ultra violet (UV) – A radiation Increases workability [86]
workability of rubber concrete decreases with the increase in par-
ticle size because of the increase in friction between the angular crete compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. This
rubber particles, that also reduces the flowability of the larger improvement in workability is attributed to the water reducing
sized rubber particles [81]. effect of the modifier that has a similar molecular structure to that
Grinding of tyre rubber also plays an important role in influenc- of polycarboxylate based water reducer [32].
ing the workability of concrete. The mechanically ground rubber NaOH has also been investigated by some researchers to
aggregates provide higher surface area and roughness to the rub- improve the mechanical properties of the concrete [21,22,46,83–
ber particles, thereby showing lower slump values compared to 85] but its effect on the workability of concrete varied among these
that of the cryogenic ground rubber [20,59]. However, lower work- researchers. Marques et al. [46] observed that treating the rubber
ability of the rubber concrete can be improved with the addition of by soaking it in saturated NaOH followed by water washing did
an appropriate quantity of superplasticizer and its required quan- not bring about any considerable change in the workability of rub-
tity increases with the increase in rubber content [82]. Soaking of ber concrete, compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete.
rubber particles in water for 24 hrs also shows a positive effect Similar observations were reported by Kashani et al. [85]. How-
on the workability of rubber concrete, possibly because of the ever, the studies conducted by Youssf et al. [22,84] and Muñoz-
adsorbed water helping in the interparticle movement of the rub- Sánchez et al. [39] reported a decrease in workability. The rubber
ber particles relative to the other elements in concrete [43]. The content used by Marques et al. [46] and Kashani et al. [85] was
treatment of rubber with a chemical blend of anhydrous ethanol, 10 and 12 vol% compared to that used by Youssf et al. [22,84]
acrylic acid and polyethylene glycol was shown to provide a signif- was 20%. This indicates that the negative effect of NaOH treatment
icant improvement in the workability of the treated rubber con- gets more pronounced at higher replacement levels.
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 5

Youssf et al. [22] also investigated the individual effects of H2O2, tion industry. Any new concrete mix proposed can only be consid-
CaCl2, H2SO4, and a combination treatment of KMNO4 & NaHSO4, ered by the construction industry if it satisfies their minimum
but all these treatment methods showed a negative effect on the requirement of the required compressive strength for a structural
workability of rubber concrete compared to that of the untreated element. The addition of rubber particles as partial replacement
rubber. However, the study conducted by Kashani et al. [85], and of conventional aggregates has an adverse effect on the compres-
Alawais and West [86] reported an increase in workability with sive strength of concrete. The strength of the rubber concrete
the treatment of rubber particles with H2SO4 solution. The differ- decreases with the increase in rubber content
ence in workability reported in the two publications is most likely [19,20,51,55,97,98]. In addition, the size of the rubber particles also
because of the difference in concentration of H2SO4 solution used play an important role in affecting the strength properties. The
in the treatment process. Youssf et al. [22] soaked the rubber par- compressive strength of the rubber concrete decreases with the
ticles in 35% H2SO4 solution, whereas the one used by Kashani et al. increase in particle size [19,20,51,55,97]. The reduction in strength
[85] was10% H2SO4 solution, indicating that the higher concentra- with the increase in rubber content is attributed to three main rea-
tion of H2SO4 solution brings about negative effect on the surface sons: (i) deformability of the rubber particles relative to the sur-
morphology of the rubber particles that result in the reduction in rounding cement microstructure, resulting in crack initiation in a
workability of the treated rubber concrete. Kashani et al. [85] in pattern similar to that of the air voids in normal concrete, citing
the same study also looked at the individual effects of coating of [13,20,99], (ii) weak interfacial bond between the tyre rubber par-
rubber particles with potassium permanganate, cement and silica ticles and the cement matrix, citing [99,100] and (iii) possible
fume. They observed no considerable change in workability by reduction in the concrete matrix density that further depends upon
coating the rubber particles with potassium permanganate, and the size, density and the hardness of the aggregates. A majority of
cement coating, however, coating the rubber particles with silica the studies showed the same trend in decrease of compressive
fume considerably reduced the workability of treated rubber con- strength with an increase in particle size, however one of the stud-
crete compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete, because ies showed a contradictory result with the compressive strength
of the high surface area of silica fume that consumes considerable decreasing with the decrease in rubber particle size [101]. A data
amount of water of hydration during the pozzolanic reaction. comparison of the studies conducted by various authors of the
Su et al. [87] looked at the effect of treating the rubber partilcles effect of particle size on the compressive strength of rubber con-
with silane coupling agent on the workability of rubber concrete. crete at different w/c ratios and percentage rubber contents is pre-
They observed a significant reduction in the slump of SCA treated sented in Fig. 2. A more detailed view of the data presented in Fig. 2
rubber concrete compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete, has been presented in Table 5 (fine rubber) and Table 6 (coarse
which they ascribed to the sticky nature of the treating material. rubber) that provides additional information about the particle
Table 4 provides the summary of the effect of various rubber treat- size, w/c ratio, percentage replacement, strength of the control
ment methods on the workability of concrete/mortar. Emam and mix, relative strength of rubber concrete at various replacement
Yehia [42] found that treating the crumb rubber with carbon disul- levels and particle sizes, and their associated references. The data
fide (CS2) increasing friction between treated crumb rubber and presented in these graphs are for untreated rubber only. The over-
mortar resulting in decreasing the workability of the treated rub- all trend observed in Fig. 2 and Table 7 shows that typically fine
ber concrete compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. rubber performs better in improving the compressive strength
Muñoz-Sánchez et al. [39] studied effect of treating crumb rubber compared to that of the coarse rubber aggregates. However, there
with sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, calcium hydroxide, and are some results where coarse aggregate particles show higher
acetic acid solutions on fresh and hardened properties of crumb strength compared to that of some of the fine rubber concrete
rubber concrete. They noted that all the methods used to treat rub- results at various replacement levels. It is to be noted that there
ber had an adverse effect on the workability of the rubber concrete. are a large number of variables that can affect the relative strength
The reduction in the workabilities of the treated rubber concrete of the rubber concrete compared to that of the control mix, like
were in the order of untreated rubber concrete > saturated NaOH, mixing procedure [22], concrete slump/flow [102], curing condi-
saturated Ca(OH)2, 32% CH3COOH (Similar slump) > 32% H2SO4. tions [103], particle size distribution effect and the chemical com-
The highest reduction in workability was with the use of H2SO4 position of the waste tyre rubber, etc. The information about all of
solution as it causes deeper changes in rubber, leading to a more these variables is not available in all the referred publications and
porous, smaller and rougher particles, that severely affects its even covering all these variables in the graphs is very difficult, this
workability. Alawais and West [86] noted an increase in workabil- may be the reason for not getting a sharp and clear distinction line
ity with 98% concentrated sulfuric acid treatment. They also between the effects of groups of fine and coarse aggregates on the
observed a significant increase in the workability of UV – A radi- relative compressive strengths of rubber concrete, compared to
ated rubber concrete exposed to UV-A radiation for 120 h. that of their respective control mix. The mean relative strength
results of FR and CR concretes at various replacement levels has
4.2. Hardened concrete been presented in Table 7.
Raw untreated rubber has weak inherent strength and poor
4.2.1. Density bond performance, therefore numerous rubber pre-treatment
Low density or lightweight concrete can help in reducing the methods have been investigated to improve upon its properties
dead load, thereby reducing the size of structural elements and in rubber concrete. Najim and Hall [21] studied the comparative
the overall cost of construction. The average specific gravity of tyre effect of untreated tyre rubber aggregates with water washed,
rubber varies between 0.6 and 1.15 [51,94–96], which is signifi- cement pre-coated, mortar pre-coated and NaOH pre-treated rub-
cantly lower than conventional aggregates that have an average ber aggregates on the compressive strength of rubber concrete. All
specific gravity of ~ 2.65 [16,45,94]. This results in decreases in the methods proved to be effective in improving the compressive
the density of concrete with the increase in rubber content, as strength of the rubber concrete with varying degrees of improve-
reported by many authors [17,19,52] ment. Water washed and NaOH pretreated rubber provided very
small improvement i.e. 4.7% and 3.1% respectively, followed by a
4.2.2. Mechanical properties significant improvement by using cement and mortar pre-coated
4.2.2.1. Compressive strength. Compressive strength of concrete is rubber particles i.e. 15.6% and 40.6% respectively. Use of NaOH
one of the most important properties considered in the construc- pre-treatment showed a varying degree of improvement according
6 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

Fig. 2. Relative compressive strength of fine rubber (FR) [12,13,20,50,51,55,57,59,60,93,96,97,104–110] and coarse rubber (CR) [13,20,45,51,55,59,93,97,104,111–113]
concrete at different w/c ratios and rubber contents.

to different researchers [26,46,83,84]. A study conducted by Balaha Treating the rubber with polyvinyl acetate is another pre-
et al. [26] showed about 13% improvement in compressive strength treatment method that shows a significant improvement in the
in rubber concrete containing NAOH pre-treated crumb rubber. compressive strength of rubber concrete as its surface coating onto
Another study by Li et al. [83] looked at the effect of pre-treating the rubber particles helps in improving the cement to rubber bond
the rubber particles with NaOH solution followed by pre-coating properties [26,28]. Balaha et al. [26] as part of the same study also
them with cement powder at 6, 12 and 18% by volume of sand. looked at the effect of SF on mechanical properties of the rubber
They observed a reduction of 11.5, 23.3 and 31.9% in the 28-day concrete, though SF was not used as rubber treatment method
compressive strength of treated rubber concrete at 6, 12 and 18% but just as a pozzolanic material to improve the strength proper-
replacement levels respectively, compared to the control mix not ties. It significantly improved the 28 day compressive strength of
containing any rubber. Although the strength results follow a typ- the rubber concrete because of the increase in the density of the
ical trend of reduction in compressive strength with the increase in interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between the aggregate and the
crumb rubber, no test was available on the untreated rubber con- cement paste, which is typical of the effect of SF in improving
crete to identify the comparative benefit of the treatment method the concrete strength properties [114–116]. However, Youssf
used. Soaking of rubber particles in water is a most cost effective et al. [84] found a totally contrary result to the typical behaviour
method of treatment. Mohammadi et al. in their two studies of the addition of SF to concrete, showing a reduction in the
[43,61] found that water soaking of rubber aggregates for 24 h pro- strength of rubber concrete with the increase in SF content. This
vides a significant improvement in the 28 day compressive could possibly be because of the quality of the SF used and may
strength, as the soaking of rubber particles helps in eliminating not be reflective of its typical behaviour. No XRD study was avail-
the air entrapped in the rubber particles, thereby improving the able in their study that could provide an insight into the material
bond performance of rubber to cement matrix. properties of the SF used.
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 7

Table 5
Effect of fine rubber size and replacement level on the 28-day compressive strength of rubber concrete.

Rubber Size (mm) Replacement Level (%) w/c ratio Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the control mix (%) Reference
<0.3 5, 10, 15, 20 0.35 32.1 96.5, 73.4, 73, 68.3 [107]
<0.6 5, 10, 15, 20 0.35 30.8 90.3, 77.6, 83.9, 71.1 [107]
1.0 5, 10, 20 0.48 37.2 94.6, 85.5, 79.8 [108]
1.0 15, 30, 45 0.62 29.5 66.8, 56.6, 43.4 [96]
1–1.32 15, 30 0.52 39.1 77.2, 54.3 [109]
2.0 5, 10, 15 0.31 57.8 87.5, 78.4, 65.2 [50]
2.0 22.2, 33.3 0.53 33.0 74.8, 61.2 [57]
<2.0 25, 50, 75, 100 0.48 34.1 71.8, 57.8, 44, 37.8 [13]
<2.5 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 0.48 37.5 80, 65.3, 38.7, 18.1, 10.1, 5.3 [20]
<4.0 5, 15, 25 0.35 71.5 81.1, 62.9, 37.8 [106]
0.8–4.0 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20 0.40 42.5 96.5, 88.2, 87.1, 78.8, 70.6, 58.8, 54.8, 47.1 [12]
<4.0 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 0.40 54.0 92.6, 82.4, 75.6, 64.8, 63.9, 55.6 [55]
<4.75 10, 20, 30, 40 0.49 35.0 128.6, 102.9, 80, 68.6 [93]
Rubber Size (mm) Replacement Level (%) w/c ratio Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the control mix (%) Reference
0.8–4.0 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20 0.45 39.0 97.4, 84.6, 78.2, 70.5, 64.1, 55.1, 55.1, 51.3 [12]
<4.0 5, 10, 15 0.45 55.0 81.5, 65.5, 49.1 [59]
<4.0 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 0.48 33.6 79.2, 75.7, 57.3, 35, 20.8 [105]
0.8–4.0 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20 0.50 36.5 92.3, 84.1, 80.3, 65.8, 58.4, 50.1, 47.9, 46.6 [12]
<4.0 20, 30 0.50 38.0 42.1, 21.1 [60]
1–4 15, 30, 45 0.62 31.7 57.1, 41.3, 28.4 [96]
<5.0 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 0.35 61.7 86.5, 70, 50.6, 33.4, 23.8, 15.6 [97]
<5.0 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40 0.40 53.0 84.1, 79.5, 70.5, 58, 54.4, 46.7, 33.4 [110]
1–5 25, 50, 75, 100 0.57 26.5 84.9, 74.7, 49.8, 32.1 [51]

Table 6
Effect of coarse rubber size and replacement level on the 28-day compressive strength of rubber concrete.

Rubber Size (mm) Replacement Level (%) w/c ratio Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the control mix (%) Reference
4–10 10, 15, 20, 25 0.40 43.5 69, 46, 34.5, 26.4 [111]
4–11.2 5, 10, 15 0.45 55.0 85.8, 68.5, 51.8 [59]
<12.7 25, 50, 75, 100 0.50 31.9 61.4, 43.3, 31, 23.5 [45]
<13 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 0.49 9.4 41.5, 34, 23.4, 10.6, 5.3 [113]
<15 12.5, 25, 37.5, 50 0.45 30.8 20.6, 4, 2.6, 1.8 [104]
5–20 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 0.35 61.7 74.4, 53, 41, 25.6, 23.2, 14.1 [97]
5–20 25, 50, 75 0.52 45.8 52.2, 45.6, 38 [112]
5–20 25, 50, 75, 100 0.57 26.5 60.4, 52.1, 25.3, 21.5 [51]
<38 25, 50, 75, 100 0.48 33.7 55.8, 36.2, 26.4, 19.9 [13]
10–40 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 0.40 54.0 88, 81.5, 70.4, 62.4, 57, 50.9 [55]
10–50 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 0.48 37.5 73.3, 56, 33.3, 16, 9.9, 6.7 [20]
4.75–25 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 0.49 35.0 71.4, 51.4, 34.3, 8.6, 14.3 [93]

Table 7
Average relative strengths of fine and coarse rubber concretes at various replacement levels.

Rubber type Replacement levels of conventional aggregtaes with waste tyre rubber (%)
5 10 20 30 40 50
Relative strength of rubber concrete at various replacement levels ± S.D.
Fine rubber 87.1 ± 5.2 76 ± 7 59.5 ± 13.4 43.9 ± 14.9 32.3 ± 14.5 39.7 ± 27.8
Coarse rubber 82.4 ± 6.5 69.9 ± 8.4 42.5 ± 10.5 33.5 ± 17.5 28.3 ± 13.3 31 ± 19.5

Table 8
Contact angles and Intermolecular interaction forces [31].

Material Contact angles Intermolecular interaction forces


Advancing Receding Interaction forces (nN) Mode (nN)
Untreated crumb rubber 103.23 59.46 15–30 25
Treated crumb rubber 99.88 31.11 50–70 55

Silane coupling agent, a mixture of Z- 6020 (H2NCH2 CH2NH coating the treated rubber particles with OPC further improves
CH2 CH2 CH2Si(OCH3)3) and Z-6040 (O CH2 CH2 CH2O CH2 CH2 the compressive strength of the rubber concrete because of the for-
CH2 Si(OCH3)3) at 1:1 ratio by weight is another treatment method mation of a hard shell around rubber particles due to cement
that shows a significant improvement in compressive strength of hydration [27]. Silane coupling agent has been used in combination
rubber concrete [27,54], because of the formation of a stronger with other chemicals as well to treat the rubber particle to improve
chemical bond between the treated rubber particles and the its performance in rubber concrete. When used in combination
cement paste. A two staged treatment of rubber particles with with carboxylated styrene-butadiene rubber (CSBR) to modify the
the first treatment with the silane coupling agent followed by properties of crumb rubber it shows a considerable improvement
8 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

in 28 day compressive strength of treated rubber concrete com- ment levels, with particle sizes of (i) mesh 7 (<2.83 mm) and (ii)
pared to that of the untreated one. The formation of hydrogen mesh 20 (<0.84 mm). They found that at 10% replacement level
bonds as well as the increase of van der Waals’ forces at the treated the irradiated rubber concrete with smaller particle size showed
rubber and cement paste interface, help in improving the perfor- no difference but the one with a larger particle size showed a
mance of the treated rubber concrete [36]. The soft and elastic reduction of 18.6% at 28-day compressive strength compared to
properties of tyre rubber are very sensitive to temperatures and that of the untreated rubber concrete. At 20% replacement level,
can become stiff and brittle at higher temperatures [117]. How- the smaller particle size rubber concrete showed a reduction of
ever, this stiffness in waste tyre rubber can be beneficial for its 19.2% at 28-day compressive strength; however, the larger particle
application as replacement of conventional fine aggregates in con- size rubber concrete showed a 22.3% increase in its compressive
crete. Chou et al. [29] exploited this property and studied the effect strength, compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. At
of partial oxidation (oxidation temperature 150, 200 and 250 °C) of 30% replacement level both the small and the large rubber particle
tyre rubber particles on the properties of rubber mortar containing concrete samples showed an increase in 28-day compressive
6% by mass of rubber content. The 28-day compressive strength of strengths of 40 and 28.9% respectively, compared to that of their
the rubber mortar partially oxidized at 150 °C was lower than that corresponding rubber concrete samples.
of the untreated rubber mortar samples. The one that was partially Rivas-Vazquez et al. [35] studied the effect of treating the
oxidized at 200 °C showed a slight improvement but was still crumb rubber with Ethanol, Methanol and Acetone, prepared at
lower than that of the untreated rubber mortar. Interestingly, par- 50% concentration of solvent by volume of water. They found that
tial oxidizing the rubber particles at 250 °C made a significant the treatment of crumb rubber with Ethanol did not show any sig-
improvement in its compressive strength, which was 18.4% higher nificant difference in 7-day compressive strength, however the 21
than that of the control mix not containing any waste tyre rubber. and 28-day strengths showed a slight increase compared to that of
The SEM image of the rubber mortar samples containing partially the untreated rubber. The Methanol treated rubber showed a con-
oxidized rubber at 250 °C showed a much smaller crystal structure siderably higher improvement in strength at 3, 7, 21 and 28 days of
of hydration compared to that of all other treated and untreated curing compared to that obtained with Ethanol treatment. The best
rubber mortar samples. In addition, the morphology of the crystals treatment method they found was that with Acetone, which pro-
of the hydration products changed from long and thin in as- vided the highest improvement in 3, 7, 21 and 28 day compressive
received crumb rubber to short and compact needles in 250 °C strengths, compared to those of the untreated and the ones treated
treated rubber mortar samples. A similar study conducted by Chen with the other solvents. The Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spec-
and Lee [118] on the partial oxidation of crumb rubber at 250 °C troscopy results showed increase in the peak intensities between
temperature used 5% crumb rubber by weight of cement and found 2850 and 2950 cm 1 wavelength ranges, indicating the presence
the relative compressive strength of 82% compared to that of the of stretching CAH bonds and incorporation of additional functional
cement paste. groups that improved the adhesion between the rubber and the
Yu et al. [119] investigated the effect of precipitating reinforcing cement paste interface of various treated rubber particles, result-
silica on the rubber powder by cross-linking and bybrid modifying ing in the improvement in strength properties.
it by sol–gel technique with reactive precursor tetraethoxy- silane He et al. [37] looked at the effect of treating the rubber particles
and c-glycidyloxypropyl trimethoxysilane (A-187). They observed with a combination of KMnO4 and NaHSO3 on the strength proper-
a significant improvement of 42.5% in the 28-day compressive ties of rubber concrete containing 2, 4 and 6% of rubber powder by
strength of the treated rubber concrete compared to that of the mass of concrete. They found 19.7, 48.7 and 35% improvement in
untreated rubber concrete. Chou et al. [31] found that treating the 28-day compressive strength of the treated rubber concrete
the crumb rubber, used as a replacement of fine aggregates, with samples at 2, 4 and 6% replacement levels, respectively. The FT-
waste organic sulphur compounds brought about ~20% increase IR results showed oxidation (by KMnO4) and sulphonation (by
in the compressive strength of rubber concrete compared to that NaHSO3) of the rubber particles introducing polar carbonyl, hydro-
of the untreated rubber concrete. The atomic force microscopy xyl and sulphonate groups onto the rubber surface, which pro-
results (Table 8) showed a reduction in the contact angles of rubber duced a large number of hydrogen and ionic bonds between the
in water due to the adsorption of organic sulphur compounds onto rubber and the cement matrix. In addition, the contact angle study
the surface of rubber particles. This reduction in contact angles of showed a change in contact angle of treated rubber from 95° in the
the treated rubber reflected the improvement in its hydrophilic case of the untreated rubber to 71°, indicating a fundamental
properties, reducing its inhibition to water availability for the change in the surface properties of the rubber, from strongly
hydration reaction of the cement, resulting in the improvement hydrophobic to hydrophilic. These changes on the surface of the
in its compressive strength. Moreover, the intermolecular interac- rubber particles resulted in a significant improvement in the adhe-
tion force between the treated rubber particles and the C-S-H gel sive strength of the rubber and cement matrix, thereby improving
was found to be significantly higher than that of the untreated rub- the mechanical properties of the rubber concrete. Youssf et al. [22]
ber particles, which contributed towards the improvement in its used the similar treatment method of combination of KMnO4 and
strength properties. NaHSO3 at 20 vol% replacement level of fine aggregates. They did
Zhang et al. [32] investigated the effect of treating tyre rubber not obseve any noticeable change in the compressive strength of
particles with a chemical blend of 17.2% acrylic acid, 13.8% poly- the treated and untreated rubber concrete. They also investigated
ethylene glycol and 69% anhydrous ethanol by weight. They found the effect of the other rubber treatment methods like hydrogen
a considerable improvement in the compressive strength results of peroxide (H2O2), calcium chloride (CaCl2), and sulphuric acid
the treated rubber concrete compared to that of the untreated rub- (H2SO4). Out of all these treatment methods only calcium chloride
ber. The surface contact angle study showed a significant improve- treatment method showed a small improvement in the 28 day
ment in hydrophilic properties of the treated rubber that showed a strength of ~ 6%. No other treatment method showed any notice-
change in contact angle from 105.13° in the case of raw crumb rub- able change in the strength between the treated and untreated
ber to 68° for that of the treated rubber, which was also supported rubber concrete. CaCl2 is a well known cement accelerator [120–
by the improvement in the bond between the rubber particle and 122], the accelerating effect on the cement surrounding CaCl2 trea-
the cement paste in the SEM images. Herrera-Sosa et al. [34] ted rubber particles mostlikely would have contributed towards its
looked at modifying the properties of waste tyre rubber particles strength improvement compared to that of the untreated rubber
with gamma radiation at 10, 20 and 30% of fine aggregate replace- concrete.
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 9

Abd-Elaal et al. [38] investigated the effect of heating different of rubber particles with styrene-butadiene copolymer. The relative
sizes (0.6, 1–3, 2–5 mm) of rubber particles at 200 °C temperature strength of the untreated rubber mortar at 28 days was 32.1%,
for 1 hr at sand replacement level of 20 vol%. They observed that which increased to 34.6% with styrene-butadiene copolymer coat-
the 0.6 mm and 1–3 mm heat treated rubber concrete showed ing onto the rubber particles, because of the improved interfacial
an improvement of 28% and 17.7%, however the rubber concrete bond and a denser microstructure at the interfacial transition zone.
containing the heat treated rubber particle size of 2–5 mm did Table 9 shows the detailed information about the effect of var-
not show any considerable improvement in the 28-day strength ious treatment methods on the compressive strength of rubber
compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. Also, the 28- mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes, replacement
day compressive strength of the heat treated rubber concrete levels and water cement ratios.
decreased with the increase in rubber particle size, however the
untreated rubber showed no noticeable change among the differ- 4.2.2.2. Flexural strength. Khatib and Bayomi [20] investigated the
ent sizes of rubebr particles. They also looked at varying the dura- effect of particle size (<2.5 mm and 10–50 mm) and the percentage
tion (1 h, 1.5 h, 2 h) of the heat treatment for 2–5 mm rubber by volume (5–100%) of untreated tyre rubber content on the flex-
particle concrete. They observed an improvement of ~ 6.5% by ural properties of rubber concrete. They found that the flexural
increasing the heating duration from 1 to 1.5 h but the further strength decreased with the increase in rubber content irrespective
increase in the heating duration did not provide any noticeable of the particle size. However, they noticed much higher deflections
improvement in the 28-day compressive strength. They attributed in the rubber concrete before failure, compared to that of the con-
the improvement in the compressive strength of heat treated rub- trol mix not containing rubber. The smaller particle size rubber
ber concrete to the two main factors (i) the removal of impurities performed better in providing higher flexural strength compared
on the crumb rubber surface and (ii) the formation of a hard shell to that of the coarser particle size, although, the difference in the
on the surface that provide stiffness to the rubber particles. They flexural strength decreased with the increase in rubber content.
also observed an improvement in the bond performance between Skripkiunas et al. [101] found a similar trend in the reduction in
the heat treated rubber particles and the cement paste that also strength with the increase in rubber content. However, they
contributed towards strength improvement. observed a reduction in flexural strength with the decrease in par-
Muñoz-Sánchez et al. [39] studied effect of treating crumb rub- ticle size (0–1, 1–2 and 2–3 mm), contrary to what Khatib and Bay-
ber with sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, calcium hydroxide, and omi [20] found in their study. This contrary observation on the
acetic acid solutions on the mechanical properties of crumb rubber effect of particle size between two studies could possibly be due
concrete. They noted an improvement in 28 day compressive to a large gap in the particle size studied by Khatib and Bayomi
strength with all the treatment methods compared to that of the [20] compared to no gap between the particle size ranges studied
untreated rubber concrete. The highest improvement was by Skripkiunas et al. [101]. Najim and Hall [21] found that washing
observed with the NaOH treatment, followed by Ca(OH)2 > H2SO4 >- the rubber crumb slightly improved the flexural strength of the
CH3COOH > untreated rubber concrete. They noted that the surface rubber concrete compared to the unwashed rubber concrete. They
roughness of the rubber particles were improved by using all the also studied: (i) pre-coating the rubber particles with cement paste
treatment methods with acid solutions providing the higher sur- and cement mortar and (ii) pre-treating the crumb rubber with
face roughness compared to that of the alkaline solutions. The saturated NaOH solution. They observed that the pre-coating of
increase in the surface roughness of the rubber particles improved the rubber particles improved the 28-day flexural strength by 7%,
the bond performance thereby resulting in the improvement in the whereas, pre-coating with mortar improved the strength by
28 day compressive strength results of the treated rubber con- 10.5%, compared to that of untreated rubber concrete. However,
cretes compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. Abdulla they found that pre-treating the crumb rubber with saturated
and Ahmed [40] looked at treating crumb rubber with different NaOH solution for 20 mins and then water washing, reduced the
solutions of 5% HCl, 35% HCl, 5% H2SO4, 35% H2SO4, 5% CH3COOH 28-day flexural strength of the rubber concrete by 6.7% compared
and replacing sand content of cement mortar with 30 vol% of to that of the untreated crumb rubber. Similarly, a reduction in
crumb rubber of particle size 2 – 2.36 mm. They observed a reduc- flexural strength of rubber concrete containing NaOH treated and
tion in the 28 day compressive strength in the order of Con- subsequently water washed rubber particles was reported by Segre
trol > 35% H2SO4 > CH3COOH > 5% H2SO4 > 5% HCl > untreated and Joekes [24] and Ligang et al. [119]. Segre and Joekes [24], also
rubber > 35% HCl. Leung and Grasley [41] studied the effect of found that treating the rubber particles with sodium silicate solu-
treating rubber particles with 1 mol H2SO4 and 3 mol Nitric acid tion reduced the 28-day flexural strength of the rubber concrete by
(HNO3) solutions on rubber cement mortar (no sand) containing 45.9%, which was significantly worse than that of the NaOH treated
12.2% of rubber content by weight of cement. They observed an rubber. Li et al. [36] assessed the effect of treating NaOH pre-
improvement in 28 day compressive strength of 33.3 and 2.5% with treated crumb rubber particles with a second stage treatment
the rubber treatments of 1 mol H2SO4 and 3 mol HNO3 solutions using a combination of silane coupling agent and carboxylated
respectively, compared to that of the untreated rubber mortar. styrene-butadiene rubber (CSBR) on the properties of rubber con-
Emam and Yehia [42] investigated the effect of treating crumb rub- crete at sand replacement levels of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30%. They
ber with carbon disulfide (CS2) on rubber mortar containing 3 and observed a small improvement in flexural strength of NaOH trea-
6 vol% of rubber contents replacing sand. They observed that their ted rubber concrete at 5% replacement level, which decreased with
untreated rubber mortars showed a reduction of 2 and 1% respec- the increase in rubber content, compared to that of the control mix
tively at 3 and 6% replacement levels, compared to that of the con- not containing any rubber. However, the two staged treatment per-
trol mix. However their CS2 treated samples showed an formed much better in improving the flexural strengths of the trea-
improvement of 10 and 21% compared to that of the control mix, ted rubber concrete, which showed an improvement of 8.8, 12.8
which they attributed it to the enhanced bond performance with and 2.9% in treated rubber concrete at 5, 10, 15% replacement,
CS2 treatment that improved the capability of crumb rubber to but at higher replacement levels the flexural strength showed a
absorb more energy, resulting in higher strength. Pham et al. reduction of 7.4 and 25% respectively, compared to that of the con-
[123] looked at the effect of coating crumb rubber particles with trol sample not containing any rubber.
the styrene-butadiene copolymer on rubber mortar containing Mohammadi et al. [43] found that soaking the rubber particles
30% of crumb rubber (size < 4 mm) by volume of sand. They for 24 hrs removes the entrapped air and improves the flexural
observed a small improvement in the loss of strength by coating strength of rubber concrete by 9 and 11% at replacement levels
10 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

Table 9
Effect of various treatment methods on the compressive strength of mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes and replacement levels.

Rubber Size (mm) Treatment Method Replacement w/c Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the Ref.
Level (%) ratio control mix (%)
<4.75 24 hr water soaking 10, 20, 30, 40 0.40 63.0 (0% rubber concrete) 85.9, 70.3, 49, 36.3 [61]
<4.75 24 hr water soaking 20 0.45 55.6 (0% rubber concrete) 62.8 [43]
<6.0 Water washing 38 0.48 52.5 (0% rubber concrete) 63.8 [21]
<6.0 Cement paste coating 38 0.48 52.5 (0% rubber concrete) 70.5 [21]
<6.0 Mortar coating 38 0.48 52.5 (0% rubber concrete) 85.7 [21]
<6.0 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 20 38 0.48 52.5 (0% rubber concrete) 62.9 [21]
mins, followed by water washing
<2.36 Pre-treating with NaOH solution followed 6, 12, 18 0.50 51.1 (0% rubber concrete) 88.5, 76.7, 68.1 [83]
by pre-coating them with cement powder
25 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 30 15 0.50 39.1 (0% rubber concrete) 59.4 [124]
mins, followed by water washing
0.8 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 30 12 0.50 47.5 (0% rubber mortar) 50.5 [46]
mins, followed by water washing
<4.0 Soaking in 10% NaOH solution for 30 mins, 20 0.50 51.4 (0% rubber concrete) 81.7 [26]
followed by water washing
<4.0 Polyvinyl alcohol treatment 20 0.50 51.4 (0% rubber concrete) 84.8 [26]
<5.0 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 30 20 0.50 53.5 (0% rubber concrete) 78.7 [84]
mins, followed by water washing
<5.0 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 20 0.50 53.5 (0% rubber concrete) 69.5 [84]
120 mins, followed by water washing
0.6 NaOH + CSBR latex + SCA 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 0.45 52.3 (0% rubber concrete) 101.1, 100.2, 95.6, 89.5, [36]
71.9
<4.75 Saturated NaOH treatment 20 0.50 41.5 (0% rubber concrete) 70.4 [22]
0.6–2.5 Saturated NaOH solution 10 0.60 39.2 (0% rubber mortar) 88.0 [39]
Rubber Size (mm) Treatment Method Replacement w/c Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the Ref.
Level (%) ratio control mix (%)
0.15–0.3 Untreated 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 0.50 38.0 (0% rubber concrete) 79, 73.8, 59.8, 50 [125]
0.15–0.3 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 24 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 0.50 38.0 (0% rubber concrete) 89.7, 97.2, 86.4, 82.2 [125]
hrs, followed by water washing
<4.75 H2O2 treatment 20 0.50 41.5 (0% rubber concrete) 66.3 [22]
<4.75 CaCl2 treatment 20 0.50 41.5 (0% rubber concrete) 70.1 [22]
<4.75 H2SO4 treatment 20 0.50 41.5 (0% rubber concrete) 66.0 [22]
<4.75 KMnO4 + NaHSO4 20 0.50 41.5 (0% rubber concrete) 63.9 [22]
0.4 KMnO4 + NaHSO4 2, 4, 6 0.46 49.2 (0% rubber concrete) 87.6, 71.3, 54.5 [37]
0.18 (ATRP) A-187 c-glycidyloxypropyl 12.5, 16.5, 0.50 55.2 (0% rubber mortar) 89.9, 85, 78.8,73, 67 [119]
trimethoxysilane treated rubber powder 21,26.5, 32
0.6 Partial oxidation @ 250 °C 15 0.62 34.8 (0% rubber mortar) 118.4 [29]
0.3–0.6 Partial oxidation @ 250 °C 5% by cement wt. 0.35 87 (cement paste) 82 [118]
0.3 Treatment with organic sulfur compounds 2.9, 5.7 0.50 31.2 (0% rubber concrete) 90.4, 70.5 [31]
<4.75 Silane coupling agent (SCA) 15, 30 0.45 37.6 (0% rubber concrete) 92, 76.1 [54]
0.42 Treatment with Acrylic acid and 5, 10,15, 20 0.40 51.4 (0% rubber concrete) 83.7, 73.3, 68.5, 63.8 [32]
polyethylene glycol
0.85 Untreated 10, 20, 30 0.54 24 (0% rubber concrete) 67, 50.8, 21.3 [34]
2.80 Untreated 10, 20, 30 0.54 24 (0% rubber concrete) 88.8, 53.8, 47.7 [34]
0.85 Treatment with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 24 (0% rubber concrete) 66.7, 41.7, 30.8 [34]
2.80 Treatment with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 24 (0% rubber concrete) 73.3, 66.7, 62.5 [34]
<1.18 Ethanol treatment 10 0.50 188 (0% rubber concrete) 95.7 [35]
<1.18 Methanol treatment 10 0.50 188 (0% rubber concrete) 109 [35]
<1.18 Acetone treatment 10 0.50 188 (0% rubber concrete) 117 [35]
Rubber Size (mm) Treatment Method Replacement w/c Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the Ref.
Level (%) ratio control mix (%)
0.6 Rubber heat treatment–1 hr 20 0.50 50.9 (0% rubber concrete) 81.7 [38]
1–3 Rubber heat treatment–1 hr 20 0.50 50.9 (0% rubber concrete) 77.0 [38]
2–5 Rubber heat treatment–1 hr 20 0.50 50.9 (0% rubber concrete) 68.0 [38]
2–5 Rubber heat treatment–1.5 hr 20 0.50 50.9 (0% rubber concrete) 72.5 [38]
2–5 Rubber heat treatment–2 hr 20 0.50 50.9 (0% rubber concrete) 73.1 [38]
0.6–2.5 Untreated 10 0.60 39.2 (0% rubber mortar) 63.1 [39]
0.6–2.5 32% H2SO4 solution 10 0.60 39.2 (0% rubber mortar) 80.4 [39]
2–2.36 5% H2SO4 solution 30 0.40 36.5 (0% rubber mortar) 63.8 [40]
2–2.36 35% H2SO4 solution 30 0.40 36.5 (0% rubber mortar) 73.2 [40]
0.6–2.5 Saturated Ca(OH)2 solution 10 0.60 39.2 (0% rubber mortar) 84.0 [39]
0.6–2.5 32% CH3COOH solution 10 0.60 39.2 (0% rubber mortar) 69.8 [39]
2–2.36 5% CH3COOH solution 30 0.40 36.5 (0% rubber mortar) 66.6 [40]
2–2.36 Untreated 30 0.40 36.5 (0% rubber mortar) 43.8 [40]
2–2.36 5% HCl solution 30 0.40 36.5 (0% rubber mortar) 45.2 [40]
2–2.36 35% HCl solution 30 0.40 36.5 (0% rubber mortar) 13.2 [40]
<0.42 1 mol H2SO4 solution 12.2% by weight 0.40 16.2 (12.2 wt% untreated rubber 133.3 [41]
of cement mortar–no sand)
<0.42 3 mol HNO3 solution 12.2% by weight 0.40 16.2 (12.2 wt% untreated rubber 102.5 [41]
of cement mortar–no sand)
3.0 Untreated 3, 6 0.50 23.4 (0% rubber mortar) 98, 99 [42]
3.0 Treatment with CS2 3, 6 0.50 23.4 (0% rubber mortar) 110, 121 [42]
<4.0 Untreated 30 61.4 (0% rubber mortar) 32.1 [123]
<4.0 Styrene-butadiene copolymer coating 30 61.4 (0% rubber mortar) 34.6 [123]
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 11

Table 10
Effect of various treatment methods on the flexural strength of mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes and replacement levels.

Rubber Size Treatment Method Replacement Level (%) w/c Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the Ref.
(mm) ratio control mix (%)
<2.5 No Treatment 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 0.48 11.0 (0% rubber concrete) 37.3, 31.8, 26.4, 15.5, 9.1 [20]
10–50 No Treatment 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 0.48 11.0 (0% rubber concrete) 36.4, 26.4, 23.6, 17.3, 10.9 [20]
0–1 No Treatment 5, 10, 20, 30 0.35 6.5 (0% rubber concrete) 63.1, 47.7, 33.8, 27.7 [101]
1–2 No Treatment 5, 10, 20, 30 0.35 6.5 (0% rubber concrete) 78.5, 72.3, 55.4, 40 [101]
2–3 No Treatment 5, 10, 20 0.35 6.5 (0% rubber concrete) 81.5, 75.4, 60 [101]
<6 Water wash 38 0.48 6.26 (38% untreated rubber 101.6 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-coating with cement paste 38 0.48 6.26 (38% untreated rubber 107.0 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-coating with cement mortar 38 0.48 6.26 (38% untreated rubber 110.5 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-treating with NaOH solution 38 0.48 6.26 (38% untreated rubber 93.3 [21]
concrete)
500 mm Pre-treating with NaOH followed by Addition as 10% by mass of 0.36 5.6 (cement paste) 176.8 [24]
water washing cement paste
0.6 NaOH + CSBR latex + SCA 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 0.45 6.8 (0% rubber concrete) 108.8, 113.2, 102.9, 92.6, [36]
89.7
<4.75 24 hr water soaking 20 0.45 6.0 (0% rubber concrete) 83.3 [43]
<4.75 24 hr water soaking 30 0.40 6.9 (0% rubber concrete) 75.4 [43]
0.6 Partial oxidation @ 250 °C 15 0.62 6.1 (0% rubber mortar) 101.6 [29]
0.3 Untreated 3, 6 0.50 6.4 (0% rubber concrete) 79.4, 76.3 [31]
0.3 Treatment with organic sulfur 3, 6 0.50 6.4 (0% rubber concrete) 90.6, 88.1 [31]
compounds
0.42 Untreated 5, 10, 20 0.40 4.07 (0% rubber concrete) 51.8, 30.9, 12.2 [32]
0.42 Treatment with Acrylic acid and 5, 10, 20 0.40 4.07 (0% rubber concrete) 95.2, 80, 37.9 [32]
polyethylene glycol
<840 lm Untreated 15 0.32 6.33 (0% rubber mortar) 78.7 [33]
<840 lm Treatment with UV radiation 15 (Exposure time 20, 40, 0.32 6.33 (0% rubber mortar) 82.3, 94.2, 93.8 [33]
60hr)
Rubber Size Treatment Method Replacement Level (%) w/c Control mix Strength (MPa) Strength relative to the Ref.
(mm) ratio control mix (%)
0.85 Untreated 10, 20, 30 0.54 7.5 (0% rubber concrete) 96.7, 93.3, 66.7 [34]
2.80 Untreated 10, 20, 30 0.54 7.5 (0% rubber concrete) 98, 88, 83.3 [34]
0.85 Treatment with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 7.5 (0% rubber concrete) 77.3, 66, 57.3 [34]
2.80 Treatment with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 7.5 (0% rubber concrete) 81.3, 70, 67.3 [34]
0.6–2.5 Untreated 10 0.6 6.35 (0% rubber mortar) 82.7 [39]
0.6–2.5 Saturated NaOH solution 10 0.6 6.35 (0% rubber mortar) 102.4 [39]
0.6–2.5 32% Sulfuric acid solution 10 0.6 6.35 (0% rubber mortar) 110.6 [39]
0.6–2.5 Saturated Ca(OH)2 solution 10 0.6 6.35 (0% rubber mortar) 104.7 [39]
0.6–2.5 32% acetic acid solution 10 0.6 6.35 (0% rubber mortar) 92.1 [39]
2–2.36 Untreated 30 0.40 3.6 (0% rubber mortar) 83.3 [40]
2–2.36 5% HCl solution 30 0.40 3.6 (0% rubber mortar) 80.5 [40]
2–2.36 35% HCl solution 30 0.40 3.6 (0% rubber mortar) 75.0 [40]
2–2.36 5% H2SO4 solution 30 0.40 3.6 (0% rubber mortar) 89.9 [40]
2–2.36 35% H2SO4 solution 30 0.40 3.6 (0% rubber mortar) 88.9 [40]
2–2.36 5% CH3COOH solution 30 0.40 3.6 (0% rubber mortar) 97.1 [40]

of 20 and 30% respectively, compared to that of their correspond- behaviour, thereby improving the strength properties of the rubber
ing untreated rubber concrete samples. Chou et al. [29] observed concrete. The flexural strength of the rubber concrete increased
that partially oxidizing the rubber particles at 150 and 200 °C fur- with the increase in UV exposure period, to the maximum level
ther reduced the 28-day flexural strength of rubber mortar. How- reaching at 40 hrs of exposure, with no further improvement in
ever, increasing the partial oxidation temperature to 250 °C flexural strength with the increase in the UV exposure period.
brought a significant improvement in the flexural strength of the Herrera-Sosa et al. [34] found that treating the rubber particles
rubber mortar, that was approximately the same as that of the con- with gamma radiation reduced the flexural strength of the treated
trol mix. Chou et al. [31] looked at treating the crumb rubber par- rubber concrete, in spite of its positive influence on improving the
ticles with organic sulfur compounds and observed an compressive strength on some of the mix designs containing
improvement in flexural strength of ~ 15% in the rubber concrete gamma irradiated rubber. Muñoz-Sánchez et al. [39] noted an
containing 6% of crumb rubber. Zhang et al. [32] investigated the improvement in 28 day flexural strength in all the different rubber
effect of modifying the properties of the tyre rubber particles treatment methods they adopted i.e. treatment with NaOH, Ca
(<4 mm) by treating them with a chemical blend of 17.2% acrylic (OH)2, H2SO4, and CH3COOH solutions, compared to that of the
acid, 13.8% polyethylene glycol and 69% anhydrous ethanol by untreated rubber concrete. The highest improvement in flexural
weight. They found an improvement in 28-day flexural strength strength was observed with the H2SO4 treatment, followed by Ca
of 13.5, 18.2 and 9.7% in the treated rubber concrete at 5, 10 and (OH)2 > NaOH > CH3COOH > untreated rubber concrete. Another
20% of replacement levels respectively, compared to that of the study conducted by Abdulla and Ahmed [40] looked at treating
untreated rubber concrete. crumb rubber with different solutions of 5% HCl, 35% HCl, 5%
Ossola and Wojcik [33] investigated the effect of treating the H2SO4, 35% H2SO4, 5% CH3COOH and replacing sand content of
rubber particles with UV radiation for 20, 40 and 60 hrs of expo- cement mortar with 30 vol% of crumb rubber of particle size 2–
sure. They observed an improvement in rubber to cement bond 2.36 mm. They observed a reduction in the 28 day flexural strength
12 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

in the order of Control > CH3COOH > 5% H2SO4 > 35% H2SO4 > un- untreated rubber compared to the control sample not containing
treated rubber > 5% HCl > 35% HCl. any rubber. The samples containing rubber particles partially oxi-
Table 10 shows the detailed information about the effect of var- dized at 150 and 200 °C showed a similar reduction in strength
ious treatment methods on the flexural strength of rubber mortar/- to that of the untreated rubber. However, partially oxidizing the
concrete at various rubber particle sizes, replacement levels and rubber particles at 250 °C brought a significant improvement in
water cement ratios. the 28-day rubber mortar strength, which was approximately sim-
ilar to that of the control mix. Chou et al. [31] found that treating
4.2.2.3. Split tensile strength. Split tensile strength of concrete is one the crumb rubber with organic sulfur compounds resulted in a
of the most important properties of the concrete because it helps in considerable improvement in the 28-day split tensile strength of
ascertaining the load at which the concrete members may crack the rubber concrete containing 3–6% of crumb rubber. They
and, in some cases, to design a structural member as an uncracked observed an improvement of 12.8 and 13.5% in 28-day split tensile
section. Eldin and Senouci [19] studied the effect of size (38, 25, 19, strengths of rubber concrete containing 3 and 6% of treated rubber,
6.4 and 2 mm) and percentage volume (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%) of respectively, compared to that of the corresponding untreated rub-
untreated rubber aggregates on the split tensile strength of con- ber concrete. Herrera-Sosa et al. [34] looked at the effect of gamma
crete. They observed a 36% loss in strength at 28 days with 25% tyre radiation on crumb rubber at 10, 20 and 30% of fine aggregate
rubber content as coarse aggregate, which increased to 75% loss at replacement levels, with particle sizes of mesh 7 (<2.83 mm) and
100% replacement level. They found a similar trend in loss of mesh 20 (<0.84 mm). They found that at 10% replacement level
strength with fine rubber aggregates, but the 28-day strengths the irradiated rubber concrete with smaller particle size showed
with fine rubber aggregates were considerably higher than those no significant difference but the one with a larger particle size
of coarse rubber aggregates. They noticed a 19% loss in strength showed a reduction of 22% in 28-day split tensile strength, com-
at 28 days with 25% tyre rubber content as fine aggregate, which pared to that of the non-irradiated rubber concrete. At 20% replace-
increased to 49% loss at 100% replacement level. A similar trend ment level, the irradiated rubber concrete with smaller particle
in the reduction in split tensile strength due to the effect of particle size showed a reduction of 25% and the one with a larger particle
size and percentage volume of tyre rubber content was observed size showed an increase of 16.2%, compared to that of the non-
by Topcu [96]. irradiated rubber concrete. At 30% replacement level, the irradiated
Najim and Hall [21] studied the comparative effect of untreated rubber concrete with smaller particle size showed no considerable
tyre rubber aggregates with water washed, cement pre-coated, difference but the one with a larger particle size showed an
mortar pre-coated and NaOH pre-treated rubber aggregates on improvement of 15% in 28-day split tensile strength, compared
the split tensile strength of concrete. The rubber replacement in to that of the non-irradiated rubber concrete.
their mix designs was 12% by mass of total aggregates (6% Table 11 shows the detailed information about the effect of var-
CA + 6% FA), i.e. 38% by total aggregate volume. They found no sig- ious treatment methods on the split tensile strength of rubber
nificant difference in the 28-day split tensile strengths of mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes, replacement
untreated, water washed, cement paste pre-coated and NaOH levels and water cement ratios.
pre-treated rubber concrete samples, which were 2.6, 2.7, 2.7
and 2.55 MPa respectively. However, the cement mortar pre- 4.2.2.4. Modulus of elasticity. Li et al. [52] looked at the effect of the
coated rubber improved the split tensile strength of the rubber particle size and percentage of rubber content on the static elastic
concrete by 19.2% compared to that of the untreated rubber modulus of rubber concrete. They found that the elastic modulus
concrete. increases with the increase in particle size and decreases with
Albano et al. [17] looked at the effect of two treatment methods the increase in rubber content. Similar observations on the reduc-
(i) NaOH and (ii) silane coupling agent A-174 on rubber particle tion of elastic modulus with the increase in rubber content were
sizes of 0.29 mm and 0.59 mm and replacement levels of 5 and recorded by Atahan and Yucel [113] and Li et al. [83]. Zheng
10% by mass of fine aggregates. They found that the treatment of et al. [126] studied the effect of 2.36 mm and 15–40 mm rubber
the rubber particles with maximum size of 0.29 mm, with NaOH particle sizes and rubber contents of 15%, 30%, and 45 vol%. They
at 5% replacement level showed a reduction in split tensile found that both the static and dynamic elastic moduli decreased
strength of 15% but an increase of 57% at 10% replacement level. with the increase in rubber content but the dynamic elastic mod-
However, the one containing 0.59 mm rubber particle size, showed ulus was significantly higher than that of the static modulus at
an increase of 8.3% at 5% replacement level and a decrease of 30% at all replacement levels. The effect of particle size on the elastic
a replacement level of 10%. Their SCA treated rubber particles with modulus was only observed at the replacement level of 15%. They
a maximum size of 0.29 mm showed a reduction in split tensile found that the concrete containing smaller sized rubber particles
strength of 5% at 5% replacement level and no difference in showed an increase of 17.1% and 17.4% in the dynamic and the sta-
strength at a replacement level of 10%. The SCA treated rubber par- tic elastic modulus respectively, compared to that of the larger
ticles with a maximum size of 0.59 mm showed an increase of 11% sized rubber particles. However, at higher replacement levels they
at 5% replacement level and a negligible difference at a replace- did not see any significant difference in the effect of particle size on
ment level of 10%. Marques et al. [46] observed an improvement both the static and the dynamic elastic moduli.
in 28-day split tensile strength of 17.1% in NaOH treated rubber Najim and Hall [21] found that washing the rubber showed no
concrete, compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete at change in the static elastic modulus at 28 days, but a 2.9% increase
12% sand replacement level. Youssf et al. [84] investigated the was seen in the dynamic elastic modulus, compared to that of the
effect of soaking rubber particles in 10% NaOH solution for 1 and unwashed rubber concrete. They also studied the effect of: (i) pre-
2 hrs duration. They found an improvement in 28-day split tensile coating the rubber particles with cement paste and cement mortar
strength of 14.8 and 18.5% in NaOH treated rubber concrete sam- and (ii) pre-treating the crumb rubber with saturated NaOH solu-
ples soaked for 1 and 2 hrs respectively, compared to that of the tion. They observed that pre-coating the rubber particles with
untreated rubber concrete. cement paste improved the 28-day static elastic modulus of the
Chou et al. [29] looked at the effect of partially oxidizing the rubber concrete by 10% and dynamic elastic modulus by 5.9%.
tyre rubber particles at 150, 200 and 250 °C temperatures, on the Whereas, pre-coating with mortar improved the static elastic mod-
properties of rubber mortar containing 6% by mass of rubber con- ulus by 15% and dynamic elastic modulus by 11.8%. Treatment of
tent. They observed a 43.8% drop in 28-day split tensile strength of the rubber particles with saturated NaOH solution for 20 mins fol-
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 13

Table 11
Effect of various treatment methods on the split tensile strength of mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes and replacement levels.

Rubber size Treatment method Replacement w/c Control mix strength Strength relative to the Ref.
(mm) level (%) ratio (MPa) control mix (%)
<2 Particle size effect 25, 50, 75, 100 0.48 3.4 (0% rubber concrete) 80.8, 68.6, 58.1, 47.1 [19]
<38 Particle size effect 25, 50, 75, 100 0.48 3.4 (0% rubber concrete) 63.1, 43.9, 33.4, 23.5 [19]
0–1 Particle size effect 15, 30, 45 0.62 3.21 (0% rubber concrete) 67.6, 47.7, 35.2 [96]
1–4 Particle size effect 15, 30, 45 0.62 3.21 (0% rubber concrete) 46.7, 33.0, 25.5 [96]
<6 Water wash 38 0.48 2.6 (38% untreated rubber 103.8 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-coating with cement paste 38 0.48 2.6 (38% untreated rubber 103.8 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-coating with cement mortar 38 0.48 2.6 (38% untreated rubber 119.2 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-treating with NaOH solution 38 0.48 2.6 (38% untreated rubber 98.1 [21]
concrete)
<0.6 NaOH Treatment 5, 10 0.49 3, 0.5 (5%, 10% untreated 85.1, 160 [17]
rubber)
<0.6 Silane coupling agent treatment 5, 10 0.49 3, 0.5 (5%, 10% untreated 93.6, 100 [17]
rubber)
<0.8 Soaking in saturated NaOH solution for 30 mins, 12 0.5 6.8 (0% rubber mortar) 51.5 [46]
followed by water washing
0.6 Untreated 15 0.62 3.2 (0% rubber mortar) 56.3 [29]
0.6 Partial oxidation @ 250 °C 15 0.62 3.2 (0% rubber mortar) 103.1 [29]
0.3 Untreated 3, 6 0.50 8.1 (0% rubber concrete) 81.2, 71 [31]
0.3 Treatment with organic sulfur compounds 3, 6 0.50 8.1 (0% rubber concrete) 91.6, 80.6 [31]
0.85 Non irradiated 10, 20, 30 0.54 2.03 (0% rubber concrete) 66.5, 59.1, 36 [34]
2.80 Non irradiated 10, 20, 30 0.54 2.03 (0% rubber concrete) 93.6, 55.2, 50.7 [34]
0.85 Treatment with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 2.03 (0% rubber concrete) 69, 43.3, 36.5 [34]
2.80 Treatment with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 2.03 (0% rubber concrete) 72.9, 62.6, 57.6 [34]

Table 12
Effect of various treatment methods on the elactic modulus of mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes and replacement levels.

Rubber size Treatment method Replacement w/c Control elastic modulus Relative elastic modulus to the Ref.
(mm) level (%) ratio (GPa) control mix (%)
0.173 Particle size effect 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 0.49 4.1 (0% rubber concrete) 72.4, 69.5, 63.4, 59.3, 58 [52]
0.221 Particle size effect 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 0.49 4.1 (0% rubber concrete) 73.2, 72.4, 67.8, 62.4, 61 [52]
0.535 Particle size effect 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 0.49 4.1 (0% rubber concrete) 75.6, 75.1, 70, 67.8, 65.9 [52]
2 Particle size effect 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 0.49 4.1 (0% rubber concrete) 79.5, 76.8, 75.6, 76.1, 68.3 [52]
4 Particle size effect 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 0.49 4.1 (0% rubber concrete) 82, 78, 76.8, 76.1, 71.2 [52]
0–13 No treatment 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 0.52 16.6 (0% rubber concrete) 94, 88, 39.8, 12, 3.6 [113]
1.2–2.4 NaOH treatment 6, 12, 18 0.50 30.3 (0% rubber concrete) 95.4, 94.1, 86.1 [83]
<2.38 Particle size effect 15, 30, 45 0.45 32 (0% rubber concrete) 84.4, 75, 70.3 [126]
15–40 Particle size effect 15, 30, 45 0.45 32 (0% rubber concrete) 71.9, 75, 67.2 [126]
<6 Water wash 38 0.48 20 (38% untreated rubber 100 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-coating with cement paste 38 0.48 20 (38% untreated rubber 110 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-coating with cement mortar 38 0.48 20 (38% untreated rubber 115 [21]
concrete)
<6 Pre-treating with NaOH solution 38 0.48 20 (38% untreated rubber 105 [21]
concrete)
<500 mm No treatment 10% by mass of 0.36 5.9 (Cement paste) 123.7 [24]
cement
<500 mm Pre-treating with NaOH solution followed 10% by mass of 0.36 5.9 (Cement paste) 105.1 [24]
by water wash cement
<4.75 24 hr water soaking 10, 20, 30, 40 0.40 46.5 (0% rubber) 92, 80.4, 71.8, 64.3 [43]
0.85 Untreated 10, 20, 30 0.54 10.7 (0% rubber) 74.8, 58.9, 47.3 [34]
2.80 Untreated 10, 20, 30 0.54 10.7 (0% rubber) 84.1, 74.8, 71.1 [34]
0.85 Treated with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 10.7 (0% rubber) 72.9, 59.8, 62.6 [34]
2.80 Treated with gamma radiation 10, 20, 30 0.54 10.7 (0% rubber) 69.2, 62.6, 72 [34]

lowed by water washing showed a 5% increase in the static elastic Mohammadi et al. [43] found that the elastic modulus
modulus and no change in the dynamic elastic modulus. Marques decreases with the increase in w/c ratio and increases with the
et al. [46] did not find any significant change in the 28-day elastic 24 h water soaking treatment. The 28-day static elastic modulus
modulus of NaOH treated and water washed rubber (particle they observed for the 24 h water soaked samples at 0.4 w/c ratio
size < 800 mm) concrete at 12% by volume of sand replacement, were 10.1, 18.8, 24.6 and 33.3% lower than that of the control
compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. Segre and mix at the replacement levels of 10, 20, 30 and 40% respectively.
Joekes [24], found a 15% reduction in static elastic modulus of rub- Herrera-Sosa et al. [34] studied the properties of waste tyre rubber
ber concrete containing 10% by mass of NaOH treated and subse- particles treated with gamma radiation at 10, 20 and 30% of fine
quently water washed rubber particles with a particle size aggregate replacement levels, with particle sizes of 2.83 mm and
smaller than 500 mm. 0.84 mm. They found that at 10 and 20% replacement levels, the
14 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

irradiated rubber concrete with smaller particle size showed no the corresponding cement paste control samples tested at 100,
significant difference but the one with a larger particle size showed 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 cycles respectively, which is a signifi-
a reduction of 17.3% and 17.4% respectively, in 28-day static elastic cant improvement in the abrasion resistance.
modulus, compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. At
30% replacement level, the irradiated rubber concrete with smaller 4.2.2.7. Fatigue life. Liu et al. [50] studied the fatigue performance
particle size showed an improvement of 30.4% but the one with a of rubber concrete containing 0, 5, 10 and 15% of crumb rubber
larger particle size showed a minor improvement of 2.6% in elastic as sand replacement, with a particle size of 2 mm. They conducted
modulus, compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. This the three-point bending fatigue testing on a sample size of
indicates that the gamma radiation treatment of rubber has a small 150  150  550 mm with center to center span length of
improvement on the stiffening of the rubber particles that 400 mm. The rubber particle size, cement content and the w/c ratio
improves the elastic modulus of rubber concrete, but to see a sig- in their mix design was 2 mm, 420 kg/m3 and 0.31 respectively.
nificant difference between the treated and untreated rubber con- They found that the fatigue life of concrete increased with the
crete properties the replacement level has to be large i.e. at least increase in rubber content and decreased with the increase in
30% of rubber content. stress level. However, at all stress levels, rubber concrete per-
Table 12 shows the detailed information about the effect of var- formed better than the control mix, which improved with the
ious treatment methods on the modulus of elasticity of rubber increase in the rubber content. They further described that the rub-
mortar/concrete at various rubber particle sizes, replacement ber concrete can absorb energy by deformation when subjected to
levels and water cement ratios. external loads, which reduces the probability of internal crack
Considering the results for compressive, flexural, tensile propagation in the concrete, thereby absorbing the strain energy
strength and modulus of elasticity indicates that overall NaOH and eventually preventing the spreading of the cracks across the
treatment followed by water washing does not yield any signifi- whole volume. Pacheco-Torres et al. [128] looked at the effect of
cant positive improvement in the mechanical properties. The little particle size (1–4, 10 and 16 mm) and rubber content (10, 20
improvement it shows is at a significantly high rubber content and 30%) on the fatigue performance of rubber concrete. They
which anyway drastically reduces the 28 day compressive strength observed that intermediate size (10 mm) added in a moderate pro-
of rubber concrete and at lower replacement levels, it shows neg- portion 10 to 20% provided an improved relationship between the
ligible or negative results, indicating that it is not an effective rub- resistance loss and the increase in deformation. They also observed
ber treatment method. an increased fatigue resistance to a higher number of load cycles
with the intermediate size (10 mm) rubber particles containing
4.2.2.5. Modulus of rigidity. Najim and Hall [21] found that the 30% of rubber content. In case of the largest sized (16 mm) rubber
washing the crumb rubber showed a minor improvement of 1.9% particles an improved behaviour of the material was observed only
in the modulus of rigidity (dynamic shear modulus) at 28 days, when added in the lowest proportion (10%), as its resistance was
compared to that of the unwashed rubber concrete. They observed significantly affected with the further increase in the rubber con-
a similar 1.9% improvement in the modulus of rigidity of the rub- tent. In case of the smallest sized (1–4 mm) rubber particles an
ber concrete containing rubber particles treated with saturated improvement in deformation was observed only with the interme-
NaOH solution for 20 mins followed by water washing. The pre- diate proportion (20%). They observed a premature rupture with
coating of the rubber particles with cement paste and cement mor- the smallest proportion (10%), and a loss of deformability with
tar improved the modulus of rigidity by 3.8 and 7.5% respectively, the largest proportion (30%).
compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete. Mohammadi et al. [43] investigated the effect of 24 hr water
soaking of rubber aggregates on the fatigue performance of rubber
4.2.2.6. Abrasion resistance. Thomas et al. [12] studied the abrasion concrete containing 10, 20, 30 and 40% of rubber content as a
resistance of rubber concrete by substituting the fine aggregates replacement of fine aggregates at two w/c ratios i.e. 0.40 and
with crumb rubber at 0–20% of replacement levels in the incre- 0.45. They observed that at w/c ratio of 0.45, the fatigue life (num-
ments of 2.5%. They found that the addition of crumb rubber ber of cycles) of the rubber concrete at 10, 20, 30 and 40% replace-
improved the abrasion resistance of concrete at all replacement ment levels were 19.7, 23.6, 10.3 and 8.3% lower than that of the
levels. However, Bisht and Ramana [127] found that the abrasion control mix. With the lowering of the w/c ratio to 0.40, they
resistance decreases with the increase in rubber content, with a noticed a similar reduction in fatigue life (cycles) of rubber con-
particle size of 0.6 mm. They investigated the replacement level crete at 10 and 20% replacement levels, compared to the control
of 4, 4.5, 5 and 5.5% by mass of fine aggregates. They observed mix, however, at higher replacement levels of 30 and 40% they
no significant change in the abrasion resistance of the concrete noticed a considerable improvement. The fatigue life of rubber
containing 4% of crumb rubber, compared to that of the control concrete at 30% replacement level was approximately similar to
mix. However, they noticed a 5.7, 7.6 and 17.7% increase in the that of the control mix and at 40% replacement level it was 16.3%
wear of the rubber concrete containing 4.5, 5, 5.5% of rubber crumb higher than that of the control mix. This indicates that the fatigue
respectively, indicating a reduction in their respective abrasion life of the rubber concrete can be considerably improved by reduc-
resistance, compared to that of the rubber concrete containing ing the w/c ratio of the concrete mix. Interestingly, the study con-
4% of rubber particles. ducted by Liu et al. [50] showed an improvement in the fatigue life
Segre and Joekes [24], found a significant improvement in the of rubber concrete at all replacement levels but the one conducted
abrasion resistance of rubber concrete by treating the rubber par- by Mohammadi et al. [43] showed a considerable reduction in the
ticles (size < 500 mm) with saturated NaOH solution for 20 mins fatigue life at 10 and 20% replacement levels, which improved at 30
and subsequently washing with water. Their control specimen and 40% replacement levels. The possible difference between their
was cement paste and the design mixes contained rubber content results could be linked to the w/c ratio, cement content and the
of 10% by mass of cement. They observed an increase in mass loss rubber particle size, although no information about the rubber par-
due to abrasion by 380, 240, 242, 257, 240 and 214% in untreated ticle size was provided by Mohammadi et al. [43].
rubber mortar samples tested at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600
cycles respectively, compared to that of the corresponding control 4.2.2.8. Fracture energy and toughness. Gesoglu et al. [55] studied
cement paste samples. However, the NaOH treated samples the effect of size and percentage content of the tyre rubber on
showed a mass loss of 100, 60, 42, 56, 50 and 30% higher than the fracture energy of the rubber concrete, as per the recommenda-
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 15

tion of the RILEM 50-FMC Technical Committee [129]. They looked smaller sized rubber particles than that with the coarser rubber
at two rubber particle sizes (i) crumb rubber - particle size smaller particles. They noted that the waste tyre rubber significantly
than 4 mm and (ii) rubber chips – elongated rubber particles size delayed the formation and growth of visible cracks in concrete
varying from 10 to 40 mm and their percentage of rubber content and the effectiveness of its performance increased with the
varied from 5 to 30%. They observed that the fracture energy of the increase in rubber content and the decrease in the size of rubber
crumb rubber concrete performed better than that of the tyre chip particle.
concrete at all replacement levels. In addition, the fracture energy Kang and Jiang [53] looked at the effect of waste tyre crumb
increased with the increase in rubber content up to the maximum rubber particles on the cracking resistance of cement mortar spec-
of 15% and with the further increase in rubber content, the fracture imens using the ring test method, replacing sand with crumb rub-
energy decreased with the increase in rubber content. Segre and ber at 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50% by volume. They found that the
Joekes [24], found a significant increase in the fracture energy of cracking time of the mortar increased with the increase in rubber
rubber mortar containing rubber at 10% by mass of cement with content up to a maximum of 20% rubber content. Beyond the
a particle size < 500 mm, compared to that of the control cement 20% rubber content, they noticed a significant drop in cracking
paste mix. They observed a 311% increase in fracture energy of time i.e. at 30% rubber volume fraction, which decreased further
untreated rubber mortar compared to that of the control sample. with the increase in rubber content. This may be due to the fact
However, by treating the rubber with saturated NaOH solution that the addition of crumb rubber leads to a reduction in the tensile
for 20 mins and subsequently water washing, the fracture energy strength and the shrinkage stresses, however their degree of reduc-
of the treated rubber concrete decreased to 249% of that of the con- tion varies with the increase or decrease of rubber content. When
trol sample. Overall the results indicate that the NaOH treatment the rubber fraction is less than or equal to 20% by volume of sand,
followed by water washing is not an effective rubber treatment the reduction in shrinkage stress is higher than that of the tensile
method. strength, resulting in the retardation of the cracking time. How-
Reda Taha et al. [51] studied the effect of increasing the tyre ever, at rubber content of higher than 20% there is a greater reduc-
rubber content on the fracture toughness parameters of rubber tion in tensile strength that results in the advancement of the
concrete; KIC – critical stress intensity, GIC – critical energy release cracking time. Li et al. [83], who investigated the crack develop-
rate, JIC – elastic plastic toughness parameter and Gf – fracture ment and failure pattern of NaOH treated and cement coated rub-
energy, of rubber concrete. They observed that the fracture tough- ber particles, found that the width, length and the number of
ness parameters KIC and GIC showed an increase up to the replace- cracks decreased with the increase in rubber content (6, 12, 18%
ment level of 25% compared to that of the control mix. However, by volume of sand) and the cracks were more uniform and scat-
with the further increase in rubber content, both the KIC and GIC tered compared to that of the control mix, which showed very
parameters decreased with the increasing amount of rubber con- wide and concentrated cracks.
tent. Interestingly, they found that the elastic–plastic toughness
parameter (JIC), showed a consistent increase with the increasing 4.2.2.10. Impact resistance. Reda Taha et al. [51] found that the
amount of rubber content up to 75% of rubber content and beyond resistance to impact energy increased with the increase in rubber
that it showed a significant drop in value. They attributed this content up to a maximum replacement level of 50%. With the fur-
increase in the fracture toughness with the increase in rubber con- ther increase in rubber content, the impact resistance decreased
tent to the ability of the tyre rubber particles to add toughening with the increase in rubber content and the performance of
mechanisms like crack bridging, bending, compressing and twist- chipped tyre rubber in impact resistance was significantly higher
ing. In addition, the tyre rubber particles absorb part of the energy than that of the crumb rubber. At low to medium level of rubber
to which the cement matrix is subjected, thereby increasing the content, a reasonable trade-off between the strength and flexibility
energy absorption capacity of the composite material before frac- of the composite matrix provided higher energy absorption capac-
turing, compared to that of the control mix. They also found that ity to the rubber cement composite, compared to that of the nor-
the fracture energy Gf showed a similar trend to that of KIC and mal concrete. However, at higher replacement levels i.e. > 50% of
GIC i.e. the fracture energy increased up to the replacement level rubber content, the strength component reduced further and went
of 25% and then decreased with the further increase in rubber con- lower than an optimal threshold level that could provide both the
tent up to 100%. The fracture energy showed a dependence on the strength and the energy absorption capacity, thereby reducing the
maximum deformation and the load capacity of the material. They energy absorption capacity of the rubber cement composite.
found that the total deformation of concrete increased with the Atahan and Yucel [113] studied the energy dissipation capacity
increase in rubber content, however its maximum load capacity of rubber concrete subjected to a dynamic impact test on rubber
decreased. They found Gf to be a good measure, reflecting a concrete at replacement levels of 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% by vol-
trade-off between deformability and the strength development in ume of total aggregates. They found that the maximum load to fail-
rubber concrete, as the rubber replacement level increased. ure decreases with the increase in rubber content, whereas the
energy absorption by the specimens increases with the increase
4.2.2.9. Crack resistance. Waste tyre rubber aggregates help in hin- in rubber content up to a maximum of 80% replacement level. No
dering the formation and growth of micro-cracks in concrete [51] further increase in energy dissipation was observed past the 80%
and delay the appearance of macro-cracks. Li et al. [52] investi- replacement level. They noted that there was a 71.6% decrease in
gated the effect of the particle size and percentage of rubber con- the maximum load and 160.8% increase in the energy dissipated
tent on the formation of visible cracks in rubber concrete at the maximum load in 100% replacement level rubber concrete
containing 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10% of rubber content as a replacement compared to that of the control mix. The rubber particles having
of fine aggregates by mass. They found that the crack stress in rub- lower brittleness and elastic modulus began to control the
ber concrete decreased with the increase in rubber content and dynamic properties of the rubber concrete at higher replacement
was more prominent and clearly defined in the finer particle rub- levels, leading to the increase in the contact durations. The impact
ber concrete compared to that of the coarser rubber particles. Their forces decreased with the increase in the rubber content in the
observation was also supported by their crack strain results, which concrete. They highlighted that these results are the desirable
showed that the crack strain of rubber concrete increased with the traits for the concrete safety barriers as they lead to smaller decel-
increase in rubber content and the increasing trend of the crack eration forces resulting in reducing the vehicle damage and occu-
strains was more prominent in the rubber concrete containing pant injury risks.
16 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

Al-Tayeb et al. [108] investigated the effect of rubber content on of 5–30%. They observed that the bond strength of the reinforce-
the behaviour of rubber concrete subjected to impact bending at ment bar decreased with the increase in rubber content irrespec-
replacement levels of 5, 10 and 20% by volume of aggregates. They tive of the particle size. However, the smaller sized rubber
observed that the peak bending load and the fracture energy particles performed better than the larger sized tyre chips and pro-
increased with the increase in rubber content up to the maximum vided a higher bond performance at all replacement levels. The dif-
replacement level of 20% because of the high plastic energy capac- ference in the bond strength between the crumb rubber concrete
ity of the rubber particles that improved the ductility and the abil- and that of the rubber chips concrete increased with the increase
ity to absorb the impact load. Aliabdo et al. [28] investigated the in rubber content. The negative performance of tyre rubber parti-
effect of 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100% replacement levels of sand with cles on rebar-concrete bond strength was ascribed to its weak
tyre crumb rubber on the impact performance of rubberized con- adherence to the cement matrix, cracking that occurs in the ITZ
crete. They found that the first crack and the impact resistance to between the rubber and the cement paste and its lower friction
failure decreased with the increase in rubber concrete, because of with the reinforcement bar as reported by [75,130]. Bompa and
the poor adhesion between the rubber particles and the cement Elghouli [131] looked at the bond slip behaviour of N16 and N20
paste. However, the number of blows resulting in the first visual reinforcement bars in confined and unconfined rubber concrete
crack and that causing failure increased with the increase in rubber keeping the confinement pressure between 0.5 and 3.0 MPa and
content because of the ability of the rubberized concrete to absorb the rubber content of 0, 20, 40 and 60 vol% of aggregates. They
energy. found that the bond strength decreased with the increase in rubber
Dong et al. [54] studied the effect of coating the rubber particles content in all confinement levels (unconfined, low confinement
(size < 4.75 mm) with silane coupling agent on the energy absorp- and high confinement) irrespective of the size of bonded reinforce-
tion capacity of concrete subjected to low intensity impact bending ment bars and it increased with the increase in confinement pres-
load. The rubber content in their blended mix was 15 and 30% by sure, proportionally up to about 20% of confinement pressure to
volume of aggregates. They noted that although the absorbed concrete strength ratio and a constant behaviour thereafter.
energy and the ratio of energy over peak load of the rubber con-
crete containing coated rubber were lower than those of the con- 4.2.2.12. Stress-strain behaviour. Li et al. [83] investigated the effect
trol samples, they were slightly higher than those of the of NaOH treated and cement pre-coated rubber particles on the
uncoated samples. They attributed this small improvement in the stress-strain behaviour of rubber concrete at 0, 6, 12 and 18% by
dynamic properties of the rubber concrete to the formation of volume of sand replacement levels. They observed that the peak
strong bonds between the SCA coated rubber particles and the stress and the strain at peak stress decreased with the increase
cement paste. Their observation of the reduction in the energy in rubber content. They also recommended two popular concrete
absorption by rubber concrete with the increase in rubber content stress–strain relationship models (i) Popovic’s model and (ii) Car-
was somewhat similar to what Aliabdo et al. [28] discovered. How- reira & Chu’s model, as they fit better than any other model with
ever, the observations made by Dong et al. [54] on both the coated their rubber concrete experimental data.
and uncoated rubber concrete were quite contrary to that of all
other investigations [51,108,113], where a significant improve-
5. Conclusions
ment in the energy absorption capacity of the rubber concrete sub-
jected to an impact load was observed. Zhang et al. [32] studied the
This review paper presents the findings from 100 research stud-
effect of a chemical blend of 17.2% acrylic acid, 13.8% polyethylene
ies published in the last 30 years on 25 different rubber treatment
glycol and 69% anhydrous ethanol by weight, on the impact perfor-
methods to improve the mechanical properties of rubber concrete.
mance of treated rubber. They found a considerable improvement
This extensive review of research data led to the following
in the impact performance of the treated rubber concrete com-
conclusions
pared to that of the untreated rubber. The treated rubber concrete
was able to withstand the impact more times and demonstrated
lesser variation between three replicates compared to the 5.1. Workability
untreated rubber concrete.
He et al. [37] looked at the effect of a combination treatment of It is evident from the literature that the workability of rubber
KMnO4 and NaHSO3 on the impact resistance of crumb rubber con- concrete decreases with an increase in size and percentage volume
crete containing 4% of rubber powder by mass of concrete. They of rubber aggregates. In addition, the mechanically ground tyre
noted that the number of blows and the impact energy (J) to the rubber provides lower workability compared to that of the cryo-
first visible crack increased by 66.7% and 56.3% respectively with genic ground tyre rubber. However, this issue of lower workability
the addition of 4% of untreated rubber, compared to that of the could be addressed by the addition of an appropriate amount of
control mix not containing any rubber. The treated rubber per- superplasticizer. Interestingly, some rubber treatment methods
formed considerably better than that of the untreated rubber and like (i) 24-hour water soaking and (ii) treating with a blended
improved the number of blows and the impact energy (J) to the mix of anhydrous ethanol, acrylic acid and polyethylene glycol
first visible crack by 100% and 90.2% respectively, compared to that (iii) UV-A radiation also proved to be very helpful in improving
of the control mix. They attributed this improvement in the the workability of the rubber concrete mix. H2SO4 acid treatment
untreated rubber to the elastic property of the rubber particles that showed conflicting results among various researchers, showing
helped in dispersing the local stresses, and the treated rubber per- both increase and decrease in workability. All other treatments
formed better because of its stronger interfacial chemistry, which like, NaOH, Ca(OH)2, H2O2, CaCl2, KMnO4 & NaHSO4, SCA, CS2,
provided a better stress dispersion compared to that of the and CH3COOH, have been used to treat tyre rubber particles in
untreated rubber. many studies but they do not provide any improvement in worka-
bility of the rubber concrete.
4.2.2.11. Bond behaviour. Gesoglu et al. [55] studied the effect of
size and percentage content of the tyre rubber on the bond beha- 5.2. Density
viour of N16 rebar in rubber concrete containing two particle sizes
(i) crumb rubber 4 mm and (ii) rubber chips – elongated parti- Since the specific gravity of tyre rubber is significantly lower
cles size varying from 10 to 40 mm at aggregate replacement levels than that of the conventional aggregates, it considerably reduces
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 17

the density of the rubber concrete, which decreases with the cement paste, cement mortar treatment methods provide elastic
decrease in rubber particle size and increases with the increase modulus at par or higher than the untreated rubber concrete.
in rubber content.
5.5. Modulus of rigidity
5.3. Compressive strength
Only one study has been conducted on the effect of tyre rubber
The compressive strength of rubber concrete decreases with the on the modulus of rigidity of rubber concrete to the authors’
increase in particle size and rubber content. A majority of the stud- knowledge i.e. by Najim and Hall [21]. Water washing and treat-
ies showed the same trend in decrease of compressive strength ment of rubber aggregates with NaOH showed a small improve-
with an increase in particle size, however one of the studies ment in the modulus of rigidity. Pre-coating the rubber particles
showed a contradictory result with the compressive strength with cement paste performed better than water washing and
decreasing with the decrease in rubber particle size. Tyre rubber NaOH treatment in improving the modulus of rigidity of the rubber
aggregates, because of their soft material property and poor bond concrete. However, the highest improvement in the modulus of
behaviour with the cement matrix, significantly hamper the rigidity was provided by coating the rubber particles with cement
mechanical properties of the rubber concrete. Researchers have mortar.
overcome some of these negative properties of the rubber aggre-
gates, using various rubber treatment methods with varying 5.6. Abrasion resistance
degree of success. The simplest methods of rubber treatment that
can be easily adopted in the industry (in the increasing order of dif- There are very few studies available on the effect of tyre rubber
ficulty) are water washing, 24-hour water soaking, NaOH treat- on the abrasion resistance of the rubber concrete, with the avail-
ment and the treatment with solvents like ethanol, methanol and able studies showing conflicting results with the use of untreated
acetone. Among these methods of treatment, the solvent treatment rubber. However, from the limited data available, the treatment
was the only method that resulted in the compressive strength of of rubber particles with saturated NaOH solution followed by
the rubber concrete being higher than that of the control mix, with washing with water significantly improved the abrasion resistance
acetone providing the highest improvement and ethanol the low- of the rubber concrete, compared to that of the untreated rubber.
est, at 10% rubber replacement level. Among the various other rub-
ber treatment methods that come with a higher degree of
complexity, but considerably improve the mechanical properties 5.7. Fatigue life
at varying degrees of improvement were: a combination of
tetrahydrofuran, tetraethyl orthosilicate and c-glycidyloxypropyl Fatigue life of the concrete increases with the increase in rubber
trimethoxysilane; partial oxidation at 250 °C; organic sulfur com- content and decreases with the increase in stress level. However, at
pounds; silane coupling agent; blend of acrylic acid and polyethy- all stress levels the rubber concrete performs better than that of
lene glycol; and gamma radiation treatment, calcium disulfide. the control mix, and the performance improves with the increase
Among all these methods the partial oxidation of rubber particles in the rubber content.
at 250 °C provided the highest improvement in the compressive
strength of the rubber concrete, which was higher than that of 5.8. Fracture energy
the control mix at 15% aggregate replacement level.
The fracture energy of the rubber concrete increases with the
decrease in rubber particle size and increase in rubber content
5.4. Flexural, split tensile strength and modulus of elasticity
up to a maximum of 15%. With a further increase in rubber content
the fracture energy decreases with the increase in rubber content.
The effect of rubber particle size, percentage content and vari-
The treatment of rubber particles with saturated NaOH solution for
ous treatment methods reflected similar trends in reducing the
20 mins followed by water washing significantly improves the
flexural, split tensile strengths and modulus of elasticity with the
fracture energy of the rubber concrete, compared to that of the
increase in rubber content as well as with the increase in rubber
control mix containing no rubber, however, its performance is rel-
particle size, as that observed in the compressive strength proper-
atively lower than that of untreated rubber concrete.
ties. A couple of studies showed the opposite effect of particle size
on the flexural strength improvement; however, the majority of
the studies followed a trend of decrease in flexural strength with 5.9. Fracture toughness
the increase in particle size. The only additional observation in
regard to the flexural strength is that the concrete containing rub- Fracture toughness parameters KIC (critical stress intensity), GIC
ber shows much higher deflections before failure compared to that (critical energy release rate) and Gf (fracture energy) increases
of the control mix not containing rubber. Among various rubber with the increase in rubber content up to a maximum of 25%, com-
treatment methods studied todate water washing, precoating with pared to that of the control mix. With the further increase in rub-
cement paste, cement mortar, H2SO4 and CH3COOH treatment ber content, both the KIC and GIC parameters decrease with the
methods provide flexural strengths at par or higher than the increasing in rubber content. The fracture energy shows a depen-
untreated rubber concrete at replacement levels greater that 20%. dence on the maximum deformation and the load capacity of the
At replacement levels lower than 20%, partial oxidation @ 250 °C, material. The total deformation of the concrete increases with
H2SO4, CH3COOH, Ca(OH)2, NaOH, organic sulfur compounds, and the increase in rubber content, however its maximum load capac-
UV radiation treatment methods provided flexural strengths at ity decreases. Interestingly, the elastic–plastic toughness parame-
par or better than the untreated rubber concrete. In regards to ter (JIC), increases with the increase in rubber content up to a
the split tensile strength, water wash, precoating with cement maximum of 75% and beyond that it shows a considerable drop
paste, cement mortar, partial oxidation @ 250 °C, organic sulfur in the JIC value. The tyre rubber particles absorb a part of the energy
compounds treatment methods provide split tensile strengths at to which the cement matrix is subjected, thereby increasing the
par or higher than the untreated rubber concrete. In regards to energy absorption capacity of the composite material before
the elastic modulus, water wash, water soaking, precoating with fracturing.
18 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

5.10. Micro/Macro cracking low and high concrete confinement levels. The concrete fails in
three ways (i) fully split into two parts across the cross-section
Waste tyre rubber aggregates help in hindering the formation at failure in case of unconfined concrete (ii) pull-out with some
and growth of micro-cracks in concrete and delay the appearance splitting cracks across the cross-section in case of low level of con-
of macro-cracks. Crack stress in rubber concrete decreases with finement and (iii) straight pull-out failure in case of high level of
the increase in rubber content and is more prominent and clearly concrete confinement.
defined in the finer particle rubber concrete compared to that of
the coarser rubber particles. The cracking time of the cement com- Declaration of Competing Interest
posites containing rubber aggregates increases with the increase in
rubber content up to a maximum of 20% and with a further The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
increase in rubber content the cracking time drops significantly. cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
5.11. Static impact resistance
Acknowledgements
The resistance to impact energy to failure increases with the
increase in rubber content up to a maximum of 50% in a static The authors would like to acknowledge funding provided by
impact test. With the further increase in rubber content, the ARC Linkage LP160100298, and support from RMIT University
impact resistance decreases with the increase in rubber content. and the University of South Australia to carry out this research.
Moreover, the larger sized rubber particles perform significantly
better in improving the impact resistance of the rubber concrete References
compared to that of the smaller sized rubber particles. The first
crack and the impact resistance to failure decreases with the [1] S. Kaza, L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, F. Van Woerden, What a Waste 2.0: a Global
Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050, World Bank Publications,
increase in rubber concrete containing finer rubber particles (i.e. 2018.
 2 mm). However, the difference between the number of blows [2] S. Al-Salem, P. Lettieri, Baeyens, Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid
resulting in the first visual crack and that causing failure increases waste (PSW): a review, Waste Manage. 29 (10) (2009) 2625–2643.
[3] S. El Sheltawy, E.G. Al-Sakkari, M. Fouad, Waste-to-Energy Trends and
with the increase in rubber content. When the rubber particles are Prospects: A Review, in Waste Management and Resource Efficiency,
treated with a chemical blend of 17.2% acrylic acid, 13.8% poly- Springer, 2019, pp. 673–684.
ethylene glycol and 69% anhydrous ethanol by weight, the impact [4] Z. Yang, R. Ji, L. Liu, X. Wang, Z. Zhang, Recycling of municipal solid waste
incineration by-product for cement composites preparation, Constr. Build.
performance of the treated rubber improves noticeably compared
Mater. 162 (2018) 794–801.
to that of the untreated rubber. By treating the rubber particles [5] R. Roychand, B.K. Pramanik, G. Zhang, S. Setunge, Recycling steel slag from
(size < 420 mm) with KMnO4 and NaHSO3 the number of blows municipal wastewater treatment plants into concrete applications–A step
and the impact energy to the first visible crack increases consider- towards circular economy, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 152 (2020.) 104533.
[6] W. Ruwona, G. Danha, E. Muzenda, A review on material and energy recovery
ably compared to that of the untreated rubber concrete, which from waste tyres, Procedia Manuf. 35 (2019) 216–222.
itself shows better performance than that of the control mix. [7] H. Mouri, Bridgestone’s View on Circular Economy, in Towards a Circular
Economy: Corporate Management and Policy Pathwayss.ERIA Research
Project Report 2014-44, Jakarta: ERIA,, V.a.J.K. Anbumozhi, Editor. 2016. pp.
5.12. Dynamic impact resistance 31–42.
[8] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, V.J. Panicker, Recycling of waste tire rubber as
In a dynamic impact test, the maximum load to failure aggregate in concrete: durability-related performance, J. Cleaner Prod. 112
(2016) 504–513.
decreases with the increase in rubber content, whereas the energy [9] H. Pillsbury, Markets for scrap tires: An EPA assessment, Resour. Recycl. 10 (6)
absorbed by the specimens increases with the increase in rubber (1991) 19–24.
content up to a maximum of 80% replacement level. The decrease [10] A. Pehlken, E. Essadiqi, Scrap Tire Recycling in Canada, CANMET Materials
Technology Laboratory, MTL, 2005, p. 8.
in maximum load and the increase in dissipated energy at maxi- [11] D. Raghavan, Study of rubber-filled cementitious composites, J. Appl. Polym.
mum load, in addition to the increase in total impact time leads Sci. 77 (4) (2000) 934–942.
to smaller deceleration forces resulting in the reduction of the [12] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, P. Kalla, L. Cseteneyi, Strength, abrasion and
permeation characteristics of cement concrete containing discarded rubber
severity of vehicle damage and occupant injury risks associated
fine aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 59 (2014) 204–212.
with rubber concrete safety barriers. In regard to the impact bend- [13] N.N. Eldin, A.B. Senouci, Rubber-tire particles as concrete aggregate, J. Mater.
ing, the peak bending load and the fracture energy increases with Civ. Eng. 5 (4) (1993) 478–496.
the increase in rubber content up to the maximum replacement [14] B.S. Thomas, S. Kumar, P. Mehra, R.C. Gupta, M. Joseph, L.J. Csetenyi, Abrasion
resistance of sustainable green concrete containing waste tire rubber
level of 20%. particles, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 906–909.
[15] A. Benazzouk, K. Mezreb, G. Doyen, A. Goullieux, M. Quéneudec, Effect of
5.13. Bond behaviour rubber aggregates on the physico-mechanical behaviour of cement–rubber
composites-influence of the alveolar texture of rubber aggregates, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 25 (7) (2003) 711–720.
Bond strength of the reinforcement bar decreases with the [16] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, Long term behaviour of cement concrete containing
increase in rubber content irrespective of the particle size and discarded tire rubber, J. Cleaner Prod. 102 (2015) 78–87.
[17] C. Albano, N. Camacho, J. Reyes, J. Feliu, M. Hernández, Influence of scrap
the concrete confinement level (i.e. unconfined, low confinement rubber addition to Portland I concrete composites: destructive and non-
and high confinement). However, the smaller sized rubber parti- destructive testing, Compos. Struct. 71 (3) (2005) 439–446.
cles perform better than the larger sized particles at all replace- [18] X. Zhu, C. Miao, J. Liu, J. Hong, Influence of crumb rubber on frost resistance of
concrete and effect mechanism, Procedia Eng. 27 (2012) 206–213.
ment levels. Varying the diameter of the reinforcement bar does [19] N.N. Eldin, A.B. Senouci, Measurement and prediction of the strength of
not show any significant effect on the performance of bond rubberized concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 16 (4) (1994) 287–298.
strength in rubber concrete up to an aggregate replacement level [20] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized Portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 11 (3) (1999) 206–213.
of 20%, at any level of confinement. However, at rubber content
[21] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, Crumb rubber aggregate coatings/pre-treatments and
of 40–60% by volume of fine aggregates, the high confinement con- their effects on interfacial bonding, air entrapment and fracture toughness in
crete shows a significant increase in bond strength of 16Ø rein- self-compacting rubberised concrete (SCRC), Mater. Struct. 46 (12) (2013)
forcement bars. The 20Ø bars show a similar behaviour to that of 2029–2043.
[22] O. Youssf, R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, W. Skinner, X. Ma, Y. Zhuge, R. Roychand, R.
16Ø at 40% rubber content, but at rubber content of 60% the bond Gravina, Influence of mixing procedures, rubber treatment, and fibre
strength of the 20Ø bar shows a significant improvement at both additives on rubcrete performance, J. Compos. Sci. 3 (2) (2019) 41.
R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651 19

[23] F. Azevedo, F. Pacheco-Torgal, C. Jesus, J.B. de Aguiar, A. Camoes, Properties [54] Q. Dong, B. Huang, X. Shu, Rubber modified concrete improved by chemically
and durability of HPC with tyre rubber wastes, Constr. Build. Mater. 34 (2012) active coating and silane coupling agent, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 116–
186–191. 123.
[24] N. Segre, I. Joekes, Use of tire rubber particles as addition to cement paste, [55] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, O. Hansu, S. Ipek, _ D.S. Asaad, Influence of waste
Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (9) (2000) 1421–1425. rubber utilization on the fracture and steel–concrete bond strength
[25] N. Segre, C. Ostertag, P.J.M. Monteiro, Effect of tire rubber particles on crack properties of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 1113–1121.
propagation in cement paste, Mater. Res. 9 (3) (2006) 311–320. [56] A. Kashani, T.D. Ngo, P. Mendis, J.R. Black, A. Hajimohammadi, A sustainable
[26] M. Balaha, A. Badawy, M. Hashish, Effect of using ground waste tire rubber as application of recycled tyre crumbs as insulator in lightweight cellular
fine aggregate on the behaviour of concrete mixes, Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 149 (2017) 925–935.
2007 (14) (2007) 427–435. [57] M. Bignozzi, F. Sandrolini, Tyre rubber waste recycling in self-compacting
[27] B. Huang, X. Shu, J. Cao, A two-staged surface treatment to improve properties of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (4) (2006) 735–739.
rubber modified cement composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 270–274. [58] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, K. Mezreb, M. Quéneudec, Physico-mechanical
[28] A.A. Aliabdo, A.E.M.A. Elmoaty, M.M. AbdElbaset, Utilization of waste rubber properties of aerated cement composites containing shredded rubber waste,
in non-structural applications, Constr. Build. Mater. 91 (2015) 195–207. Cem. Concr. Compos. 28 (7) (2006) 650–657.
[29] L.-H. Chou, C.-K. Yang, M.-T. Lee, C.-C. Shu, Effects of partial oxidation of [59] M. Bravo, J. de Brito, Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: durability-
crumb rubber on properties of rubberized mortar, Compos. B Eng. 41 (8) related performance, J. Cleaner Prod. 25 (2012) 42–50.
(2010) 613–616. [60] A. Turatsinze, S. Bonnet, J.-L. Granju, Potential of rubber aggregates to modify
[30] M.M. Al-Tayeb, B.A. Bakar, H. Ismail, H.M. Akil, Effect of partial replacement of properties of cement based-mortars: improvement in cracking shrinkage
sand by fine crumb rubber on impact load behavior of concrete beam: resistance, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (1) (2007) 176–181.
experiment and nonlinear dynamic analysis, Mater. Struct. 46 (8) (2013) [61] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, Shrinkage performance of crumb rubber concrete
1299–1307. (CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for rigid pavements,
[31] L.-H. Chou, C.-N. Lin, C.-K. Lu, C.-H. Lee, M.-T. Lee, Improving rubber concrete Cem. Concr. Compos. 62 (2015) 106–116.
by waste organic sulfur compounds, Waste Manage. Res. 28 (1) (2010) 29–35. [62] A.E. Richardson, K.A. Coventry, G. Ward, Freeze/thaw protection of concrete
[32] H. Zhang, M. Gou, X. Liu, X. Guan, Effect of rubber particle modification on with optimum rubber crumb content, J. Cleaner Prod. 23 (1) (2012) 96–103.
properties of rubberized concrete, J. Wuhan Univers. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. [63] Segre, N., A.D. Galves, J.A. Rodrigues, P.J. Monteiro, and I. Joekes. Use of tyre
29 (4) (2014) 763–768. rubber particles in slag-modified cement mortars. in 11th International
[33] G. Ossola, A. Wojcik, UV modification of tire rubber for use in cementitious Congress on the Chemistry of Cement (ICCC): cements contribution to the
composites, Cem. Concr. Compos. 52 (2014) 34–41. development in the 21st century, Durban, South Africa. 2003.
[34] E.S. Herrera-Sosa, G. Martínez-Barrera, C. Barrera-Díaz, E. Cruz-Zaragoza, _ Topçu, A. Demir, Durability of rubberized mortar and concrete, J. Mater.
[64] I.B.
Waste tire particles and gamma radiation as modifiers of the mechanical Civ. Eng. 19 (2) (2007) 173–178.
properties of concrete, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014 (2014). [65] O. Kelesßtemur, Utilization of waste vehicle tires in concrete and its effect on
[35] L. Rivas-Vázquez, R. Suárez-Orduña, J. Hernández-Torres, E. Aquino- the corrosion behavior of reinforcing steels, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 17 (3)
Bolaños, Effect of the surface treatment of recycled rubber on the (2010) 363–370.
mechanical strength of composite concrete/rubber, Mater. Struct. 48 (9) [66] P. Sukontasukkul, Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and sound
(2015) 2809–2814. properties of pre-cast concrete panel, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2) (2009)
[36] G. Li, Z. Wang, C.K. Leung, S. Tang, J. Pan, W. Huang, E. Chen, Properties of 1084–1092.
rubberized concrete modified by using silane coupling agent and [67] S. Kaewunruen, R. Meesit, Sensitivity of crumb rubber particle sizes on
carboxylated SBR, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 797–807. electrical resistance of rubberised concrete, Cogent Eng. 3 (1) (2016)
[37] L. He, Y. Ma, Q. Liu, Y. Mu, Surface modification of crumb rubber and its 1126937.
influence on the mechanical properties of rubber-cement concrete, Constr. [68] R. Siddique, T.R. Naik, Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber–an
Build. Mater. 120 (2016) 403–407. overview, Waste Manage. 24 (6) (2004) 563–569.
[38] E.-S. Abd-Elaal, S. Araby, J.E. Mills, O. Youssf, R. Roychand, X. Ma, Y. Zhuge, R.J. [69] K. Najim, M. Hall, A review of the fresh/hardened properties and applications
Gravina, Novel approach to improve crumb rubber concrete strength using for plain-(PRC) and self-compacting rubberised concrete (SCRC), Constr.
thermal treatment, Constr. Build. Mater. 229 (2019) 116901. Build. Mater. 24 (11) (2010) 2043–2051.
[39] B. Muñoz-Sánchez, M.J. Arévalo-Caballero, M.C. Pacheco-Menor, Influence of [70] X. Shu, B. Huang, Recycling of waste tire rubber in asphalt and portland
acetic acid and calcium hydroxide treatments of rubber waste on the cement concrete: an overview, Constr. Build. Mater. 67 (2014) 217–224.
properties of rubberized mortars, Mater. Struct. 50 (1) (2017) 75. [71] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, A comprehensive review on the applications of waste
[40] A.I. Abdulla, S.H.J.E. Ahmed, Effect of rubber treated by acidic solution on tire rubber in cement concrete, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 1323–
some mechanical properties of rubberize cement mortar, Eng. Technol. J. 29 1333.
(13) (2011) 2793–2806. [72] D. Li, J. Mills, T. Benn, X. Ma, R. Gravina, Y. Zhuge, Review of the performance
[41] C.K. Leung, Z.C. Grasley, Effect of micrometric and nanometric viscoelastic of high-strength rubberized concrete and its potential structural applications,
inclusions on mechanical damping behavior of cementitious composites, Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 5 (1) (2016) 149–166.
Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 444–451. [73] R. Bušić, I. Miličević, T. Šipoš, K. Strukar, Recycled rubber as an aggregate
[42] E. Emam, S. Yehia, Experimental study on enhanced crumb rubber concrete, replacement in self-compacting concrete—Literature overview, Materials 11
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 9 (2018) 1240–1247. (9) (2018) 1729.
[43] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, K. Vessalas, In-depth assessment of Crumb [74] K. Strukar, T.K. Šipoš, I. Miličević, R. Bušić, Potential use of rubber as aggregate
Rubber Concrete (CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for in structural reinforced concrete element–A review, Eng. Struct. 188 (2019)
rigid pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 71 (2014) 456–471. 452–468.
[44] M. Hadzima-Nyarko, E.K. Nyarko, N. Ademović, I. Miličević, T.K. Šipoš, [75] E. Ganjian, M. Khorami, A.A. Maghsoudi, Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for
Modelling the influence of waste rubber on compressive strength of aggregate and filler in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (5) (2009) 1828–
concrete by artificial neural networks, Materials 12 (4) (2019) 561. 1836.
[45] H.A. Toutanji, The use of rubber tire particles in concrete to replace mineral [76] Crumb Rubber Overview. 2018 [cited 2018 09/01/2018]; Available from:
aggregates, Cem. Concr. Compos. 18 (2) (1996) 135–139. http://www.scraptirenews.com/crumb.php.
[46] A.C. Marques, J. Akasaki, A.M. Trigo, M. Marques, Influence of the surface [77] S.RAJU, K. Environmental technology / recycling 2017 [cited 2018 26/05/18];
treatment of tire rubber residues added in mortars, Revista IBRACON de Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/RAJUKANUMURI/me-recycling-
Estruturas e Mater. 1 (2) (2008) 113–120. new-ideas-ver-10.
[47] N. Fattuhi, L. Clark, Cement-based materials containing shredded scrap truck [78] Product specifications: reclaimed rubber. 2018 [cited 2018; Available from:
tyre rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 10 (4) (1996) 229–236. http://brightfuturefactory.com/products/.
[48] P. Sukontasukkul, K. Tiamlom, Expansion under water and drying shrinkage [79] M.K. Batayneh, I. Marie, I. Asi, Promoting the use of crumb rubber concrete in
of rubberized concrete mixed with crumb rubber with different size, Constr. developing countries, Waste Manage. 28 (11) (2008) 2171–2176.
Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 520–526. [80] H. Su, J. Yang, T.-C. Ling, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Properties of concrete
[49] F. Hernández-Olivares, G. Barluenga, B. Parga-Landa, M. Bollati, B. Witoszek, prepared with waste tyre rubber particles of uniform and varying sizes, J.
Fatigue behaviour of recycled tyre rubber-filled concrete and its implications Cleaner Prod. 91 (2015) 288–296.
in the design of rigid pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (10) (2007) 1918– [81] N. Holmes, A. Browne, C. Montague, Acoustic properties of concrete panels
1927. with crumb rubber as a fine aggregate replacement, Constr. Build. Mater. 73
[50] F. Liu, W. Zheng, L. Li, W. Feng, G. Ning, Mechanical and fatigue performance (2014) 195–204.
of rubber concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 711–719. [82] A. Moustafa, M.A. ElGawady, Mechanical properties of high strength concrete
[51] M.M. Reda Taha, A. El-Dieb, M. Abd El-Wahab, M. Abdel-Hameed, with scrap tire rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 249–256.
Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of rubber concrete, [83] D. Li, Y. Zhuge, R. Gravina, J.E. Mills, Compressive stress strain behavior of
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (10) (2008) 640–649. crumb rubber concrete (CRC) and application in reinforced CRC slab, Constr.
[52] L. Li, S. Ruan, L. Zeng, Mechanical properties and constitutive equations of Build. Mater. 166 (2018) 745–759.
concrete containing a low volume of tire rubber particles, Constr. Build. [84] O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, R. Hassanli, Assessment of the mechanical performance of
Mater. 70 (2014) 291–308. crumb rubber concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 175–183.
[53] J. Kang, Y. Jiang, Improvement of cracking-resistance and flexural behavior of [85] A. Kashani, T.D. Ngo, P. Hemachandra, A. Hajimohammadi, Effects of surface
cement-based materials by addition of rubber particles, J. Wuhan Univers. treatments of recycled tyre crumb on cement-rubber bonding in concrete
Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. 23 (4) (2008) 579–583. composite foam, Constr. Build. Mater. 171 (2018) 467–473.
20 R. Roychand et al. / Construction and Building Materials 237 (2020) 117651

[86] A. Alawais, R.P. West, Ultra-violet and chemical treatment of crumb rubber [109] O. Rezaifar, M. Hasanzadeh, M. Gholhaki, Concrete made with hybrid blends
aggregate in a sustainable concrete mix, J. Struct. Integrity Maint. 4 (3) (2019) of crumb rubber and metakaolin: optimization using Response Surface
144–152. Method, Constr. Build. Mater. 123 (2016) 59–68.
[87] H. Su, J. Yang, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Surface modified used rubber tyre [110] M.K. Ismail, A.A. Hassan, Use of metakaolin on enhancing the mechanical
aggregates: effect on recycled concrete performance, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (12) properties of self-consolidating concrete containing high percentages of
(2015) 680–691. crumb rubber, J. Cleaner Prod. 125 (2016) 282–295.
[88] N. Li, G. Long, C. Ma, Q. Fu, X. Zeng, K. Ma, Y. Xie, B. Luo, Properties of self- [111] A. Turatsinze, M. Garros, On the modulus of elasticity and strain capacity of
compacting concrete (SCC) with recycled tire rubber aggregate: a self-compacting concrete incorporating rubber aggregates, Resour. Conserv.
comprehensive study, J. Cleaner Prod. 236 (2019) 117707. Recycl. 52 (10) (2008) 1209–1215.
[89] K. Rashid, A. Yazdanbakhsh, M.U. Rehman, Sustainable selection of the [112] M.A. Aiello, F. Leuzzi, Waste tyre rubberized concrete: properties at fresh and
concrete incorporating recycled tire aggregate to be used as medium to low hardened state, Waste Manage. 30 (8) (2010) 1696–1704.
strength material, J. Cleaner Prod. 224 (2019) 396–410. [113] A.O. Atahan, A.Ö. Yücel, Crumb rubber in concrete: static and dynamic
[90] F.Z. Hossain, M. Shahjalal, K. Islam, M. Tiznobaik, M.S. Alam, Mechanical evaluation, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 617–622.
properties of recycled aggregate concrete containing crumb rubber and [114] M. Mazloom, A. Ramezanianpour, J. Brooks, Effect of silica fume on
polypropylene fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 225 (2019) 983–996. mechanical properties of high-strength concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 26
[91] J. Lv, Q. Du, T. Zhou, Z. He, K. Li, Fresh and mechanical properties of self- (4) (2004) 347–357.
compacting rubber lightweight aggregate concrete and corresponding [115] R. Roychand, S. De Silva, D. Law, S. Setunge, Micro and nano engineered high
mortar, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. Struct. (2019). volume ultrafine fly ash cement composite with and without additives, Int. J.
[92] F. Aslani, G. Ma, D.L.Y. Wan, G. Muselin, Development of high-performance Concr. Struct. Mater. 10 (1) (2016) 113–124.
self-compacting concrete using waste recycled concrete aggregates and [116] R. Roychand, Performance of micro and nano engineered high volume fly ash
rubber granules, J. Cleaner Prod. 182 (2018) 553–566. cement composite. 2017.
[93] K.A. Stallings, S.A. Durham, M.G. Chorzepa, Effect of cement content and [117] K. Pongtanayut, C. Thongpin, O. Santawitee, The effect of rubber on
recycled rubber particle size on the performance of rubber-modified morphology, thermal properties and mechanical properties of PLA/NR and
concrete, Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 12 (3) (2019) 189–200. PLA/ENR blends, Energy Procedia 34 (2013) 888–897.
[94] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoğlu, T. Özturan, Properties of rubberized concretes [118] C.-Y. Chen, M.-T. Lee, Application of crumb rubber in cement-matrix
containing silica fume, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (12) (2004) 2309–2317. composite, Materials 12 (3) (2019) 529.
[95] B. Savas, S. Ahmad, D. Fedroff, Freeze-thaw durability of concrete with ground [119] L. Yu, Q. Yu, L. Liu, Hybrid modified rubber powder and its application in
waste tire rubber, Transp. Res. Rec. 1574 (1997) 80–88. cement mortar, J. Wuhan Univers. Technol. Mater. Sci. Ed. 25 (6) (2010)
[96] I.B. Topcu, The properties of rubberized concretes, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (2) 1033–1037.
(1995) 304–310. [120] R. Myrdal, Accelerating admixtures for concrete. State of the art. 2007.
[97] S. Raffoul, R. Garcia, K. Pilakoutas, M. Guadagnini, N.F. Medina, Optimisation [121] V.H. Dodson, Concrete admixtures, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
of rubberised concrete with high rubber content: an experimental [122] P. Hewlett, M. Liska, Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, Butterworth-
investigation, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 391–404. Heinemann, 2019.
[98] A. Abdelmonem, M. El-Feky, E.-S.A. Nasr, M. Kohail, Performance of high [123] N.-P. Pham, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, Rubber aggregate-cement matrix bond
strength concrete containing recycled rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 227 enhancement: microstructural analysis, effect on transfer properties and on
(2019) 116660. mechanical behaviours of the composite, Cem. Concr. Compos. 94 (2018) 1–
[99] H.S. Lee, H. Lee, J.S. Moon, H.W. Jung, Development of tire added latex 12.
concrete, Mater. J. 95 (4) (1998) 356–364. [124] G. Li, M.A. Stubblefield, G. Garrick, J. Eggers, C. Abadie, B. Huang,
[100] K.H. Chung, Y.K. Hong, Introductory behavior of rubber concrete, J. Appl. Development of waste tire modified concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (12)
Polym. Sci. 72 (1) (1999) 35–40. (2004) 2283–2289.
[101] G. Skripkiu nas, A. Grinys, K. Miškinis, Damping properties of concrete with [125] P.N. Hiremath, K. Jayakesh, R. Rai, N.S. Raghavendra, S.C. Yaragal,
rubber waste additives, Mater. Sci. (Medžiagotyra) 15 (3) (2009) 266–272. Experimental investigation on utilization of waste shredded rubber tire as
[102] M.M. Al-Tayeb, H. Hamouda, Effect of superplasticizer on workability of a replacement to fine aggregate in concrete, in sustainable, Constr. Build.
concrete containing crumb rubber, Civil Environ. Res. 7 (2) (2015) 35–43. Mater. Springer (2019) 561–569.
[103] T. Ling, H.M. Nor, M.R. Hainin, S.-K. Lim, Long-term strength of rubberised [126] L. Zheng, X.S. Huo, Y. Yuan, Experimental investigation on dynamic properties
concrete paving blocks, Constr. Mater. 163 (1) (2010) 19–26. of rubberized concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (5) (2008) 939–947.
[104] A.R. Khaloo, M. Dehestani, P. Rahmatabadi, Mechanical properties of concrete [127] K. Bisht, P. Ramana, Evaluation of mechanical and durability properties of
containing a high volume of tire–rubber particles, Waste Manage. 28 (12) crumb rubber concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 155 (2017) 811–817.
(2008) 2472–2482. [128] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Cerro-Prada, F. Escolano, F. Varela, Fatigue performance
[105] M. Turki, E. Bretagne, M. Rouis, M. Quéneudec, Microstructure, physical and of waste rubber concrete for rigid road pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 176
mechanical properties of mortar–rubber aggregates mixtures, Constr. Build. (2018) 539–548.
Mater. 23 (7) (2009) 2715–2722. [129] Recommendation, RILEM Draft: Determination of the fracture energy of
[106] E. Güneyisi, Fresh properties of self-compacting rubberized concrete mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched beams.
incorporated with fly ash, Mater. Struct. 43 (8) (2010) 1037–1048. Materials and structures, 1985. 18(106): pp. 285–290.
[107] W.H. Yung, L.C. Yung, L.H. Hua, A study of the durability properties of waste [130] T. Gupta, S. Chaudhary, R.K. Sharma, Assessment of mechanical and durability
tire rubber applied to self-compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 properties of concrete containing waste rubber tire as fine aggregate, Constr.
(2013) 665–672. Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 562–574.
[108] M. Al-Tayeb, B.A. Bakar, H. Akil, H. Ismail, Performance of rubberized and [131] D. Bompa, A. Elghazouli, Bond-slip response of deformed bars in rubberised
hybrid rubberized concrete structures under static and impact load concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 154 (2017) 884–898.
conditions, Exp. Mech. 53 (3) (2013) 377–384.

You might also like