Next Article in Journal
Milled Surface Integrity: Application to Fixed Dental Prosthesis
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Full Temperature Field Environment on Bonding Strength of Aluminum Alloy
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Microstructure and Properties of 12Ag–Cu–Zn–Sn Cadmium-Free Filler Metals with Trace In Addition
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Recycled Coarse Aggregate and Bagasse Ash on Two-Stage Concrete
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crystals
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/cryst11050558
crystals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Evaluation of Untreated and Pretreated Crumb Rubber Used in Concrete

by
Hamad Hassan Awan
1,
Muhammad Faisal Javed
2,*,
Adnan Yousaf
2,
Fahid Aslam
3,
Hisham Alabduljabbar
3 and
Amir Mosavi
4,5,6,*
1
National Institute of Transportation (SCEE), National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Abbottabad 22060, Pakistan
3
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
4
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technische Universitat Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany
5
John von Neumann Faculty of Informatics, Obuda University, 1034 Budapest, Hungary
6
Department of Informatics, J. Selye University, 94501 Komarno, Slovakia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crystals 2021, 11(5), 558; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11050558
Submission received: 8 April 2021 / Revised: 6 May 2021 / Accepted: 6 May 2021 / Published: 17 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sustainable Concrete System)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present research aims at evaluating the mechanical performance of untreated and treated crumb rubber concrete (CRC). The study was also conducted to reduce the loss in mechanical properties of CRC. In this study, sand was replaced with crumb rubber (CR) with 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% by volume. CR was treated with NaOH, lime, and common detergent for 24 h. Furthermore, water treatment was also carried out. All these treatments were done to enhance the mechanical properties of concrete that are affected by adding CR. The properties that were evaluated are compressive strength, indirect tensile strength, unit weight, ultrasonic pulse velocity, and water absorption. Compressive strength was assessed after 7 and 28 days of curing. The mechanical properties were decreased by increasing the percentage of the CR. The properties were improved after the treatment of CR. Lime treatment was found to be the best treatment of all four treatments followed by NaOH treatment and water treatment. Detergent treatment was found to be the worse treatment of all four methods of treatment. Despite increasing the strength it contributed to strength loss.

1. Introduction

With the rapid growth in industrialization, solid waste is also increasing at an alarming rate. It has become essential for the construction industry to find and apply new technologies to reduce waste produced by the industries and incorporate it in conventional concrete [1,2,3]. Among many other solid wastes, crumb rubber (CR) is perhaps one of the most challenging solid waste materials to cope with. CR is made by shredding tires having a size between 0.075 mm and 4.75 mm [4]. It is estimated that nearly 1 billion tires are generated every year, ending their serviceable life and out of this, about 50%, without any treatment goes to garbage or landfills. By 2030, it is estimated, there would be about 5 billion tires that will be disposed of [5]. About 300 million tons are generated in the USA, 10 million tons in Turkey and Iran, and in the European Community, it is about 3.4 million tons [6]. In order to avoid the negative and harmful ecological and environmental effects caused by waste tire disposal, a significant body has promoted its use in concrete. The major part of wasted tires is landfilled, globally. This rapid accumulation of tire waste has catastrophic ecological and environmental consequences, causing serious threats to human health (e.g., soil contamination, fire, and pests) [7,8]. There is a great potential in the construction industry to accumulate a larger part of the rubber by utilizing CR as a partial replacement of natural aggregates in concrete which results in a type of concrete named, crumb rubber concrete (CRC) [9,10]. Introducing CR into concrete increases energy dissipation, impact resistance [11], drying shrinkage [12], water absorption [13], ductility [14], damping ratio, durability, and toughness [1,10,15]. However, it has been found by many researchers that by increasing the percentage of CR the compressive strength of the concrete decreases [16,17,18,19,20].
The utilization of admixtures in concrete has led to some changes in concrete mix design, but in return, the resulted concrete is more durable and stronger [21,22]. Adhesion of rubber particles is the main cause of strength loss [23,24]. In order to recover strength loss, many researchers have tried diverse methods and techniques. Some researchers have concentrated on the treatment of CR in order to improve adhesion, some have used additives to recover the strength loss, and some have used a combination of treatment of CR with additives to recover strength loss by adding CR [25]. Metakaolin, fly ash and silica fume are the most common additives used in CRC [6,10,22,26,27,28,29,30] and treatments; NaOH treatment is the most common treatment [10,31,32]. Some researchers have increased the cement content [10] and some have used different water to cement ratios [16,33] in order to mitigate the strength losses. Eshmaiel Ganjian et al. [34], investigated the performance of concrete by incorporating discarded waste tire replacing fine (200–850 mm) aggregate with 5%, 7.5%, and 10% by weight. They found a 10–23% drop in the compressive strength of the concrete while the drop in tensile strength was found to be 30–60%. Eldin and Senouci [35] found a reduction of 85% in compressive strength when coarse aggregate was replaced while with the replacement of fine aggregate, there was a 65% drop in the compressive strength. Güneyisi et al. [36] investigated the performance of CRC with the addition of silica fume. They used CR for fine aggregates and tire chips for coarse aggregates. They found a 77% reduction in the unit weight of the normal weight concrete with 50% replacement of rubber as the total aggregate volume. They also found that silica fume was beneficial and helped to recover strength loss. They also proposed that rubber should not be used above 25% of the total volume of aggregate. Rezaifar et al. [6] found that loss in compressive strength of CRC with 10, 20, and 30% CR replacement was 17, 34, and 51% respectively. Rezaifar et al. [6], used metakaoline in conjunction with CR which lowered the strength loss to about 22%. They also found a decrease in the unit weight of the CRC. Mohammadi et al. [31], recovered a 25% of strength loss by treating CR with NaOH for periods of 20 min, 24 h, and 7 days. They found 24 h to be the optimum period. Onuaguluchi and Panesar [17] investigated the performance of CRC with pre-coated CR in conjunction with silica fume. They found an increase in compressive strength of 29% with 5% CR and silica fume and an increase in compressive strength of 14% with 10% CR and silica fume. Youssf et al. [10], investigated the performance of concrete by treatment using silica fume, NaOH (sodium hydroxide) solution, and cement content. They found 0.5 hours of treatment of rubber, 350 kg/m3 cement content, and 0% silica fume replacing cement by weight as the best alternatives.
In this study, the focus is on the surface treatment of the CR to mitigate the strength loss of concrete due to the addition of CR rather than focusing on additives, admixtures, or increasing the cement content in the CRC. This study aims at finding new, better, and cheaper methods of surface treatments of CR to recover the strength loss of concrete by adding CR. This research study will contribute in better understanding the relationship between surface treatments of CR and mechanical properties of the CRC. This will pave the way to explore and advance the treatments’ techniques in order to achieve the best results relating to losses in mechanical properties of CRC. The outcomes of this research study can be helpful in the practical application of using CR in conventional concrete.

2. Experimental Program

A total of 189 cylinders of 150 mm × 300 mm for 21 mixes (as shown in Table 1) were made for the research study. For each mix, nine cylinders were made. Three for assessing compressive strength at 7 days, three for assessing compressive strength at 28 days, and three for assessing the indirect tensile the strength at 28 days. Out of the 21 mixes, 1 mix was used for controlled mix, 4 mixes were for untreated CRC, and 16 mixes were for treated CRC as shown in Table 1. About 15 additional cylinders of 150 mm × 300 mm were made to evaluate the compressive strength of untreated CRC at 28 days after placing the concrete specimen in the oven at 200 °C for a time period of 6 hours. The specimen were then allowed to cool down at room temperature.

2.1. Concrete Materials and Properties

Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) in compliance with ASTM C150 Type I, from Bestway cement factory was used. The sand was used as fine aggregate, crushed stone was used as coarse aggregate, and CR was used as a replacement of sand by volume ranging from 0–20%. Water used for the entire research project was ordinary tap water available. The fineness modulus of fine aggregate was found to be 2.71. The specific gravity, water absorption, and moisture content of the sand were 2.6, 1.71%, and 0.809% respectively. The coarse aggregates with a maximum size of 22.5 mm were used. The specific gravity, water absorption, and moisture content of coarse aggregate were 2.63, 0.431%, and 1.696% respectively. The specific gravity, water absorption, and moisture content of CR were found to be 1.599, 0.035%, and 0.085% respectively. The sieve analysis of CR, fine and coarse aggregates are shown in Table 2.
NaOH and lime were obtained from the local markets. Lime was in powdered form while NaOH was available in bottles of 1 kg in solid granular form. The detergent used in this research study was locally available detergent used for washing clothes. CR was collected from a CR supplier. CR was in ground form with particle size ranging from 4.75–0.075 mm in size.

2.2. Mix Proportions

Mix design of controlled concrete was prepared according to British Standard (BS) i.e., in per cubic meter of concrete as presented in Table 1. Controlled concrete was designed for compressive strength of 21.7 MPa. Controlled concrete was the concrete having 0% CR. Water to cement ratio (0.5), cement content (400 kg/m3), and coarse aggregate (1074.18 kg/m3) were not changed throughout the study. In this study CM stands for controlled mix concrete, CN for NaOH treated, CL for lime treated, CW stands for water treated, and CD stands for detergent-treated CRC. Whereas 5, 10, 15, and 20 represent percentages of sand replaced with CR by volume.

2.3. Treatment of Crumb Rubber

Researchers have tried treatments of CR to improve the adhesion properties in order to improve the strength of concrete [37,38,39,40]. In this research project, four different types of treatments were used to treat the CR’s surface namely lime treatment, NaOH treatment, detergent treatment, and water treatment in order to make the surface rougher and improve the interface adhesion of rubber/cement.
In the present study, 10% concentrated solutions of NaOH, detergent, and lime were made to treat the CR. Untreated CR was washed and then submerged in the solutions for 24 h. The time of treatment was taken on the basis of contact of CR with the solutions which was 24 h. After the time has elapsed, CR was extracted from the solutions and washed again to decrease the pH values as it may cause adverse effects on the concrete [10]. Water treatment was carried out by boiling the water and then submerging CR into it for a time period of 10 minutes. Then the water was allowed to cool and the CR was removed from the water. This treatment was done to remove zinc stearate layers on CR [41].

2.4. Specimen Preparation

The concrete batches were mixed in the laboratory with the help of a mixer in accordance with ASTM C192/C192M [42]. After uniform mixing, each specimen was cast in 150 × 300 mm cylinders and compacted with the help of a rod vibrator. After casting, the specimen were left at room temperature 24 ± 3 °C for a time period of 24 h. The specimen were then withdrawn from the molds and kept for curing in the tank until the time of testing at a temperature of 24 ± 3 °C in accordance with ASTM C192/C192M [42].

2.5. Testing Methods

Slump test was conducted according to ASTM C143 [43] and compaction factor test was conducted following IS: 1199–1959 [44]. The compressive strength of each mix was determined according to ASTM C 109M [45] and C 39 [46]. Testing was carried out at the curing age of 7 and 28 days. An indirect tensile strength test was conducted following AS 1012.10 [47] at a constant loading rate of 1.5 ± 0.15 MPa/min at 28 days of curing. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test was also performed according to ASTM C597 [48] at 28 days of curing. The water absorption test was performed in accordance with ASTM C642 [49] specifications. The weight of the concrete cylinders was obtained and divided by the volume of molds. The unit weight of concrete for all cylinders was assessed at 7 and 28 days.

3. Results and Discussions

In this section effect of untreated CR, NaOH treated CR, lime-treated CR, detergent-treated CR, and water-treated CR on water absorption, slump, compressive strength, and indirect tensile strength of concrete are discussed. Experimental results of all concrete mixes are shown in Table 3.

3.1. Slump and Compaction Factor

The slump of freshly mixed concrete for replacement levels of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% determined (as shown in Figure 1) with the maximum slump of 180 mm was recorded for CU 20, CL20, CW20, and CD20. The minimum slump of 50 mm was recorded for CM, CU5, CL5, CW5, and CD5. On average an increase of 52% slump was recorded for every increment of 5% in CR replacement. A total of 250% increase in a slump was recorded with 20% of replacement of sand with CR from that of controlled concrete. Albano et al. [50] used CR (0.59 and 0.29 mm) as fine aggregate and found a decrease in a slump. Bignozzi and Sandrolini [51] replaced the sand with CR of two sizes 0.5 to 2 mm and 0.05 to 0.7 mm and found no significant change in the behavior of fresh concrete. However, Onuaguluchi and Panesar [17] replaced the sand with CR and found a significant increase in the slump.
The compaction factor of freshly prepared concrete at replacement levels of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% was determined as shown in Figure 2. Compaction factor increases with the increase in percentage levels of CR.
A 14% increase in compaction factor was recorded with 20% replacement of sand by CR. On average there was a 3.3% increase in compaction factor for every increment of 5% replacement with CR.
The increase in a slump and compaction factor in this study was due to the addition of poorly graded CR in the mixes with a high fineness modulus of 3.62 as compared to sand which had the fineness modulus of 2.77. With the increase in fineness modulus of concrete aggregates, the workability of CRC also increased.

3.2. Water Absorption

Water absorption tells us about the porosity and pore structure of the concrete. Sadek and El-Attar [52] found that water absorption is affected by CR when replaced with fine or coarse aggregates. However, they found that in the case of coarser rubber the increase in water absorption is greater as compared to the finer rubber aggregates. Water absorption was increased by increasing the percentage of the CR and was decreased by increasing the curing ages (as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4). The lowest absorption percentage was recorded at 1.15% for CL5 at 7 days and for 28 days it was 3.1% for CL5. The highest absorption percentage was recorded 10.23% for CW20 at 7 days and 8.69% for CU20 at 28 days. This increase in the water absorption was due to a decrease in unit weight and increase in porosity of CRC due to an increase in the percentage of CR.

3.3. Density

As percentage levels of replacement of CR increased, the density was decreased. Corinaldesi et al. [53], has also found a decrease in density with the introduction of rubber particles. However, as the curing age increased, the density increased. The control mix showed an increase in the density from 7 to 28 days i.e., 2331 kg/m3 to 2464 kg/m3. The lowest amount of density recorded for CRC at 7 days was 1869 kg/m3 and for 28 days it was 1881 kg/m3 as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively. The increase in density as the curing period increased was due to the presence of water which helped internal curing. The water was available for the hydration of cementitious materials in concrete. The decrease in density as the replacement level increases was due to the low specific gravity of CR.

3.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV)

As the replacement level was increased there was a decrease in UPV values. Turgut and Yesilata [54] used CRs with sizes ranging from 4.75 mm (No. 4 Sieve) to 0.075 mm (No. 200 Sieve). They also found a decrease in UPV values with the increase in the percentage of CR. Salhi et. al [55] found a correlation between compressive strength and UPV to be good. The highest value of UPV was recorded for CL5 and it was 4.42 km/s which is a 0.67% decrease from that of controlled concrete. The lowest value of UPV was recorded for CD20 and it was 4.36 km/s which is a 2.02% decrease from that of controlled concrete. The UPV and density of the concrete share a direct relation. In this study, with the increase of CR, the density of the concrete was decreased as shown in Figure 7. It means the more the CR in the concrete; the more would be the cracks, pores, capillaries attributing to the enhancement of interfacial transition zone (ITZ) [56]. Due to the presence of pores, crack, and capillaries the values of UPV were decreased with the increase in the percentage of CR because it needs compact mass for the velocity of compression waves to travel.

3.5. Compressive Strength

It is evident from many research studies that by increasing the percentage of CR the compressive strength of the concrete decreases [16,17,18,19,20,57,58]. There was a loss of 7.41% compressive strength at 7 days with 5% replacement, a loss of 19.53% with 10% replacement, 44.28% with 15% replacement, and a loss of 64.56% with 20% replacement of sand with CR in untreated CRC (Figure 8). At 7 days of curing, lime treatment managed to recover 9.96% of the strength loss, NaOH treatment recovered 7.54% of strength loss, and water treatment recovered 5.09% of strength loss at 7 days of curing. Detergent treatment did not recover strength loss however it decreased the strength further to 1.72% at 7 days of curing. At 28 days of curing 10.30% loss of compressive strength at 5% replacement, 33.17% at 10% replacement, 50.22% strength loss at 15% replacement, and 62.13% loss at 20% replacement of sand with CR were seen (Figure 9). At 28 days of curing, lime treatment managed to recover 8.56% of the strength loss, NaOH treatment recovered 6.27% of strength loss, and water treatment recovered 5.01% of strength loss at 28 days of curing. Detergent treatment did not recover strength loss, however it decreased the strength further to 0.20% at 28 days of curing. Figure 10 shows the comparison of strength loss recovered at 7 and 28 days respectively. It shows that the strength loss recovered or deteriorated for all treatments was greater at 7 days than 28 days except for water treatment.

3.6. Compressive Strength after Heating

Liang et al. [59] found a significant decrease in compressive strength of concrete after a rise in temperature. A greater drop in compressive strength of concrete samples was recorded at 28 days after placing them in the oven at 200 °C (Figure 11) as compared to the compressive strength at normal temperature (24 ± 3). Replacement of sand with CR showed very poor results when CRC was heated in the oven at a temperature of 200 °C. At 5% replacement level there was a loss of 61.38% in compressive strength, at 10% replacement, it increased to 87.13%, at 15% replacement, it further increased to 90.73%, and at 20% replacement level it reached 95.37%. This huge strength loss was due to the low softening point of CR which lies between 180 and 250 °C.

3.7. Indirect Tensile Strength

Indirect tensile strength was found to be following the same pattern of compressive strength. At 28 days of curing there was a loss of 3.56% in indirect tensile strength at 5% replacement, 24.25% loss at 10% replacement, 50.68% loss at 15% replacement, and 84.25% loss of indirect tensile strength at 20% replacement level of sand with CR (Figure 12). Batayneh et al. [8], also found that with the increase in CR, there is a loss in tensile strength of concrete. Lime treatment managed to recover 9.16% of strength loss, NaOH treatment recovered 6.14% of strength loss, and water treatment recovered 1.37% of strength loss. Detergent as in all cases reduced the tensile strength to a further 1.03%. The reduction in indirect tensile strength might be due to the weak bonding between CR and cement. The ITZ acted as a micro-crack between the two materials. This weak ITZ accelerated the reduction in tensile strength [60].

3.8. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

In order to check the morphology of CR, SEM was conducted on treated and untreated samples. SEM can render information on surface structure, chemical composition, crystalline structure, and electrical behavior of the top [61]. As the focus of this research was on surface treatments, SEM helped to look at the physical effects of surface treatments besides experimental results.
From Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17, it is visible that the surface of lime-treated CR is rougher than the remaining three giving the best results in the case of a compression test. After lime the surface of NaOH-treated CR is relatively rougher than water-treated and detergent-treated samples giving the second-best results. The surfaces of water-treated and detergent-treated CR were relatively slightly rougher than the untreated CR.

4. Conclusions

This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of untreated and treated CRC. CR was treated with lime, NaOH, detergent, and water. The fresh and hard properties of concrete were evaluated. Based on the experimental results of the research study, the following conclusions are drawn:
  • A 250% increase in slump and 14% increase in compaction factor were recorded with 20% replacement of sand with CR.
  • Water absorption increased with the addition of CR and a maximum of 10.23% water absorption was recorded at 7 days for 20% replacement of sand and it decreased as the curing period increased and recorded 8.69% as the maximum value at 28 days.
  • The density of concrete dropped to 1869 kg/m3 and 1881 kg/m3 for 7 and 28 days respectively for 20% replacement. Based on its lightweight properties CR concrete can be used in stone backing, interior construction, false facades, and nailing concrete.
  • Lime treatment was found to be the best treatment of all four treatments followed by NaOH treatment and water treatment. Lime treatment recovered a compressive strength of 10.30% at 28 days and 9.16% of tensile strength at 28 days.
  • Detergent treatment was found to be the worse treatment of all four treatment methods. Despite of increasing the strength it contributed to compressive strength loss of 1.70% at 7 days and 0.20% at 28 days and a loss of 1.03% for indirect tensile strength at 28 days.
  • CRC is not suitable for heat applications as it dropped 95.37% and 61% of its compressive strength with 20% and 5% replacement of sand, respectively.

Author Contributions

H.H.A., conceptualization, data analysis, writing original draft preparation; M.F.J., formal analysis and modeling, conceptualization, data analysis, writing original draft preparation; A.Y., supervision, review and editing; F.A., investigation and review; H.A., methodology and review and editing; A.M., review and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study is provided in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The support from the project GINOP-2.2.1-18-2018-00015 is acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xu, J.; Yao, Z.; Yang, G.; Han, Q. Research on crumb rubber concrete: From a multi-scale review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gayana, B.C.; Chandar, K.R. Sustainable use of mine waste and tailings with suitable admixture as aggregates in concrete pavements—A review. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2018, 6, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Djebien, R.; Belachia, M.; Hebhoub, H. Effect of marble waste fines on rheological and hardened properties of sand concrete. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2015, 53, 1241–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Issa, C.A.; Salem, G. Utilization of recycled crumb rubber as fine aggregates in concrete mix design. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 42, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thomas, B.S.; Gupta, R.C. A comprehensive review on the applications of waste tire rubber in cement concrete. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1323–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rezaifar, O.; Hasanzadeh, M.; Gholhaki, M. Concrete made with hybrid blends of crumb rubber and metakaolin: Optimization using Response Surface Method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 123, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rodríguez-Fernández, I.; Baheri, F.T.; Cavalli, M.C.; Poulikakos, L.D.; Bueno, M. Microstructure analysis and mechanical performance of crumb rubber modified asphalt concrete using the dry process. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 259, 119662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Batayneh, M.K.; Marie, I.; Asi, I. Promoting the use of crumb rubber concrete in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 2171–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Youssf, O.; Mills, J.E.; Benn, T.; Zhuge, Y.; Ma, X.; Roychand, R.; Gravina, R. Development of Crumb Rubber Concrete for Practical Application in the Residential Construction Sector–Design and Processing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 119813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Youssf, O.; Mills, J.E.; Hassanli, R. Assessment of the mechanical performance of crumb rubber concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Atahan, A.O.; Yücel, A. Crumb rubber in concrete: Static and dynamic evaluation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, D.; Zhuge, Y.; Gravina, R.; Benn, T.; Mills, J.E. Creep and drying shrinkage behaviour of crumb rubber concrete (CRC). Aust. J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 18, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bravo, M.; de Brito, J. Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: Durability-related performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 25, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Saberian, M.; Shi, L.; Sidiq, A.; Li, J.; Setunge, S.; Li, C.-Q. Recycled concrete aggregate mixed with crumb rubber under elevated temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 222, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bilondi, M.P.; Marandi, S.; Ghasemi, F. Effect of recycled glass powder on asphalt concrete modification. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2016, 59, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mohammadi, I.; Khabbaz, H. Shrinkage performance of Crumb Rubber Concrete (CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for rigid pavements. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 62, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Onuaguluchi, O.; Panesar, D.K. Hardened properties of concrete mixtures containing pre-coated crumb rubber and silica fume. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Atahan, A.O.; Sevim, U.K. Testing and comparison of concrete barriers containing shredded waste tire chips. Mater. Lett. 2008, 62, 3754–3757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, G.; Garrick, G.; Eggers, J.; Abadie, C.; Stubblefield, M.A.; Pang, S.-S. Waste tire fiber modified concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2004, 35, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Son, K.S.; Hajirasouliha, I.; Pilakoutas, K. Strength and deformability of waste tyre rubber-filled reinforced concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vakhshouri, B.; Nejadi, S. Self-compacting light-weight concrete; mix design and proportions. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2016, 58, 143–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guneyisi, E.; Gesoglu, M.; Mermerdas, K.; Ipek, S. Experimental investigation on durability performance of rubberized concrete. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2014, 2, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Youssf, O.; ElGawady, M.A.; Mills, J.E.; Ma, X. An experimental investigation of crumb rubber concrete confined by fibre reinforced polymer tubes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 53, 522–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hofstetter, K.; Eberhardsteiner, J.; Mang, H. Efficient treatment of rubber friction problems in industrial applications. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2006, 22, 517–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pelisser, F.; Zavarise, N.; Longo, T.A.; Bernardin, A.M. Concrete made with recycled tire rubber: Effect of alkaline activation and silica fume addition. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Williams, K.C.; Partheeban, P. An experimental and numerical approach in strength prediction of reclaimed rubber concrete. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2018, 6, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nas, M.; Kurbetci, Ş. Durability properties of concrete containing metakaolin. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2018, 6, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, P.; Gao, J.-X.; Dai, X.-B.; Zhang, T.-H.; Wang, J. Fracture behavior of fly ash concrete containing silica fume. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2016, 59, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karthikeyan, B.; Dhinakaran, G. Strength and durability studies on high strength concrete using ceramic waste powder. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2017, 61, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Golewski, G.L. Determination of fracture toughness in concretes containing siliceous fly ash during mode III loading. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2017, 62, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mohammadi, I.; Khabbaz, H.; Vessalas, K. Enhancing mechanical performance of rubberised concrete pavements with sodium hydroxide treatment. Mater. Struct. 2015, 49, 813–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Eldin, N.N.; Senouci, A.B. Rubber-tire particles as concrete aggregate. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1993, 5, 478–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Thomas, B.S.; Gupta, R.C.; Kalla, P.; Cseteneyi, L. Strength, abrasion and permeation characteristics of cement concrete containing discarded rubber fine aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 59, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ganjian, E.; Khorami, M.; Maghsoudi, A.A. Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for aggregate and filler in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1828–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eldin, N.N.; Senouci, A.B. Measurement and prediction of the strength of rubberized concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 1994, 16, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Güneyisi, E.; Gesoğlu, M.; Özturan, T. Properties of rubberized concretes containing silica fume. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 2309–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chou, L.-H.; Lin, C.-N.; Lu, C.-K.; Lee, C.-H.; Lee, M.-T. Improving rubber concrete by waste organic sulfur compounds. Waste Manag. Res. 2010, 28, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tian, S.; Zhang, T.; Li, Y. Research on modifier and modified process for rubber-particle used in rubberized concrete for road. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 243, 4125–4130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, H.; Wang, X.; Jiao, Y.; Sha, T. Experimental investigation of the mechanical and durability properties of crumb rubber concrete. Materials 2016, 9, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Li, Y.; Wang, M.; Li, Z. Physical and mechanical properties of Crumb Rubber Mortar (CRM) with interfacial modifiers. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Sci. Ed. 2010, 25, 845–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Ding, Y.; Jalali, S. Properties and durability of concrete containing polymeric wastes (tyre rubber and polyethylene terephthalate bottles): An overview. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 30, 714–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory; ASTM C192/C192M-19; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
  43. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete; ASTM C143/C143M-15a; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
  44. Indian Standard Methods of Sampling and Analysis of Concrete; IS: 1199–1959; Bureau of Indian Standards: Old Delhi, India, 1959.
  45. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50 mm] Cube Specimens); ASTM C109/C109M-20b; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  46. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM C39/C39M-17a; ASTM Standard: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  47. Methods of Testing Concrete-Determination of Indirect Tensile Strength of Concrete Cylinders, Standards Australia; AS 1012.10; Australian Standard: Sydney, Australia, 2000.
  48. Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity through Concrete; ASTM C597-16; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  49. Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete; ASTM C642-13; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
  50. Albano, C.; Camacho, N.; Reyes, J.; Feliu, J.; Hernández, M. Influence of scrap rubber addition to Portland I concrete composites: Destructive and non-destructive testing. Compos. Struct. 2005, 71, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bignozzi, M.; Sandrolini, F. Tyre rubber waste recycling in self-compacting concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 735–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sadek, D.M.; El-Attar, M.M. Structural behavior of rubberized masonry walls. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 89, 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Corinaldesi, V.; Mazzoli, A.; Moriconi, G. Mechanical behaviour and thermal conductivity of mortars containing waste rubber particles. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 1646–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Turgut, P.; Yesilata, B. Physico-mechanical and thermal performances of newly developed rubber-added bricks. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Salhi, M.; Ghrici, M.; Li, A.; Bilir, T. Effect of curing treatments on the material properties of hardened self-compacting concrete. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2017, 5, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, J.; Guo, Z.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, P.; Fang, H. Effects of ages on the ITZ microstructure of crumb rubber concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 254, 119329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Padhi, S.; Panda, K. Fresh and hardened properties of rubberized concrete using fine rubber and silpozz. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2016, 4, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Solanki, P.; Dash, B. Mechanical properties of concrete containing recycled materials. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2016, 4, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liang, J.F.; Wang, E.; He, C.F.; Hu, P. Mechanical behavior of recycled fine aggregate concrete after high temperature. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2018, 65, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sofi, A. Effect of waste tyre rubber on mechanical and durability properties of concrete—A review. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2018, 9, 2691–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barrentine, L.B. An Introduction to Design of Experiments: A Simplified Approach; ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
Crystals 11 00558 g001 550
Figure 1. Slump test results.
Figure 1. Slump test results.
Crystals 11 00558 g001
Crystals 11 00558 g002 550
Figure 2. Compaction factor results.
Figure 2. Compaction factor results.
Crystals 11 00558 g002
Crystals 11 00558 g003 550
Figure 3. Water absorption at 7 days.
Figure 3. Water absorption at 7 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g003
Crystals 11 00558 g004 550
Figure 4. Water absorption at 28 days.
Figure 4. Water absorption at 28 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g004
Crystals 11 00558 g005 550
Figure 5. Density of concrete at 7 days.
Figure 5. Density of concrete at 7 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g005
Crystals 11 00558 g006 550
Figure 6. Density of concrete at 28 days.
Figure 6. Density of concrete at 28 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g006
Crystals 11 00558 g007 550
Figure 7. UPV results.
Figure 7. UPV results.
Crystals 11 00558 g007
Crystals 11 00558 g008 550
Figure 8. Compressive strength at 7 days.
Figure 8. Compressive strength at 7 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g008
Crystals 11 00558 g009 550
Figure 9. Compressive strength at 28 days.
Figure 9. Compressive strength at 28 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g009
Crystals 11 00558 g010 550
Figure 10. Percentage of recovered strength loss at 7 and 28 days.
Figure 10. Percentage of recovered strength loss at 7 and 28 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g010
Crystals 11 00558 g011 550
Figure 11. Compressive strength (after heating) at 28 days.
Figure 11. Compressive strength (after heating) at 28 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g011
Crystals 11 00558 g012 550
Figure 12. Indirect tensile strength at 28 days.
Figure 12. Indirect tensile strength at 28 days.
Crystals 11 00558 g012
Crystals 11 00558 g013 550
Figure 13. Untreated CR.
Figure 13. Untreated CR.
Crystals 11 00558 g013
Crystals 11 00558 g014 550
Figure 14. Water-treated CR.
Figure 14. Water-treated CR.
Crystals 11 00558 g014
Crystals 11 00558 g015 550
Figure 15. Lime-treated CR.
Figure 15. Lime-treated CR.
Crystals 11 00558 g015
Crystals 11 00558 g016 550
Figure 16. Detergent-treated CR.
Figure 16. Detergent-treated CR.
Crystals 11 00558 g016
Crystals 11 00558 g017 550
Figure 17. NaOH-treated CR.
Figure 17. NaOH-treated CR.
Crystals 11 00558 g017
Table
Table 1. Mix design.
Table 1. Mix design.
Mix TypeTreatmentCR %w/c RatioNet Water (kg/m3)Cement (kg/m3)Fine AggregateCoarse Aggregate
Sand (kg/m3)Crumb Rubber (kg/m3)Gravel (kg/m3)
C0 (CM)-00.50203.97400661.8201074.18
CU5-50.50203.96400628.7320.351074.18
CU10-100.50203.95400595.6440.701074.18
CU15-150.50203.94400562.5561.051074.18
CU20-200.50203.93400529.4681.401074.18
CN5NaOH50.50203.96400628.7320.351074.18
CN10NaOH100.50203.95400595.6440.701074.18
CN15NaOH150.50203.94400562.5561.051074.18
CN20NaOH200.50203.93400529.4681.401074.18
CL5Lime50.50203.96400628.7320.351074.18
CL10Lime100.50203.95400595.6440.701074.18
CL15Lime150.50203.94400562.5561.051074.18
CL20Lime200.50203.93400529.4681.401074.18
CW5Water50.50203.96400628.7320.351074.18
CW10Water100.50203.95400595.6440.701074.18
CW15Water150.50203.94400562.5561.051074.18
CW20Water200.50203.93400529.4681.401074.18
CD5Detergent50.50203.96400628.7320.351074.18
CD10Detergent100.50203.95400595.6440.701074.18
CD15Detergent150.50203.94400562.5561.051074.18
CD20Detergent200.50203.93400529.4681.401074.18
Table
Table 2. Sieve analysis of aggregates.
Table 2. Sieve analysis of aggregates.
Sieve Size (mm)0.0750.150.30.61.182.364.759.512.519
Sand Passed (%)03.811.9367794.899.4100100100
Crumb Rubber (%)-03.62343.66899.7100100100
Gravel Passed (%)-------28.6267.1292.02
Table
Table 3. Test results.
Table 3. Test results.
Mix CodeTreatmentCR %Slump (mm)Compressive Strength (MPa)Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa)Water Absorption (%)Unit Weight (kg/m3)UPV (km/s)
7 days28 days 7 days28 days7 days28 days
CM-05011.8823.007.302.36.6233124644.45
CU5Untreated55011.0020.637.041.86.2234423644.41
CU10Untreated10759.5615.375.332.86.8212121284.41
CU15Untreated151506.6211.453.603.67.4199920214.40
CU20Untreated201804.218.711.154.78.7188218924.38
CN5NaOH56511.8221.407.194.73.7237023824.41
CN10NaOH109010.1016.525.685.84.1211721324.40
CN15NaOH151507.2512.253.958.04.9198920144.39
CN20NaOH201655.639.311.768.65.3186918814.37
CL5Lime55012.0121.567.331.13.1234123754.42
CL10Lime107510.3716.675.912.33.9210121104.41
CL15Lime151657.4312.484.053.33.9190320214.40
CL20Lime201805.879.781.824.54.1187518824.39
CW5Water55011.2321.057.084.94.6235323634.40
CW10Water10759.9116.435.416.25.5211121244.40
CW15Water151507.1012.013.668.26.7199320154.39
CW20Water201804.529.251.1710.27.3187418904.37
CD5Detergent55010.9520.577.004.64.0235223604.39
CD10Detergent10909.4015.325.295.64.3210921214.38
CD15Detergent151656.4011.433.536.55.3199220154.38
CD20Detergent201804.158.711.147.96.5188118924.36
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Awan, H.H.; Javed, M.F.; Yousaf, A.; Aslam, F.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mosavi, A. Experimental Evaluation of Untreated and Pretreated Crumb Rubber Used in Concrete. Crystals 2021, 11, 558. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11050558

AMA Style

Awan HH, Javed MF, Yousaf A, Aslam F, Alabduljabbar H, Mosavi A. Experimental Evaluation of Untreated and Pretreated Crumb Rubber Used in Concrete. Crystals. 2021; 11(5):558. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11050558

Chicago/Turabian Style

Awan, Hamad Hassan, Muhammad Faisal Javed, Adnan Yousaf, Fahid Aslam, Hisham Alabduljabbar, and Amir Mosavi. 2021. "Experimental Evaluation of Untreated and Pretreated Crumb Rubber Used in Concrete" Crystals 11, no. 5: 558. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryst11050558

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop