Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Mechanical properties of rubberized lightweight aggregate concrete

Nathan M. Miller, Fariborz M. Tehrani
Department of Civil and Geomatics Engineering, California State University Fresno, CA 93740, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

Tire-derived aggregates (TDA) contribute to sustainability of concrete applications.

Mechanical properties of light-weight aggregate concrete with TDA are investigated.

Experimental studies include six mix designs containing 0100% of TDA substituion.

The effect of TDA on compressive, tensile, flexural, and impact tests are reported.

Results provide insights on the toughness and ductility of TDLWAC.

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

Article history: A detailed investigation of rubberized lightweight aggregate concrete was conducted using 38 cylindrical
Received 11 August 2016 and 36 beam specimens. Six mix designs, incorporated in the study, contained rubber replacement ratios
Received in revised form 13 April 2017 from 0% to 100% by volume replacement of a lightweight expanded-shale coarse aggregate. The objective
Accepted 16 April 2017
of this study is to investigate mechanical properties of lightweight tire-derived aggregate concrete,
including compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, splitting-tensile strength, flexural strength, and
flexural toughness. Further, an impact test was conducted using a falling weight to investigate dynamic
Keywords:
properties of specimens subjected to flexure. Results suggest tire-derived aggregates reduces the
Ductility
Toughness
mechanical strength of specimens, but, enhances ductility and toughness of materials. These enhance-
Compression test ments are valuable for dynamic applications of lightweight concrete.
Static modulus of elasticity 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Splitting tensile strength
Flexural strength
Lightweight aggregate
Rubberized concrete
Tire-derived aggregate

1. Introduction
Many researchers cited in this section have been intrigued by
the concept of adding a flexible material such as rubber to a mate-
rial that is typically known for its rigidity, such as concrete. The
development of a concrete performing with ductile behavior has
been the object of ambition for many researchers. Other motiva-
tions stem from the fact that if aggregates often used in rubberized
concrete (tire derived aggregates) can be incorporated into the
concrete matrix, there exists a potential to divert a significant
amount of waste materials away from landfills.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
United States alone generates 289 million scrap tires annually.
Beyond the amount of waste alone, the EPA provides that stock-
piled waste tires can pose significant health and safety hazards
including rodent and mosquito habitation which can facilitate
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ftehrani@csufresno.edu (F.M. Tehrani).
the spread of disease and an increased risk of fire [1]. More
recently, the EPA published that leather and rubber accounted for
6.18 million tons of waste after the recycling rate of 44.6% had
been accounted for [2].
Countless researches conducted since the early 1990s concern
rubberized normal weight aggregate concrete. Although few have
shown an increase in rubber content improves durability, com-
pression strength has been observed to decrease as rubber content
is increased [38]. Other common properties such as the static
modulus of elasticity [911], splitting tensile strength [4,9,11],
and static flexural strength [4,12,13] have also been found to
decrease as rubber content increases. However, while the strength
properties decrease, material toughness has been observed to
increase [10,13,14] which research suggests may serve as one of
the most beneficial properties of this material. Due to the fact that
material solidity can be used as a measure of a materials ability to
absorb energy, researchers suggest it may be best suited for
dynamic loading conditions. Two studies were found using a falling
weight impact [11,15], two studies were found investigating the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.155
0950-0618/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271 265

Nomenclature

Notation L1 Cylinder length, mm (in.)

A10.5FC Area under load-deflection curve up to 10.5 times the L2 Specimen clear span, mm (in.)
first crack deflection, N-m (lbf-in.) m Mass of falling weight, kg (lb)
A5.5FC Area under load-deflection curve up to 5.5 times the P Peak applied load, kN (lbf)
first crack deflection, N-m (lbf-in.) R10,20 Residual strength factor 2
A3.0FC Area under load-deflection curve up to 3.0 times the R5,10 Residual strength factor 1
first crack deflection, N-m (lbf-in.) T Splitting-tensile strength, MPa (psi)
AFC Area under the load-deflection curve up to first crack d1 Deflection corresponding to peak static load, mm (in.)
deflection, N-m (lbf-in.) e1 Lower bound of strain used for the calculation of the
b Width of beam specimen, mm (in.) modulus of elasticity
d Diameter of cylindrical specimen, mm (in.) e2 Upper bound of strain used for the calculation of the
d1 Depth of beam specimen, mm (in.) modulus of elasticity
E Static modulus of elasticity, GPa (ksi) r1 Lower bound of normal stress used to calculate the
g Gravitational constant, m/sec2 (in./sec2) modulus of elasticity, MPa (psi)
h Drop height used for impact testing, mm (in.) r2 Upper bound of normal stress used to calculate the
I20 Toughness index up to 10.5 times first crack deflection modulus of elasticity, MPa (psi)
I10 Toughness index up to 5.5 times first crack deflection x Observed static load for static flexure test, kN (lbf)
I5 Toughness index up to 3.0 times first crack deflection

free vibration using an impulse hammer [8,16], and a single study
was found investigating the behavior of a full scale traffic barrier
subject to a non-severe collision impact [6].
Few researches analyzing the properties of rubberized light-
weight aggregate concrete created using rubber aggregates as
replacement for lightweight mineral aggregates have been found
[17,18]. By studying six mechanical properties that are of common
interest for concrete, the investigation that follows was conducted
to further the understanding of this material that has been
researched by few.
2. Research significance
Presence of lightweight aggregate has the potential to alter the
mechanical properties of rubberized concrete. The substitution of
natural normal-weight aggregates with lightweight aggregates,
such as expanded shale, has the potential to expand applications
of rubberized concrete. This study is directed towards the advance-
ment of existing literature on mechanical properties of rubberized
lightweight-aggregate concrete including: compressive, splitting-
tensile, flexural strength, flexural toughness and impact resistance.
3. Experimental procedure
Cylinder and beam specimens were cast containing various
amount of crumb rubber, tire-derived aggregate (TDA), by volume
replacement of the coarse lightweight aggregate (LWA). The con-
stituents in the mix included the expanded shale lightweight
coarse aggregate, natural sand fine aggregate, cement, and water.
The target strength for the control mix was 21 MPa (3 ksi). The
TDA was then added by volume replacement of the lightweight
coarse aggregate. Replacement ratios of 0% to 100% in 20% incre-
ments were used in the investigation for both cylinder and beam
specimens. Cylinders were used in testing compressive strength,
static modulus of elasticity, and splitting-tensile strength. Beam
specimens were used to examine flexural strength, toughness,
and response to an impact flexure test.
aggregate. The coarse aggregate used in the procedure consisted
of expanded shale produced by Utelite Corporation, which is clas-
sified to be their structural medium grade. These materials have
unit dry weight of nearly 750 kg/m3 (46.8 pcf) and water content
of 7.3%. Table 1 provides the gradation report for the expanded
shale as published by the manufacturer. Natural sand as well as
type I and type II cement blend were applied. The cement blend
was used due to its availability, with no research suggesting this
would adversely affect the rubberized concrete specimens. Tap
water was incorporated in the procedure for all concrete speci-
mens. The TDA, provided by West Coast Rubber Recycling located
in Hollister, California, was produced using mechanical shredding
and of comparable size to the mineral aggregate. The source of
these materials is a combination of car and truck tires. The steel
fibers were removed from the rubber during the manufacturing
process; however, textile fibers remained mixed within the rubber
particles (see Fig. 1). The unit weight of TDA was nearly 560 kg/m3
(35.2 pcf). Table 1 provides the sieve analysis for the material. No
additional mixtures were used in the designs, and no pre-
treatment of the rubber was conducted prior to incorporating it
into the mix. Throughout the investigation, all mix design quanti-
ties were held constant with the exception of the lightweight
coarse aggregate and the tire derived aggregates. Fig. 2 shows all
six mix designs used. These values have been adjusted for water
absorption of materials, when applicable.
3.2. Specimens
Both cylinder specimens, 0.15 m (6 in.) diameter and 0.30 m
(12 in.) height, and beam specimens 0.15 m (6 in.) square size
and 0.53 m (21 in.) length, were used for testing, in accordance
to ASTM C39 and C78. Plastic, single use concrete cylinder molds,
were used to cast cylindrical specimens. For the beam specimens,
Table 1
Gradation report for lightweight expanded shale aggregate (LWA) and rubber
particles (TDA).

Sieve Size mm (in.) LWA Retained (%) TDA Retained (%)

3.1. Materials 12.7 (1/2) 0 0
9.5 (3/8) 5.66 0.38
The mix constituents included lightweight coarse aggregates, 4.75 (3/16) 72.8 77.82
fine aggregates, cement, and water. Tire derived aggregates were 2.36 (3/32) 20.89 20.73
1.18 (3/64) 0.35 0.38
later added by volume replacement of the lightweight coarse
266 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271
Fig. 1. Crumb rubber manufactured through mechanical shredding of recycled tires.
Fig. 2. Six mix designs used for current investigation.
a combination of plastic beam molds and wooden beam molds
were used (see Fig. 3).
A total of 36 beams and 38 cylinders were cast, which corre-
sponds to three beams and three cylinders for each mix design
for each test and two extra control cylinders. All specimens were
cast on the same day and all molds were stripped 24 h after cast-
ing. After removal from the mold, the specimens were placed in
the moist curing room with observed temperature of 23 C
(73 F) and humidity of 95%. They remained there, undisturbed,
for the remainder of the curing process. Specimens were removed
from the curing room for test preparation 32 days after casting (see
Fig. 3).
Strain gages were attached to both cylinders used for compres-
sion testing and beams used for static flexure testing. Four strain
gages were used for each specimen. For cylindrical specimens,
the strain gages were attached at mid-height and at 90 degree
intervals around the cylinder. For beam specimens, the strain gages
were attached at mid-span. Two were attached 0.013 m (0.5 in.)
from the extreme compression edge, and two were attached
0.013 m (0.5 in.) from the extreme tension edge.
3.3. Items of investigation
Compression testing occurred on day 35 after casting, due to
unpredicted delays, using the procedures of ASTM C39. Although,
Fig. 3. Specimens after removal from curing room.
the age of the concrete was more than the standard 28-day, the rel-
ative comparison between results of various mix designs was not
expected to be impacted substantially. The test was carried out
using a 500 kN (120 kip) Tinius Olsen manually operated universal
testing machine. Cylinders were placed between a rigid bottom
bearing block and a spherically mounted top bearing block, in
accordance with ASTM standard C39 (see Fig. 4). The compression
load was applied at a rate slower than the ASTM C39 rate, 0.24 MPa
(35 psi) per second. This was conducted to allow adequate report-
ing of the strain gages, which record a single data point every sec-
ond. The load-deformation relationship was recorded directly by
the universal testing machine and exported for the calculations
of compression strength and static modulus of elasticity.
The static modulus of elasticity was determined using ASTM
C469 and is defined by the slope of the linear elastic portion of
the stress-strain relationship. The stress-strain relationship was
calculated using the load-deflection data recorded during each test.
In accordance with ASTM C469, the peak stress and strain for the
calculation was taken at 40% of the first peak prior to the start of
cracking. The lower bound for the stress-strain relationship was
taken as the first point when the stress-strain relationship became
recognizable linear. This did not occur at the start of the test due to
the testing equipment, but did occur shortly after the start of each
test. For both the compression strength and static modulus of elas-
ticity, the results were gathered and averaged for each rubber
replacement ratio.
The splitting-tension strength was also tested 35 days after the
specimens were cast, in accordance with ASTM C496. The test was
conducted using the same universal testing machine as the com-
pression test, and the load was applied at a rate of 48.9 kN
(11 kip) per second. This is the lower end of the acceptable load
rates per the ASTM standard. The test called for a 25.4 mm (1 in.)
strip of plywood to be used as a bearing strip at the bottom and
top of each specimen, and the strips are to be replaced with each
test. Due to the availability of materials, a 2.54 mm (1 in.) wide
steel was used in lieu of the plywood strips. After observing the
failure modes for each specimen, it was determined that the
Spherical bearing at plate
Strain gage attachment
Rubber plate to distribute
load over uneven surface
Fig. 4. Compression test set up.
 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271
replacement was acceptable (see Fig. 5). The load-deflection rela-
tionship, recorded by the universal testing machine, was used to
determine the splitting tensile strength of each specimen. The
results were grouped, averaged, and compared to the common
relationships which relate compressive strength to splitting-
tensile strength.
The third test conducted was a static flexure test taking place on
day 36 after specimens were cast. This test was carried out in
accordance with ASTM C78 for simple beams with third-point
loading. The beams had a simple span of 0.456 m (18 in.) with load
points at 0.15 m (6 in.) and 0.30 m (12 in.). Fig. 6 displays the test
set up of the static flexure test. Loads were applied at a rate of
1 mm (0.039 in) per minute. The load rate was kept at a minimum
in order to allow adequate data acquisition from strain gages. The
data was then used to calculate the modulus of rupture in accor-
dance with ASTM C78 and the flexural toughness in accordance
with ASTM C1018-97.
The final test conducted was the impact flexure test. The spec-
imens were subject to third point loading with the span lengths as
a static flexure test. However, the load was applied using an 1110-
N (250-lbf) falling weight as opposed to the universal testing
machine. The weight was lifted to the desired height using an elec-
tronic winch and released using a quick release pin to impact the
specimen. The drop heights were predicted for each rubber
replacement ratio using minimum strengths and corresponding
deflections observed during the static tests. The static strength
and deflection was then used to determine a corresponding drop
height using a simplified energy Eq. (6) allowing suitable drop
heights to be approximated. The maximum drop height was then
rounded in order to be easily measured using a tape measure,
Steel bearing strips
Fig. 5. Splitting-tension test set up.
Fig. 6. Static flexure test set up.
267
Impact Accelerometers
plates
Ears used to
Impact head stabilize impact
to provide head
loading at
third points
Apparatus
anchored to strong
Edge floor to reduce
rebound and
supports
vibration
Fig. 7. Impact flexure test set up.
and divided into thirds. Three different drop heights were used
for each rubber replacement ratio. The first three drops occurred
at a height that was one-third that of the calculated maximum,
and the next three drops occurred at a height of two-thirds of
the maximum. The final three drops occurred at the predicted
maximum height.
The instrumentation used for this test was a Sensr GPI-L triple
axis programmable accelerometer that was mounted to the
impacting plate. The accelerometer recorded the acceleration-
time history for the impact event at a sampling rate of 100 points
per second. This data was then used to calculate the impulse force
generated by each impact. Fig. 7 shows the test set-up for the
impact flexure test.
4. Analytical procedure
All calculations, with the exception of the impact flexure test,
were carried out in accordance with the ASTM standards for each
respective test. The compressive strength was calculated in accor-
dance with ASTM C39. The same load-deformation relationship
was also used to calculate the static modulus of elasticity. The
stress-strain relationship was calculated from the elastic-linear
load-deformation relationships. The stress-strain relationship
could then be used to calculate the static modulus of elasticity in
accordance with ASTM C469. The splitting-tension strength was
calculated using ASTM C496. It is determined using the maximum
applied load and the specimens length and diameter. The load-
deflection relationship from the static flexure test was used to cal-
culate modulus of rupture which is a measure of the materials flex-
ural strength. The calculation was carried out in accordance with
ASTM C78.
The same load-deflection relationship was also used to calculate
the flexural toughness of each specimen. This was done in accor-
dance with ASTM C1018-97, which provides equations for the cal-
culation of three different toughness indices and two residual
strength factors. The toughness indices are calculated using ratios
of areas under the load-deflection diagram, and the residual
strength factors were calculated from the toughness indices. The
calculations were carried out in accordance with the ASTM stan-
dard using the following equations;
268 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271

A3:0FC
I5 1
AFC

A5:5FC
I10 2
AFC

A10:5FC
I20 3
AFC

R5;10 20I10  I5 4

R10;20 10I20  I10 5

The last test that was conducted was the impact flexure test
which utilized a 1220 N (250 lbf) falling weight. The drop height
was calculated using the minimum flexural strength and deflection
that was observed during the static test. The following simplified
energy equation was used to predict the necessary drop heights Fig. 8. Relationship of compressive strength to rubber content (1 MPa = 145 psi).
for each rubber replacement value;
xd1 mgh 6 rubber particles were able to hold the cylinders intact once the
The drop heights used are provided in Table 2. The acceleration- peak load was reached. This is displayed in Fig. 9.
time history was recorded and used to calculate the force-time The collected from this test was also used to determine the sta-
relationship, and later integrated using the trapezoid approxima- tic modulus of elasticity. It was determined that the stress-strain
tion to determine the net impulse for each drop for each specimen. relationship of the control specimen did not fit the ASTM standard
calculation which requires the 40% of the peak strength to be the
upper bound used in calculation. As a result, the initial linear-
5. Experimental results and discussions
elastic relationship or the linear elastic relationship prior to the
first noticeable crack was used for calculation. A similar inflection
5.1. Compressive strength and static modulus of static modulus of
point was observed between 40% and 60% rubber replacement.
elasticity
Fig. 10 provides the relationship measured for static modulus of
elasticity rubber content.
The compression strength of the rubberized lightweight aggre-
gate concrete was observed to decrease as rubber content
increased. The control mix reached a compressive strength of 5.2. Splitting-tensile strength
23.4 MPa (3388 psi) which was beyond the target strength. As
can be seen from Fig. 8, an inflection point occurs between 40% During the splitting-tensile test, all specimens exhibited the
and 80% rubber replacement. This was found to be unique to rub- characteristic splitting-tensile failure mode characterized by a sin-
berized lightweight aggregate concrete. Much of the previous gle crack developing down the center of the cylinder before failure
research found for rubberized normal-weight aggregate concrete (see Fig. 11). While a decrease in peak strength was observed, the
suggests a non-linear but consistent decrease in compression failure was more gradual. Specimens still developed the same
strength as rubber content increases. Research also suggests a crack down the center of the cylinder; however, the time it took
boundary condition exists at 60% rubber replacement between a for the crack to propagate through the cylinder increased. The rela-
concrete controlled specimen and a rubber controlled specimen. tionship between splitting-tensile strength and rubber content was
It is believed that this quality is displayed in the rubberized light- also more linear than that of compression strength or static mod-
weight aggregate concrete by the inflection point. ulus of elasticity (see Fig. 12). Furthermore, it could also be seen
The failure mode observed for the control mix was a type 3 fail- that the rubber content was evenly distributed throughout the
ure as defined by ASTM C39 which is characterized by vertical cylinders (see Fig. 13).
cracks that propagated from top to bottom. The failure of control
specimens were rapid with little warning prior to complete failure. 5.3. Static flexure strength and flexural toughness
As the rubber content increased, the failure of the specimens
became more gradual. The failure mode of cylinders with high rub- The flexural strength of all specimens was measured through
ber contents were characterized by diagonal cracking that started the calculation of the modulus of rupture, later recognized to share
at the top of the cylinder and propagated to the cylinder edges. It a similar relationship with rubber content as other mechanical
was observed that the cylinders with higher rubber contents properties. The value of flexural strength decreased nonlinearly
exhibited greater transverse deformation prior to failure, and the as the rubber replacement ratios varied from 0% to 100%. Once
again, an inflection point was observed between 40% and 60% rub-
Table 2
ber replacement. Fig. 14 provides a display of the relationship that
Calculated drop heights for falling weight impact test. exists between modulus of rupture and rubber content.
In addition, this test was used to calculate the flexural tough-
Rubber Static Load Deflection at Static Equivalent Drop
Content % kN (lbf) Load mm (in.) Height mm (in.)
ness in accordance with ASTM C1018-97 through the use of three
toughness indices and two residual strength factors. For rubberized
0% 27.71 (6229) 1.9 (0.0762) 48 (1.899)
20% 24.12 (5422) 2.3 (0.0915) 50 (1.984)
lightweight aggregate concrete, there was no evidence suggesting
40% 20.00 (4496) 1.9 (0.0753) 34 (1.354) an increase in toughness at rubber replacement values less than
60% 19.78 (4446) 1.7 (0.0653) 29 (1.161) 80%. However, flexural toughness was significantly increased at
80% 14.56 (3273) 1.9 (0.0727) 24 (0.952) rubber replacement values of 80% and 100%. This differs from
100% 13.55 (3046) 2.1 (0.0810) 25 (0.987)
previous research found, which suggest a systematic increase in
 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271
Fig. 9. Greater transverse deflection observed in rubberized concrete specimens with 100% rubber content (left) in comparison with conventional concrete (right).
Fig. 10. Relationship of modulus of elasticity to rubber content (1 MPa = 145 psi).
Fig. 11. Comparison of splitting-tensile load-deformation curves for low and high
rubber content samples.
flexural toughness as rubber content increases. Only the first index
could be calculated for all of the rubber replacement values. The
second and third toughness indices could only be calculated for a
total of three specimens of 80% and 100% rubber. Out of all of the
specimens tested, only one specimen with 100% rubber replace-
ment had a post-peak behavior that allowed for the calculation
of all three toughness indices and both residual strength factors.
269
Fig. 12. Relationship of Splitting-tensile strength to rubber content
(1 MPa = 145 psi). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rubber contents.
The results are provided in Table 3, and the results for toughness
index I5 are provided in Fig. 15.
5.4. Impact flexure test
The impact flexure test was conducted using the same third-
point loading as the static flexure test, and the load was applied
using 1110 N (250 lbf). The acceleration-time history was collected
using an accelerometer which allowed the force-time relationship
and net impulse for each drop to be calculated. The maximum net-
impulse prior to failure was isolated for each specimen of the rub-
ber replacement values. The drop at failure was neglected due to
the fact that the way the weight came to rest, skewed the
acceleration-time history which in turn skewed the net impulse
results. The maximum impulse calculated for each specimen was
then grouped by rubber content and averaged. The results are pro-
vided in Table 4, which shows no noticeable trend between rubber
content and the maximum net impulse calculated. This is likely
due to the limitations of the test itself.
One limitation of the impact test was the lack of stability in the
test system itself. For the weight drop apparatus, the impacting
plate is guided by three slender steel tubes using linear bearings.
The lack of rigidity of the frame allowed for a significant amount
of sway during testing. Without measuring the strain of the frame
270 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271

0% 20% 40 % 60% 80 % 100%

Rubber contents

Fig. 13. Dispersion of particles within cementitious matrix.

Table 4
Impact flexure test results.

Rubber Content (%) Max. Net Impulse N-sec (lbf-sec)

0 536 (121)
20 442 (99)
40 441 (99)
60 486 (109)
80 494 (111)
100 482 (108)

50.8 mm (2 in) and error in measuring the drop height, significant

errors occur when comparing the test results.
Compounding these issues is the lack of data acquisition equip-
ment available for the test. The only instrumentation used was the
accelerometer, which limits the amount of analysis that can be car-
ried out once testing is complete. Because deflection of the beam
Fig. 14. Relationship of modulus of rupture to rubber content (1 MPa = 145 psi). was not monitored, it is unknown whether the plate bounced or
remained in contact with the beam specimen during the impact
event, affecting the analysis drawn from the data.
Table 3
The final limitation of this test was due to the methodology
Flexural toughness results.
itself. The drop heights varied over the rubber content specimens
Rubber content (%) Average I5 I10 I20 R5,10 R10,20 based on the static testing to ensure multiple drops for each spec-
0 1.070 0 0 0 0 imen prior to failure. However, due to the fact that there is no
20 1.048 0 0 0 0 direct comparison between rubber replacement values, the com-
40 1.039 0 0 0 0
parison of results become increasingly difficult.
60 1.055 0 0 0 0
80 2.030 2.456 0 4.532 0
100 2.420 3.065 3.399 15.915 0.851 6. Future research

Further research of rubberized lightweight aggregate concrete

is desirable as previous research found investigating the use of rub-
ber particles as replacement for lightweight mineral aggregates.
Previous research surrounding rubberized normal-weight
aggregate concrete suggest that the material may be a suitable ele-
ment for crash barriers, vibration mitigation, and other dynamic
loading conditions. Due to the limitations of the dynamic testing,
this study cannot definitively prove or disprove any of those claims
for rubberized lightweight aggregate concrete. Thus, testing both
small scale and full scale should be conducted regarding the prac-
tical application of this material. The increased toughness at high
rubber content suggests that this material has a greater capacity
for energy absorption than plain concrete, making it beneficial
for applications where energy absorption over strength is a pri-
mary concern.

Fig. 15. Relationship of flexural toughness index I5 to rubber content. 7. Conclusions

itself, it is difficult to measure how the sway is affecting the impact From the results of this experimental study on the mechanical
test. Another shortcoming of the testing machine itself was the properties of rubberized lightweight aggregate concrete, the fol-
1110 N (250 lbf) weight itself. With drop heights of less than lowing conclusions can be drawn:
 N.M. Miller, F.M. Tehrani / Construction and Building Materials 147 (2017) 264271

The static mechanical properties decrease as rubber content
increases, with an inflection point for static properties between
40% and 80% rubber content.

The flexural toughness increases at rubber replacement values
of 80% and 100%, showing negligible change at values below 80%.

Results suggest the material to be suitable for applications
where energy absorption is a primary concern at high rubber
replacement values.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their sincerest gratitude to the
Fresno State Foundation for the financial support of this research,
to Utelite Company for donating lightweight aggregates, and to
West Coast Rubber Recycling for providing discounted materials.
References
[1] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Why are Scrap Tires an Issue? Scrap
Tire Management Forum, Rapid City, SD, May 18, 2006.
[2] Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.
Annual Report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
DC, 2012.
[3] I.B. Topcu, The properties of rubberized concretes, J. Cement Concr. Res. 25 (2)
(1994) 304310.
[4] E. Ganjian, M. Khorami, A.A. Maghsoudi, Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for
aggregate and filler in concrete, J. Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2008) 18281836.
271
[5] L. Zheng, X.S. Huo, Y. Yuan, Strength, modulus of elasticity, and brittleness
index of rubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 20 (11) (2008) 692699.
[6] A.O. Atahan, U.K. Sevim, Testing and comparison of concrete barriers
containing shredded waste tire chips, J. Mater. Lett. 62 (2008) 37543757.
[7] A.O. Atahan, A.O. Yucel, Crumb rubber in concrete: static and dynamic
evaluation, J. Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 617622.
[8] J. Xue, M. Shinozuka, Rubberized concrete: a green structural material with
enhanced energy-dissipation capability, J. Constr. Build. Mater. 42 (2013) 196
204.
[9] G. Li, G. Garrick, J. Eggers, C. Abadie, M.A. Stubblefield, S. Pang, Waste tire fiber
modified concrete, J. Compos. Part B: Eng. 35 (2004) 305312.
[10] A.R. Khaloo, M. Dehestani, P. Rahmatabadi, Mechanical properties of concrete
containing a high volume of tire-rubber particles, J. Waste Manage. 28 (2008)
24722482.
[11] M.M. Al-Tayeb, B.H.A. Bakar, H.M. Akil, H. Ismail, Performance of rubberized
and hybrid rubberized concrete structures under static and impact load
conditions, J. Exp. Mech. 53 (2012) 377384.
[12] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized Portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civil
Eng. 11 (3) (1999) 206213.
[13] M.A. Aiello, F. Leuzzi, Waste tyre rubberized concrete: properties at fresh and
hardened state, J. Waste Manage. 30 (2010) 16961704.
[14] H.A. Toutanji, The use of rubber tire particles in concrete to replace mineral
aggregate, J. Cement Compos. 18 (1996) 135139.
[15] I.B. Topcu, N. Avcular, Collision behaviour of rubberized concrete, J. Cement
Compos. 27 (12) (1997) 18931898.
[16] L. Zheng, X.S. Huo, Y. Yuan, Experimental investigation on dynamic properties
of rubberized concrete, J. Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2007) 939947.
[17] G. Wang, B. Zhang, Z. Shui, D. Tang, Y. Kong, Experimental study on the
performance and microstructure of rubberized lightweight aggregate
concrete, J. Progr. Rubber, Plast. Recycl. Technol. 28 (4) (2012) 147156.
[18] S. Chen, H. Wang, J. Jhou, Investigating the properties of lightweight concrete
containing high contents of recycled green building materials, J. Constr. Build.
Mater. 48 (2013) 98103.