Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Assessment of the mechanical performance of crumb rubber concrete

Osama Youssf a,b,⇑, Julie E. Mills a, Reza Hassanli a
a
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
b
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

h i g h l i g h t s

 Enhancement study of CRC mechanical performance was carried out.

 Effect of pre-treatment period, SF additives, and cement content was assessed.
3
 0.5 h pre-treatment, 0% SF, and 350 kg/m cement were the best alternatives.
 More than 0.5 h pre-treatment did not significantly affect CRC properties.
3
 Higher than 350 kg/m cement did not significantly affect CRC properties.

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

Article history: Crumb rubber concrete (CRC) has some known shortcomings in mechanical performance compared to
Received 4 February 2016 conventional concrete, particularly with respect to compressive strength. Many previous researchers
Received in revised form 7 June 2016 have tried to overcome the material deficiencies using different methods; however, the results have often
Accepted 10 August 2016
been contradictory and highly variable. In this research, three methods to improve and then assess the
Available online 17 August 2016
mechanical performance of CRC have been examined namely, rubber pre-treatment using sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) solution, using silica fume additives, and increasing concrete cement content. The
Keywords:
effect of the rubber pre-treatment time (0–2 h), silica fume content (0–15%), and cement content
Rubberized concrete
Crumb rubber
(300–400 kg/m3) on CRC slump, short and long term compressive strength, and tensile strength were
Rubber treatment measured for fifteen concrete mixes prepared with 0% and 20% rubber content. Six 100  200 mm cylin-
Silica fume ders were prepared from each mix for evaluating the compressive strength at 7 and 28 days. Four addi-
Cement content tional 100  200 mm cylinders were prepared from two mixes for evaluating the compressive strength at
56 and 84 days. In addition, two 150  300 mm cylinders for each mix were prepared and tested to deter-
mine the indirect tensile strength at 28 days. The results showed that 0.5 h of rubber pre-treatment using
NaOH solution, 0% of silica fume replacing cement by weight, and 350 kg/m3 cement content were the
best alternatives in this assessment range to enhance the CRC performance.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction damping ratio [4–7]. However, it reduced its compressive strength,

Due to the health and environmental risks presented from used
tyre waste [1] as well as the scarcity and cost of natural mineral
aggregates [2], a significant body of recent research has focussed
on utilizing used tyre rubber in concrete as a partial replacement
of its mineral aggregates, resulting in a class of concrete called
crumb rubber concrete (CRC). The recycling of used rubber con-
serves valuable natural resources and reduces the amount of rub-
ber entering landfill [3]. Previous experimental studies on CRC
materials have shown that using rubber in concrete enhanced its
ductility, toughness, impact resistance, energy dissipation, and
⇑ Corresponding author at: University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
E-mail address: Osama.Youssf@mymail.unisa.edu.au (O. Youssf).
tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity compared to conven-
tional concrete [8–13]. Some of the main reasons for this strength
reduction are the low hydraulic conductivity and the smooth sur-
face of rubber particles, which both result in poor rubber/cement
interface adhesion [14–17]. This poor adhesion is also attributed
to the existence of zinc stearate which is used in tyre formulation
during manufacturing. This zinc stearate migrates and diffuses to
the rubber surface creating a soap layer that repels water [9].
To increase the effectiveness of using rubber in concrete, several
approaches have been previously introduced. Of these approaches;
the chemical pre-treatment of rubber particles using sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) solution, replacing part of the cement by silica
fume (SF) additive, and increasing the rubberized concrete
cement content are the most common. However, the degrees of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.040
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
176 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183

effectiveness using these approaches have been inconsistent and
scattered in research published to date. Balaha et al. [18] experi-
mented with three different cement contents namely, 300 kg/m3,
400 kg/m3, and 500 kg/m3 in rubberized concrete mixes containing
up to 20% rubber replaced by sand volume, and they treated the
rubber particles using NaOH solution for 30 min. In addition, they
replaced 15% of cement by weight with SF. Their results showed
that the CRC properties improved with cement content increase
up to 400 kg/m3. Beyond 400 kg/m3 cement content, only slight
improvements were observed. However, the slump was negatively
affected when using 400 kg/m3. Using SF and NaOH pre-treatment,
increased concrete slump by 77% and 7%, respectively, increased
compressive strength by 18% and 15%, respectively, and increased
tensile strength by 9% and 6%, respectively. Eldin and Senouci [19]
treated rubber particles in NaOH solution for 5 min before use in
CRC and achieved 16% increase in the compressive strength. Pelis-
ser et al. [20] used NaOH pre-treated rubber combined with adding
15% SF by cement weight to the concrete mix. They reported
almost total recovery of the concrete compressive strength. Güney-
isi et al. [21] have observed lower workability but higher compres-
sive strength of CRC by using SF. In addition, the positive effect of
SF on the strength decreased as the rubber content increased.
Mohammadi et al. [22] used pre-treated rubber in NaOH solution
for 20 min, 2 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days. Their results showed that
24 h is the best treatment period for the rubber as it resulted in
the highest compressive strength and flexural strength. However,
this pre-treatment had no effect on concrete slump. Hamza and
Ghedan [23] washed rubber particles in NaOH solution before add-
ing a coupling agent called SILAN to the rubberized concrete. Their
results showed that the compressive strength improved by 74%
compared to non-treated rubber mix.
Other researchers reported less positive or contradictory results
from these approaches. Deshpande et al. [24] used modified rubber
by saturating it in NaOH solution for 20 min. Their results showed
almost no difference between the compressive and tensile
strengths of pre-treated and non-treated rubber mixes. However,
12% increase in the flexural strength was reported for the pre-
treated rubber mix. Tian et al. [25] reported 3.7% reduction in
CRC compressive strength using NaOH pre-treated rubber for
24 h followed by tap water wash for 3 h compared to non-
treated rubber. Li et al. [26] treated rubber particles using NaOH
solution for 30 min and found that the properties of pre-treated
rubberized concrete were nearly the same as those of non-
treated CRC. Turatsinze et al. [27] mentioned that the strength ben-
efit due to the NaOH rubber pre-treatment was not substantial.
Youssf et al. [9] investigated the effect of cement content, NaOH
pre-treatment of rubber for 30 min, and replacing 10% of cement
weight by SF on the mechanical properties of CRC. Their results
showed that the losses in CRC compressive strength with
425 kg/m3 cement content were less than when using 350 kg/m3
cement content. In addition, they reported that when using
pre-treated rubber, the concrete slump and tensile strength
decreased by 25% and 13%, respectively. But, the compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity increased by 15% and 12%
respectively, compared to non-treated rubber. No effect was
observed in their results when using SF except a slight increase
in the compressive strength at rubber content of 20% by sand
volume. Albano et al. [28] studied concrete composites containing
scrap rubber previously treated with NaOH and SILAN coupling
agent in order to enhance the adhesion between the rubber and
the cement paste, but did not notice any significant changes when
compared to the non-treated rubber composites.
The contradictions and variations in the previous research find-
ings indicate the need for future research in CRC performance
enhancement. This paper investigates the mechanical properties
of fifteen CRC mixes. The effects of rubber pre-treatment period,
SF content, and cement content on the fresh and hardened proper-
ties of CRC were examined with the aim of assessing the CRC
mechanical performance. These data provide additional informa-
tion necessary to support the further development of CRC.
2. Experimental program
Several factors could potentially affect the concrete properties,
including water to cement ratio, rubber content, and cement con-
tent. This experimental programme focuses on the factors affecting
the adhesion at the rubber/cement interface in the concrete matrix,
such as the cement content, rubber pre-treatment, and SF content.
The poor rubber/cement interface adhesion is one of the main
sources of the deficiencies in the rubberized concrete properties
[14–17]. Increasing the rubber content in concrete enhances its
dynamic properties [4–7]. However, using more than 20% rubber
in concrete may magnify the adverse effects on concrete character-
istics, as recommended by Khatib and Bayomy [16]. In this
research the performance of concrete mixes incorporating 0 and

Table 1
Proportions of concrete mixes.

Mix code Rs (%) Pre-treatment of SF (%) Mix proportions (kg/m3)

rubber (period)
Cement SF Sand Dolomite Rubber Water SP
10 mm 20 mm
M1 0 – – 350 – 866 311 727 – 175 6.3
M2 20 NaOH (0.5 h) – 350 – 693 311 727 55.5 175 6.3
M3 0 – – 400 – 814 293 684 – 200 7.2
M4 20 NaOH (0.5 h) – 400 – 651 293 684 41.8 200 7.2
M5 0 – – 300 – 916 330 769 – 150 5.4
M6 20 NaOH (0.5 h) – 300 – 733 330 769 58.8 150 5.4
M7 20 No treatment – 350 – 693 311 727 55.5 175 6.3
M8 20 NaOH (1.0 h) – 350 – 693 311 727 55.5 175 6.3
M9 20 NaOH (2.0 h) – 350 – 693 311 727 55.5 175 6.3
M10 0 – 5 333 18 862 310 724 – 175 6.3
M11 20 NaOH (0.5 h) 5 333 18 690 310 724 55.3 175 6.3
M12 0 – 10 315 35 859 309 722 – 175 6.3
M13 20 NaOH (0.5 h) 10 315 35 687 309 722 55.1 175 6.3
M14 0 – 15 298 53 856 308 719 – 175 6.3
M15 20 NaOH (0.5 h) 15 298 53 685 308 719 54.9 175 6.3

RS, Per cent of sand volume replaced by rubber.

SF, Per cent of cement replaced by silica fume.
SP, Superplasticizer dosage.
 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183
20% of crumbed scrap tyre rubber as a partial volume replacement
of fine aggregates was experimentally investigated. The effect of
rubber pre-treatment period, silica fume content, and cement
content on CRC slump, short and long term compressive strength,
and tensile strength were examined for fifteen concrete mixes by
testing 128 standard concrete cylinders.
2.1. Concrete materials and variables
Table 1 summarises the different components of all concrete
mixes used in this study. General purpose cement type with speci-
fic gravity of 3.15, according to Australian Standard (AS) AS 3972
[29], was used as the binder material in the concrete mixes. Densi-
fied SF with specific gravity of 2.2 was used as a partial replace-
ment of concrete cement by weight. Dolomite stone having
nominal maximum sizes of 10 mm and 20 mm was used as coarse
aggregates. River sand with a maximum aggregate size of 5 mm
was used as fine aggregate. The crumb rubber used during the
course of this study had two particle sizes of 1.18 and 2.36 mm
and was used as a partial replacement of sand by volume (Table 1).
The sieve analyses for all used aggregates are shown in Fig. 1. The
specific gravity, unit weight, and fineness modulus were 2.72,
1570 kg/m3, and 6.02 respectively for dolomite; 2.65, 1630 kg/m3,
and 2.36 respectively for sand; and 0.85, 530 kg/m3, and 4.53
respectively for rubber. Polycarboxylic ether type superplasticizer
(SP) with a specific gravity of 1.08 was added to the concrete
mixtures to achieve the required concrete workability.
The variables in this study were; the pre-treatment period of
rubber particles using 10% NaOH solution for 0.0 h, 0.5 h, 1.0 h,
and 2.0 h; the SF content as a partial replacement of cement weight
by 0%, 5%, 10% and 15%; and the concrete cement content of
300 kg/m3, 350 kg/m3, and 400 kg/m3.
2.2. Pre-treatment of rubber
The pre-treatment of rubber particles can play an important
role in improving the rubber/cement interface adhesion. Pre-
treatment of rubber using NaOH solution removes the zinc stearate
layers that are present on the rubber surface of tyres as a result of
the manufacturing process [30]. The NaOH solution is able to elim-
inate the additives on the rubber surface, leaving voids on the rub-
ber outer surface that lead to a relatively rough and porous surface,
compared with non-treated rubber. Because of the eroding effect of
this acid solution on rubber particles, the surface of these particles
is scraggy, which can improve the cohesion strength between
rubber particles and cement [25]. In addition, it increases the
hydraulic conductivity, rubber/cement water transfer rate, and
Fig. 1. Sieve analysis of the used aggregates.
177
hydration at the interface, which improves the rubber/cement
adhesion [19,31–37]. Youssf et al. in previous research [9,12,38]
have successfully pre-treated the rubber particles by NaOH solu-
tion before using them in concrete.
In the present study, pre-treatment of the rubber particles with
10% concentration NaOH solution was used with different treat-
ment periods, namely 0.0 h, 0.5 h, 1.0 h, and 2.0 h. The process
commenced with the rubber particles being washed by tap water
to remove any impurities and dust. They were then submerged
into NaOH solution for the required period in a container. Finally,
the rubber particles were washed again by stirring in water until
its pH became 7, and then they were left to air dry. The final wash-
ing is essential to remove any remaining NaOH solution to prevent
any negative effect on the concrete durability. Fig. 2 shows the pro-
cedure of the rubber pre-treatment process. It was observed that
submerging the rubber into the NaOH solution increased its pH
to 14. Every 5 min during washing, the pH of the rubber solution
was recorded using a pH meter. The total time that was needed
to wash the rubber to fully remove the NaOH solution after the
treatment process ranged from 30 to 45 min.
2.3. Concrete mix designs
The concrete mixes were designed according to AS 1012.2 [39].
The target compressive strength of the control mix (M1) was
50 MPa. All mixes were designed with constant water to binder
(W/B) ratio of 0.5 and SP content of 1.8% by Binder weight. The
fine/coarse aggregate ratio was 1/1.2 by weight. The 10 mm
/20 mm coarse aggregate ratio was 1/2.34 by weight. The mixing
procedure for the control mixes was as follows: mix dry sand
and dolomite for 1 min; add half of the water and mix for 1 min;
rest for 2 min; add cementitious materials, water, and admixtures,
and then mix for 2 min. The same procedure was followed for the
CRC mixes; except that the rubber aggregate was first mixed with
the dry cementitious materials for 1 min in an external container,
aiming to increase the rubber-cement interface adhesion, which
is one of the known main factors affecting CRC strength.
2.4. Specimen preparation and testing
The standard slump test according to AS 1012.3.1 [40] was used
to measure the concrete workability for each mix, as shown in
Fig. 3(a). Six 100  200 mm cylinders were prepared from each
mix: three for evaluating the compressive strength at 7 days; and
three for evaluating the compressive strength at 28 days. Four
additional 100  200 mm cylinders were prepared from each mix
of M10 and M11; two for evaluating the compressive strength at
56 days; and two for evaluating the compressive strength at
84 days. This resulted in a total of ninety-eight cylinders from
the fifteen mixes. In addition, two 150  300 mm cylinders for
each mix were prepared and tested to determine the indirect ten-
sile strength at 28 days, resulting in a total of thirty cylinders from
the fifteen mixes. The traditional compaction method for the cast
concrete was done using a standard compaction rod and hammer.
All specimens were de-moulded after 24 h, and labelled for the
various tests. Then they were cured in a water bath at 23 ± 2 °C,
according to AS1012.8.1 [41]. At the test day, the tests were con-
ducted according to the appropriate Australian Standard under
monotonic loading until failure occurred. The compression test
was carried out according to AS 1012.9 [42] using an 1800 kN
capacity testing machine with a constant loading rate of
20 ± 2 MPa/min. Indirect tensile tests were performed according
to AS 1012.10 [43] using a constant loading rate of
1.5 ± 0.15 MPa/min. Fig. 3 shows the concrete tests conducted in
this study.
178 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183

1 2

3 4

Fig. 2. Rubber particle pre-treatment process.

Fig. 3. CRC tests: (a) slump, (b) compressive strength, and (c) indirect tensile strength.

3. Experimental results and discussion
In this section, the effects of rubber pre-treatment period, silica
fume content, and cement content on CRC slump, short and long
term compressive strength, and tensile strength are discussed.
Table 2 shows the experimental results of all concrete mixes in this
study.
3.1. Effect of rubber pre-treatment period
The effects of rubber pre-treatment using NaOH solution on
concrete slump, 7 and 28 days compressive strength, and tensile
strength were determined through comparison of the results of
mixes M1, M2, M7, M8, and M9. Mixes M1 and M7 are comparable
in terms of the effect of using non-treated rubber on the concrete
properties. Mixes M7, M2, M8, and M9 are comparable in terms
of the effect of pre-treatment periods of 0.0 h, 0.5 h, 1.0 h, and
2.0 h on concrete properties, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 4(a), using non-treated rubber in M7 (0.0 h
pre-treatment) increased the concrete slump by 26.4% compared
to that of the control mix M1. This was attributed to the poorly-
graded rubber used in this study with a 4.53 fineness modulus that
increased the fineness modulus of the hydride aggregates overall
(sand and rubber) compared to sand with 2.36 fineness modulus
in the conventional concrete. Increasing the fineness modulus of
the concrete aggregates increases its workability [44]. On the other
hand, pre-treatment of rubber particles had a minor negative
effect on the concrete slump compared with no pre-treatment.
 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183 179

Table 2
Experimental results.

Mix code Rs (%) Pre-treatment of SF (%) Slump (mm) Compressive strength (MPa) Tensile strength
rubber (period) (MPa)
7 Days 28 Days 56 Days 84 Days
M1 0 – – 170 44.9 53.5 – – 4.1
M2 20 NaOH (0.5 h) – 207 36.0 42.1 – – 3.1
M3 0 – – 230 47.3 56.1 – – 4.4
M4 20 NaOH (0.5 h) – 210 37.9 45.9 – – 3.2
M5 0 – – 5 41.8 50.3 – – 3.6
M6 20 NaOH (0.5 h) – 12 31.7 35.0 – – 2.9
M7 20 – – 215 31.2 35.9 – – 2.7
M8 20 NaOH (1.0 h) – 205 33.5 38.6 – – 3.1
M9 20 NaOH (2.0 h) – 205 32.3 37.2 – – 3.2
M10 0 – 5 165 44.4 55.4 54.2 57.6 4.3
M11 20 NaOH (0.5 h) 5 210 32.3 39.7 35.8 42.5 3.4
M12 0 – 10 65 38.1 50.6 – – 4.2
M13 20 NaOH (0.5 h) 10 165 30.8 37.3 – – 3.1
M14 0 – 15 20 37.7 47.7 – – 3.9
M15 20 NaOH (0.5 h) 15 155 29.5 36.8 – – 3.1

RS, Percent of sand volume replaced by crumb rubber.

SF, Percent of cement replaced by silica fume.

Pre-treatment of rubber particles for 0.5 h in M2, 1.0 h in M8, and
2.0 h in M9 increased the concrete slump by 21.8%, 20.6% and
20.6%, respectively, compared with the conventional concrete
mix but decreased the concrete slump by 3.7%, 4.6%, and 4.6%,
respectively, compared with the non-treated rubber mix. This
was attributed to the relatively rough surface of pre-treated rubber
compared to non-treated rubber that resulted from the surface
eroding caused by the acid solution. This eroding effect resulted
in relatively slow movement of rubber particles in the concrete
matrix and hence slump reduction. Increasing the rubber pre-
treatment period had no significant effect on the CRC slump. As
the rubber exposure time to the NaOH solution increases, the solu-
tion penetrates the rubber particle and decreases its stiffness
rather than eroding its outer surface. This lesser stiffness of the
rubber particles at longer pre-treatment period has an insignificant
effect on the concrete workability.
Fig. 4(b) shows the variation of the CRC compressive strengths
at ages of 7 and 28 days. As shown in the figure, using non-
treated rubber particles in concrete mix M7 decreased its compres-
sive strength by 30.5% and 32.8% at 7 and 28 days, respectively,
compared with conventional concrete mix M1. However, the NaOH
pre-treatment of rubber was able to recover part of the strength
reduction as shown in Fig. 4(b). The most effective strength recov-
ery was observed when using 0.5 h pre-treated rubber in M2 that
resulted in compressive strength increase of 15.3% and 17.2% at 7
and 28 days, respectively, compared to non-treated rubber in M7,
but still a reduction of 19.8% and 21.3% at 7 and 28 days, respec-
tively, compared to the conventional concrete mix M1. The texture
and stiffness of the rubber particles by nature mainly affect the
CRC strength [9]. The relatively smooth texture of rubber particles
results in low bond between rubber particles and cement mortar.
The lower stiffness of rubber particles produces higher internal
tensile stresses that cause early failure in the cement mortar and
then strength reduction, and finally, the poor absorption of rubber
particles compared with sand reduces the penetration of the rub-
ber aggregate by cement paste which then results in poor rub-
ber/cement interface adhesion. Using NaOH pre-treatment for
rubber particles increases the roughness of their outer surface
which leads to increased adhesion between rubber and the sur-
rounding cement paste and hence strength increase. Increasing
the rubber pre-treatment period beyond 0.5 h in M8 and M9 had
a negative effect on compressive strength. The compressive
strengths at 7 and 28 days decreased by 6.9% and 8.3%, respec-
tively, for 1.0 h pre-treated rubber in M8 and by 10.2% and 11.6%,
respectively, for 2.0 h pre-treated rubber in M9 compared to
0.5 h pre-treated rubber in M2. This was attributed again to the
higher penetration of the NaOH solution into the rubber particles
that decreased their stiffness and hence decreased the overall stiff-
ness of the concrete matrix.
The effect of rubber pre-treatment period on CRC tensile
strength is shown in Fig. 4(c). This figure shows that the NaOH
pre-treatment of rubber in M2, M8, and M9 was able to recover
part but not all of the 34.1% tensile strength reduction caused by
using non-treated rubber in M7, and the tensile strength reduction
enhanced to only 24.4% compared with conventional concrete mix
M1. Increasing the rubber pre-treatment period for longer than
0.5 h in both M8 and M9 had no further effect on the tensile
strength.
From the above results, it can be concluded that the best rubber
pre-treatment period using 10% NaOH solution in this assessment
range is 0.5 h, as it resulted in higher compressive and tensile
strength compared to the other pre-treatment periods, and
improved the slump compared with conventional concrete by
about 22%.
3.2. Effect of silica fume additive
The effects on concrete slump, short and long term compressive
strength, and tensile strength of partially replacing cement by SF
additive were determined through comparison of the results of
mixes M1, M2, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14 and M15. Mixes M1,
M10, M12, and M14 are comparable in terms of the effect of
replacing 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of concrete cement by SF, respec-
tively, at no rubber content on concrete properties. Mixes M2,
M11, M13, and M15 are comparable in terms of the effect on
concrete properties of replacing 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of concrete
cement by SF, respectively, at 20% rubber content that was pre-
treated for 0.5 h using NaOH solution.
As shown in Fig. 5(a), at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% SF content, using
20% rubber (in concrete mixes M2, M11, M13, and M15) increased
the concrete slump 1.22, 1.27, 2.53 and 7.75 times, respectively,
compared with using 0% rubber (in concrete mixes M1, M10,
M12, and M14). This was again attributed to the increase in the
fineness modulus of the hydride aggregates overall (sand and rub-
ber). By increasing the SF content up to 5% the slumps of both CRC
and conventional concrete were not significantly affected. At 10%
and 15% SF contents, the CRC slump decreased by 20% (mix M13)
and 25% (mix M15), respectively, compared to 0% SF (mix M2).
However, at 10% and 15% SF contents, the conventional concrete
slump severely decreased by 62% (mix M12) and 88% (mix M14),
180 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183
Fig. 4. Effects of rubber pre-treatment on concrete: (a) slump, (b) 7 and 28 days
compressive strength, and (c) tensile strength.
respectively, compared to 0% SF (mix M1). The reduction in con-
crete workability with SF increase was attributed to the relatively
small particle size of the SF that increases the tendency of cement
particles to agglomerate in the paste, trapping some of the mixing
water and hence resulting in slump reduction.
Fig. 5(b) shows the effect of SF content on concrete compressive
strengths at 7 and 28 days. As shown in the figure, the patterns of
the compressive strength for the conventional concrete and CRC at
7 and 28 days are almost the same, with the compressive strength
decreasing as the SF content increased. However, the rate of
strength reduction in CRC was less than that in the conventional
Fig. 5. Effects of silica fume on concrete: (a) slump, (b) compressive strength, and
(c) tensile strength.
concrete. Compared to the CRC without SF, using 5%, 10%, and
15% SF (in mixes M11, M13, and M15, respectively) decreased
the CRC compressive strength by 10%, 14%, and 18%, respectively,
at 7 days; and by 6%, 11%, and 12%, respectively, at 28 days. Com-
pared to the conventional concrete without SF, using 5%, 10%, and
15% SF (in mixes M10, M12, and M14, respectively) decreased the
conventional concrete compressive strength by 1%, 15%, and 16%,
respectively, at 7 days. However, at 28 days concrete age, the con-
ventional concrete compressive strength slightly increased by 3%
for 5% SF and then decreased by 5% and 11% for 10% and 15% SF,
respectively, compared to the conventional concrete without SF.
Adding SF to concrete has physical and chemical effects that
could improve its strength. The physical effect is the micro filling
 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183 181

of the concrete voids by SF particles which improves the through comparison of the results of mixes M1, M2, M3, M4, M5
microstructure of the concrete matrix and results in more stronger and M6. Mixes M1, M3, and M5 are comparable in terms of the
and durable concrete. The chemical effect is the utilizing of effect of cement content on concrete properties containing no rub-
the whole or part of the calcium hydroxide generated during ber. Mixes M2, M4, and M6 are comparable in terms of the effect of
the hydration process of cement and producing calcium silicate cement content on concrete properties containing 20% rubber con-
hydrate. This calcium silicate hydrate is able to increase the tent. The cement contents used in this assessment were 300 kg/m3,
concrete compressive strength [44]. Previous researchers reported 350 kg/m3, and 400 kg/m3.
6–67% increase in concrete compressive strength when replacing As shown in Fig. 7(a), at 300 kg/m3 and 350 kg/m3 the CRC (M6
5–40% of cement by SF. According to the results of this research, and M2) showed slump 2.4 and 1.2 times that showed by the con-
at 5% SF, the compressive strength marginally enhanced or dimin- ventional concrete (M5 and M1), respectively. This was attributed
ished especially at 28 days; however, at higher SF contents, the to the increase of the fineness modulus that occurred by using
compressive strength decreased. This reduction may be due to
the amount of SF that was added being more than the required
amount for the filling mechanism and pozzolanic chemical action,
hence strength reduction occurred. More experimental research is
recommended using SF content of less than 5%.
Fig. 5(c) shows the effect of using SF on concrete tensile
strength which indicates that 5% SF improved the tensile strength
for the conventional concrete (mix M10) and the CRC (mix M11) by
5% and 10%, respectively. However, increasing SF content beyond
5% decreased the tensile strength for both the conventional con-
crete and the CRC.
In order to investigate the effect of SF at later ages on CRC com-
pressive strength, mixes M10 and M11 that included 5% SF were
tested at 56 and 84 days. Fig. 6 shows the evolution of the concrete
strength with time. As shown in the figure, the increase in the com-
pressive strength at ages longer than 28 days was insignificant.
However, the rate of the CRC compressive strength increase at
84 days was slightly higher than that of the conventional concrete.
At 84 days, the compressive strength increased by 4% for the
conventional concrete mix M10 and by 7% for the CRC mix M11,
compared to the corresponding 28 day compressive strengths.
ACI 234-96 [45] suggests that the main contribution of silica fume
to concrete strength development takes place between about
3–28 days and that the contribution of silica fume to strength
development after 28 days is minimal.
From the above results and based on this assessment range, it
can be concluded that using SF to replace part of the cement with
the intention of enhancing CRC performance was not effective and
in fact resulted in some negative effects on the concrete slump and
compressive strength, with only a very marginal improvement in
tensile strength at 5% SF.

3.3. Effect of cement content

The effects of cement content on concrete slump, 7 and 28 day

compressive strength, and tensile strength were determined

Fig. 7. Effects of cement content on concrete: (a) slump, (b) 7 and 28 day
Fig. 6. Evolution of concrete compressive strength for 5% SF content. compressive strength, and (c) tensile strength.
182 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183
rubber with higher fineness modulus than the replaced sand. At
400 kg/m3 the CRC (M4) showed slump 0.9 times that showed by
the conventional concrete (M3). This slump reduction was attribu-
ted to the reduction in the aggregates to cement ratio at a given
concrete volume compared to lower cement contents (300 kg/m3
and 350 kg/m3). This increased the effect of the cement paste
rather than the concrete aggregates’ fineness modulus because
the quantity of cement paste that became available for providing
lubrication per unit surface area of aggregate increased. However,
the irregular shape and surface texture of rubber particles in addi-
tion to their low adhesion with cement compared to sand particles
resulted in slower mobility of the concrete matrix and hence slump
reduction. Although the increase of cement content increased con-
crete slump as shown in Fig. 7(a), this increase was less significant
in the CRC compared to the conventional concrete. Compared to
300 kg/m3 (M5 and M6), using 350 kg/m3 and 400 kg/m3, increased
slump by 34 and 46 times (M1 and M3), respectively, for the con-
ventional concrete and by 17 and 18 times (M2 and M4), respec-
tively, for the CRC. This indicated that increasing cement content
in CRC mixes beyond 350 kg/m3 is not worthwhile in terms of
enhancing its workability.
Fig. 7(b) shows the effect of cement content on concrete com-
pressive strengths at 7 and 28 days. As shown in the figure, the pat-
terns of the compressive strength for the conventional concrete
and CRC at 7 and 28 days are the same, namely that the compres-
sive strength increased with cement content increase, as expected.
However, the rate of strength increase in the CRC was higher than
that in the conventional concrete. Compared to 300 kg/m3 (M5 and
M6), using 350 and 400 kg/m3 increased the compressive strength
by 7% and 13% (M1 and M3), respectively, for the conventional con-
crete at 7 days and by 13% and 19% (M2 and M4), respectively, for
CRC at 7 days. At 28 days these increases were 6% and 11%, respec-
tively, for the conventional concrete and 20% and 31%, respectively,
for CRC. The higher rate of strength increase using rubber was
attributed to the low water absorption of rubber compared to sand
[22]. This provides more water for cement hydration reaction and
early curing, hence rapid strength development. In the case of CRC,
increasing the cement content from 300 to 350 kg/m3 was more
significant than from 350 to 400 kg/m3. Using 400 kg/m3 increased
the CRC compressive strength by only 5% and 9% at 7 and 28 days,
respectively, compared to compressive strength using 350 kg/m3.
On the other hand, the compressive strength increased by 13%
and 20% at 7 and 28 days, respectively, when the cement content
increased from 300 to 350 kg/m3. This was attributed to the fact
that the cement paste fills the voids between the aggregates in
the concrete matrix. Using rubber in concrete increases its voids
(air content) [46] compared to conventional concrete with the
same mixing and compacting conditions. This indicates that CRC
needs more cement to fill these voids. However, the nature of
the rubber surface texture and the low cement/rubber interface
adhesion keeps the voids around rubber particles constant with
increasing cement content. Thus, once the cement content reached
the required minimum amount to fill other voids, the effect of
increasing its content was less significant [47].
Due to the high correlation between the concrete compressive
and tensile strengths, the effect of cement content on the tensile
strength was almost the same as that on the compressive strength,
as shown in Fig. 7(c). For the CRC, the tensile strength increased by
7% with cement content increase from 300 to 350 kg/m3. Beyond
that, increasing cement content had no significant effect on CRC
tensile strength.
From the above results, it can be concluded that the best
cement content in this assessment range that enhanced the CRC
performance was 350 kg/m3 as it showed the highest significant
improvement in concrete slump, compressive strength and tensile
strength. Cement content higher than 350 kg/m3 was able to
further improve the CRC performance but not at a significant
enough rate to warrant the increased cost that might be incurred.
3.4. Recommendations for CRC mix design
Based on the results obtained in this experimental study, the
most significant improvements in the CRC fresh and hardened
mechanical performance for a CRC mix containing 20% rubber
replacement of sand volume resulted from 0.5 h pre-treatment
period with NaOH, 0% SF content, and 350 kg/m3 cement content.
The target conventional concrete compressive strength of 50 MPa
was reduced to 42.1 MPa and the slump increased from 170 mm
to 207 mm. The crumb rubber used in the mix had two particle
sizes of 1.18 and 2.36 mm with a sieve analysis as shown in
Fig. 1. The recommended design of the CRC mix is:
Cement = 350 kg/m3 W/C = 0.5
Superplasticizer = 1.8% by cement weight Sand = 693 kg/m3
Dolomite 10 mm = 311 kg/m3 Dolomite
20 mm = 727 kg/m3
Pre-treated rubber for 0.5 h in 10% NaOH solution = 55.5 kg/m3
4. Summary and conclusions
This paper investigates the mechanical properties of fifteen CRC
mixes aiming to assess the mechanical performance of a 20% rub-
ber content CRC mix by measuring the effect of the rubber pre-
treatment period, SF content, and cement content on its slump,
short and long term compressive strength, and tensile strength.
The results of this investigation are summarised as follows:
1. Using 20% rubber in concrete increased the concrete slump by
1.22, 1.27, 2.53 and 7.75 times that of 0% rubber mixes at 0%,
5%, 10%, and 15% SF content, respectively.
2. Pre-treatment of rubber particles for 0.5 h in 10% NaOH solution
was the best pre-treatment period in this study. It increased the
CRC slump by 22% compared to the conventional concrete
slump. In addition it recovered 15.3% and 17.2% of the compres-
sive strength lost by using non-treated rubber at 7 and 28 days,
respectively. Furthermore, it increased the CRC tensile strength
by 15% compared to non-treated rubber. Increasing the rubber
pre-treatment period more than 0.5 h had no significant effect
on the concrete slump and tensile strength and it decreased
the compressive strength.
3. Using SF as partial replacement of cement was not useful and
showed some negative effects on the concrete slump and com-
pressive strength. It also made negligible improvement on the
long term compressive strength.
4. The cement content that most enhanced the CRC performance
in this study was 350 kg/m3. It showed the highest significant
improvement in concrete slump, compressive strength and ten-
sile strength. Although cement content greater than 350 kg/m3
was able to improve the CRC performance slightly further, the
rate of improvement was not significant. At 300 kg/m3,
350 kg/m3, and 400 kg/m3 cement contents, the CRC showed
slump 2.4, 1.2, and 0.9 times, respectively, that shown by the
conventional concrete. The CRC compressive and tensile
strengths at 28 day increased by 20% and 7%, respectively, with
cement content increase from 300 to 350 kg/m3. Beyond that,
the increases in the compressive and tensile strengths were less
significant and not worthwhile economically.
5. Based on the results obtained in this experimental study, the
recommended design of the CRC mix is 350 kg/m3 cement
content, 0.5 water to binder ratio, 693 kg/m3 sand, 55.5 kg/m3
 O. Youssf et al. / Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 175–183
pre-treated crumb rubber for 0.5 h in 10% NaOH solution,
311 kg/m3 of 10 mm dolomite, 727 kg/m3 of 20 mm dolomite,
and superplasticizer dosage of 1.8% by cement weight.
A cost analysis of the proposed CRC assessment is planned to be
undertaken by the authors in future work. The upfront cost inves-
tigation of the CRC shows that it is slightly more expensive than
the conventional concrete depending on the availability of shred-
ded tyres and their local price. However, looking at the life cycle
cost, a rubberized concrete structure can provide cost effectiveness
performance compared to a conventional concrete structure [48].
This is due to the advantages of using rubber in concrete that
including lower maintenance cost, providing environmentally-
friendly solutions in structures with high dynamic properties,
increasing the structure sustainability, saving energy and natural
resources, and reducing/eliminating the adverse effects of dump-
ing end-of-life tyres to land fill.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the donation of the follow-
ing: sand by Premix Concrete SA Pty. Ltd, aggregate by Hallett Con-
crete Australia Pty. Ltd, cement by Adelaide Brighton Cement Pty.
Ltd, superplasticizer by BASF Construction Chemicals Australia
Pty. Ltd. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of the fol-
lowing Honours’ students who assisted in the experimental work
reported in this paper: William Tiong, Yang Wang, and Licheng
Yang.
References
[1] K.S. Son, I. Hajirasouliha, K. Pilakoutas, Strength and deformability of waste
tyre rubber-filled reinforced concrete columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (1)
(2011) 218–226.
[2] T. Gupta, S. Chaudhary, R.K. Sharma, Assessment of mechanical and durability
properties of concrete containing waste rubber tire as fine aggregate, Constr.
Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 562–574.
[3] G. Li, G. Garrick, J. Eggers, C. Abadie, M.A. Stubblefield, S.S. Pang, Waste tire
fiber modified concrete, Compos. B Eng. 35 (4) (2004) 305–312.
[4] A.O. Atahan, A.Ö. Yücel, Crumb rubber in concrete: static and dynamic
evaluation, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 617–622.
[5] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, Mechanical and dynamic properties of self-compacting
crumb rubber modified concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (1) (2012) 521–530.
[6] M.M. Al-Tayeb, B.H. Abu Bakar, H. Ismail, H.M. Akil, Effect of partial
replacement of sand by recycled fine crumb rubber on the performance of
hybrid rubberized-normal concrete under impact load: experiment and
simulation, J. Clean. Prod. 59 (2013) 284–289.
[7] A.O. Atahan, U.K. Sevim, Testing and comparison of concrete barriers
containing shredded waste tire chips, Mater. Lett. 62 (21–22) (2008) 3754–
3757.
[8] M. Bravo, J. de Brito, Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: durability-
related performance, J. Clean. Prod. 25 (2012) 42–50.
[9] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, X. Ma, An experimental investigation of
crumb rubber concrete confined by fibre reinforced polymer tubes, Constr.
Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 522–532.
[10] G.N. Kumar, V. Sandeep, C. Sudharani, Using tyres wastes as aggregates in
concrete to form rubcrete–mix for engineering applications, Int. J. Res. Eng.
Technol. 3 (11) (2014) 500–509.
[11] H. Huynh, D. Raghavan, Durability of simulated shredded rubber tire in highly
alkaline environments, Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 6 (3–4) (1997) 138–143.
[12] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Experimental Investigation of Crumb
Rubber Concrete Columns Under Seismic Loading, Elsevier, Structures, 2015,
pp. 13–27.
[13] M. Elchalakani, High strength rubberized concrete containing silica fume for
the construction of sustainable road side barriers, Structures 1 (2015) 20–38.
[14] D. Fedroff, S. Ahmad, B.Z. Savas, Mechanical properties of concrete with ground
waste tire rubber, Trans. Res. Rec. J. Trans. Res. Board 1532 (-1) (1996) 66–72.
[15] E. Ganjian, M. Khorami, A.A. Maghsoudi, Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for
aggregate and filler in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (5) (2009) 1828–1836.
[16] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized Portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 11 (3) (1999) 206–213.
183
[17] T.C. Ling, Effects of compaction method and rubber content on the properties
of concrete paving blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1) (2012) 164–175.
[18] M. Balaha, A. Badawy, M. Hashish, Effect of using ground waste tire rubber as
fine aggregate on the behaviour of concrete mixes, Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 14
(6) (2007) 427.
[19] N.N. Eldin, A.B. Senouci, Rubber-tire particles as concrete aggregate, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 5 (4) (1993) 478–496.
[20] F. Pelisser, N. Zavarise, T.A. Longo, A.M. Bernardin, Concrete made with
recycled tire rubber: effect of alkaline activation and silica fume addition, J.
Clean. Prod. 19 (6) (2011) 757–763.
[21] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoğlu, T. Özturan, Properties of rubberized concretes
containing silica fume, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (12) (2004) 2309–2317.
[22] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, K. Vessalas, Enhancing mechanical performance of
rubberised concrete pavements with sodium hydroxide treatment, Mater.
Struct. 1–15 (2015).
[23] D.M. Hamza, R.H. Ghedan, Effect of rubber treatment on compressive strength
and thermal conductivity of modified rubberized concrete, J. Eng. Dev. 15 (4)
(2011) 21–29.
[24] N. Deshpande, S.S. Kulkarni, T. Pawar, V. Gunde, Experimental investigation on
strength characteristics of concrete using tyre rubber as aggregates in
concrete, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. Dev. 4 (2) (2014) 97–108.
[25] S. Tian, T. Zhang, Y. Li, Research on modifier and modified process for rubber-
particle used in rubberized concrete for road, Adv. Mater. Res. 243–249 (2011)
4125–4130.
[26] G. Li, M.A. Stubblefield, G. Garrick, J. Eggers, C. Abadie, B. Huang, Development
of waste tire modified concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (12) (2004) 2283–2289.
[27] A. Turatsinze, S. Bonnet, J.-L. Granju, Potential of rubber aggregates to modify
properties of cement based-mortars: improvement in cracking shrinkage
resistance, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (1) (2007) 176–181.
[28] C. Albano, N. Camacho, J. Reyes, J.L. Feliu, M. Hernández, Influence of scrap
rubber addition to Portland I concrete composites: destructive and non-
destructive testing, Compos. Struct. 71 (3–4) (2005) 439–446.
[29] Standards Australia, General purpose and blended cements, AS 3972, 2010.
[30] F. Pacheco-Torgal, Y. Ding, S. Jalali, Properties and durability of concrete
containing polymeric wastes (tyre rubber and polyethylene terephthalate
bottles): An overview, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 714–724.
[31] L.H. Chou, C.N. Lin, C.K. Lu, C.H. Lee, M.T. Lee, Improving rubber concrete by
waste organic sulfur compounds, Waste Manage. Res. 28 (1) (2010) 29–35.
[32] T. Naik, S. Singh, Utilization of Discarded Tyres as Construction Materials for
Transportation Facilities Report No. CBU-1991-02, 16, UWM Centre for by-
products utilization, University of Wiscosin, Milwaukee, 1991.
[33] N. Oiknomou, M. Stefanidou, S. Mavridou, Improvement of the bonding
between rubber tire particles and cement paste in cement products (2006)
234–42.
[34] N. Segre, I. Joekes, Use of tire rubber particles as addition to cement paste,
Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (9) (2000) 1421–1425.
[35] R. Siddique, T.R. Naik, Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber-an
overview, Waste Manage. 24 (6) (2004) 563–569.
[36] T. Naik, S. Singh, R. Wendorf, Applications of Scrap Tire Rubber in Asphaltic
Materials: State of the Art Assessment A Technical Report, Wisconsin DNR,
Center for By-Products Utilization, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 1994.
[37] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, An overview of sustainable concrete made with
scrap rubber, The 22nd Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials (ACMSM 22), CRC Press, 2012, pp. 1039–1044.
[38] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Static cyclic behaviour of FRP-confined
crumb rubber concrete columns, Eng. Struct. 113 (2016) 371–387.
[39] Standards Australia, Methods for testing concrete, Preparation of concrete
mixes in the laboratory AS 1012.2, 1994.
[40] Standards Australia, Methods for testing concrete, Determination of properties
related to the consistency of concrete—Slump test AS 1012.3.1, 2014.
[41] Standards Australia, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates, Method for
making and curing concrete – compression and indirect tensile test specimens,
AS1012.8.1, 2000.
[42] Standards Australia, Methods of testing concrete – Compressive strength tests
– Concrete, mortar and grout specimens, AS 1012.9, 2014.
[43] Standards Australia, Methods for testing concrete, Determination of indirect
tensile strength of concrete cylinders (Brasil or splitting test), AS 1012.10,
2000.
[44] Neville A.M. Properties of Concrete Book, fifth ed., 1996.
[45] ACI-234-96, Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, 1996.
[46] M. Nehdi, A. Khan, Cementitious composites containing recycled tire rubber:
an overview of engineering properties and potential applications, Cem. Concr.
Aggr. 23 (1) (2001) 3–10.
[47] P. Taylor, F. Bektas, E. Yurdakul, H. Ceylan, Optimizing Cementitious Content in
Concrete Mixtures for Required Performance, 2012.
[48] J. Van Kirk, G. Holleran, Reduced thickness asphalt rubber concrete leads to
cost effective pavement rehabilitation, in: 1st International Conference World
of Pavements, Sydney, Australia, 2000.