Fracture of concrete containing crumb rubber.
Grinys, Audrius ; Sivilevicius, Henrikas ; Pupeikis, Darius 等
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Grinys, A.;
Sivilevicius, H.; Pupeikis, D.; Ivanauskas, E. 2013. Fracture of
concrete containing crumb rubber, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management 19(3): 447-455.
Introduction
Every year, colossal amounts of used tyres are accumulated in the
world. Waste tyres do not decompose through natural processes. In the
United States alone, 275 million of tyres are disposed of each year
(Papakonstantinou, Tobolski 2006); and in Europe, used tyres amount to
180 million. English researcher Martin (2001) found that 37 million of
used tyres were disposed of in the UK in 2001. It was also found that in
2001, from 37 million waste tyres 11% were exported, 62% were reserved
for future use, recycled or used for heat recovery, whereas 27% were
accumulated in legal landfills and disposed of illegally in human
surroundings. In less developed countries, the environmental pollution
with waste tyres is much more significant.
Highway construction provides a significant market potential for
waste tyre recycling. Extensive studies have been conducted on crumb
rubber modified asphalt. Starting with 1995, all United States of
America are required to deliver an equivalent of 5% of their annual
federally funded paving projects using tyre rubber modified asphalt. In
1998, 20% of the federally funded paving projects were required to use
rubber-modified asphalt.
However, these requirements have been postponed due to the high
cost of crumb rubber production as well as time and efforts required for
incorporation of the rubber into asphalt paving mixes using the
so-called 'wet' process (Segre et al. 2006). The consumption
of waste tyres in asphalt pavement construction varies from state to
state, with the maximum consumption of 20%. In their studies, other
researchers suggested adding crumb tyre rubber to hot-mixed asphalt
(Azevedo et al. 2012; Mohammad et al. 2011; Navarro, Gamez 2012; Rahman
et al. 2012; Uzun, Terzi 2012). It is used well as bitumen additive
(Dong et al. 2011; Putman, Amizkhanian 2010; Xiaoqing et al. 2009; Zhang
et al. 2010).
Owing to the problems associated with waste tyre modified asphalt,
more and more attention has been given to waste tyre modified Portland
cement concrete. As opposed to waste tyre modified asphalt, which
requires for the wet process, waste tyre modified concrete utilizes the
low costing 'dry' process, with a portion of aggregates
replaced by waste tyre rubber. Such concrete is very tough, which is
highly desirable, as conventional concrete is a brittle material. High
toughness suggests that the modified concrete has higher cracking and
fracture resistance (Papakonstantinou, Tobolski 2006; Skripkiunas et al.
2007).
The most efficient way of increasing the fracture energy [G.sub.F]
(N/m) of concrete (BaZant 2002) is the use of metal or polypropylene
fibre. The optimum fibre content increases the resistance of concrete to
tensile stress. Fibres prevent brittle damage of concrete, thus, after
maximum stress the concrete continues to retain certain deformation load
and there is no sudden drop in load (Centonze et al. 2012). Rubber
admixture could be used in concrete as an alternative to metal or
polypropylene fibres. Due to certain specific characteristics, these
admixtures could intercept certain tensile stresses in concrete and
ensure more plastic fracture. Such concrete would need much higher
fracture energy (Grinys et al. 2012).
Benazzouk et al. (2007) analyzed fracture mechanics of hardened
concrete modified with different content of waste rubber. They noticed
that rubber admixtures reduced concrete brittleness and increased
plasticity by creating larger plastic deformations in concrete. Batayneh
et al. (2008) obtained large plastic deformations above threshold stress
intensities in concrete with waste rubber admixtures. Atahan and Yiicel
(2012) noticed that increasing the amount of rubber decreases the
compressive strength and elastic modulus of the concrete, while
significantly increasing impact time and energy dissipation capacity. It
was determined that replacing 20-40% of aggregates with crumb rubber
created concrete mixes that could be useful for concrete safety barriers
in locations with high demands for strength, fracture resistance and
energy dissipation. Authors (Sukontasukkul, Chaikaew 2005; Tlemat et al.
2006) calculated concrete fracture energy from stress-strain diagrams
and 3-point bend test. Thai researchers Sukontasukkul and Chaikaew
(2005) determined that compared to reference concretes, much higher
fracture energy was required for the fracture of concretes modified with
waste rubber. Segre et al. (2006) performed a detailed analysis of
fatigue crack development under tensile stress in concretes modified
with waste rubber admixture. Subsequent to a microscopic analysis, Segre
et al. (2006) noticed that cracks developed with growing tensile stress,
and these cracks usually occurred along the contact zone of rubber
particle and cement matrix. They also found that specimens with waste
rubber admixture withstood tensile stress of certain intensities and
resisted to the development of wider cracks. American researchers
Kumaran et al. (2008) found that concretes with waste rubber admixture
absorbed much higher fracture energy compared to concretes without waste
rubber admixture. Taha et al. (2008) observed that the fracture
toughness of rubber modified concrete increased considerably with rubber
content, where the maximum increase was at 75% vol. rubber replacement,
which resulted in a 350% increase in comparison with the base reference
mix (compared to an 132% increase at 25% vol. replacement). These
findings are in general agreement with several other studies (Najim,
Hall 2010; Sukontasukkul, Chaikaew 2006; Turatsinze et al. 2005; Turgut,
Yesilata 2008).
The addition of chipped rubber aggregate can also increase impact
resistance substantially in both the first crack and failure stages (Liu
et al. 2012; Najim, Hall 2010). However, the crack width and propagation
is larger in comparison with natural aggregate concrete. This behaviour
presumably results from the higher strain rate, which leads, in turn, to
an increase in energy absorption. In experiments designed to explore
this behaviour, crack width propagation was found to be 187% greater
when shredded tyre chips were used as 100% wt coarse aggregates
replacement (Atahan, Sevim 2008; Najim, Hall 2010).
Interestingly, rubberized concrete toughness appears to be greater
than that of ordinary concrete, where for a 20% volume crumb rubber
replacement (for both fine aggregates and coarse aggregates) the highest
'post-peak response' was recorded and the peak load decreased,
which caused a considerable reduction in fracture energy (Sukontasukkul,
Chaikaew 2006).
Rubberized concrete (RC) has also been found to have greater
ductility than plain concrete, since the higher strain rates permit much
greater plastic deformation before the yield point (Snelson et al.
2009). Zheng et al. (2008) reported that since the ductility performance
of RC (using chipped rubber) was higher than normal concrete, it had a
lower brittleness index (Topcu et al. 1997) than conventional concrete.
The highest result was achieved when the replacement was 15% wt total
aggregate using both fine aggregates and coarse aggregates replacement.
Ho et al. (2012) estimated that brittleness of concrete composite
decreased with the addition of rubber aggregates. Brittle index
decreases with the increase of rubber content in the concrete and it is
almost zero for a concrete composite containing 40% of rubber aggregate
content. Also, Ho et al. (2012) observed that kinetics of fracture
process of rubberized concrete were slow in comparison to concrete
without rubber aggregates. Benazzouk et al. (2007) have reported that
the incorporation of rubber particles decreased brittle index values at
rubber additive level of beyond 10%. They established that 10% was an
optimal rubber content, which characterized the transition from brittle
to ductile material and reflected an increase in plastic deformation
energy. The decrease in brittleness index became even greater as rubber
content increased. Typical crack/rubber interaction in concrete
specimens with rubber particles after failure, are shown in Figure 1. As
demonstrated, the crack was stopped by the rubber particles leading to
crack pinning and crack arrest.
Graeff et al. (2012) investigated fatigue resistance and cracking
mechanism of concrete pavements reinforced with recycled steel fibres
recovered from post-consumer tyres. Authors found that specimens
reinforced with recycled fibres could sustain higher stress levels than
plain concrete, as well as have longer service life.
The objective of the work was to analyze the effect of fine
composition of the elastic aggregate made from crumb rubber (CR) on the
fracture properties of concrete under the static load.
1. Materials and methods
In order to determine the effect of CR on hardened concrete
properties, the research authors used several different concrete
mixtures: without CR and concrete with different amount of rubber
fraction and waste additive.
The research used Portland cement CEM I 42.5R produced in Akmenes
Cementas (Lithuania) according to the European standard EN 197-1. Water
content for normal consistency cement slurry was 24.5% and fineness of
cement--371 [m.sup.2]/kg. As a fine aggregate, 0/4 sand fraction was
used. Part of the fine aggregate of this mixture was replaced by a CR
from used tyres (5, 10, 20 and 30% from aggregate by mass). The coarse
aggregate used crushed gravel 4/16. Coarse aggregate content in all
concrete mixtures was the same--949 kg for one cubic meter of concrete.
In the mixtures, plasticizing admixture at 0.5% of the cement content
was used. The plasticizing admixture based on policarboxile polymers was
used with density of solution 1040 kg/[m.sup.3].
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Mechanically crumbed rubber from used tyres was used in the
mixtures. CR was classified to three different fractions: fine size 0/1
mm fraction (CR 0/1), 1/2 mm fraction (CR 1/2) and the largest up to 3
mm rubber particle grain size of 2/3 mm fraction (CR 2/3). CR was
produced in JSC 'Metaloidas' (Siauliai, Lithuania), with
density of 1021 kg/[m.sup.3].
To determine the properties of the concrete fracture, 100 x 100 x
400 prisms were formed. All specimens were cured for 28 days in standard
conditions. After curing, an artificial crack of 10 mm in depth was
formed in a centre of all specimens, using a circular saw. All fracture
tests were performed using an automatic hydraulic press 'Toni
Technik'. Concrete fractures with CR were analyzed under the
three-point bending load, determining the deflection and load-crack
mouth opening displacement (CMOD). Deformations were measured using two
displacement transducers fixed to the press; therefore, the deflection
and load-crack mouth opening displacement of the samples were measured
at the same time (Figs 2 and 3).
Based on Hilleborg's concrete fracture analysis, the work
([W.sub.F]) was calculated from available deflection and CMOD curves
[sigma]-[epsilon] by using area computation software 'Origin'
in the samples with different CR additive content and different grain
size and in control samples. Fracture energy ([G.sub.F]) required for
the complete failure of the samples was calculated using Eqn (1):
[G.sub.F] = [W.sub.F]/b(D - [a.sub.0])' (1)
where: [W.sub.F]--the work [J]; b--the sample thickness [m];
D-[a.sub.0]--the length of the fragmentation plane [m] (D--the sample
height [m]; [a.sub.0]--the artificial crack depth [m]).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In CR concretes, for determining deflection and load-crack mouth
opening displacement, mixtures were prepared using 0, 5, 10, 20 and 30%
of aggregate mass, replacing part of sand by waste rubber. Proportions
of the concrete mixtures are presented in Table 1. Quality control of
concrete mixtures was checked using Cattaneo's method (Cattaneo,
Mola 2012).
For concrete mixture, it was found that due to segregation of
aggregates, concrete lost homogeneity when using the 2/3 fraction at 30%
of rubber waste additive. Consequently, the concrete mixture No. R 2/
3_30 was no longer used in further experiments.
2. Results and discussion
Deformation limits in CR modified concretes subjected to tensile
stress make up 60-80% of the maximal tensile strength in contrast to
compressive stress (30%); after elastic deformations are exceeded, there
are much lower plastic deformations before the destruction of concrete
occurs. Due to these reasons, the conglomerate experiences natural
brittleness under tensile stress in contrast to compressive stress.
Concrete fracturing under load occurs due to the development of cracks.
Most researchers (Bazant 2002; Hillerborg et al. 1976), analyze concrete
fracture as the intensity of crack development and the critical crack
size.
Several fracture parameters were analyzed: crack mouth opening
displacement (Hillerborg et al. 1976) and deflection, while fracture
energy GF was calculated according to the idealized crack model
(Hillerborg et al. 1976). As a specimen is loaded more than the peak
load, under CMOD-control, a fracture process zone forms (FPZ) at the tip
of the crack. The FPZ is a zone in which the matrix is intensively
cracked. Along the FPZ there is a discontinuity in displacements, but
not in stresses. The stresses are themselves a function of the crack
opening displacement (COD). At the tip of the FPZ, the tensile stress is
equal to the tensile strength, and it is gradually reduced to zero at
the tip of the artificial crack.
Concrete is a brittle material with low resistance to tensile
stress and low absorption of energy generated during these stresses.
Metal or polypropylene fibres are most often used to improve the tensile
stress resistance. Using CR could be one of the possible ways to
increase concrete resistance to tensile stress. The resistance of CR to
tensile loads is approximately three times greater than cement matrix
resistance. The effect of rubber admixture on concrete deflection and
crack mouth opening displacement under tensile stress was analyzed. To
this end, different rubber particle sizes and CR contents were tested.
Reference concrete specimens without the CR were tested in parallel. The
relationship between tensile stress, CMOD and deflection depending on
the size of rubber particles are presented in Figures 4-9.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
The functions of stress and deformations (Figs 4-9) clearly
demonstrate that reference specimens without CR undergo the highest
fracture stress. The calculated fracture strength was 6.49 MPa in
specimens unmodified with CR and subjected to tensile stress, whereas in
CR modified specimens, the critical strength ranged from 5.34 to 2.15
MPa. The functions presented in Figures 4-9 demonstrate that peak
strength under three-point bending load reduce, when higher CR content
and smaller CR fraction in concrete specimens were used. However, it was
obtained that concrete specimens with CR fracture were more plastic
because of greater plastic deformations.
The plasticity of concrete fracture may be evaluated by residual
strength at 500 [micro]m CMOD and deflection. The fracture results of
concrete specimens with CR are presented in Tables 2 and 3. It was found
that concrete specimens with CR 2/3 fraction required much greater
fracture energy for complete sample destruction compared to unmodified
specimens. It was determined that depending on the amount of CR, the
specimens withstood tensile stresses of 0.22-0.48 MPa in the presence of
500 mm deflection deformation, while in the presence of 500 mm crack
mouth opening, the specimens withstood 0.53-0.73 MPa stress (Table 2).
Meanwhile, unmodified specimens completely break when reaching 200
[micro]m of deflection and 200 [micro]m of crack.
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Similar fracture results were observed when 1/2 and 0/1 fraction CR
were used. The tests showed that lower maximum strains developed in
concretes with CR 1/2 compared to concretes with a CR 2/3. From Figures
5 and 8, we may see that depending on the rubber content, the maximum
strains in concrete with CR 1/2 reduced approximately 2.5 times compared
to the reference specimens, from 6.49 MPa (reference specimen) to 3.6
MPa (30% rubber of 1/2 fraction).
We observed that concretes modified with CR 2/3 behaved the same as
concretes with CR 1/2, and subject to the CR content withstood 0.47-1.18
MPa stress after the development of 500 mm crack. We also observed that
residual strength of concrete at 500 mm crack or 500 mm deflection
increases with the increase of CR 1/2 content. Figures 6 and 9
illustrate the bending stress induced fracture of concrete modified with
mechanically crushed CR 0/1. The fracture of concrete modified with this
CR is much more plastic compared to unmodified concretes. The figures
show that higher content of the finest size CR significantly reduces the
maximum strains and the strains diminish in direct proportion to the
higher content of CR admixture. Specimens with CR 0/1, as well as
specimens containing CR 1/2 and CR 2/3, showed that concrete fracture
gradually continued after the maximum load was exceeded; there was no
abrupt postpeak load drop at a bigger crack opening or bigger deflection
and, depending on the content of CR, the residual strength of concrete
at 0.5 mm crack opening was 1.65 MPa.
Based on the Idealized Cohesive Zone Model, Hillerborg together
with RILEM Committee proposed a practical methodology to calculate the
fracture energy [G.sub.F] (N/m) (Bazant 2002). A crack opening
displacement (COD) is measured by a special sensor in the bending test.
The work used for concrete destruction is calculated from the
stress-strain curve. The fracture energy of the specimen is obtained by
dividing the work by the fracture surface area. Based on
Hillerborg's concrete fracture tests, the work ([W.sub.F]) was
calculated with computation software Origin from the fracture.
It was determined that [W.sub.F] and [G.sub.F] changed depending on
the CR. Concrete unmodified with rubber required 85 N/m energy for crack
development under tensile loads, whereas CR modified concretes required
3.5-5.4 times higher fracture energy of 296 N/m to 452 N/m to develop
the same fracture crack. The amount of energy required for the
development of deflection in rubber modified concretes is presented in
Table 3. According to the obtained results, 2.3 times higher fracture
energy is required for the deformation of rubber modified specimens
compared to reference specimens. Calculation results (Table 3) showed
that in the process of concrete fracture, that is, the development of
specimen deflection and crack opening caused by tensile stress, the
lowest fracture energy is used in specimens without CR. When concrete is
modified with CR, the fracture energy increases by 3.5-5.4 times.
The tests showed that the highest fracture energy (453.86 N/m) was
used to destroy the specimen made of concrete with the CR of 2/3
fraction added at 10% of the total aggregate content. Similar fracture
energy is used in specimens modified with the CR of 0/1 fraction added
at 5% of the total aggregate content.
The most effective way to increase the fracture energy
[G.sub.F](N/m) is to use metal or polypropylene fibre (Centonze et al.
2012). Augonis et al. (2007) calculated fracture energy [G.sub.F] of
concrete with metal and polypropylene fibres. It was demonstrated that
fracture energy of concrete reinforced by metal fibres was 505-1422 N/m
depending on the amount and type of the metal fibres in concrete mixture
(11-20 kg/[m.sup.3]), while fracture energy of the concrete beams
reinforced by polypropylene fibres was 368-684 N/m depending on the
amount of the polypropylene fibres in concrete mixture (2-8
kg/[m.sup.3]).
Augonis et al. (2007) estimated dependence of concrete reinforced
by fibres deflection upon loading is showed in Figures 10 and 11. As
demonstrated, the optimal amount of added fibres increased the
resistance of concrete to tensile stresses (especially tensile stresses
under bending loads). The fracturing of fibre modified concrete is not
brittle and gradually continues after the maximum load is exceeded, and
there is no abrupt post-peak load drop.
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
The test results indicate that CR could be used as an alternative
to metal and polypropylene fibres. It was proved that due to their
specific characteristics CR can intercept the tensile stress in concrete
and make the deformation more plastic. Such concrete requires much
higher fracture energy.
Conclusions
1. The fracture strength under three-point bending load was 6.49
MPa in specimens unmodified with CR and subjected to tensile stress,
whereas in CR modified specimens, the critical strength decreased
between 17% and 67%. It was determined that peak load under three-point
bending load reduces with higher CR content and smaller size of rubber
particles.
2. The plasticity of concrete fracture may be evaluated by the
residual strength at 500 mm CMOD and deflection. It was found that
subject to the amount and particle size of CR, the specimens withstood
tensile stresses of 0.22-0.97 MPa in the presence of 500 mm deflection
deformations, and in the presence of 500 mm crack mouth opening, the
specimens withstood 0.47-1.65 MPa stress, while unmodified specimens
completely broke under 200 [micro]m deflection and 200 [micro]m crack.
3. Concrete samples unmodified with CR required 85 N/m energy to
fracture under tensile loads, while CR modified concretes specimens
required 3.5-5.4 times higher fracture energy of 296 N/m to 454 N/m to
fracture the samples.
4. Every year, colossal amounts of used and nonbiodegradable rubber
tyres are accumulated in the world. Utilization of this type of waste
has not yet been solved. The modification of cement concrete mixtures
with CR from used tyres allows producing concrete with specific
properties and resolving the issue pertaining to utilization of such
waste. The test results indicated that CR can intercept the tensile
stress in concrete and make the deformation more plastic. Fracturing of
such conglomerate concrete is not brittle, there is no abrupt post-peak
load drop and gradually continues after the maximum load is exceeded.
Such concrete requires much higher fracture energy and could be used as
an alternative to metal and polypropylene fibres.
5. To optimally improve the fracture mechanism of concrete,
recommended dosage of CR in concrete is up to 10% of the aggregate mass
and coarser particle size of CR. With lower amounts and coarser particle
size of CR, the bending strength results decreased, although smaller
amounts of CR demonstrated the best improvement of fracture energy.
doi: 10.3846/13923730.2013.782335
References
Atahan, A. O.; Sevim, U. K. 2008. Testing and comparison of
concrete barriers containing shredded waste tire chips, Materials
Letters 62(21-22): 3754-3757.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.04.068
Atahan, A. O.; Yucel, A. O. 2012. Crumb rubber in concrete: static
and dynamic evaluation, Construction and Building Materials 36: 617-622.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.068
Augonis, A.; Augonis, M.; Stuopys, A.; Ziliukas, A. 2007.
Peculiarities of behaviour of FRC beams under threepoint bending load,
in Proc. of the 4th International Conference "Strength, Durability
and Stability of Materials and Structures" (SDSMS'04), 11-13
September 2007, Palanga, Lithuania, 6-13.
Azevedo, F.; Pachero-Torgal, F.; Jesus, C.; Barroso de Aquiar, J.
L.; Camoes, A. F. 2012. Properties and durability of HPC with tyre
rubber wastes, Construction and Building Materials 34: 186-191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.062
Batayneh, M. K.; Marie, I.; Asi, I. 2008. Promoting the use of
crumb rubber concrete in developing countries, Waste Management 28:
2171-2176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.035
Bazant, Z. P. 2002. Concrete fracture models: testing and practice,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 69: 165-205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00084-4
Benazzouk, A.; Douzane, O.; Langlet, T.; Mezreb, K.; Roucoult, J.
M.; Queneudec, M. 2007. Physicomechanical properties and water
absorption of cement composite containing shredded rubber wastes, Cement
and Concrete Composites 29(10): 732-740.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.07.001
Cattaneo, S.; Mola, F. 2012. Assessing the quality control of
self-consolidating concrete properties, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ASCE 138(2): 197-205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862. 0000410
Centonze, G.; Leone, M.; Aiello, M. A. 2012. Steel fibres from
waste tires as reinforcement in concrete: a mechanical characterization,
Construction and Building Materials 36: 46-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.088
Dong, R.; Li, J.; Wang, S. 2011. Laboratory evaluation of
pre-devulcanized crumb rubber-modified asphalt as a binder in hot-mix
asphalt, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 23(8):
1138-1144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. 0000277
Graeff, A. G.; Pilakoutas, K.; Neocleous, K.; Peres, M.V.N. N.
2012. Fatigue resistance and cracking mechanism of concrete pavements
reinforced with recycled steel fibres recovered from post-consumer
tyres, Engineering Structures 45: 385-395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.engstruct.2012.06.030
Grinys, A.; Sivilevicius, H.; Dauksys, M. 2012. Tyre rubber
additives effect on concrete mixture strength, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 18(3): 393-401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.693536
Hillerborg, A.; Modeer, M.; Petersson, P.-E. 1976. Analysis of
crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture
mechanics and finite elements, Cement and Concrete Research 6(6):
773-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7
Ho, A. C.; Turatsinze, A.; Hameed, R.; Vu, D. C. 2012. Effects of
rubber aggregates from grinded used tyres on the concrete resistance to
cracking, Journal of Cleaner Production 23(1): 209-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.016
Kumaran, G. S.; Mushule, N.; Lakshmipathy, M. 2008. A review on
construction technologies that enables environmental protection:
rubberized concrete, American Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences 1(1): 40-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.2008.40.44
Liu, F.; Chen, G.; Li, L.; Guo, Y. 2012. Study impact performance
of rubber reinforced concrete, Construction and Building Materials 36:
604-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.014
Martin, W. 2001. Tyres crack-down to help the environment. USA:
Environment Agency.
Mohammad, L. N.; Cooper, S. B. Jr; Elseiti, M. A. 2011.
Characterisation of HMA mixtures containing high reclaimed asphalt
pavement content with crumb rubber additives, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering ASCE 23(11): 1560-1568.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. 0000359
Najim, K. B.; Hall, M. R. 2010. A review of the fresh/ hardened
properties and applications for plain- (PRC) and self-compacting
rubberised concrete (SCRC), Construction and Building Materials 24(11):
2043-2051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.056
Navarro, F. M.; Gamez, M. C. R. 2012. Influence of crumb rubber on
the indirect tensile strength and stiffness modulus of hot bituminous
mixes, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 24(6): 715-724.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533. 0000436
Papakonstantinou, C. G.; Tobolski, M. J. 2006. Use of waste tire
steel beads in Portland cement concrete, Cement andConcrete Research
36(9): 1686-1691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.05.015
Putman, B. J.; Amizkhanian, S. N. 2010. Characterization of the
interaction effect of crumb rubber modified binders using HP-GPS,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 22(2): 153-159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2010) 22:2(153)
Rahman, M. M.; Usman, M.; Al-Ghalib, A. A. 2012. Fundamental
properties of rubber modified self-compacting concrete (RMSCC),
Construction andBuilding Materials 36: 630-637.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.116
Segre, N.; Ostertag, C.; Monteiro, P. J. M. 2006. Effect of tire
rubber particles on crack propagation in cement paste, Materials
Research 9(3): 311-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392006000300011
Skripkiunas, G.; Grinys, A.; Cernius, B. 2007. Deformation
properties of concrete with rubber waste additives, Materials Science
(Medziagotyra) 13(3): 219-223.
Snelson, D. G.; Kinuthia, J. M.; Davies, P. A.; Chang, S.-R. 2009.
Sustainable construction: composite use of tyres and ash in concrete,
Waste Management 29(1): 360-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.007
Sukontasukkul, P.; Chaikaew, C. 2005. Concrete pedestrian block
containing crumb rubber from recycled tires, Thammasat International
Journal of Science and Technology 10(2): 1-8.
Sukontasukkul, P.; Chaikaew, C. 2006. Properties of concrete
pedestrian block mixed with crumb rubber, Construction and Building
Materials 20(7): 450-457.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.040
Taha, M. M. R.; El-Dieb, A. S.; Abd El-Wahab, M. A.; Abdel-Hameed,
M. E. 2008. Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of
rubber concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 20(10):
640-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008) 20:10(640)
Tlemat, H.; Pilakoutas, K.; Neocleous, K. 2006. Stress-strain
characteristic of SFRC using recycled fibres, Materials and Structures
39(3): 365-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11527-005-9009-4
Topcu, I. B. 1997. Assessment of the brittleness index of
rubberized concretes, Cement and Concrete Research 27(2): 177-183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(96)00199-8
Turatsinze, A.; Bonnet, S.; Granju, J.-L. 2005. Mechanical
characterisation of cement-based mortar incorporating rubber aggregates
from recycled worn tyres, Building and Environment 40(2): 221-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.05.012
Turgut, P.; Yesilata, B. 2008. Physico-mechanical and thermal
performances of newly developed rubberadded bricks, Energy and Buildings
40(5): 679-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.05.002
Uzun, I.; Terzi, S. 2012. Evaluation of andesite waste as mineral
filler in asphaltic concrete mixture, Construction and Building
Materials 31: 284-288.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.093
Xiao-qing, Z.; Can-hui, L.; Mei, L. 2009. Rheological property of
bitumen modified by the mixture of the mechanochemically devulcanized
tyre rubber powder and SBS, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
ASCE 21(11): 699-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)
21:11(699)
Zhang, S. L.; Zhang, Z. X.; Xin, Z. X.; Pal, K.; Kim, J. K. 2010.
Prediction of mechanical properties of polypropylene/waste ground rubber
tire powder treated by bitumen composites via uniform design and
artificial neural networks, Materials & Design 31(4): 1900-1905.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.10.057
Zheng, L.; Huo, X. S.; Yuan, Y. 2008. Strength, modulus of
elasticity, and brittleness index of rubberized concrete, Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 20(11): 692-699.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008) 20:11(692)
Audrius GRINYS (a), Henrikas SIVILEVICIUS (b), Darius PUPEIKIS (a),
Ernestas IVANAUSKAS (c)
(a) Department of Building Materials, Kaunas University of
Technology, Studentu g. 48, 51367 Kaunas, Lithuania
(b) Department of Transport Technological Equipment, Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University, Plytines g. 27, 10105 Vilnius, Lithuania
(c) Research Centre for Building Materials and Construction, Kaunas
University of Technology, Studentu g. 48, 51367 Kaunas, Lithuania
Received 23 Nov. 2012; accepted 7 Feb. 2013
Corresponding author. Audrius Grinys
E-mail: audrius.grinys@ktu.lt
Audrius GRINYS. Doctor of Technology Sciences, Lecturer of the
Department of Building Materials at Kaunas University of Technology. BU
Concrete Manager at SIKA. Research interests: ready mix and precast
concrete technology, chemical additive of concrete, concrete
deformability, concrete strength and utilization of waste materials.
Henrikas SIVILEVlClUS. Dr Habil, Professor of the Department of
Transport Technological Equipment at Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University. Doctor (1984), Doctor Habil (2003). Publications: more than
170 scientific papers. Research interests: flexible pavement life cycle,
hot mix asphalt mixture production technology, application of
statistical and quality control methods, recycling asphalt pavement
technologies and design, decision-making and expert systems theory.
Darius PUPEIKIS. Doctor of Technology Sciences, Lecturer of the
Department of Building Materials at Kaunas University of Technology.
Research interests: unsteady heat transfer, thermal energy balance of
buildings.
Ernestas IVANAUSKAS. Associate Professor of the Department of
Building Materials and director of Building Materials and Structures
Research Centre at Kaunas University of Technology. Research interests:
self-compacting concrete, usage of the secondary raw materials in
building trade, innovations in the concrete technology.
Table 1. Proportions of concrete mixtures
Notation CR Materials content for 1 [m.sup.3] of
fraction concrete mixture
Quantity CR Cement, Sand
of CR, % amount, kg 0/4,
kg kg
NR -- -- -- 451 875
R 0/1_5 0/1 5 35.14 451 784
R 0/1_10 10 70.28 693
R 0/1_20 20 140.55 510
R 0/1_30 30 210.83 328
R 1/2_5 1/2 5 35.14 451 784
R 1/2_10 10 70.28 693
R 1/2_20 20 140.55 510
R 1/2_30 30 210.83 328
R 2/3_5 2/3 5 35.14 451 784
R 2/3_10 10 70.28 693
R 2/3_20 20 140.55 510
R 2/3_30 (a) 30 210.83 328
Notation Materials content for 1 [m.sup.3]
of concrete mixture
Crushed Chemical Water,
gravel additive, 1
4/16, kg kg
NR 949 2.255 160
R 0/1_5 949 2.255 160
R 0/1_10
R 0/1_20
R 0/1_30
R 1/2_5 949 2.255 160
R 1/2_10
R 1/2_20
R 1/2_30
R 2/3_5 949 2.255 160
R 2/3_10
R 2/3_20
R 2/3_30 (a)
(a) Non-technological mixture.
Table 2. Evaluation of concrete fracture plasticity
Notation CR Quantity Residual Residual
fraction, of CR, % strength at strength at
mm 0.5 mm 0.5 mm
crack, MPa deflection,
MPa
NR -- -- 0 0
R 2/3_5 2/3 5 0.70 0.22
R 2/3_10 10 0.73 0.47
R 2/3_20 20 0.53 0.48
R 1/2_5 1/2 5 0.47 0.24
R 1/2_10 10 0.48 0.25
R 1/2_20 20 0.69 0.45
R 1/2_30 30 1.18 0.97
R 0/1_5 0/1 5 0.94 0.79
R 0/1_10 10 0.63 0.36
R 0/1_20 20 0.77 0.53
R 0/1_30 30 1.65 0.91
Table 3. Work and fracture energy used to break the specimens
Designation CR Quantity Stress-strain curve
fraction of CR, %
Work Fracture
[W.sub.F], energy
J [G.sub.F],
N/m
NR -- -- 1.50 167.16
R 2/3_5 2/3 5 2.14 238.13
R 2/3_10 10 2.88 320.26
R 2/3_20 20 2.51 279.03
R 1/2_5 1/2 5 2.27 251.95
R 1/2_10 10 2.10 233.71
R 1/2_20 20 3.25 360.83
R 1/2_30 30 2.69 299.08
R 0/1_5 0/1 5 3.47 385.88
R 0/1_10 10 2.30 255.29
R 0/1_20 20 2.41 268.33
R 0/1_30 30 2.76 306.37
Designation Stress-COD curve
Work Fracture
[W.sub.F], energy
J [G.sub.F],
N/m
NR 0.76 84.84
R 2/3_5 2.67 296.39
R 2/3_10 4.08 453.86
R 2/3_20 3.06 339.86
R 1/2_5 2.80 311.50
R 1/2_10 2.89 321.28
R 1/2_20 3.58 397.29
R 1/2_30 3.79 420.62
R 0/1_5 4.06 451.57
R 0/1_10 2.93 326.00
R 0/1_20 3.45 383.49
R 0/1_30 3.69 410.43
