Assessment of Crumb Rubber Concrete for

Flexural Structural Members

Clay Naito, M.ASCE 1; Joe States 2; Christopher Jackson 3; and Bryan Bewick 4

Abstract: To address the ever-increasing quantity of scrap tires produced in the United States, a study is conducted on the use of crumb
rubber in concrete for enhancement of structures against blast effects. Crumb-rubber concrete (CRC) is produced by replacing a volume
percentage of the traditional coarse and/or fine aggregate with crumb-rubber particles. Crumb rubber is produced in various gradations from
used vehicle tires. The research program characterizes the mechanical properties of CRC and provides an assessment of the capability of CRC
in providing flexural resistance for structural applications. The experimental and analytical investigation found the following four results:
(1) crumb rubber replacement of coarse and fine aggregate is done at a cost premium of approximately 0.75 times the replacement percentage;
(2) the addition of crumb rubber results in a decrease in unit weight, compression strength, splitting tensile strength, and elastic modulus,
which are linearly related to the addition of rubber; (3) the modulus of rupture was not sensitive to replacement of up to 40% rubber aggregate;
and (4) flexural failure modes occur at lower demand levels due to the use of rubber replacement. The reductions are consistent with the
material property conclusions previously discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000986. © 2014 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Rubber aggregate; Flexural strength; Constitutive properties; Recycled material; Blast response.

Introduction has gained interest in recent years. To accomplish this, portions of

One of the most problematic sources of waste produced in the
United States is scrap tires. On the basis of 2003 statistics, it is
estimated that the U.S. produces 290 million waste tires annually,
with over 265 million in stockpiles (U.S. EPA 2008). Such a large
grouping of tires provides fire and health hazards. Because they are
harmful, very bulky, and mostly void space, dumping whole tires in
landfills has been banned in 38 states (U.S. EPA 2008). As an
alternative to discarding whole tires, they can be taken to tire-
shredding processors where the tires can be reduced to smaller
pieces known as tire chips or crumb rubber (Eldin and Piekarski
1993). The pieces can then be burned, stored in landfills, or used
as a construction material (Reda Taha et al. 2008). Shredded tire
chips are only used sparingly in construction because rubber does
not provide any significant structural qualities. The most common
use of waste rubber, or more specifically tire chips, has been in
highway asphalt mixes. This process has been well documented
and used in practice since 1990 (Epps 1994; Khatib and Bayomy
1999). Extending this concept for portland cement concrete mixes
1 ing. Therefore, it was concluded that when strength was not a
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Lehigh Univ., ATLSS Center, 117 ATLSS Dr., Bethlehem, PA 18015
(corresponding author). E-mail: cjn3@lehigh.edu
2
Senior Structural Engineer-in-Training, GAI Consultants, Inc., 385 E.
Waterfront Dr., Homestead, PA 15120. E-mail: J.States@gaiconsultants
.com
3
Air Force Research Laboratory Support Contractor, Applied Research
Associates, Inc., Tyndall AFB, FL 32403. E-mail: Christopher.Jackson
.ctr@tyndall.af.mil
4
Project Engineer, Protection Engineering Consultants, 14144
Trautwein Rd., Austin, TX 78737. E-mail: bbewick@protection-
consultants.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 13, 2013; approved on
November 18, 2013; published online on November 20, 2013. Discussion
period open until October 28, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014075(8)/$25.00.
coarse and fine aggregate are replaced with tire chips and crumb
rubber, respectively.
Material characterization experiments have been conducted to
determine the practicality of using crumb rubber in portland cement
concrete. Research has shown that replacement of conventional ag-
gregates with rubber results in a decrease in compressive and ten-
sile strength and stiffness. Eldin and Senouci (1993) performed
tension and compression tests on two types of cylinders, with por-
tions of the coarse or fine aggregate replaced with rubber. They
observed tensile-strength decreases of 50% and compression-
strength reductions of up to 85%; however, they observed that the
rubberized concrete absorbed a great amount of plastic energy.
Khatib and Bayomy (1999) observed similar behavior and recom-
mended a practical limit of 20% volumetric replacement of aggre-
gate to maintain reasonable structural performance.
The use of rubber aggregate in portland cement concrete
improves the energy-absorption characteristics. Turatsinze et al.
(2005) observed that the rubber acts as a crack arrester. When
the cracks met the rubber particles, the rubber absorbed the crack-
ing stresses. This increased the strain capacity before macrocrack-
limiting factor, rubberized concrete may be used to resist cracking.
Further research conducted by Reda Taha et al. (2008) on micro-
structure of the crumb rubber indicated that tire chips increased
the fracture toughness and impact resistance of the concrete. The
rubber acted as an additional energy absorber that toughened the
concrete. Zheng et al. (2008) concluded that the brittleness index
was reduced with the addition of rubber aggregate. This signified a
greater ductility in the rubberized concrete. Wong and Ting (2009)
performed experiments on normal- and high-strength rubberized
concrete and found that the rubberized concrete exhibited less
brittle failure and higher energy-absorption capacity. Khaloo et al.
(2008) also showed that the brittle behavior of concrete was de-
creased with additions of rubber. Naito et al. (2013) found that,
when normalized by weight, crumb rubber provided improved
resistance to ballistic and close-in detonations of explosions.

© ASCE 04014075-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Research Significance
Although it has been generally accepted that rubber significantly
decreases the overall strength of concrete, previous research indi-
cates that rubberized concrete has improved energy absorption
compared with that of traditional concrete. On the basis of the pub-
lished literature on crumb-rubber concrete (CRC), it is apparent that
ductility and energy absorption is enhanced in CRC compared with
that of conventional concrete, whereas the compressive and tensile
strength is decreased in CRC compared with conventional concrete.
These characteristics may prove beneficial for structural applica-
tions where dynamic blast-pressure demands are a concern. The
goal of the research program is to closely examine the constitutive
properties of CRC for a variety of rubber replacements. Addition-
ally, the flexural performance of wall panels fabricated from CRC is
experimentally examined. Finally, the properties are applied to a
case study of a dynamic blast pressure on a wall panel to determine
if these properties can provide enhanced flexural response protec-
tion against blast detonation at moderate to large standoffs. The
predictive response against blast demands is evaluated.
Crumb-Rubber Concrete Mix Development
The CRC used in the experimental program was chosen to produce
designs with mechanical properties acceptable for building con-
struction. The quantity of coarse- and fine-rubber aggregates
was limited to a 40% volume replacement of the aggregate. Levels
in excess of 40% result in excessive reduction in strength and stiff-
ness and were not included.
The mix constituents included Type 1 cement, crushed coarse
aggregates, natural fine aggregates, and crumb rubber. A crushed
limestone with a #67 coarse-aggregate gradation [0.75 in.
(19.0 mm) to No. 4] was used for coarse aggregate. A standard
natural sand gradation was used for the fine aggregate in accor-
dance with ASTM C33 (ASTM 2005). The crumb-rubber aggre-
gate was produced from shredded scrap tires. The majority of
remnant tire materials including steel and dust were removed.
The crumb rubber was produced using ambient techniques
(shredded at room temperature). This method is different from
conventional techniques that cryogenically process and shred the
material. The ambient technique was chosen to minimize the
effect of shredding on the mechanical properties of the rubber.
Coarse crumb rubber (CCR) and fine crumb rubber (FCR)
Fig. 1. Rubber aggregates and distribution in cracked sections
© ASCE 04014075-2
were used in the research program. A #5 CCR gradation
(9.5–6.4 mm) with a bulk weight of 34.0 lb=ft3 (0.54 g=cm3 )
was used for the coarse-aggregate replacement. A #2 FCR grada-
tion (passing a No. 5–10 sieve) with a bulk weight of 28.40 lb=ft3
(0.45 g=cm3 ) was used for the fine-aggregate replacement. The
coarse and fine crumb-rubber aggregates and the distribution of
rubber in the concrete are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Crumb-Rubber Concrete Mix Properties
CRC mixes were fabricated with variations in the amount of rubber
aggregate as summarized in Table 1. Mix design was on the basis of
a standard 4,000 psi (27.60 MPa) strength target using an absolute
volume basis design. The water-to-cement ratio was varied from
0.40 to 0.45 with approximately 496 kg of cement per cubic meter
of concrete (31 lbs of cement per cubic foot of concrete). Rubber
replacement levels were made relative to the volume of coarse and
fine aggregate replaced. The aggregate replacement percentage re-
fers to the volume of coarse or fine stone aggregate replaced by
rubber. The volumetric rubber replacement represents the percent-
age of volume of rubber compared to the total volume of concrete
batched. The designed water-to-cement ratio, unit weight, air con-
tent, and slump measurements were recorded for most batches and
are presented in Table 1. No admixtures were used in the produc-
tion of the concrete samples.
Rubber aggregate replacement results in a direct decrease in unit
weight and an increase in the air content as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
decrease in unit weight is linearly related to the addition of rubber
aggregate. Given that the rubber has a considerably lower density
than the stone aggregate, the volumetric replacement results in a
proportional decrease in the unit weight. The increase in air content
with rubber content can be approximated with an essentially linear
relationship. The air content measurements range from 3 to 4% in
batches incorporating only CCR. Conversely, batches incorporat-
ing both FCR and CCR range from 5 to 6%. This may be due
to the fact that the FCR particles are hydrophobic, and create min-
iscule rivulets around the particles. These rivulets may form air
pockets during the hydration process. Another likely possibility
is that unlike all the other concrete constituents, the rubber particles
are compressible. This compressibility would result in an artificial
amount of air using standard ASTM C231 (ASTM 2010) test meth-
ods. The air quality should be examined further in a study of the
hardened air properties.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Table 1. Batch Matrix and Properties
Aggregate replacement
Volumetric rubber Water/cement Unit weight Slump Air
Mix ID Coarse (%) Fine (%) replacement (%) ratio lb=ft3 (kg=m3 ) (mm) (%)
A-10-10-0.40 10 10 6.4 0.40 — — —
A-20-10-0.40 20 10 10.0 0.40 — — —
A-20-10-0.45 20 10 10.0 0.45 — — —
A-40-10-0.45 40 10 17.3 0.45 — — —
A1-control 0 0 0.0 0.40 — — —
A1-20-0-0.40 20 0 7.3 0.40 140 (2,242) 178 3.4
A1-20-10-0.40 20 10 10.0 0.40 134 (2,147) 64 5.0
A1-40-0-0.40 40 0 14.5 0.40 132 (2,115) 102 3.5
A1-40-10-0.40 40 10 17.3 0.40 124 (1,986) 76 6.0
A2-control 0 0 0.0 0.40 153 (2,451) 140 2.0
A2-20-0-0.40 20 0 7.3 0.40 143 (2,291) 83 3.0
A2-40-0-0.40 40 0 14.5 0.40 132 (2,115) 203 4.0

Fig. 3. The 28-day strength reduction with rubber addition

Table 2. Long-Term Strength-Gain Parameters

Fig. 2. Influence of rubber content on air content and unit weight
Mix ID α β R2 28-day f c0 MPa (psi)
(1 lb=ft3 ¼ 16 kg=m3
A1-control 1.985 0.905 0.846 46.75 (6,781)
A-10-10-0.40 2.921 0.877 0.987 34.06 (4,940)
A1-20-0-0.40 2.642 0.908 0.803 29.50 (4,279)
Mechanical Properties of Crumb-Rubber Concrete A1-20-10-0.40 1.529 0.925 0.911 26.24 (3,806)
A1-40-0-0.40 0.128 1.023 0.020 17.27 (2,505)
The mechanical properties of CRC were assessed in accordance A1-40-10-0.40 0.562 0.939 0.475 13.84 (2,007)
with ASTM specifications. The compressive strength [ASTM
C39 (ASTM 2012b)], tensile strength [ASTM C496 (ASTM
2004)], modulus of rupture [ASTM C78 (ASTM 2008)], elastic
modulus [ASTM C469 (ASTM 2002)], and stress-strain character- at age 28 days is illustrated in Fig. 3 and summarized in Table 2.
istics were determined. The variation in performance was compared The strength reduction is linearly proportional to the volumetric
with percentage replacement of stone coarse and fine aggregates quantity of rubber, R%Vol ,used in the concrete.
with crumb-rubber aggregates and control mix designs containing The strength gain with time is illustrated in Fig. 4. The amount
no crumb-rubber aggregate. When applicable, the performance of coarse crumb-rubber replacement directly influences the com-
was compared with commonly accepted formulations of strength pressive strength. The strength decrease is consistent at ages 7,
and response. Multiple batches were fabricated for the various 21, and 28 days. The reduction in the compressive strength is
mix designs, and tests were conducted at ages ranging from 7 proportional to the rubber quantity.
to 72 days. Consequently, the compressive strength of concrete The strength-gain data are fit to ACI 209R-92 compressive
varied between groups of material tests and was recorded for each strength-gain formulations (American Concrete Institute 1992).
study. The fit is illustrated in Fig. 4. The formulation has the form of
Eq. (1). The regression fit of the data for parameters α and β
are presented in Table 2. On the basis of accuracy of the regression,
Compressive Strength the 10 and 20% coarse aggregate replacement regressions provide a
good fit to the data. However, the 40% replacement has a poor fit,
The strength gain for the cylinders was measured using 102–mm with R2 less than 0.5 due to the large variability in the pre-28-days
diameter × 203–mm tall cylinders in accordance with ASTM C39 strengths as given by
(ASTM 2012b). The cylinders were stored submerged in lime-
saturated water until testing in accordance with ASTM C192 t
fc0 ðtÞ ¼ f0 ð1Þ
(ASTM 2012a). The compressive strength reduction relationship α þ β · t c28 days

© ASCE 04014075-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 pffiffiffiffiffi
f t0 ¼ 6.0
f c0 ð2Þ
pffiffiffiffiffi
ft0 ¼ 15.75 f c0 ð3Þ

where Eq. (2) is in units of psi and Eq. (3) is in units of kPa.
The splitting tensile strength decreases as a function of the
coarse-aggregate replacement. For higher aggregate replacements,
the splitting strength of the material decreases with respect to
the square root of the compressive strength. An estimate of the de-
crease of tensile strength with respect to the percentage of coarse-
aggregate replacement, C, is presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4. Comparison of ACI 209 estimated strength gain with compres- Flexural Tensile Strength and Modulus of Rupture
sion strength data (1 psi ¼ 6.89 kPa) The modulus of rupture (MOR) of CRC was measured in accor-
dance with ASTM C78 (ASTM 2008). The MOR measurements
for the five mix designs are presented in Table 4. Modulus of rup-
Splitting Tensile Strength ture of concrete, fr0 , is commonly computed with respect to the
square root of the compressive strength, f c0 . The standard ACI
The tensile strength of CRC was measured in accordance with 318-11 (American Concrete Institute 2011) MOR relationship
ASTM C496 (ASTM 2004). The results are tabulated in Table 3. for concrete with normal strength and weight [Eqs. (4) and (5)]
Splitting tensile strength of concrete, f t0 , is assumed to be propor- provides a good estimate for all rubber replacement levels, except
tional to the square root of the compressive strength, fc0 . The com- for the A1-40-10-0.40 case as remarked in Table 4. The absolute
monly accepted relationship for tensile strength of concrete of rupture strength consistently decreases with the addition of rubber
normal strength and weight [Eqs. (2) and (3)] is valid for low rubber aggregate; however, this effect is not present when normalized by
replacement levels, but is not representative of higher levels of the compressive strength. The addition of fine rubber aggregate
replacement does not consistently alter the strength as given by
pffiffiffiffiffi
f r0 ¼ 7.5 f c0 ð4Þ
Table 3. Tensile Strength
pffiffiffiffiffi
Mix ID f c0 [psi (MPa)] f t0 [psi (kPa)] f t0 =sqrtðfc0 Þ fr0 ¼ 19.69 f c0 ð5Þ
A-10-10-0.40 4,940 (34.06) 421
14 ð2,902
96Þ 6.00 (15.7)
A-20-10-0.40 3,967 (27.35) 360 (2,481) 5.72 (15.0) where Eq. (4) is in units of psi and Eq. (5) is in units of kPa.
A1-40-10-0.40 1,468 (10.12) 176
32 ð1,213
220Þ 4.59 (12.1)
A-20-10-0.45 3,678 (25.36) 343 (2,365) 5.66 (14.8) Constitutive Properties
A-40-10-0.45 2,490 (17.17) 222
14 ð1,530
196Þ 4.45 (11.7)
CRC mix designs were examined to determine the variation in elas-
tic properties with changes in rubber-aggregate replacement includ-
ing elastic modulus, peak stress, and strain at peak stress. Testing
was done in accordance with ASTM C469 (ASTM 2002) and is
summarized in Table 4.
The compressive elastic modulus of CRC decreases with in-
creases in quantity of rubber aggregate. The elastic modulus of
rubber is significantly lower than that of hardened concrete.
Consequently, under compressive loads the rubber aggregate per-
forms as a void in the concrete. The elastic properties can be
approximately scaled from that of standard concrete by accounting
for the loss in concrete volume or weight resulting from the rubber
replacement.
The elastic modulus of CRC is compared with two formulations.
The first accounts for the change in unit weight, wc , and the com-
Fig. 5. Splitting tension strength reduction with coarse-aggregate pressive strength of the material. This method is on the basis of ACI
replacement (f c0 units ¼ psi) 318-11 (American Concrete Institute 2011) recommendations for
elastic modulus of concrete [Eq. (6)]

Table 4. Modulus of Rupture and Elastic Properties

pffiffiffiffiffi Average modulus of Strain at

Mix ID Average fr0 [MPa (psi)] f c0 [MPa (psi)] f r0 = f c0 [MPa (psi)] elasticity [GPa (ksi)] Peak stress [MPa (psi)] peak stress
A1-Control 4.95 (718) 56.7 (8,218) 0.658 (7.91) 39.8
5.7 (5,777
831) 54.5
2.1 (7,905
311) 2.08 × 10−3
A1-20-0-0.40 3.65
0.38 (530
55) 35.3 (5,122) 0.615 (7.40) 34.7
3.8 (5,030
558) 31.2
2.7 (4,525
393) 1.33 × 10−3
A1-20-10-0.40 3.61
0.31 (523
45) 31.2 (4,531) 0.645 (7.77) 25.3
3.3 (3,663
474) 27.9
1.6 (4,042
235) 1.48 × 10−3
A1-40-0-0.40 2.85
0.17 (414
24) 17.7 (2,563) 0.679 (8.18) 23.8
5.1 (3,454
738) 21.3
0.1 (3,088
19) 1.42 × 10−3
A1-40-10-0.40 2.12
0.19 (307
27) 15.0 (2,180) 0.546 (6.58) 18.0
0.9 (2,612
133) 17.4
0.1 (2,525
14) 1.57 × 10−3
Note: 1 psi ¼ 6.89 kPa.

© ASCE 04014075-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.


Fig. 6. Relationship between elastic modulus and rubber aggregate re-
placement (1 ksi ¼ 6.894 MPa)
Ec1 ¼ 0.043w1.5
c fc
00.5
ð6Þ
where wc = unit weight of concrete (kg=m3 ).
The second formulation is on the basis of the total reduction in
aggregate content. This method uses the percentage replacement of
aggregate (as opposed to the volumetric replacement) [Eq. (7)]
Ec2 ¼ EcCONTROL ð1 − % Aggregate ReplacementÞ ð7Þ
The accuracy of the two relationships is illustrated in Fig. 6. The
ACI formulation results in only a 4% error for the control mix, but
underestimates the elastic modulus of all CRC mixes by more than
10%. The volumetric reduction method provides a better estimate
of the elastic modulus, with an error of 10% or less. The second
method defined in Eq. (7) is recommended.
Flexural Performance of Crumb-Rubber Concrete
The flexural performance of CRC was examined to determine if the
strength or deformation capability of the material would provide
enhancements compared with traditional concrete. The study
focuses on the performance of standard wall panels used as exterior
cladding on building systems. The panels examined replicate pre-
cast walls used in nonload-bearing façade applications. The panels
were designed for wind and handling loads. Each panel was rein-
forced at the center with conventional reinforcement for flexural
demands and temperature and shrinkage requirements. The panels
measure 12 ft (3,657.6 mm) long and 6 in. (152.4 mm) thick. The
panels were tested in one-way action over a 10 ft (3,048 mm) span
and were subjected to a uniform load. A width of 16 in. (406.4 mm)
was examined; due to the one-way action of the panel, the perfor-
mance is representative of similar panels of greater width. The
panel details are illustrated in Fig. 7.
Each panel was loaded using a standard loading tree test fixture
as illustrated in Fig. 7, and was tested under a quasistatic displace-
ment control [less than 12 mm/min (0.5 in:=min)] until failure. The
load and displacements for each test were measured. The load was
reported with respect to the uniform pressure applied to the 10 ft
(3,048 mm) tested span of the panel. Displacements were measured
at midspan. The panels were load-tested at the University of Mis-
souri (Bewick et al. 2010). Three concrete types were evaluated,
including a control batch, a 20% coarse-aggregate replacement,
and a 40% coarse-aggregate replacement. For each concrete type,
three experiments were performed. Further details on the perfor-
mance of each panel can be found in Bewick et al. (2010).
The quantity of welded wire reinforcement (WWR) and the
depth to the reinforcement varied between specimens. The average
depths and reinforcement areas were measured after each test. The
compression strength was measured in accordance with ASTM
C39 (2012b). The strength was measured twice, first at 28 days,
and again at 90 days, within two weeks of the uniform-loading
tests. Due to the age of the panels, the compression data taken
at 90 days were assumed to be representative of the final panel
material strength. The estimate modulus of rupture and elastic
modulus were determined using the formulations developed in
previous sections. As-built properties and estimated material
properties for each slab type are given in Table 5.
As an example, the results of the three tests conducted at the
20% replacement level are presented in Fig. 8. A comparison of
the average responses for the three concrete types is illustrated

Fig. 7. Panel section and loading setup

Table 5. Material Properties of Panel Specimens

Approximate Average rebar Average WWR
compressive Estimated Estimated Unit weight depth from tension depth from tension Total area of
Mix ID strength [MPa (psi)] f r0 [MPa (psi)] Ec [GPa (ksi)] [kg=m3 (lb=ft3 )] face [mm (in.)] face [mm (in.)] WWR [mm2 (in:2 )]
A2-control 38.3 (5,559) 3.85 (559) 32.1 (4,656) 2,450 (153) 71.9 (2.83) 62.2 (2.45) 71 (0.11)
A2-20-0-0.40 24.5 (3,557) 3.08 (447) 18.6 (2,692) 2,290 (143) 67.3 (2.65) 55.4 (2.18) 77 (0.12)
A2-40-0-0.40 19.3 (2,793) 2.73 (396) 10.9 (1,587) 2,110 (132) 67.3 (2.65) 55.4 (2.18) 52 (0.08)
Note: WWR = welded wire reinforcement.

© ASCE 04014075-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.


Fig. 8. Pressure-deformation response for 20% rubber aggregate
(1 psi ¼ 6.894 kPa; 1 in: ¼ 2.54 cm)
in Fig. 9. The total history is presented, and the elastic region is
shown in the inset. The average as-built properties for each concrete
type are not identical, so direct comparison is limited to a discus-
sion of the estimated performance. The average maximum pressure,
Pmax , corresponding displacement, Δmax , and average cracking
pressure, Pcr , are summarized in Table 6. The cracking strength,
ultimate strength, and ultimate displacement all decrease with
rubber replacement.
Response Estimate Based on Mechanical
Characteristics
Measured and estimated responses of the uniform-loading test are
compared to assess the accuracy of the estimation methods.
Estimated load-deflection curves are created using the as-built
properties and material characteristics presented in Table 5. A sim-
plified trilinear moment-curvature analysis was developed using
the limit states of cracking, yield, and nominal strength. Ultimate
deflection was found at each limit state using standard integration
methods and the simplified moment-curvature responses. The result-
ing pressure-displacement relationships are presented in Fig. 10.
The cracking moment was estimated using strength of materials
in accordance with Eq. (8). The cracking moment, Mcr , was related
to the panel thickness, t, the gross moment of inertia, I g , and the
modulus of rupture, fr0
f r0 I g
Mcr ¼ ð8Þ
ðt=2Þ
The yield strength was estimated using the Hognestad (1951)
stress-strain model for compressive concrete. The distance to the
neutral axis, c, was found by integrating the compressive stress
from the Hognestad equation [Eq. (9)], and setting this concrete
compressive force equal to the force of reinforcement at yielding.
Given the value of c, the moment was found by integrating the
stress multiplied by the distance to the reinforcement from the neu-
tral axis to the ultimate compressive fibers. The steel was assumed
to have a yield strength of 80 ksi (552 MPa), and an elastic modulus
of 29,000 ksi (199,900 MPa).
  2 
0 2ε ε
σðεÞ ¼ f c − ð9Þ
ε0 ε0
The nominal strength was estimated in accordance with ACI
318-11 (American Concrete Institute 2011) procedures [Eq. (10)].
The nominal moment, M n , is related to cross-sectional area of rebar
and WWR, As and Awwr , the stress in the rebar and WWR, f s , the
width of panel, b, the Whitney stress block depth, a, and the depth
to reinforcement, d
M n ¼ ðAs þ AWWR Þ · fs · ½ðd − a=2Þ ð10aÞ

Fig. 9. Average pressure-deformation response (1 psi ¼ 6.894 kPa;

1 in: ¼ 2.54 cm) Fig. 10. Measured and theoretical pressure-displacement curves

Table 6. Average Flexural Response

Measured Estimated Measured Estimated Measured Estimated
Mix ID Pcr [kPa (psi)] Pcr [kPa (psi)] Pmax [kPa (psi)] Pmax [kPa (psi)] Δmax [mm (in.)] Δmax [mm (in.)]
A2-control 16.1
1.9 (2.34
0.28) 12.8 (1.86) 30.4
1.5 (4.41
0.22) 31.1 (4.51) 91.4
36.8 (3.60
1.45) 99.1 (3.90)
A2-20-0-0.40 12.6
1.0 (1.83
0.15) 10.3 (1.49) 30.1
0.76 (4.37
0.11) 30.1 (4.36) 77.5
1.3 (3.05
0.05) 62.7 (2.47)
A2-40-0-0.40 10.8
0.8 (1.56
0.12) 9.10 (1.32) 27.3
1.1 (3.96
0.16) 26.8 (3.89) 69.1
6.1 (2.72
0.24) 59.4 (2.34)

© ASCE 04014075-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 ðAs þ AwwrÞfs
a¼ ð10bÞ
0.85fc0 b

Fig. 10 compares the theoretical values with the measured re-

sistance functions. The theoretical curves represent the as-built con-
ditions and are terminated at the nominal capacity. The theoretical
graphs for 0 and 20% provide an accurate fit of the measured re-
sponse. The 40% case results in a good fit of the elastic and crack-
ing behavior, and a conservative estimate of the postcracking
response. A comparison of cracking load, ultimate load, and ulti-
mate displacement can be found in Table 6. The model tends to
underestimate the cracking load by as much as 20%; however,
the ultimate load and ultimate displacement are within the standard
deviation of the test in approximately all cases.

Case Study: Dynamic Response of Crumb-Rubber

Concrete to a Blast Demand
Fig. 11. Displacement time history for crumb-rubber concrete panels
The theoretical resistance functions can be used to provide a pre- subject to blast demand (1 in: ¼ 2.54 cm)
diction of the dynamic response under an exterior explosion. The
dynamic responses of the CRC panels are estimated using single
degree of freedom modeling techniques as described in detail in
Biggs (1964) and utilized in current design criteria [Department Table 7. Estimated Displacement under Blast Demands
of Defense (DoD) 2008]. The panel is simplified to a single degree Maximum Increase Permanent Increase
of freedom spring-mass system. The resistance of the spring is Coarse aggregate displacement relative displacement relative
on the basis of the pressure-displacement response provided in rubber replacement [in. (cm)] to 0% [in. (cm)] to 0%
Fig. 10. The panel unit weight is accounted for, the panels are 0%, 152 mm (6 in.) depth 2.66 (6.76) 0% 1.25 (3.17) 0%
assumed to span 10 ft (3,048 mm), and the panels are simply sup- 40%, 152 mm (6 in.) depth 3.44 (8.81) þ29% 1.40 (3.56) þ12%
ported. The panels are assumed to form a flexural yield mechanism 40%, 178 mm (7 in.) depth 2.57 (6.53) −3% 1.11 (2.82) −11%
at midspan.
Concrete models with 0 and 40% CRC were directly compared
using the same cross section. The cross section, illustrated in Fig. 7,
had a thickness of 6 in. (15.2 cm), width of 16 in. (40.6 cm),
0.5 in:2 (3.2 cm2 ) of steel reinforcement, with yield strength of
75 ksi (517 MPa) at mid-height. Additionally, a second cross sec-
tion was modeled with 40% CRC that included a thickness of 7 in.
(17.8 cm), with the same reinforcement also at mid-height. The sec-
ond cross section with 40% CRC was approximately the same
weight as the original cross section with 0% CRC. In this way,
40 and 0% CRC concrete were compared for an identical reinforce-
ment detail and for a section of equal weight. The displacement
time history response to a blast demand with a peak positive
reflected pressure of 27.3 psi (0.188 MPa) and positive impulse
of 121 psi=ms (0.834 MPa=ms) is shown in Fig. 11. The peak
responses are summarized in Table 7.
The 0% CRC experiences a significantly smaller displacement
than the 40% CRC for an identical section. However, the Fig. 12. Cost premium for crumb-rubber additions (1 yd3 ¼ 0.76 m3 )
analysis shows that for a section of similar weight, the 40%
CRC material can be used to achieve marginal reductions in peak
and permanent displacement compared to that of the 0% CRC
program. A baseline concrete cost of $100 per cubic yard ($76
section.
per cubic meter) is assumed for this example. The use of rubber
coarse aggregate results in a proportional (approximately 0.90) in-
Cost Implications of Using Crumb-Rubber Concrete crease in the cost. For example a 40% replacement of rubber results
in approximately 36% cost increase. This is reduced for fine-
The use of crumb rubber in concrete is accomplished by replace- aggregate replacements due to the fact that fine aggregate represents
ment of low-cost coarse and fine aggregates. Consequently, rubber a smaller portion of the concrete volume. For CRC to be economi-
replacement is done at a premium as illustrated in Fig. 12. The cost cal, the performance benefits must outweigh the additional cost.
estimates were conducted in December 2009. The cost of ambient
rubber was $0.37 per kg, whereas coarse and fine aggregates were
priced at $0.04 and $0.02 per kg, respectively. Due to the low cost Conclusions and Recommendations
for stone aggregates, rubber additions were not significantly offset
by the reduction in conventional aggregates. Estimated costs per An experimental study was conducted to assess the mechanical
cubic yard for different rubber contents were calculated by utilizing characteristics of concrete fabricated with portland cement and
the specific gravity and batching ratios used in this research shredded rubber aggregate. Variations in coarse- and fine-aggregate

© ASCE 04014075-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

replacements were examined and used to assess the practicality of
using the material for flexural applications. Eight conclusions can
be drawn from this research.
1. The unit weight of CRC decreases linearly with the addition of
rubber aggregate. The decrease is directly related to the low
specific gravity of the rubber (1.03).
2. The air content of freshly mixed concrete increases with the
rubber content. The batches incorporating fine crumb rubber
have higher air content values.
3. The use of ambient crumb rubber in concrete is accomplished
at a cost premium due to the relatively low cost of stone ag-
gregates compared with that of rubber aggregates.
4. The compressive strength of concrete decreases with the repla-
cement of rubber aggregate. The reduction in the compressive
strength is linearly proportional to the volumetric quantity of
rubber used in the concrete.
5. The tensile splitting strength of CRC decreases with the addi-
tion of rubber. The addition of rubber aggregate does not
significantly alter the flexural tensile strength (modulus of rup-
ture) of the material when normalized by the compressive
strength.
6. The elastic modulus of CRC decreases with the addition of
rubber. The reduction in elastic modulus is accurately modeled
by accounting for the percent volumetric replacement of
rubber.
7. The flexural cracking strength, ultimate strength, and ultimate
displacement decrease with increases in rubber aggregate
replacement. These measured flexural properties are
consistent with the formulations determined from material
testing.
8. The pressure-displacement curve is modeled using a moment-
curvature analysis. The model fits approximately closely with
the measured data for 0, 20, and 40% replacement.
In summary, the use of CRC decreased strength, deformation
capacity, flexural resistance, and unit weight of concrete. These
mechanical properties and flexural results were applied to a case
study of a dynamic response to a blast demand. The results showed
that the blast resistance of CRC decreased with the addition of
rubber. However, when the size of a specimen with 40% CRC
was normalized to have the same weight as a specimen with 0%
CRC, less maximum and permanent deflection were achieved.
When accounting for the weight of the material, the same dynamic
flexural response and level of protection could be achieved with
an equivalent weight of CRC material. The use of CRC was done
at a cost premium due to the high relative cost of crumb rubber
compared with that of traditional concretes. For building systems
requiring large areas of protection, the weight savings would
provide reduced dead load on the building. For this particular
example, the cost savings in a smaller gravity system may outweigh
the added cost of CRC compared with that of traditional
concrete.
Further performance benefits or detriments may exist with
CRC under service and extreme loading conditions. In blast-
resistant applications, possible strength or ductility improvements
under high-rate loading may exist and should be investigated
further. Long-term environmental studies also should be examined
to ensure serviceability under typical exposure conditions.
Utilizing the material strength reductions developed in this re-
search, CRC can be used for structural applications. However, CRC
is only recommended if the design goal is to dispose of vehicle tires
in a safe manner; otherwise, the cost of using CRC will likely be
prohibitive for construction.
© ASCE 04014075-8
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1992). “Prediction of creep, shrinkage,
and temperature effects in concrete structures.” ACI 209R-92, Detroit,
MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-11, Detroit, MI.
ASTM. (2002). “Standard test method for static modulus of elasticity and
poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression.” C469, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2004). “Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” C496, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2005). “Standard specification for concrete aggregates.” C33,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (us-
ing simple beam with third-point loading).” C78, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2009). “Standard specification for low-alloy steel deformed and
plain bars for concrete reinforcement.” A706, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for air content of freshly mixed con-
crete by the pressure method.” C231, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012a). “Standard practice for making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory.” C192, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012b). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” C39, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bewick, B., Salim, H., Saucier, A., and Jackson, C. (2010). “Crumb rubber-
concrete panels under blast loads.” AFRL-RX-TY-TP-2010-0052, Air
Force Research Laboratory, Panama City, FL.
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to structural dynamics, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Department of Defense (DoD). (2008). “Unified facilities criteria: Struc-
tures to resist the effects of accidental explosions.” UFC 3-340-02,
I.S. Department of Defense, Adelphi, MD.
Eldin, N. N., and Piekarski, J. A. (1993). “Scrap tires: Management
and economics.” J. Environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993)
119:6(1217), 1217–1232.
Eldin, N. N., and Senouci, A. B. (1993). “Rubber-tire particles as concrete
aggregate.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1993)5:
4(478), 478–496.
Epps, J. A. (1994). “Uses of recycled rubber tires in highways.” Synthesis of
highway practice 198, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC.
Hognestad, E. (1951). “A study of combined bending and axial load in re-
inforced concrete members.” Univ. of Illinois Engineering Experimental
Station, Bulletin Series No. 399, Urbana, IL, 128.
Khaloo, A. R., Dehestani, M., and Rahmatabadi, P. (2008). “Mechanical
properties of concrete containing a high volume of tire-rubber par-
ticles.” Waste Manage., 28(12), 2472–2482.
Khatib, Z. K., and Bayomy, F. M. (1999). “Rubberized portland cement
concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)
11:3(206), 206–213.
Naito, C., States, J., Jackson, C., and Bewick, B. (2013). “Crumb rubber
concrete performance under near field blast and ballistic demands.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000957.
Reda Taha, M., El-Dieb, A., Abd El-Wahab, M., and Abdel-Hameed, M.
(2008). “Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of
rubber concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561
(2008)20:10(640), 640–649.
Turatsinze, A., Bonnet, S., and Granju, J.-L. (2005). “Mechanical charac-
terization of cement-based mortar incorporating rubber aggregates from
recycled worn tires.” Build. Environ., 40(2), 221–226.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2008). “Scrap tires,
common wastes and materials.” 〈http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/
materials/tires/〉 (Mar. 10, 2014).
Wong, S.-F., and Ting, S.-K. (2009). “Use of recycled rubber tires in normal
and high-strength concretes.” ACI Mater. J., 106(4), 325–332.
Zheng, L., Huo, X., and Yuan, Y. (2008). “Strength, modulus of elasticity,
and brittleness index of rubberized concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:11(692), 692–699.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Copyright of Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering is the property of American Society of
Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.