Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Review

Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in concrete: A review

Ayesha Siddika a,⇑, Md. Abdullah Al Mamun b, Rayed Alyousef c, Y.H. Mugahed Amran c,
Farhad Aslani d,e, Hisham Alabduljabbar c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Pabna University of Science and Technology, Pabna 6600, Bangladesh
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi 6204, Bangladesh
c
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 11942 Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
d
Materials and Structures Innovation Group, School of Engineering, University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia
e
School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

 Review of the recent progress on the uses of waste tire in concrete.

 Rubber can be used in concrete as replacement of aggregates, binders, and fibers.
 Rubberized concrete leads to satisfactory mechanical and durability performances.
 Finer rubber aggregates showing better performance than coarser ones.

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

Article history: Accumulation of waste is subsequently increased to hazardous levels. Tire waste is one of them that
Received 10 April 2019 cause serious environmental issues because of the rapid rise in and numerous variations of modern
Received in revised form 20 June 2019 developments worldwide. Thus, recycling waste tire rubber in the form of aggregates as supplementary
Accepted 14 July 2019
construction material is advantageous. This paper reviews the source of waste tire rubbers and rubber-
ized cementitious composites along with their material properties, usages, durability, and serviceability
performances. This study also aims to provide a fundamental insight into the integrated applications of
Keywords:
rubberized concrete (RuC) composite materials to improve construction methods, including applications
Rubberized concrete
Waste tire
to enhance environmental sustainability of concrete structures in the construction industry. Inclusion of
Recycled rubber aggregate recycled rubber aggregate (RA) lightens concrete, increases its fatigue life and toughness, advances its
Durability dynamic properties, and improves its ductility. Concrete with recycled RA performs well in hot and cold
Mechanical performance weather and achieved significant results under critical exposure and various loading conditions. Though
RuC possesses low mechanical strength in general, specific treatment and additives inclusion can be a
good solution to improve those properties reliably. Investigations of RuC as materials are available signif-
icantly, but researches on the structural members of RuC should be enriched.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712
2. Source of waste tire rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
3. General recycling of rubber waste from waste tire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
4. Characteristics of tire rubber aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
5. Rubberized cementitious composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
5.1. Rubberized mortar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714
5.2. Rubberized composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716
5.3. Rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ayeshace@pust.ac.bd, ayesha.ruet@yahoo.com (A. Siddika), r.alyousef@psau.edu.sa (R. Alyousef), m.amran@psau.edu.sa (Y.H.M. Amran), farhad.
aslani@uwa.edu.au (F. Aslani), h.alabduljabbar@psau.edu.sa (H. Alabduljabbar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.108
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
712 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

6. Fresh properties of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

6.1. Workability and density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
6.2. Rheological properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717
7. Physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
7.1. Shrinkage properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
7.2. Creep behavior of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
8. Mechanical properties of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
8.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
8.2. Compressive stress–strain curves and modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
8.3. Tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720
8.4. Flexural strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
8.5. Resistance to abrasion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
8.6. Resistance of impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721
8.7. Resistance to fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
9. Dynamic properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
10. Durability properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
10.1. Water permeability and water absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
10.2. Carbonation resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
10.3. Chloride ion penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724
10.4. Sound absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
11. Functional properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
11.1. Fire resistance and thermal conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
11.2. Freeze-thaw resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
11.3. Electrical resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
12. Present state of utilization of rubber in concrete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
12.1. Pre-treatment of tire rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
12.2. Rubber as binder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726
12.3. Rubber as fine aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
12.4. Rubber as coarse aggregates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
12.5. Rubber as fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
13. Future trends of rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727
14. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728

1. Introduction
Tire production for vehicles is increasing exponentially given
the rapidly growing population and transportation development.
Substantial rubber waste is produced from waste tires past their
service time. Raffoul et al. [1] stated that tire waste is nearly pro-
portional to tire production given that the world’s yearly tire pro-
duction exceeded 2.9 billion tires in 2017. This massive amount of
non-biodegradable waste occupies a large area and causes environ-
mental hazards. Burning or using tire as fuel may produce toxic
gases that are harmful for environment and may cause destructive
pollution of natural air [2,3]. Tire rubber contains styrene, a
strongly toxic component that is highly damaging to humans [4].
Therefore, dumping of waste tires may be very dangerous to
human health. Recycling of waste in any way is beneficial. In recent
years, researchers have attempted to establish a proper guideline
for recycling tire waste in different ways. The global tire recycling
market was valued at USD 0.95 billion in 2016 and is expected to
grow at a compound annual growth rate of 2.1% during the forecast
period [5]. The same report revealed that North America accounts
for approximately 31% of the revenue share of the global tire recy-
cling market. In response to the growing environmental concerns,
waste tires are now being recycled in a manner that not only ben-
efits the environment but also contributes to economic growth. As
shown in Fig. 1, based on the report of the US Tire Manufacturers
Association [6], only 16% of scrap tires are dumped in landfills
while the rest are being recycled in different ways. The energy
recovered from waste tires also contribute to the economy of
industries in developed countries. Around 6% to 8% of waste tires
are being recycled as civil engineering materials in the US and in
EU countries, but only around 0.4% of waste tires are being recycled
in Australia [6–8] (Fig. 1).
Concrete is the most used construction material in the world.
Optimizing the cost while maximizing the strength and durability
of concrete along with improving the greenness of concrete con-
struction are current global challenges. This issue requires
advanced materials that can replace the traditional components
of concrete. Given the good strength, ductility, and strain control
properties of tire waste, it may be utilized as a substitute for con-
crete components. Rubber can be applied to concrete and mortar
by replacing fine aggregates (FA) and coarse aggregates (CA) or
used as binder. The advantages of incorporating crumb rubber
(CR) into any engineering cementitious composite (ECC) include
lowering the CO2 emissions and increasing the greenness of the
environment [9,10]. Moreover, the collection of natural sand is
changing the direction of river flow and causing the loss of river
bed stability. Such effects could be minimized through saving nat-
ural sand by supplanting it with CR in construction purpose. The
addition of flexible rubber into rigid concrete alters the overall per-
formance and properties of concrete [11] and may help produce
low self-weight structures with cost sustainability by reducing
the use of natural aggregates. A 14–28% reduction in unit weight
of concrete can be obtained by replacing 10–30% sand with CR
[12]. Mechanical strength is generally decreased when the natural
aggregates in plain concrete (PC) is replaced by rubber. A range of
30–63% compressive strength reduction may occur [13] when
5–20% of FA in PC is replaced by powdered rubber to produced
rubberized concrete (RuC). Thomas and Gupta [2] concluded that
replacement of 12.5% FA in concrete by CR is optimum with respect
to better resistance to water absorption and carbonation, as well as
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
Disposal of scrap tires in the US (2017) [6]
0.40% Energy recovery (local)
0% 5.60% 1.80%
materials reuse &
recycling (local)
10.90% Civil Engineering
applicaon (local)
Steel recycling
Exporetd ( re derived
38.70% fuel, baled & casings)
33%
Operaonal stockpiles
Landfill
6.70% Mining landfill
2.90% Unknown desnaon
Destination of waste tires in Australia (2016-2017) [7]
Fig. 1. Recycling status of waste tires in developed countries.
attainment of moderate compressive strength. Senin et al. [14]
advised not to exceed 20% rubber content in concrete. In some
cases, when rubber-concrete adhesion is satisfactory, the tensile
strength of RuC outperforms PC by replacing a small percentage
of sand with rubber [15]. Most research reveals that the ductility,
fatigue resistance, and impact resistance of RuC is better than those
of PC [16–18]. Inclusion of rubber may help the uniform and easy
dilation of concrete under load [19]. RuC can be applied in the con-
struction of structural elements with requirements of moderate
strength, low density, and high toughness [12,20]. Other desirable
applications of RuC involve vibration damping in structures, indus-
trial floors, road pavements, retaining structures, bridge sidewalks,
and decks [14,15,21,22]. RuC could be also utilized in hydraulic
structures, such as in tunnels and dam spillways, where high abra-
sion resistance is needed [23]; in thermal and acoustic insulation
system [24]; in running tracks and roadside barriers, where high
impact energy absorption capacity is needed [25]; in parking areas
[26]; and in cold climate zones with considerable freeze thaw
effects [27]. This study aims to provide a fundamental background
of rubberized concrete. Using tire in concrete can reduced pollu-
tion in environment. Mechanical performance, durability, behavior
under various loading conditions of rubberized concrete with pre-
sent guidelines and benefits are also presented. However, this
paper reviews the source of waste tire rubbers, rubberized cemen-
titious composites, material properties, applications, and durability
and serviceability performances. This review also aims to provide a
comprehensive insight into the integrated applications of concrete
713
Granulation
2%
1%
1% Incorporation in
6%
cement
15% steel mills & foundries
Reuse for other
purposes
75%
Pyrolysis
Civil engineering
public works &
backfilling
Materials recovery from waste tires in the EU (2016) [8]
composite materials to improve the methods of construction,
including the applications towards a better environmental sustain-
ability of concrete structures in the construction industry today.
2. Source of waste tire rubber
Major source of rubber waste is tire waste, which is broadly
classified into automobile and truck tires [13]. Mostly tires from
various sources are different in physical properties and composi-
tions. Thus, they have different effect on concrete strength when
used. The common ingredients of tire are natural and synthetic
rubbers, carbon black, metal, textile fabric and additives. RA can
be extracted from tires by using mechanical grinding either at
ambient or cryogenic or pyrolysis temperature [28]. A typical dia-
gram of tire showing its all parts is presented in Fig. 2 [29]. The
content of rubber with other major ingredients of different tires
are listed in Table 1.
The constituents of rubber are vulcanized together to get the
specific characteristics of tires. Meanwhile, the incorporation of
various additives such as stabilizers, antioxidants and antiozonants
in production of tire rubbers are making it non-biodegradable,
resistant to photochemical decomposition, chemical reagents and
high temperatures [33]. Thus waste tire management are techno-
logically, economically and ecologically challengeable. Though
car and truck tires are composed of special combination of con-
stituents, most of them contain nearly same amount of natural
714 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

utilized as filler, binder, or fine sand in concrete [13,38]. Fiber

obtained from waste tire is relatively efficient in terms of improv-
ing strength properties of RuC [22]. Different types of recycled rub-
ber aggregates (RAs), as they appeared in [24], are shown in Fig. 5
and their typical sizes are listed in Table 2. Density of recycled tire
rubber may vary between 0.5 and 0.55 g/cm3 [3,39]. The low water
absorption capacity and density of recycled RA suits the require-
ment of light weight aggregates. The typical physical properties
of recycled tire rubber as reported in previous studies are pre-
sented in Table 3. The general composition of CR involves natural
and synthetic rubber, carbon black, zinc, silicon, and other compo-
nents listed in the Table 4. The major component of carbon black
acts as reinforcement [40].

Fig. 2. Raw materials of tire [29].

5. Rubberized cementitious composites

and synthetic rubber content. Approximately 14%-55% rubber can 5.1. Rubberized mortar
be extracted from any types of tire depending upon the actual
compositions. Most of the share of rubber comes from the tread Rubberized mortar can be produced by replacing FA in mortar
and sidewall parts of tires. composites using crumb or powdered rubber at certain degrees
of replacement. Rubberized mortar is lighter than plain mortar,
but shows the same irregular morphological pattern, thereby lead-
3. General recycling of rubber waste from waste tire
ing to a porous structure [48]. Angelin et al. [46] investigated the
voids in rubberized mortar by scanning electron microscopy
Waste tire can be recycled through reconstruction, recovery of
(SEM) technique and found that the density of rubberized mortar
engineering materials, or deriving energy from such waste [33].
decreased with the addition of rubber due to the rubber’s lightness
In industry, waste tire can be used as fuel with high heat value,
and the void spaces entrapped in the cement matrix by RA. Rub-
and the by-products of rubber ash and steel fibers can be applied
berized mortar has high sound absorption capacity because of its
to concrete production [33]. As can be seen in Fig. 1, waste tires
high porosity [48]. Moreover, rubberized mortar has lower
are mostly utilized for energy recovery and are being reused as fuel
strength than plain mortar. The compressive and flexural strength
and construction materials in developed countries. Different types
of mortar with 5% CR is nearly 85% and 96% of normal mortar,
of composites derived from waste tires are also being recycled in
respectively; furthermore, rubberized mortar exhibits a ductile
the construction sector. The flow chart in Fig. 3 [29] presents the
failure mode with high deformation resistance [49]. The strength
whole life cycle of a tire up to its disposal. As observed, a waste tire
properties of rubberized mortar can be improved by adding a com-
can be recycled in various ways. This study aims to determine the
posite with rubber. Pre-coating of RA with limestone powder along
use of waste tires as cementitious materials. Waste tire contains
with the addition of silica fume may help enhance the bonding
rubber and steel fibers, which can be separated by applying differ-
between cement paste and rubber in mortar; it also increases the
ent techniques and could act as alternatives to raw engineering
overall strength and decreases capillary absorption [49]. Abd. Aziz
materials. CR recycled from waste tire can be used in concrete as
et al. [50] used CR with oil palm fruit fiber to produce a green com-
FA and CA. Steel fibers derived from tire waste can be used in con-
posite of mortar with low cost and modified strength. Their study
crete [34]. The recycled rubber fibers and steel fibers make con-
revealed improvements in the compressive strength, split tensile
crete stronger and tougher and exhibit improved post cracking
strength, and flexural strength following inclusion of 0.5% oil palm
behavior [35] and higher fatigue life [36]. Recycled fibers also pro-
fruit fiber in 0–40% CR used mortar. Rubberized mortar also exhi-
vide economic benefits in construction. The overall process of
bits high durability and can be utilized for protective plastering.
extracting RA from waste tires is illustrated in Fig. 4 [37], which
Such characteristic is due to the fact that hydrophobic performance
also shows each step in using a mechanical grinding system to
of rubberized mortars are better than that of its conventional coun-
manufacture different types of RA from waste tires.
terpart, and such performance can be magnified by increasing the
amount of smaller rubber particles [51]. Oikonomou and Mavridou
4. Characteristics of tire rubber aggregate [52] investigated chloride ion penetration in rubberized mortar.
Approximately 56% more resistance to chloride penetration was
RA can be used in varying sizes to generate proper gradation. observed when 12.5% sand was replaced by CR with bitumen
Chipped rubber is generally used to replace CA, irregularly- emulsion in the mortar. The drying shrinkage damage and alkali
shaped CR is employed as FA, and powdered rubber may be silica reaction of mortar can be reduced by the incorporation of

Table 1
Typical composition of tires.

Refs. Type of tire Composition (%)

Natural rubber Synthetic rubber Carbon black Steel Ash Others (fabric, textiles, fillers, and accelerators)
[30] Car tire 14 27 28 14–15
Truck tire 27 14 28 14–15
[31] 23.1 17.9 28 14.5 5.1 16.5
[32] Car tire 21–42 40–55 30–38 3–7
[33] Car tire 41–48 22–28 13–16 4–6
Truck tire 41–45 20–28 20–27 0–10
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731 715

Fig. 3. The various stages in the life of a tire [29].

Fig. 4. Industrial production process of tire waste as rubber aggregates [37].

716 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

Fig. 5. Rubber aggregates: (A) shredded, (B) crumb, (C) granular, and (D) fiber [24].

Table 2
Typical sizes of RAs.

Refs. Size of aggregates (mm)

Chipped/ shredded rubber Crumb Rubber Ground/powdered rubber Fiber rubber
[13] 25–30 3–10 <1
[38] 13–76 0.425–4.75 0.075–0.0475
[28] 13–76 0.5–5 0.15–19 8.5–21.5

Table 3
Physical characteristics of tire rubber.

Refs. Size in (mm) Water absorption (%) Specific gravity Density (t/m3)
[1] 0–5 – – 0.40–0.46
5–10 5.30–8.90 1.10 0.45
10–20 0.80–1.30 1.10 0.48
[41] 0.15–2.36 – 0.83 0.530
[42] 2–6 0.65 1.12 0.489

Table 4
Chemical composition of CR from tire waste.

Refs. Compositions (%)

Carbon Black Oxygen Zinc Sulfur Silicon Magnesium Aluminum Nitrogen Hydrogen Ash Polymer Organic compounds
[43] 87.51 9.23 1.76 1.08 0.20 0.14 0.08 – – – – –
[44] 31.3 – – 3.23 – – – – – 5.43 38.3
[45] 40 – – – – – – – 45 15
[46] 91.5 3.3 3.5 1.2 – – – – – –
[39,3] 30–38 – – 0–5 – – – – – 3–7 40–55 –
[47] 81.2–85.2 1.72–2.07 – 1.52–1.64 – – – 0.31–0.47 7.22–7.42 – – –

rubber particles [53]. Rubber fiber increases the matrix ductility,
allows for bridging between cracks, and reduces capillary pressure.
Overall, a 97.5% shrinkage crack area can be minimized by adding
0.4% tire rubber fiber [54]. Therefore, the overall performance of
rubberized mortar is sustainable.
5.2. Rubberized composites
Rubberized composites from different polymers can be specially
formed. To do this, composites in tire rubber must be separated
and mixed with required additives. A special geopolymer compos-
ite can be formed using NaOH and Na-K water glass activator with
the homogenous mixer of fly ash and tire-based steel fiber mixed
at a specific proportion [55,56]. However, the quality of rubberized
geopolymer may not be as high as that of a pure one because of the
involvement of rubber waste. A non-effloresced 3rd class brick
with 3.98 MPa compressive strength can be molded using rubber-
ized geopolymer [56]. Furthermore, any rubberized ECC has high
durability, high flexural deformation resistance, and high resis-
tance to control shrinkage and cracks [9]. Baricevic et al. [57] inves-
tigated the uses of recycled polymer from waste tire rubber in wet
sprayed concrete as replacement for polypropylene fibers; the
recycled polymer had lower capillary absorption and high resis-
tance to freeze-thaw conditions. Crushed rubber particles can be
recycled with elastomers or thermoplastics to create eco-friendly
rubber-polymer composites [58].
5.3. Rubberized concrete
The density of RuC is lower than that of PC. Noaman et al. [59]
found a 3% reduction in density when 15% of the sand was replaced
by CR, whereas Youssf et al. [60] found a 6.9% reduction when 50%
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
of the sand was replaced by CR. RuC density decreases with
increasing amount and size of RAs; for instance, approximately
38% lower density was observed for RuC with a 10% replacement
level [61]. This phenomenon occurs due to rubber’s air adhesion
and hydrophobicity [43], as well as the formation of porous con-
crete matrix. The density of CR added concrete is between 1800
and 2100 kg/m3 [62]. Conversely, Herrero et al. (2013) confirmed
the largest density reduction for RA with a small particle size.
Demir et al. [63] created a tire rubber concrete block and discov-
ered higher porosity in structures with higher rubber content. By
contrast, Nacif et al. [64] found no effects of rubber addition on
the porosity of cementitious composites. Addition of rubber
changes the compositions and chemical reactions in concrete,
and has an adverse effect on the hydration process. The carbon
and sulfur impurities in RuC are much higher than those in PC,
thereby causing poor chemical reactions during hydration and gen-
erating an undesirable reduction in concrete strength [65]. Given
its porosity and impurities, RuC has lower mechanical strength
than PC. Meanwhile, the addition of RA causing an increase in set-
ting time of RuC also, which increases with the content of RA [66].
Despite such disadvantages, RuC has more elastic behavior [67]
and ductility [68] compared with PC. The energy absorption capac-
ity of RuC is likewise better than that of PC [59]. RuC outperforms
PC in terms of abrasion resistance, and the former could be used in
floors as heavy duty tiles [23]. Finally, RuC displays better durabil-
ity against chemical absorption than PC [69].
6. Fresh properties of rubberized concrete
6.1. Workability and density
RuC has a lower workability compared with PC. The slump
value of RuC decreases along with the increasing percentage or
replacement of aggregates by rubber [61,70,71]. Specifically, slump
value reductions of around 19% to 93% were observed at replace-
ment levels of 20% to 100% [72]. The reduction in workability can
be mainly attributed to the higher water absorption capacity of
rubber compared with that of sand, whereas the low slump value
can be ascribed to the small particle size of the RA [71]. Workabil-
ity increases along with the high specific surface area of the con-
crete constituents even though a finer RA has a higher surface
(a) Workability of rubberized concrete
Fig. 6. Variation in the slump value and unit weight of RuC with rubber content [74]. SF = silica fume.
717
area compared with a coarser RA; therefore, a higher reduction is
also observed in workability [73]. This finding is more pronounced
for the high roughness of RA. Because the rough surface of RA caus-
ing the increasing particle friction within concrete and reacquires
more energy to flow [45]. Therefore, to obtain similar workability
water requirement in RuC is higher than PC. Fig. 6a [74] shows
the variations in slump value along with rubber content in con-
crete and reveals that the workability significantly decreases when
the rubber content exceeds the replacement level by 15%. Although
previous studies have proposed a dosage of superplasticizers to
enhance the workability of RuC [66,75]. Some contradiction found
in literatures also, where workability increased by up to 93% along
with an increasing fine RA (for the 30% replacement level) [76,77].
RAs have a lower density compared with natural aggregates,
and the replacement of natural aggregates by RA can reduce the
density of concrete. The very low adhesion between rubber and
cement paste in concrete can also explain the reduction in density
given that rubber acts as a void in the concrete matrix that
increases its porosity, thereby resulting in a low unit weight
[38,78]. Increasing the RA content corresponds to reducing the unit
weight of RuC as shown in Fig. 6b [74]. The density of RuC typically
decreases along with the RA content and size (as described in Sec-
tion 5.3). In most cases, the density of RuC reduces by around 20%
to 30% (about 1800 kg/m3 to 2100 kg/m3) compared with PC. In
addition, replacing 6% to 18% of FA with RA reduced the density
of RuC by 1.6–4.9% compared with PC [79].
6.2. Rheological properties
Along with static and dynamic yield stresses, plastic viscosity is
a rheological property of cementitious mix that greatly depends on
water content, aggregate properties, gradation of aggregates, mix-
ing time, mixing system, and temperature. The shapes and textures
of aggregates have a strong influence on the rheological properties
of concrete. Güneyisi et al. [80] performed a rheometer test and
found that at the same rotational speed, the use of RA in concrete
increased the applied torque because RAs are not as spherical as
the natural aggregates. They also observed the highest torque
increment in the self-compacting RuC with an RA that has a longi-
tudinal size of 10 mm to 40 mm. As shown in Fig. 7 [66], replacing
FA with CR gradually increases the value of viscosity; therefore, a
high shear rate mixing system is required in the preparation of a
(b) Unit weight of rubberized concrete
718 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
Fig. 7. Viscosity of self-compacting RuC [66]. R = rubber; FA = fly ash.
workable RuC. To reduce this negative effect of RuC, fly ash should
be added as a binder [66].
7. Physical properties
7.1. Shrinkage properties
The RA with low stiffness plays an important role in limiting the
number of cracks resulting from shrinkage by reducing the internal
restraint, lowering the elastic modulus, and bridging the cracks
that propagate within the concrete [81]. The low elastic modulus
of materials has been proven to reduce the thermal and shrinkage
stresses. Although the addition of RA can reduce the modulus of
elasticity [82] and subsequently reduce the shrinkage stress and
control the shrinkage cracks up to a reliable limit, using RA to
replace the natural aggregates by 20% can improve the resistance
of the material to shrinkage cracking [83]. In [81], the plastic
shrinkage of RuC decreases along with the addition of RA. The plas-
tic shrinkage gradually increases after exceeding the 20–25%
replacement level. By contrast, previous studies reveal that the
addition of RA can increase the drying shrinkage in concrete. As
shown in Fig. 8 [81], the drying shrinkage in concrete increases
along with the RA and water content. The analysis of the test
results obtained by [73] reveals that the shrinkage may increase
by 43% when 15% of FA is replaced by RA. These authors also
reported that RA significantly affects the shrinkage of concrete
until a full drying shrinkage takes place (evaporation of water from
concrete); after this point, RA does not produce any noticeable
effect on the shrinkage of concrete. Additionally, Yung et al. [84]
revealed that compared with PC, increasing the content of pow-
dered RA from 5% to 20% increases the shrinkage length by about
35% to 95%.
Fig. 8. Drying shrinkage of rubberized concrete [81].
7.2. Creep behavior of rubberized concrete
Given that the creep level is generally controlled by the stiffness
of aggregates, these aggregates must be stiff in character to resist
the creep deformation up to reliable limit. Creep is measured as
a long-term inelastic deformation that generally decreases with
time and is proportional to 0–40% of the compressive strength of
concrete [85]. A densely compacted concrete matrix can control
the highest creep deformation when hardened. As observed in pre-
vious studies and listed in Table 4, fillers and softeners account for
a high percentage of constituents in rubber tires. Therefore, the
aggregates derived from rubber tires are usually soft. For this rea-
son, the creep deformation must be increased after the addition of
RA in concrete. After one year of loading, the creep strains in high-
strength PC are about 35% lower than those in RuC with 60% RA
replacing the natural aggregates [86]. In Adamu et al. [85], the total
creep strain in the specimen with 10% CR increased by 61.04%,
78.44%, 81.07%, and 43.94% relative to the specimen with PC at 7,
30, 90, and 365 days, respectively (Fig. 9). Therefore, creep defor-
mation starts to decrease after the concrete experiences a full
strength gain.
8. Mechanical properties of rubberized concrete
8.1. Compressive strength
The compressive strength of RuC is generally lower than that of
PC [78,87,88]. Approximately 4–70% strength reduction was
observed in concrete with rubber content of 5–50% of natural
aggregates, which may vary in size from 0.075 mm to 6 mm
[42,89]. Results of compressive strength reduction from the litera-
ture are listed in Table 5. The overall reduction in the strength of
RuC depends on the size, shape, mechanical properties, and per-
centage replacement level of RA [38]. The causes of the decreasing
trend of RuC’s compressive strength with increasing rubber con-
tent is illustrated in different ways in various studies. One of the
major causes for this decreasing trend is the very low adhesion
between rubber and the cement paste in concrete, as the rubber
acts as a void in the concrete matrix and lowers the density of such
matrix [38,78]. The smooth surface of rubber causes low adhesion
with cement paste. Thomas and Chandra Gupta [23] performed an
SEM test and confirmed the presence of voids and cracks in the
rubber–cement paste interface, thereby indicating a weak bonding
condition. Another cause of strength reduction was the fact that
when RuC is subjected to compressive stress, tensile stresses
develop along the surface rubber particles and the attached cement
paste, thereby causing premature RuC cracking [87]. Such stresses
occur because of the softness of rubber particle cracks, which start
near the joint of the rubber and cement paste in concrete and
Fig. 9. Creep coefficient in the RuC mixture [85]. M = mix; C = CR; N = nano-silica.
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731 719

Table 5
Reduction in compressive strength of RuC from PC.

Refs. RA size Replacement Specimen Properties Variation in compressive Variation in modulus of Remarks
(mm) level strength elasticity
[59] 1.18–2.36 5–15% FA Cube (w/c = 0.47 with Reduced by 12.7–26% Reduced by 9.4–18.5% Compressive strength decreases
proportion 1:1.7:2.1) along with the increasing size
and RA content
[79] average 6–18% FA Cylinder (w/c = 0.5 with Reduced by 10.9–30.9% Reduced by 2.2–10.1% Ductility increases with the
1.18 proportion 1:1.5:2.7) inclusion of rubber
[18] 1.18 and 6–18% FA Cylinder (w/c = 0.5 with Reduced by 11.5–31.9% Reduced by 4.4–13.7% RA improved the energy
2.36 proportion 1:1.7:2.7) absorption capacity and
toughness of concrete
[38] <10 5–10% CA Cylinder (w/c = 0.5 with Reduced by 10–23% Reduced by 17–25% Rubber acts as a cavity, and any
45 mm-1.2 5–10% Binder proportion 1:2.26:2.44) Reduced by 20–40% Reduced by 18–36% concentrated load in the ITZ
resulted in the rapid breakdown
of concrete

quickly propagate toward failure. A very wide and porous weak
interfacial transition zone (ITZ; the weakest part of concrete mix)
is observed in RuC, because the hydrophobic nature of RA tends
to repel cement paste [43]. Researchers used additional materials
to overcome such problems. Silica fumes can be added to enhance
the bonding in ITZ [23,90]. Another possibility is using a non-
homogenous matrix in concrete, because RA rises to the upper sur-
face of the mold when compacted due to its lower specific gravity
[38]. The bigger the size of RA, the greater the reduction in the
compressive strength of RuC is (Fig. 10) [91]. Turki et al. [92] sug-
gested mineral fillers (siliceous or limestone) with rubber to
enhance the mechanical properties of RuC. Xie et al. [93] used silica
fumes with rubber and steel fiber used in concrete to enhance the
strength; they obtained positive results for up to 20% of the rubber
content. Additionally, pre-treatment of RA by using specified sol-
vent, modifier such as emulsion, resin or other specific proven
helpful for improving the bonding between rubber and concrete
[3,41,90,94,95]. Improved bond strength within RuC progressively
resulting a good and reliable mechanical strength.
8.2. Compressive stress–strain curves and modulus of elasticity
Ductility and strain control capacity can be increased by the
inclusion of rubber in concrete [30,42,59,96]. This increment in
ductility was highest when mixed crumb and chipped rubber
replaced both FA and CA [91]. Given RA’s soft structure, multiple
tensile cracks developed within RuC under force, thereby leading
to high energy absorption and ductility before failure [87]. Large
elastic deformation before failure appeared in RuC [28]. Duarte
et al. [88] found a 170% increase in strain ratio of RuC to PC for
15% uses of rubber content, and this ratio increases with rubber
content and renders RuC more ductile. Accordingly, PC specimens
fail in a brittle manner, but RuC did not exhibit brittle failure under
compressive stress due to rubber’s plastic nature [28,97]. RuC
shows wide strain softening and higher peak strain before failure
compared with PC. A general stress–strain relationship of RuC is
shown in Fig. 11 [59]. The stress–strain behavior of RuC is similar
to that of PC for up to 40% rubber content used in replacing FA, but
it has a lower peak than PC [72]. Moreover, the uses of RA in con-
crete increases the rupture strain and toughness value of concrete
[59,98]. RuC requires high plastic energy to fail after the elastic
range, and this trait makes RuC tougher. Higher rubber content
indicates RuC’s increasing toughness [72].
Studying previous investigations, it can be summarized that the
stress-strain performance of RuC is normally more nonlinear com-
pared to that of PC and pre-peak behavior of concrete is extremely
influenced by addition of rubber particles. The ultimate strain of
RuC increases for higher RA content and finer RA size, and the crack
prevention and plastic deformation ability of RuC is expected to
observe higher for finer RA rather than the coarser ones.

Fig. 10. Variation of the compressive strength of RuC with rubber content [91].
720 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves of RuC with varying rubber contents [72].
The static and dynamic moduli of elasticity of RuC are lower
than those of PC, whereas the percentage of reduction increases
along with the increasing percentage of rubber used [38,82] and
may be indicative of a positive increase in the overall flexibility
of the structure [42,43] and in the suitability of pavement concrete
where a lower elasticity is needed [99]. Zheng et al. [82] observed a
19% and 5.7% reduction in the static and dynamic moduli of elastic-
ity, respectively, when FA is replaced by 15% ground rubber. A fur-
ther reduction in the modulus of elasticity was observed when
Fig. 12. Variation in the elasticity moduli of RuC with CR content [100].
Fig. 13. Variation of split tensile strength of RuC with rubber content [91].
crushed rubber was used. Using recycled tire fiber on concrete also
resulted in a higher modulus of elasticity compared with using CR
[22]. Noaman et al. [59] increased the rubber content in plain and
fibrous concrete from 5% to 15% and observed a 9.1% additional
reduction in modulus of elasticity, whereas Mohammed et al.
[99] observed an additional 3.4% reduction when the CR content
in concrete was increased by 20% to 30%. Therefore, the size and
quantity of RA negatively affect the modulus of elasticity of RuC
(Fig. 12). Previous studies [38,100] and Fig. 12 reveal that the
reductions in the dynamic and static moduli of elasticity of RuC
with rubber were more pronounced in a 10% replacement level
and that such reductions decelerate when this level is exceeded.
The typical variation in the modulus of elasticity of RuC as
observed in previous research is summarized in Table 5. As shown
in this table, the reduction in elastic modulus for an RuC with a
coarser RA is greater than that for an RuC with finer aggregates.
Moreover, the replacement of the binder with rubber powder dras-
tically reduced the strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete.
The addition of RA generated a ductile concrete matrix in all inves-
tigated cases.
8.3. Tensile strength
Generally, the tensile strength of the RuC specimen is lower
compared with that of PC [45]. Akinyele et al. [65] revealed a
41% decrease in tensile strength when 4% CR was added to concrete
a replacement of FA and a 58% decrease when 16% CR was used.
Therefore, higher RA caused lower strength. When aggregates are
replaced by chipped rubber, the reduction in the tensile strength
of concrete is more than that of RuC with powdered rubber for
cement replacement [97]. The variation of split tensile strength
of RuC with RA content and size is shown in Fig. 13 [91]. Several
reasons for this phenomenon were previously provided by
researchers. The surface where RA and cement paste come in con-
tact acts as a micro-crack, whereas the RA acts as cavity; therefore,
the overall tensile strength of RuC is lower than that of PC [38].
Weak ITZ and stress concentration along the ITZ constitute one
of the causes of rapid failure of RuC under tensile stress. Aslani
et al. [45] reported minimum reduction in tensile strength when
5 mm sized RA was used instead of the 2 and 10 mm sized aggre-
gate. This situation can happen due to high surface area, but the
same volume of 2 and 5 mm aggregate was used as FA in RuC.
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
The 10 mm sized aggregate used to replace CA caused a larger vol-
ume occupied by rubber. Gesoğlu et al. [26] explained this behav-
ior as the smaller sized RAs being isolated with one another and
producing weak bonding between cement pastes, whereas larger
aggregates act as reinforcing fibers and cause lower strength loss
than their smaller counterparts. Splitting occurs in the RuC speci-
men along the aggregate particle or paste rather than at the ITZ.
To improve the tensile strength of a structure constructed with
RuC, a hybrid construction technique may be applied. In a hybrid
RuC structure, the top layer consists of RuC, the bottom layer is
made of PC, and maximum bending load capacity is reached. The
benefit of the hybrid structures is that they provide high energy
absorption capacity with RuC on top and high tensile strength with
PC along the bottom layer [101].
8.4. Flexural strength
The decreasing trend of flexural strength of RuC is nearly similar
to the compressive and the split tensile strength, as reported in lit-
erature [72] and shown in Fig. 4. Similarly, Thomas and Gupta [2]
found a 25–27% reduction in flexural tensile strength when 20%
sand was replaced by CR in concrete. Improved flexural toughness
was observed in self-compacting rubberized concrete [42]. Early
stage flexural strength of RuC is not substantially lower than that
of PC for up to 30% inclusion of rubber with low water–cement
ratio [28]. The positive aspect is that RuC does not fail suddenly
as ordinary concrete under bending [102]. Thus, RuC does not exhi-
bit brittle failure under flexural loading and fails with a certain
amount of deformation but does not achieve full disintegration
[23,97]. The weak bond of rubber and cement paste causes a stee-
per reduction of flexural strength compared with the reduction of
its compressive strength [78], as shown in Fig. 14 [72]. For a smal-
ler sized RA, less reduction in strength was revealed in the bending
test. This behavior is due to the high compact capacity of small
sized materials. In some cases with additional filling materials,
flexural strength can be increased up to a certain limit for 20% rub-
ber content [103]. Addition of silica fume is advantageous in terms
of decreasing the strength reduction under flexural loading of RuC
[104]. Additionally, researchers recommend to use steel or syn-
thetic fibers in RuC to improve the flexural strength and cracking
resistance of it [67].
8.5. Resistance to abrasion
RuC exhibits better abrasion resistance than PC [23,97,105].
Increase in abrasion resistance continues with the addition of rub-
ber in concrete [106]. The abrasion depth of RuC decreased from
73% to 61% compared with PC when the RA content increased by
10–30%. A denser matrix always shows better abrasion resistance.
The density of concrete increases with the addition of finer rubber
particles, hence the abrasion resistance also increased. A typical
Fig. 14. Variation of strength reduction with rubber content [72].
721
Fig. 15. Variation of the abrasion depth of RuC with rubber content [105].
representation of the variation in abrasion resistance with rubber
content and rubber size is shown in Fig. 15 [105]. In Fig. 7, the
RuC with finer CR exhibits lower abrasion depth, whereas the
increased RA content shows increased abrasion resistance. The
increase in wear resistance may be due to the soft nature of rubber,
which acts like a brush. On the contrary, higher abrasion damage in
RuC may occur when excessive rubber content is used, because the
agglomeration of rubber may cause reduction in the surface stiff-
ness of the matrix [107]. During the specimen’s molding, the vibra-
tion of RA tends to head for surfaces of the concrete specimen
because of its lower specific gravity than natural aggregates. This
trend can be pronounced when rubber content is excessive. Conse-
quently, the bond strength between rubber and cement paste is
lower, and higher abrasion occurs due to wear. At the same time,
the RA at the surface of the concrete specimen has more contact
area for the abrasion test rotating disc, which causes more wear
in the soft surface of RA [89].
8.6. Resistance of impact
RuC has better performance under impact loading than under
static loading [101]. Improved impact energy was observed in
RuC for higher content of rubber by up to 50% replacement of sand
[61,96,101]. Youssf et al. [60] concluded that the replacement of
sand in concrete by 10% and 50% CR could increase impact resis-
tance by 1.55 and 3.52 times, respectively, compared with PC.
Addition of 18% rubber as sand replacement in concrete can
improve the toughness index by up to 11.8% [18], where the frac-
ture energy under impact loading can be increased by up to 279%
by the addition of 20% CR instead of sand in concrete [101]. The
high toughness of RuC is produced from rubber’s ability to absorb
high tensile loads [3]. RA could absorb sudden shock because of its
nature, which cannot be achieved by natural aggregates because of
their brittle nature. Under impact force, RuC shows better resis-
tance to crack control, because it has better ductility than PC
[20]. Hameed and Shashikala [16] claimed that the RuC sleeper
helps increase the resistance to crack formation under impact
loads of up to 80–110% in comparison with PC. The impact strength
of the RuC sleeper is almost 1.5 times that of the prestressed con-
crete sleeper, when sand replacement level is at 15%. Kaewunruen
et al. [4] found that the best performance of railway concrete slee-
per is achieved with 5% CR as micro-filler with silica fume. Sukon-
tasukkul al. [108] investigated the bullet resistance of a RuC panel
by firing 11 mm bullets from 15 m distances. Addition of a layer of
RuC on the concrete panel absorbs the kinetic energy of bullet and
lowers its velocity, an ability which may stop bullets or prevent
them from bouncing back. The impact energy absorption capacity
of the RuC column increases with increasing rubber content, and
722 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731

the said column can double the deflection of the PC column before
failure [25,109]. Pham et al. [25] confirmed up to 63% increment in
impact energy in the RuC column with 30% CR compared with the
PC column. A typical variation of the energy dissipation in different
concrete mixtures with varying rubber content is shown in Fig. 16
[110], which depicts an increasing trend of energy dissipation
capacity in concrete with rubber content. Therefore, RuC is suitable
under impact loading condition, but the use of excessive rubber is
not allowed, because excessive rubber content leads to porosity,
thereby resulting in lower impact load carrying capacity. In a pre-
vious study [110], substituting natural aggregates by 100% rubber
in concrete caused approximately 72% decrease in impact load
capacity.

8.7. Resistance to fatigue Fig. 17. Fatigue life variation of RuC with varying rubber content [102]. RC = rubber
content.
The fatigue resistance of bridge and road pavement structures
are crucial. Using RA improves the fatigue strength of concrete.
could be used in the construction of railway sleepers. The vibration
Fatigue performance of reinforced pavement with RuC is much bet-
absorption and damping ratio increases with the amount of RA in
ter than that of PC for the same stress level [111]. RA acts as a
RuC [117]. The damping ratio of fine grained RA incorporated into
micro spring in RC composites given their elastic and fiber-like nat-
concrete was higher than the coarser one [118]. A characteristic
ure, which delays crack initiation, integrates the micro-cracks
diagram showing the variation in damping ratio with the rubber
under the repeated load, and increases overall fatigue life [112].
content in concrete is shown in Fig. 18 [100]. The graph indicates
Trilok Gupta et al. [113] found that the number of load cycles in
a common increasing trend in the damping ratio with increasing
RuC increased by 14.39% and 16.23% from PC for stress levels 0.9
rubber content, and the increment is significant up to the early
and 0.8, respectively, when FA was replaced by 20% rubber ash.
stage of the load cycle. Therefore, under dynamic loading, RuC will
Interestingly, the highest (52.33%) increment of load cycle for
be superior to PC [19], because the former delayed crack initiation
stress level 0.8 was observed, when 10% rubber ash with 25% rub-
and rebar fracture under seismic loading, thereby indicating lower
ber fiber replaced FA in PC. Therefore, high rubber content leads to
demand of rebar [119] and has economic benefits. RuC can be used
high fatigue life. Warm mix asphalt concrete with CR provides bet-
in earthquake resistance structures due to its high hysteric damp-
ter fatigue life under repeating loads [17,114] because CR increases
ing ratio and energy dissipation capacity [70,120]. Columns con-
the toughness of the asphalt mix [40], as well as its elasticity, vis-
structed with RuC exhibit 13% higher hysteretic damping ratio
cosity, and aging resistance [114]. Only a minimal change in pave-
and 150% energy dissipation but possess lower viscous damping
ment slab thickness was noted by increasing the amount of rubber
than PC [121]. The natural frequency of the RuC column is higher
fraction (up to 5% rubber content) under the same fatigue loading
than that of the PC column considering the high initial stiffness
[115], a feature that makes road constructions economical. A typi-
of the former. An RuC column with rubber instead of 20% sand used
cal variation in fatigue life cycle under different stress ratios
in a bridge structure could maintain integrity up to 5.4% drift, but
applied in RuC with various rubber content is shown in Fig. 17
an RC column loses 20% strength capacity before a drift level of
[102]. The graph shows an increase in fatigue life cycle with
4.8% [119]. A study [121] reveals that although an RuC column
increasing rubber content in RuC at a similar stress level. Therefore,
can reach up to 91.5% ultimate drift level relative to a PC counter-
inclusion of rubber in concrete enhances the resistance against
part, the overall fracture and damage can be delayed and reduced
repeated loading condition.
in the RuC column under seismic loading. Unfortunately, increas-
ing the amount of rubber makes concrete weak in terms of overall
9. Dynamic properties mechanical strength. Sometimes, the poor adhesion and agglomer-
ation of rubber within the concrete mix may result in the reduction
The dynamic properties of concrete improved after adding RA of energy dissipation capacity [118]. The dynamic modulus of RuC
[24,93]. The damping ratio of RuC is much better than that of PC also decreased with increasing rubber content in concrete [21,121],
[42,70,116]. RuC can absorb more vibrational energy than PC and and low elasticity may cause heavy deflection. Inclusion of RuC in
steel tubes produced a high seismic performance by taking advan-
tage of RuC’s high energy absorption capacity and ductile nature
[88]. Nevertheless, addition of excessive rubber content can show
a negative impact on the energy absorption capacity of concrete
[93], which is vulnerable under a dynamic load.

10. Durability properties

10.1. Water permeability and water absorption

Although the absorption capacities of natural aggregates and

Fig. 16. Average energy transferred at maximum dynamic impact load with varying
rubber content [110].
RAs are close to each other [43], the water absorption capacity of
RuC was higher than that of PC [23,43,97]. The water absorption
increased by approximately 20–73% in RuC with 10–70% rubber
instead of FA [61]. The increase in water absorption in RuC as dri-
ven by the inclusion of coarser RA was greater than that driven by
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731 723

Fig. 18. Variation of the damping ratio of RuC with CR content [100].

the inclusion of finer RA [73]. However, despite this characteristic,
rubberized cementitious composites are suitable for the plastering
of outside walls and flat roofs that may be exposed to water flows
because of their hydrophobic nature [51]. The water absorption of
RuC can also be reduced by the inclusion of FA. Previous studies
[122] found that replacing 25% of FAs by CR in self-compacting
RuC with 60% FA significantly reduced the water absorption capac-
ity of concrete. Meanwhile, water permeability and water absorp-
tion both increased along with the RA size and content [38,71]. A
water permeability increment of around 114–150% was also
observed after replacing CA by 5–10% of RA [38]. Meanwhile,
compared to using PC, using 0.3 mm and 3 mm RA in concrete
increased the water permeability of the material by 38% and
209%, respectively [71]. Fig. 19 [123] shows how the replacement
of natural aggregates changes the water absorption capacity of
concrete. The long-term water absorption capacity of RuC is signif-
icantly higher than that of PC, although only slight differences are
observed during the early curing period.
Table 6 shows how the water absorption capacity of RuC
changes along with the CR content and reveals that the RA size
and content as well as the water–cement ratio of the mixture
can negatively affect water absorption resistance.

Fig. 19. Water absorption capacity of RuC with varying RA contents [123].

Table 6
Water absorption of RuC with varying RA size and content.

Ref. Replacement Size of RA (mm) Water absorption Remarks

[38] 5–10% CA 2–10 Increased by 2.75–3.95% The size and content of RA have negative effects on water absorption resistance
[73] 5–15% FA 0–4 Increased by 3–14%
[43] 5–20% FA 0–1.9 Increased by 11–154% Depends on the water–cement ratio and RA content
[124] 0–12% FA 0–0.8 Reduced by 5–23% Densely packed matrix formed by fine RA, which is resistant to water absorption
[123] 0–7.5% FA 0–4 Reduced by 0–1.7% Long-term exposure drives a significant increase in the water absorption of RuC than of PC.
10–20% FA Increased by 0–2.5%
724 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
10.2. Carbonation resistance
The carbonation resistance of RuC is generally lower than that
of PC [96]. Previous studies [125] reveal that using up to 12.5% rub-
ber in concrete results in a lower carbonation depth compared
with using PC. Any further addition of RA increases the carbonation
depth in RuC. When 15% CA is replaced by RA, the carbonation
depth increases by around 56% [73]. Another study [73] reported
that the water absorption and carbonation trends are similar for
an RuC with varying RA content and size. Although the water
requirements for the RuC mixture are higher than those for PC,
therefore it is a general case of formation more porous RuC matrix
and consequently more liquid absorption after hardened. The car-
bonation depth in RuC increases along with the age of concrete.
Gupta et al. [43] argued that the carbonation depth of RuC
increases along with the content of powdered rubber. They also
found that the carbonation depth increases along with CO2 expo-
sure duration for any replacement level. Given its hydrophobic nat-
ure, RA tends to repel cement paste [43], thereby forming a porous
matrix with weak ITZ in concrete. Another study [23] revealed the
presence of additional voids and cracks within RuC that created a
path for carbon dioxide to easily invade the internal concrete.
The compacted and densely packed matrix of RuC is always bene-
ficial in lowering the carbonation depth. Given that a larger RA pro-
duces a more porous RuC, carbonation depth also increases along
with the RA size and content.
10.3. Chloride ion penetration
While the porosity of RuC is higher than that of PC, the chemical
absorption of the former is generally higher than the latter. Some
previous experiments [43,76] have returned positive results and
confirmed the high resistance of RuC to chloride ion and water
Fig. 20. Variation in chloride penetration in RuC [123].
Table 7
Chloride ion penetration with the addition of RA.
Ref. Replacement Size of RA (mm) Chloride penetration depth
[52] 2.5–15% FA 0.75–1.18 Reduced by 14–36%
[74] 5–25% FA 0–4 Increased by 6–40%
[123] 0.7–5% FA 0–4 Reduced by 0–4.8%
10–20% FA Increased by 4.8–19%
penetration. According to Si et al. [53], the total volume of perme-
able voids in RuC is lower than those in PC; therefore, the liquid
absorption of the former is also lower than that of the latter. Liu
et al. [94] found that replacing 20% of FA in concrete with CR could
lead to the highest durability. Other studies [73,125] reveal that
using up to 5–7.5% CR could result in a greater reduction in chlo-
ride ion penetration in RuC compared with that in PC. Exceeding
this figure will reduce the penetration resistance due to the low
internal packing density of RuC. The finer size of RA results in a clo-
sely packed matrix because of the filler effects of the rubber con-
tent. Conversely, increasing the size of the aggregates can
increase porosity and subsequently increase chemical and water
absorption. Furthermore, RuC faces a lower long-term loss in
strength compared with PC under acid exposure conditions, and
such loss in strength decelerates as the amount of rubber increases
[125]. This trend can be explained by the fact that rubber particles
act as reinforcing media and hold the constituents of concrete. As
observed in previous research [122], the incorporation of FA in
the self-compacting RuC may enhance its resistance to chloride
ion penetration if a short curing period is maintained. Meanwhile,
the results of another study [74] revealed that even though the
addition of RA reduced the resistance of the material to chloride
ion penetration, RA can be reduced by the addition of silica fume
(SF) with concrete. Fig. 20 [123] reveals that replacing the CR in
RuC up to 7.5% of the fine aggregates can reduce chloride penetra-
tion, and any further addition of CR can reduce the resistance of
concrete to chloride penetration and consequently increase the
chloride penetration depth.
Table 7 presents the significant findings of previous studies on
the chloride penetration resistance of RuC. These findings
reveal that the water absorption and chloride penetration of RuC
show a similar trend as both the RA and water–cement ratio
increase.
Remarks
As the density of RuC increases, the chloride penetration decreases
Chloride penetration increases along with the water–cement ratio
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
Fig. 21. Sound transmission in RuC with varying rubber content [127]. S = silica;
F = fly ash.
10.4. Sound absorption
Concrete with high porosity (15–25%) is sufficient to absorb
sound [126]. RuC possesses a higher porous structure than PC.
Thus, the sound absorption and noise reduction properties of RuC
is superior to those of PC [15,31,107]. Najim and Hall [24] revealed
that the improvement of the sound absorption capacity of RuC is
noticeable beyond 500 Hz and significantly greater above
1000 Hz compared with PC. RuC contains 80–100% fibers along
with CR, replacing CA, exhibit 33–48.6% improved sound absorp-
tion capacity in the frequency ranged 800–1000 Hz [126]. Mortar
containing 25% CR showed higher sound absorption capacity than
plain mortar in the range of 600–24 Hz [48]. Acoustic emission
amplitudes and cracks are also well distributed in RuC than in PC
[120]. Given the high damping coefficient observed in RuC, the
vibration produced from the sound wave was rapidly dampened
and sound was absorbed shortly [118]. The bar chart shown in
Fig. 21 [127] represents the variation of sound transmission class
in the RuC specimens with different CR contents. The figure indi-
cates that RA’s increasing amount in concrete increases sound
absorption capacity.
11. Functional properties
11.1. Fire resistance and thermal conductivity
Rubber is combustible under fire and has low decomposition
temperature [128]. Therefore, RuC is not safe as PC under a direct
fire condition. However, the structural component made by RuC
exhibited lower spalling damage under fire [129]. After exposing
the RuC specimens with 5%, 10%, and 15% CR at 800 °C for 1 h,
the residual compressive strength were found to be 37.3%, 55.4%,
and 69.5% of the control specimens [128]. Therefore, increasing
the rubber content causes a significant reduction in fire resistance
of concrete. Such result was also pronounced for coarser RA. As
observed in research [75], average mass loss in concrete with
30% and 40% CR of size 5–10 mm are almost twice than the mass
loss observed for concrete with 2–5 mm sized CR.
In addition, RuC has better thermal insulation property due to
the lower thermal conductivity of rubber, a feature which may
vary between 0.1 and 0.25 W/mK, whereas the conventional aggre-
gate’s thermal conductivity is approximately 1.5 W/mK [62,130].
The thermal conductivity of concrete can be lowered by up to
50% by the incorporation of RA [31], and this reduction continues
with the finer size of RAs [32]. Constructional elements (slab and
bricks) made by RA may ensure the consistency of the interior tem-
perature while the exterior temperature fluctuates, and a temper-
725
ature gradient of up to 5.6% is possible between the interior and
exterior parts [44]. Approximately 20–50% reduction in thermal
conductivity and 17–54% reduction in heat transfer have been
reported in previous research when 10–30% rubber is used in con-
crete instead of sand. The risk of bursting of the concrete compos-
ite can be lowered by incorporating RA to concrete subjected to
temperatures above 600 °C [92]. Youssf et al. [60] found no cracks
in RuC when exposed to 100 °C temperature for 24 h with up to
20% sand replacement level, but further increase in rubber content
also increased the crack formation. As found in previous research,
when RuC with 15% rubber content was exposed to 800 °C for 1 h,
it lost its 69% of its compressive strength and 63% of its split tensile
strength [128]. On the contrary, the RuC specimens with 10% rub-
ber in the experiment of Gupta et al. [131] fully deteriorated when
exposed at 750 °C for 120 min because of the decomposition of
rubber. The authors emphasized the fact that the cause of this
deterioration is the very porous structure of RuC, and decomposi-
tion occurs beyond the 150 °C temperature. At elevated tempera-
tures (over 400 °C), the calcium silica hydrates start to denigrate,
thereby degrading the bond strength within the concrete matrix
and leading to strength reduction [132]. Again, the porosity of
the concrete matrix increases due to the evaporation of water
entrapped in the voids of RuC after heating at high temperature,
thereby weakening the concrete. Strength loss of RuC at elevated
temperature was illustrated as a natural characteristics, and for
this reason structural application of RuC shall not be stopped [128].
In addition, crumb rubberized binders have noticeably better
performance at low temperature. The replacement of sand by rub-
ber also bridged the micro-cracks developed upon exposure to ele-
vated temperatures [61]. Thermal expansion contraction of RuC is
much lower than that of PC, and the risk of shrinkage cracking is
very low [79].
11.2. Freeze-thaw resistance
The freeze-thaw resistance of concrete can be increased by the
inclusion of rubber [93,94,105]. The average weight loss of RuC
specimens exposed to freeze-thaw experiment was very low
(approximately 2–3.5%) after 240 freeze-thaw cycles [27,105]. In
general, increasing the content of rubber in concrete increases its
freeze-thaw resistance. Finer RA produces densely packed RuC,
which prevents the interior bonding from deterioration due to
the continuous freeze-thaw condition as the finer rubber particles
entrained and trapped air bubbles within the cement paste and
lowered the permeability. However, when the rubber content
exceeds the optimum limit, agglomeration occurs and a porous
structure is formed, thereby resulting in low resistance of concrete
under freeze-thaw cyclic conditions. A typical graphical represen-
tation of mass loss in RuC with different fractions and sizes of RA
due to the continuous freeze-thaw cycles are shown in Fig. 22
Fig. 22. Disparity in mass loss in RuC with freeze-thaw cycles [105]. TC = tire chips;
CR = crumb rubber; FCR = fine CR.
726 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
Fig. 23. Electrical resistivity of RuC with varying content of ingredients [127].
S = silica fume; F = fly ash; CR = crumb rubber.
[105]. The size of the aggregate adversely affects freeze-thaw resis-
tance, as shown in Fig. 22. When water enters the porous concrete
matrix and becomes ice at freezing temperatures, its volume
increases, and pressure is produced in the voids, thereby generat-
ing micro-cracks [20]. These cracks are the weakest parts under
repeated freeze-thaw cycle. Through the addition of air-
entraining additives and with the creation of consistent spherical
voids, the frost-induced ice pressure is reduced significantly, and
freeze-thaw resistance thereby increases [20].
11.3. Electrical resistivity
RuC possesses better electrical resistivity compared with PC,
because rubber acts as a dielectric material and is used as insulator
for different purposes [69]. The electrical resistance of concrete
decreases by the addition of finer RA, and approximately 17% sur-
face resistance was found after inclusion of 0.6 mm sized 50% RA
[127]. In addition, Kaewunruen et al. [4] discovered increased elec-
trical resistance by up to 47%. Pre-treated RA in NaOH solution
shows better electrical resistivity than ordinary RA [21]. Si et al.
[53] found an inverse relation between rubber content and electri-
cal resistivity of RuC, but over 50% increase in rubber volume may
positively affect concrete’s electrical resistance. With increasing
age of the RuC, the electrical resistivity increases; after full hydra-
tion, more end products (calcium silicate hydrate) are produced,
and they act as barriers to the transmission of electrical charges
[127]. The electrical resistivity of RuC increases with increasing
amount of RA, as shown in Fig. 23 [127]. Addition of silica fume
is recommended by researchers to improve RuC’s electrical resis-
tivity [127].
12. Present state of utilization of rubber in concrete
12.1. Pre-treatment of tire rubber
To increase the adhesion between concrete and RA, pre-
treatment of rubber is needed [41,95]. A general technique of rub-
ber pre-treatment involves submerging rubber in any solvent (ace-
tone, ethanol, methanol, NaOH, polyvinyl alcohol, Ca(OH)2, acid,
and silane coupling agent) for a specified time [3,90]. Synthetic
resin, amino-acrylate (contact glue), chloroprene adhesive and
unsaturated resins (marble glue), emulsion, and ethoxyline resins
are also used as modifiers for RA pre-treatment and have satisfac-
tory performance to enhance bonding [94]. Waste tire aggregates
can also be treated by organic sulfur compounds and mineral acids
[50]. Pre-treatment helps remove zinc stearate film from the sur-
face of rubber particles and increases roughness and bonding with
concrete [116]. Pre-treatment of RA by NaOH produces a weak
basic condition along the rubber-cement interface and accelerates
cement hydration [69], which in turn creates a highly dense com-
posite through the enhancement of bonding [53] and increases in
electrical resistivity [21]. After ponding for a specific time, rubber
needs to be washed to reduce its pH level to 7. Youssf et al. [41]
ponded rubber in 10% NaOH solution for 30 min only at controlled
temperature (around 25 °C) for pre-treatment. Rubber stiffness
may decrease when treatment with NaOH solution exceeds
30 min [41]. Conversely, Su et al. [133] found no significant
improvement in the properties of rubber particle after treatment
with NaOH solution for less than 24 h. Therefore, pre-treatment
time and temperature should be controlled. Rubber treatment with
acetone solvent may help increase the mechanical strength of the
composite [95]. Pre-coated RA also facilitated the improvement
of the mechanical properties of RuC. Pre-coating may be done by
using carbon tetrachloride and an aqueous latex additive, cement
paste, cellulose ether, amphiphilic organosulfur compounds [3],
mortar paste [134], and silica fume [90]. Najim and Hall [134]
experimented on various types of pre-treatment and coating sys-
tems of RA, such as normal water washed rubber, cement paste
pre-coated rubber, mortar pre-coated rubber, and NaOH pre-
treated RA. Their experiment revealed that by using mortar pre-
coated RA, the stress distribution, compressive strength, and split
tensile strength of RuC can increased to a reliable level. Su et al.
[133] stated that pre-treatment of RA by silane coupling agent
has a more positive effect than saturated NaOH on RuC’s surface
characteristics and strength properties. In addition, Aslani et al.
[45] found that pre-treatment of RA by water-soaking is practica-
ble and cost effective. By contrast, Raffoul et al. [90] stated that
pre-washing by water and pre-coating by silica fume of RA has
no effect on RuC’s strength. Therefore, the performances of
pre-treated and pre-coated RA are better, but the best method of
pre-treatment is still up for debate.
12.2. Rubber as binder
Powder from waste tire rubber can be used with binders in var-
ious engineering constructions. In polymer concrete, ground tire
rubber can be used as a cementitious material [38]. Supplementary
addition of CR with asphalt in pavement construction is one of the
general uses of rubber particles as a binder. Sofi [97] stated that
when 5–10% of cement content in PC was replaced by rubber pow-
der of particle size ranging from 45 mm to 1.2 mm, only 5–23%
reduction in compressive strength of specimens were observed.
Addition of 2.5–10% ground tire rubber in polymer concrete also
caused a reduction in compressive strength by approximately
28–37%; flexural strength decreased by 18–21% [135]. Moreover,
5–10% cement replacement caused approximately 20–40% com-
pressive strength in another research [38]. The reduction in
strength usually depends on the size and gradation of ground rub-
ber and the pre-treatment adopted. In comparing the replacement
of aggregates, the replacement of cement by rubber caused higher
strength reduction because of the low adhesion of rubber with the
constituents of concrete. Nevertheless, adding ground rubber to
concrete showed a flatter post-peak behavior, which is an expected
property of concrete for seismic design [135]. The crack resistant
capacity of RuC with a rubber binder is better than that of PC up
to an optimum level of replacement. In cold weather zone, crumb
rubberized asphalt pavement showed better crack resistance
capacity than normal asphalt pavements [40]. In concrete, 0–10%
cement could be replaced by rubber composites, which must be
prepared to achieve the desired dispersion and binding action
[33] before being used in the mix. Very limited information
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
regarding rubber binders is available, and research on rubber bin-
der in concrete is still lacking.
12.3. Rubber as fine aggregates
CR and powdered rubber could replace FA in concrete. The size,
density, and fineness modulus of crumb or powdered rubber con-
trol the overall strength and durability of RuC. Previous research
revealed that finer rubber particles ensures better strength of rub-
berized composites [64]. Thomas and Gupta [2] replaced up to 20%
of natural FA in concrete using CR of different sizes in powder form
of 30 mesh, 0.8–2 mm, and 2–4 mm. The results revealed the opti-
mum content of 12.5% of crumb RA. Hameed and Shashikala [16]
used 15% CR to replace FA in a concrete sleeper made for a railway,
and trustworthy impact strength, fatigue, and ductility property in
RuC were found. Gheni et al. [70] used 20% CR to replace sand in a
rubberized concrete masonry unit and confirmed improved dura-
bility under a critical condition. Gupta et al. [43] replaced FA in
concrete with rubber ash with particle sizes of 0.15–0.19 mm
obtained by incinerating tire rubber at 850 °C for 72 h. They also
used rubber fiber of 2–3 mm width and maximum length of
20 mm to replace FA up to 25% level. In all types of ECCs, rubber
can be used after replacing sand. The modulus of elasticity of
RuC decreases with increasing FA content in such composites, a
trait that benefits pavement concrete by making it more flexible
in nature [99]. Maximum replacement percentages of FA by CR
have been identified by the literature as up to 25% [67,69], 20%
[100], and 10% [27].
12.4. Rubber as coarse aggregates
Chipped rubber of various sizes can be used in concrete as CA,
because RuC that has well-graded RA of various sizes performs bet-
ter with applied load than single sized aggregates [23]. Jafari and
Toufigh [98] used chipped rubber and CR in concrete to test the
effectiveness of rubber size on strength. They found greater reduc-
tion in strength for chipped rubber than CR in concrete. By con-
trast, higher reduction in density was observed for CR in
concrete. Inclusion of rubber as a replacement of FA is more reli-
able than as replacement for CA in terms of strength properties,
although coarser RA particles produce more workable RuC than
finer ones [71]. As found by Jafari and Toufigh [98], a 75–100%
increase in energy absorption capacity occurs more in CR concrete
than in chipped rubber concrete. On the contrary, the split tensile
strength of RuC increases with coarser rubber, because such a com-
ponent acts as a reinforcing fiber in cement paste [91]. A similar
conclusion was revealed by Filipe et al. [136]. They stated that
coarse RA in RuC offers better performance in terms of compressive
strength and split tensile strength than finer RA. Additional supple-
mentary materials can reduce this strength reduction. For example,
EA helps improve the bond strength between concrete and rubber,
and the compressive strength of RuC was higher than that of PC for
an EA/cement ratio of up to 0.10 [137]. RuC in which CA was
replaced by 80–100% fibers of steel or plastic coated with CR can
be used in the marketplace where high noise (frequency ranges
from 700 Hz to 1300 Hz) may occur [126]. The optimum level of
replacement is margined by 30% of coarse aggregate in most previ-
ous studies [24].
12.5. Rubber as fiber
Recycled tire polymer fibers can be used to enhance the
mechanical properties of concrete. Rubber fiber can also be used
as FA replacement. Rubber fiber concrete (RfC) is generally porous
and possesses low compressive strength. As revealed in the litera-
ture, 77% reduction in compressive strength was observed after
727
replacing natural sand by 50% rubber fiber of size under 1 mm
[138], because the lower stiffness and low adhesion of rubber fiber
with the ingredients in concrete creates voids within the concrete
matrix [139]. Additionally, the tensile strength and flexural
strength of RfC is higher than those of PC. Research showed that
approximately 6.75% increased split tensile strength and 5.4%
improved flexural strength can be obtained by replacing 0–30%
rubber fiber instead of FAs [139]. Moreover, 18% flexural strength
improvement was reported in another research for a 20% replace-
ment level [138]. Rubber fibers have a crack bridging effect and a
longer term grip than natural aggregates, and such characteristics
resulted in a ductile matrix of concrete and reduced the width of
cracks under tension and bending action. The overall improvement
depends on the size of rubber fibers and the level of fiber content,
because excess fiber may create agglomeration and strength reduc-
tion may be caused by porous matrix formation [138]. RfC also pos-
sesses high durability and high resistance to the freeze-thaw effect,
as well as reduces early stage deformation by almost 75–100%
[140]. The recommended amounts of rubber fiber content in con-
crete are 1% [140], 5%, [131], and 20% [138] to maintain stability
and strength to an optimum level. However, investigations on
the inclusion of rubber fiber in concrete remain lacking. Further-
more, the use of rubber in concrete can lower the bonding property
compared with the natural aggregates. Thus, this issue is addressed
by the incorporation of epoxy resins and fibers in the RuC mix
design [98,141]. Modified RuC can be an alternative to improve
the compressive and tensile strength of RuC by including steel
fibers [142,143]. Noaman et al. [59] found a 24.5% increase in com-
pressive strength of RuC by mixing 0.5% steel fiber with 15% CR.
RuC also possesses high durability [143]. Other additional materi-
als could be used in RuC to enhance its overall performance, such
as silica fume [93], fly ash [144], and polypropylene fibers [67].
Addition of nano-silica in RuC increases elasticity but reduces duc-
tility; it also makes RuC rigid [99]. Increasing rubber content in
concrete leads to poor hydration reaction [65], which can be
improved by adding nano-silica in concrete [111]. Nano-silica
increases the density of the overall concrete mixture by increasing
the bonding of cement paste and rubber in the ITZ. Confining the
structural member constructed using RuC by fiber-reinforced poly-
mers [19,145] and steel tubes [77,88] increases the overall
performance.
13. Future trends of rubberized concrete
Several studies conforms that the uses of waste tire rubber in
concrete are sustainable in terms of economy, environment and
mechanical performance of concrete. But there is very a limited
investigations on applications of RuC in reinforced structural mem-
bers were observed. As observed from the present available study
on application of RuC in full-scale RC beams and columns that the
RuC can be successfully implemented in those members under ser-
vice load as well as extreme loading conditions [41,121,146–150].
It was reviewed that the RuC columns can be able to undergo more
than two times lateral deformation without buckling failure com-
pared to the conventional one [150]. Meanwhile the investigations
on uses of advance materials to confinement the structural col-
umns incorporating RuC also have a good potential [60,145,151].
Additionally, prestressed members with RuC gaining attention,
because it was proven that the negative effect of RA addition in
concrete at the structural level are not as much as the material
level [152]. For protective structure against blast and impact load-
ing RuC with special arrangement can be a good alternative. As
observed in the previous study [153], RuC can be helpful to reduce
impact force of up to 50% with extended impact duration.
Meanwhile, the impact resistance can be further more increased
728 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
by confining the RuC member through any fiber reinforced poly-
mer sheet or tube. Therefore, advance protective structure could
be possible by using RuC and extensive research needed on this
field to establish proper guidelines for the best results.
Meanwhile, Rubber aggregates are being used in self-
compacting concrete [45,75,154], high-performance fiber-
reinforced concrete [155], and showing reliable performance under
high temperature and service loading. Though uses of rubber in
self-compacting concrete is showing negative effect, but addition
of fibers and silica fume are a good solution to improvement the
properties of self-compacting RuC [156]. Investigations on the
application of self-compacting and fibrous RuC on structural mem-
ber under service and extreme loading conditions are not sufficient
in present state. Meanwhile, modellings on the materials proper-
ties to establish proper relation among properties and serviceabil-
ity should have to add in this research filed.
14. Conclusions
Tire production is continuously increased in parallel with the
economic and industrial development of the world, thereby pro-
ducing massive waste per year. Disposal and burning of waste tire
have been proven as harmful for environmental safety and recy-
cling of rubber is the most desirable alternative. The application
of recycled waste tire rubber in concrete construction is an effec-
tive and sustainable process. Waste tire rubber can be utilized in
concrete as a replacement of fine aggregates, coarse aggregates,
binders, and fibers. Moreover, waste tire rubber can be employed
in other cementitious composites, such as in mortar, polymer com-
posites, and geopolymers. Using RA in any ECC changes the physi-
cal, mechanical, durability, and functional properties of that
composite. Therefore, the present use of RA with its results and
guidelines must be ascertained before any further application. This
study provides a general discussion of the uses of recycled tire rub-
ber in cementing composites and the behavioral changes that
occur with the current guidelines. The wide-ranging considera-
tions in using RuC are also discussed in this paper. The general con-
clusions of this review are as follows:
 Concrete mix with RAs possess low workability. The addition of
RAs in concrete makes it porous and lightweight because of air
adhesion and rubber’s hydrophobicity, which are characteristics
that depend on the size and content of rubber. Generally, uses of
coarser RAs produce more porous concrete matrixes, but this
fact may be contradictory in special cases.
 In general, the addition of rubber in concrete can reduce
mechanical properties, and this trend increases with rubber’s
size and content. A wide and porous weak ITZ was observed
in RuC due to the low adhesion of rubber with cement paste.
The reduction in tensile strength and flexural strength
was lower than the reduction in compressive strength.
Pre-treatment process and additives, such as silica fume and
mineral filler, enhance RuC’s strength.
 Ductility and strain control capacity of concrete is higher after
adding rubber. As rubber is a soft material, it increases the
energy absorption capacity and deflection capability without
cracking. Therefore, a flatter stress–strain relationship is
observed with increasing rubber content. The size and quantity
of rubber negatively affect the modulus of elasticity of concrete.
 RuC has very high impact energy absorption capacity but low
abrasion resistance because of RA’s soft nature and low specific
gravity. The soft and elastic nature of RA makes it hard for con-
crete to absorb sudden shock, but the ultimate load carrying
capacity of RuC is lower than that of PC. The repeating cyclic
load resistance and damping ratio of RuC improves with
increasing rubber content. This feature helps increase fatigue
life, sound absorption capacity, and seismic resistance of
structures.
 Rubberized concrete can survive up to a reliable limit in cold
and hot regions. However, the addition of rubber to concrete
makes it porous, thereby lowering durability because of the
increased water and chemical absorption and easy access of
frost and temperature action. Surface resistance to passing elec-
trical charges improves because of the non-conductive nature of
rubber. The problem associated with the risk of fire and thermal
resistance must be addressed.
 The optimum level of replacement by RA of the conventional
ingredients in concrete depends on the design strength, struc-
tural requirements, loading condition, and environmental expo-
sure conditions. Generally, researchers suggest higher optimum
replacement level for fine aggregates than for coarse aggregates.
The replacement of cement by rubber powder remains under
consideration in many studies. Addition of rubber fiber shows
moderate results on RuC’s mechanical properties.
This review reveals a lack of guidelines and modeling of the
general relationship of RA addition and other functional and dura-
bility properties. Extensive researches required on the application
of RuC in structural reinforced concrete members. Investigations
are required to increase the application of RuC in the construction
field to provide safe and reliable strength and durability, as well as
prevent accidental damage associated with RuC.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineer-
ing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.
References
[1] S. Raffoul, R. Garcia, D. Escolano-Margarit, M. Guadagnini, I. Hajirasouliha, K.
Pilakoutas, Behaviour of unconfined and FRP-confined rubberised concrete in
axial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 388–397, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.175.
[2] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, Long term behaviour of cement concrete containing
discarded tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 102 (2015) 78–87, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.072.
[3] B. Muñoz-Sánchez, M.J. Arévalo-Caballero, M.C. Pacheco-Menor, Influence of
acetic acid and calcium hydroxide treatments of rubber waste on the
properties of rubberized mortars, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) 75, https://doi.
org/10.1617/s11527-016-0912-7.
[4] S. Kaewunruen, D. Li, Y. Chen, Z. Xiang, Enhancement of dynamic damping in
eco-friendly railway concrete sleepers using waste-tyre crumb rubber,
Materials (Basel) 11 (2018) 1169, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11071169.
[5] Global Tire Recycling Market Share, Size, Trends Analysis | Forecast 2024, (n.d.).
https://www.goldsteinresearch.com/report/global-tire-recycling-industry-
market-trends-analysis (accessed April 8, 2019).
[6] U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association | The national trade association for tire
manufacturers that make tires in the U.S., (n.d.). https://www.ustires.org/
(accessed April 8, 2019).
[7] Interesting statistics on the destination of old tyres in Australia, (n.d.). https://
www.gdtc6.com/statistics-old-tyres-in-australia/ (accessed April 8, 2019).
[8] ETRMA’s statistics on scrap tire collection and recycling in Europe, (n.d.).
https://weibold.com/etrmas-statistics-on-scrap-tire-collection-and-
recycling-in-europe/ (accessed April 8, 2019).
[9] Z. Zhang, H. Ma, S. Qian, Investigation on properties of ECC incorporating
crumb rubber of different sizes, J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 13 (2015) 241–251,
https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.13.241.
[10] F. Azevedo, F. Pacheco-Torgal, C. Jesus, J.L. Barroso de Aguiar, A.F. Camões,
Properties and durability of HPC with tyre rubber wastes, Constr.
Build. Mater. 34 (2012) 186–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2012.02.062.
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
[11] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Cerro-Prada, F. Escolano, F. Varela, Fatigue performance
of waste rubber concrete for rigid road pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 176
(2018) 539–548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.030.
[12] P. Asutkar, S.B. Shinde, R. Patel, Study on the behaviour of rubber aggregates
concrete beams using analytical approach, Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J. 20
(2017) 151–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.07.007.
[13] N.N. Gerges, C.A. Issa, S.A. Fawaz, Rubber concrete: Mechanical and
dynamical properties, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00184 e00184.
[14] M.S. Senin, S. Shahidan, S.R. Abdullah, N.A. Guntor, A.S. Leman, A review on
the suitability of rubberized concrete for concrete bridge decks, IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 271 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/271/1/
012074 012074.
[15] A. Grinys, H. Sivilevičius, M. Daukšys, Tyre rubber additive effect on concrete
mixture strength, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 18 (2012) 393–401, https://doi.org/
10.3846/13923730.2012.693536.
[16] A.S. Hameed, A.P. Shashikala, Suitability of rubber concrete for railway
sleepers, Perspect. Sci. 8 (2016) 32–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.
2016.01.011.
[17] F. Xiao, P.E. Wenbin Zhao, S.N. Amirkhanian, Fatigue behavior of rubberized
asphalt concrete mixtures containing warm asphalt additives, Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (2009) 3144–3151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2009.06.036.
[18] D. Li, Y. Zhuge, R. Gravina, J.E. Mills, Compressive stress strain behavior of
crumb rubber concrete (CRC) and application in reinforced CRC slab, Constr.
Build. Mater. 166 (2018) 745–759, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.01.142.
[19] A. Moustafa, M.A. ElGawady, Strain rate effect on properties of rubberized
concrete confined with glass fiber-reinforced polymers, J. Compos. Constr. 20
(2016) 04016014, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000658.
[20] T. Gonen, Freezing-thawing and impact resistance of concretes containing
waste crumb rubbers, Constr. Build. Mater. 177 (2018) 436–442, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.105.
[21] R. Si, J. Wang, S. Guo, Q. Dai, S. Han, Evaluation of laboratory performance of
self-consolidating concrete with recycled tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 180
(2018) 823–831, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.180.
[22] G. Li, S.-S. Pang, S.I. Ibekwe, FRP tube encased rubberized concrete cylinders,
Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 233–243, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9622-
8.
[23] B.S. Thomas, R. Chandra Gupta, Properties of high strength concrete
containing scrap tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 86–92, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.019.
[24] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, A review of the fresh/hardened properties and
applications for plain- (PRC) and self-compacting rubberised concrete
(SCRC), Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 2043–2051, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2010.04.056.
[25] T.M. Pham, X. Zhang, M. Elchalakani, A. Karrech, H. Hao, A. Ryan, Dynamic
response of rubberized concrete columns with and without FRP confinement
subjected to lateral impact, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 207–218, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.146.
[26] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, G. Khoshnaw, S. Ipek,_ Investigating properties of
pervious concretes containing waste tire rubbers, Constr. Build. Mater. 63
(2014) 206–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.046.
_ Topçu, A. Demir, Durability of Rubberized Mortar and Concrete, J. Mater.
[27] I.B.
Civ. Eng. 19 (2007) 173–178, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561
(2007) 19:2(173).
_ Topçu, A. Unverdi, Scrap tires/crumb rubber, in: Waste Suppl. Cem. Mater.
[28] I.B.
Concr., Elsevier, 2018, pp. 51–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
102156-9.00002-X.
[29] Krishna C. Baranwal, Akron rubber development laboratory, astm standards &
testing of recycle rubber, in: Rubber Div. Meet. Am. Chem. Soc., San Francisco,
California, 2003.
[30] L. Li, S. Ruan, L. Zeng, Mechanical properties and constitutive equations of
concrete containing a low volume of tire rubber particles, Constr. Build.
Mater. 70 (2014) 291–308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2014.07.105.
[31] P. Sukontasukkul, Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and sound
properties of pre-cast concrete panel, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1084–
1092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.021.
[32] S. Herrero, P. Mayor, F. Hernández-Olivares, Influence of proportion and
particle size gradation of rubber from end-of-life tires on mechanical, thermal
and acoustic properties of plaster–rubber mortars, Mater. Des. 47 (2013)
633–642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.063.
[33] S. Ramarad, M. Khalid, C.T. Ratnam, A.L. Chuah, W. Rashmi, Waste tire rubber
in polymer blends: A review on the evolution, properties and future, Prog.
Mater. Sci. 72 (2015) 100–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.
2015.02.004.
[34] A. Caggiano, H. Xargay, P. Folino, E. Martinelli, Experimental and numerical
characterization of the bond behavior of steel fibers recovered from waste
tires embedded in cementitious matrices, Cem. Concr. Compos. 62 (2015)
146–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.04.015.
[35] M.A. Aiello, F. Leuzzi, G. Centonze, A. Maffezzoli, Use of steel fibres recovered
from waste tyres as reinforcement in concrete: Pull-out behaviour,
compressive and flexural strength, Waste Manag. 29 (2009) 1960–1970,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.002.
729
[36] A.G. Graeff, K. Pilakoutas, K. Neocleous, M.V.N.N. Peres, Fatigue resistance and
cracking mechanism of concrete pavements reinforced with recycled steel
fibres recovered from post-consumer tyres, Eng. Struct. 45 (2012) 385–395,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.030.
[37] Eldan Recycling A/S Værkmestervej 4 – 5600 Faaborg, Denmark, (2018).
http://www.eldan-recycling.com.
[38] E. Ganjian, M. Khorami, A.A. Maghsoudi, Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for
aggregate and filler in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1828–1836,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.09.020.
[39] O. López-Zaldívar, R. Lozano-Díez, S. Herrero del Cura, P. Mayor-Lobo, F.
Hernández-Olivares, Effects of water absorption on the microstructure of
plaster with end-of-life tire rubber mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 150 (2017)
558–567, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.014.
[40] T. Wang, F. Xiao, S. Amirkhanian, W. Huang, M. Zheng, A review on low
temperature performances of rubberized asphalt materials, Constr. Build.
Mater. 145 (2017) 483–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2017.04.031.
[41] O. Youssf, R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, Retrofitting square columns using FRP-
confined crumb rubber concrete to improve confinement efficiency, Constr.
Build. Mater. 153 (2017) 146–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.07.108.
[42] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, Mechanical and dynamic properties of self-compacting
crumb rubber modified concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (2012) 521–530,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.07.013.
[43] 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2014.09.102.
[44] E. Fraile-Garcia, J. Ferreiro-Cabello, M. Mendivil-Giro, A.S. Vicente-Navarro,
Thermal behaviour of hollow blocks and bricks made of concrete doped with
waste tyre rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 176 (2018) 193–200, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.015.
[45] F. Aslani, G. Ma, D.L. Yim Wan, V.X. Tran Le, Experimental investigation into
rubber granules and their effects on the fresh and hardened properties of self-
compacting concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 1835–1847, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.003.
[46] A.F. Angelin, F.M. Da Silva, L.A.G. Barbosa, R.C.C. Lintz, M.A.G. De Carvalho, R.
A.S. Franco, Voids identification in rubberized mortar digital images using K-
Means and Watershed algorithms, J. Clean. Prod. 164 (2017) 455–464,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.202.
[47] J.H. Chen, K.S. Chen, L.Y. Tong, On the pyrolysis kinetics of scrap automotive
tires, J. Hazard. Mater. 84 (2001) 43–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894
(01)00180-7.
[48] A.C. Corredor-Bedoya, R.A. Zoppi, A.L. Serpa, Composites of scrap tire rubber
particles and adhesive mortar – Noise insulation potential, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 82 (2017) 45–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.
2017.05.007.
[49] O. Onuaguluchi, Effects of surface pre-coating and silica fume on crumb
rubber-cement matrix interface and cement mortar properties, J. Clean. Prod.
104 (2015) 339–345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.116.
[50] F.N.A. Abd, S.M. Aziz, N.A.M. Bida, M.S. Jaafar Nasir, Mechanical properties of
lightweight mortar modified with oil palm fruit fibre and tire crumb, Constr.
Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 544–550, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.09.100.
[51] R. Di Mundo, A. Petrella, M. Notarnicola, Surface and bulk hydrophobic
cement composites by tyre rubber addition, Constr. Build. Mater. 172 (2018)
176–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.233.
[52] N. Oikonomou, S. Mavridou, Improvement of chloride ion penetration
resistance in cement mortars modified with rubber from worn automobile
tires, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (2009) 403–407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2009.04.004.
[53] R. Si, S. Guo, Q. Dai, Durability performance of rubberized mortar and
concrete with NaOH-Solution treated rubber particles, Constr. Build. Mater.
153 (2017) 496–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.085.
[54] O. Onuaguluchi, N. Banthia, Durability performance of polymeric scrap tire
fibers and its reinforced cement mortar, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) 158, https://
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1025-7.
[55] G. Mucsi, Á. Szenczi, S. Nagy, Fiber reinforced geopolymer from synergetic
utilization of fly ash and waste tire, J. Clean. Prod. 178 (2018) 429–440,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.018.
[56] B.S. Mohammed, M.S. Liew, W.S. Alaloul, A. Al-Fakih, W. Ibrahim, M. Adamu,
Development of rubberized geopolymer interlocking bricks, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 8 (2018) 401–408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.03.007.
[57] A. Baricevic, M. Pezer, M. Jelcic Rukavina, M. Serdar, N. Stirmer, Effect of
polymer fibers recycled from waste tires on properties of wet-sprayed
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 176 (2018) 135–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.04.229.
[58] M. Sienkiewicz, H. Janik, K. Borze˛dowska-Labuda, J. Kucińska-Lipka,
Environmentally friendly polymer-rubber composites obtained from waste
tyres: A review, J. Clean. Prod. 147 (2017) 560–571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.01.121.
[59] A.T. Noaman, B.H. Abu Bakar, H.M. Akil, Experimental investigation on
compression toughness of rubberized steel fibre concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 115 (2016) 163–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2016.04.022.
730 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
[60] O. Youssf, R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, Mechanical performance of FRP-confined and
unconfined crumb rubber concrete containing high rubber content, J. Build.
Eng. 11 (2017) 115–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.04.011.
[61] V. Corinaldesi, J. Donnini, Waste rubber aggregates, in: New Trends Eco-
Efficient Recycl. Concr., Elsevier, 2019, pp. 87–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-102480-5.00004-X.
[62] V.P. Swapna, R. Stephen, Recycling of rubber, in: Recycl. Polym., Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2016, pp. 141–161, https://
doi.org/10.1002/9783527689002.ch5.
[63] F. Demir, B. Yesilata, P. Turgut, H. Bulut, Y. Isiker, Investigation of the effects of
pH, aging and scrap tire content on the dissolution behaviors of new scrap
tire-concrete mixture structures, J. Clean. Prod. 93 (2015) 38–46, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.043.
[64] G.L. Nacif, T.H. Panzera, K. Strecker, A.L. Christoforo, K. Paine, Investigations
on cementitious composites based on rubber particle waste additions, Mater.
Res. 16 (2012) 259–268, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-
14392012005000177.
[65] J.O. Akinyele, R.W. Salim, W.K. Kupolati, The impact of rubber crumb on the
mechanical and chemical properties of concrete, Eng. Struct. Technol. 7
(2016) 197–204, https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2016.1152169.
[66] E. Güneyisi, Fresh properties of self-compacting rubberized concrete
incorporated with fly ash, Mater. Struct. 43 (2010) 1037–1048, https://doi.
org/10.1617/s11527-009-9564-1.
[67] Y. Park, A. Abolmaali, M. Mohammadagha, S.-H. Lee, Flexural characteristic of
rubberized hybrid concrete reinforced with steel and synthetic fibers, Adv.
Civ. Eng. Mater. 3 (2014) 20140011, https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20140011.
[68] X. Huang, R. Ranade, W. Ni, V.C. Li, On the use of recycled tire rubber to
develop low E-modulus ECC for durable concrete repairs, Constr. Build.
Mater. 46 (2013) 134–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2013.04.027.
[69] S. Guo, Q. Dai, R. Si, X. Sun, C. Lu, Evaluation of properties and performance of
rubber-modified concrete for recycling of waste scrap tire, J. Clean. Prod. 148
(2017) 681–689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.046.
[70] A.A. Gheni, M.A. ElGawady, J.J. Myers, Mechanical characterization of
concrete masonry units manufactured with crumb rubber aggregate, ACI
Mater. J. 114 (2017) 65–76, https://doi.org/10.14359/51689482.
[71] H. Su, J. Yang, T.-C. Ling, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Properties of concrete
prepared with waste tyre rubber particles of uniform and varying sizes, J.
Clean. Prod. 91 (2015) 288–296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2014.12.022.
[72] M.K. Batayneh, I. Marie, I. Asi, Promoting the use of crumb rubber concrete in
developing countries, Waste Manag. 28 (2008) 2171–2176, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.035.
[73] M. Bravo, J. de Brito, Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: durability-
related performance, J. Clean. Prod. 25 (2012) 42–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2011.11.066.
[74] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, Strength development and chloride penetration in
rubberized concretes with and without silica fume, Mater. Struct. 40 (2007)
953–964, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9279-0.
[75] F. Aslani, M. Khan, Properties of high-performance self-compacting
rubberized concrete exposed to high temperatures, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31
(2019) 04019040, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002672.
[76] O. Onuaguluchi, D.K. Panesar, Hardened properties of concrete mixtures
containing pre-coated crumb rubber and silica fume, J. Clean. Prod. 82 (2014)
125–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.068.
[77] R. Abendeh, H.S. Ahmad, Y.M. Hunaiti, Experimental studies on the behavior
of concrete-filled steel tubes incorporating crumb rubber, J. Constr. Steel Res.
122 (2016) 251–260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.03.022.
[78] F. Aslani, Mechanical properties of waste tire rubber concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 28 (2016) 04015152, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001429.
[79] R. Hassanli, J.E. Mills, D. Li, T. Benn, Experimental and numerical study on the
behavior of rubberized concrete, Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 6 (2017) 20160026,
https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20160026.
_
[80] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoglu, N. Naji, S. Ipek, Evaluation of the rheological behavior
of fresh self-compacting rubberized concrete by using the Herschel-Bulkley
and modified Bingham models, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 16 (2016) 9–19, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2015.09.003.
[81] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, Shrinkage performance of Crumb Rubber
Concrete (CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for rigid
pavements, Cem. Concr. Compos. 62 (2015) 106–116, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.02.010.
[82] L. Zheng, X.S. Huo, Y. Yuan, Strength, modulus of elasticity, and brittleness
index of rubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 692–699, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008) 20:11(692).
[83] J. Kang, Y. Jiang, Improvement of cracking-resistance and flexural behavior of
cement-based materials by addition of rubber particles, J. Wuhan Univ.
Technol. Sci. Ed. 23 (2008) 579–583, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-006-
4579-8.
[84] W.H. Yung, L.C. Yung, L.H. Hua, A study of the durability properties of waste
tire rubber applied to self-compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 41
(2013) 665–672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.019.
[85] M. Adamu, Effect of crumb rubber and nano silica on the creep and drying
shrinkage of roller compacted concrete pavement, Int. J. Geomate. 15 (2018),
https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.47.22082.
[86] D.V. Bompa, A.Y. Elghazouli, Creep properties of recycled tyre rubber
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 209 (2019) 126–134, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.127.
[87] M.M. Reda Taha, A.S. El-Dieb, M.A. Abd El-Wahab, M.E. Abdel-Hameed,
Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of rubber concrete, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 640–649, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(2008)20:10(640).
[88] A.P.C. Duarte, B.A. Silva, N. Silvestre, J. de Brito, E. Júlio, J.M. Castro, Tests and
design of short steel tubes filled with rubberised concrete, Eng. Struct. 112
(2016) 274–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.018.
[89] E. Ozbay, M. Lachemi, U.K. Sevim, Compressive strength, abrasion resistance
and energy absorption capacity of rubberized concretes with and without
slag, Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 1297–1307, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-
010-9701-x.
[90] S. Raffoul, R. Garcia, K. Pilakoutas, M. Guadagnini, N.F. Medina, Optimisation
of rubberised concrete with high rubber content: An experimental
investigation, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 391–404, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.054.
[91] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, O. Hansu, S. Ipek, _ D.S. Asaad, Influence of waste
rubber utilization on the fracture and steel–concrete bond strength
properties of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 1113–1121, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.030.
[92] M. Turki, I. Zarrad, E. Bretagne, M. Quéneudec, Influence of filler addition on
mechanical behavior of cementitious mortar-rubber aggregates:
experimental study and modeling, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (2012) 1350–1358,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000512.
[93] J. Xie, C. Fang, Z. Lu, Z. Li, L. Li, Effects of the addition of silica fume and rubber
particles on the compressive behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete with
steel fibres, J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2018) 656–667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.06.237.
[94] H. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Jiao, T. Sha, Experimental investigation of the mechanical
and durability properties of crumb rubber concrete, Materials (Basel) 9
(2016) 172, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9030172.
[95] L.P. Rivas-Vázquez, R. Suárez-Orduña, J. Hernández-Torres, E. Aquino-
Bolaños, Effect of the surface treatment of recycled rubber on the
mechanical strength of composite concrete/rubber, Mater. Struct. 48 (2015)
2809–2814, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0355-y.
[96] A.M. Rashad, A comprehensive overview about recycling rubber as fine
aggregate replacement in traditional cementitious materials, Int. J. Sustain.
Built Environ. 5 (2016) 46–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe. 2015.11.003.
[97] A. Sofi, Effect of waste tyre rubber on mechanical and durability properties of
concrete – A review, Ain Shams Eng. J. (2017) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2017.08.007.
[98] K. Jafari, V. Toufigh, Experimental and analytical evaluation of rubberized
polymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 155 (2017) 495–510, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.097.
[99] B.S. Mohammed, M. Adamu, N. Shafiq, Establishing relationship between
modulus of elasticity and strength of nano silica modified roller compacted
rubbercrete, Int. J. Geomate. 13 (2017) 103–110, https://doi.org/10.21660/
2017.39.23401.
[100] A. Moustafa, M. ElGawady, Dynamic properties of high strength rubberized
concrete, ACI Spec. Publ. (2017) 1–22.
[101] M.M. Al-Tayeb, B.H. Abu Bakar, H.M. Akil, H. Ismail, Performance of
rubberized and hybrid rubberized concrete structures under static and
impact load conditions, Exp. Mech. 53 (2013) 377–384, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11340-012-9651-z.
[102] F. Liu, W. Zheng, L. Li, W. Feng, G. Ning, Mechanical and fatigue performance
of rubber concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 711–719, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.055.
[103] A. Yilmaz, N. Degirmenci, Possibility of using waste tire rubber and fly ash
with Portland cement as construction materials, Waste Manag. 29 (2009)
1541–1546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.11.002.
[104] M. Elchalakani, High strength rubberized concrete containing silica fume for
the construction of sustainable road side barriers, Structures 1 (2015) 20–38,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2014.06.001.
[105] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, G. Khoshnaw, S. Ipek, _ Abrasion and freezing–thawing
resistance of pervious concretes containing waste rubbers, Constr. Build.
Mater. 73 (2014) 19–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.047.
[106] J. Kang, B. Zhang, G. Li, The abrasion-resistance investigation of rubberized
concrete, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Sci. Ed. 27 (2012) 1144–1148, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11595-012-0619-8.
[107] K.E. Ridgley, A.A. Abouhussien, A.A.A. Hassan, B. Colbourne, Evaluation of
abrasion resistance of self-consolidating rubberized concrete by acoustic
emission analysis, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2018) 04018196, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002402.
[108] P. Sukontasukkul, S. Jamnam, M. Sappakittipakorn, N. Banthia, Preliminary
study on bullet resistance of double-layer concrete panel made of rubberized
and steel fiber reinforced concrete, Mater. Struct. 47 (2014) 117–125, https://
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0049-x.
[109] A.Y. Elghazouli, D.V. Bompa, B. Xu, A.M. Ruiz-Teran, P.J. Stafford, Performance
of rubberised reinforced concrete members under cyclic loading, Eng. Struct.
166 (2018) 526–545, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.090.
[110] A.O. Atahan, A.Ö. Yücel, Crumb rubber in concrete: Static and dynamic
evaluation, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 617–622, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2012.04.068.
 A. Siddika et al. / Construction and Building Materials 224 (2019) 711–731
[111] M. Adamu, B.S. Mohammed, N. Shafiq, M. Shahir Liew, Effect of crumb rubber
and nano silica on the fatigue performance of roller compacted concrete
pavement, Cogent Eng. 5 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311916.2018.1436027.
[112] F. Liu, L. Meng, G.-F. Ning, L.-J. Li, Fatigue performance of rubber-modified
recycled aggregate concrete (RRAC) for pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 95
(2015) 207–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.042.
[113] T. Gupta, A. Tiwari, S. Siddique, R.K. Sharma, S. Chaudhary, Response
assessment under dynamic loading and microstructural investigations of
rubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2017) 04017062, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001905.
[114] S.M. Saeed, M.Y. Aman, K.A. Ahmad, A. Batari, A.T.A. Yero, A.U. Chinade, Effect
of crumb rubber modifier on the fatigue performance of warm mix asphalt,
Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 1367–1376, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
10-8016-6_98.
[115] F. Hernández-Olivares, G. Barluenga, B. Parga-Landa, M. Bollati, B. Witoszek,
Fatigue behaviour of recycled tyre rubber-filled concrete and its implications
in the design of rigid pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 1918–1927,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.06.030.
[116] P. Sugapriya, R. Ramkrishnan, Crumb rubber recycling in enhancing damping
properties of concrete, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 310 (2018), https://doi.
org/10.1088/1757-899X/310/1/012013 012013.
[117] R. Meesit, S. Kaewunruen, Vibration characteristics of micro-engineered
crumb rubber concrete for railway sleeper applications, J. Adv. Concr.
Technol. 15 (2017) 55–66, https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.15.55.
[118] A. Nadal Gisbert, J.M. Gadea Borrell, F. Parres García, E. Juliá Sanchis, J.E.
Crespo Amorós, J. Segura Alcaraz, F. Salas Vicente, Analysis behaviour of static
and dynamic properties of Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Methylene crumb
rubber mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 50 (2014) 671–682, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.018.
[119] A. Moustafa, A. Gheni, M.A. ElGawady, Shaking-table testing of high energy-
dissipating rubberized concrete columns, J. Bridg. Eng. 22 (2017) 04017042,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001077.
[120] Q.-H. Han, G. Yang, J. Xu, Experimental study on the relationship between
acoustic emission energy and fracture energy of crumb rubber concrete,
Struct. Control Heal. Monit. 25 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2240
e2240.
[121] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Experimental investigation of crumb
rubber concrete columns under seismic loading, Structures 3 (2015) 13–27,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.02.005.
[122] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, Permeability properties of self-compacting
rubberized concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 3319–3326, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.021.
[123] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, V.J. Panicker, Recycling of waste tire rubber as
aggregate in concrete: durability-related performance, J. Clean. Prod. 112
(2016) 504–513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.046.
[124] A.C. Marques, J.L. Akasaki, A.P.M. Trigo, M.L. Marques, Influence of the surface
treatment of tire rubber residues added in mortars, Rev. IBRACON Estruturas
e Mater. 1 (2008) 113–120, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-
41952008000200001.
[125] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, P. Mehra, S. Kumar, Performance of high strength
rubberized concrete in aggressive environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 83
(2015) 320–326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.012.
[126] N. Flores Medina, D. Flores-Medina, F. Hernández-Olivares, Influence of fibers
partially coated with rubber from tire recycling as aggregate on the
acoustical properties of rubberized concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 129
(2016) 25–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.007.
[127] B.S. Mohammed, K.M. Anwar Hossain, J.T. Eng Swee, G. Wong, M. Abdullahi,
Properties of crumb rubber hollow concrete block, J. Clean. Prod. 23 (2012)
57–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.035.
[128] A.M. Marques, J.R. Correia, J. de Brito, Post-fire residual mechanical properties
of concrete made with recycled rubber aggregate, Fire Saf. J. 58 (2013) 49–57,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2013.02.002.
[129] F. Hernández-Olivares, G. Barluenga, Fire performance of recycled rubber-
filled high-strength concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 109–117, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00253-9.
[130] M.M. Abdel Kader, S.M. Abdel-wehab, M.A. Helal, H.H. Hassan, Evaluation of
thermal insulation and mechanical properties of waste rubber/natural rubber
composite, HBRC J. 8 (2012) 69–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hbrcj.2011.11.001.
[131] T. Gupta, S. Siddique, R.K. Sharma, S. Chaudhary, Effect of elevated
temperature and cooling regimes on mechanical and durability properties
of concrete containing waste rubber fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 137 (2017)
35–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.065.
[132] H. Mahir Mahmod, A.A. Farah Nora Aznieta, S.J. Gatea, Evaluation of
rubberized fibre mortar exposed to elevated temperature using destructive
and non-destructive testing, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (2017) 1347–1358, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0721-0.
[133] H. Su, J. Yang, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Surface modified used rubber tyre
aggregates: effect on recycled concrete performance, Mag. Concr. Res. 67
(2015) 680–691, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00255.
731
[134] K.B. Najim, M.R. Hall, Crumb rubber aggregate coatings/pre-treatments and
their effects on interfacial bonding, air entrapment and fracture toughness in
self-compacting rubberised concrete (SCRC), Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 2029–
2043, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0034-4.
[135] M.A. Fernández-Ruiz, L.M. Gil-Martín, J.F. Carbonell-Márquez, E. Hernández-
Montes, Epoxy resin and ground tyre rubber replacement for cement in
concrete: Compressive behaviour and durability properties, Constr. Build.
Mater. 173 (2018) 49–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.04.004.
[136] F. Valadares, M. Bravo, J. De Brito, Concrete with used tire rubber aggregates:
mechanical performance, ACI Mater. J. 109 (2012) 283–292, https://doi.org/
10.14359/51683818.
[137] C. Bing, L. Ning, Experimental research on properties of fresh and hardened
rubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2014) 04014040, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000923.
[138] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, T. Langlet, K. Mezreb, J.M. Roucoult, M.
Quéneudec, Physico-mechanical properties and water absorption of cement
composite containing shredded rubber wastes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29
(2007) 732–740, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.07.001.
[139] S. Luhar, S. Chaudhary, I. Luhar, Development of rubberized geopolymer
concrete: Strength and durability studies, Constr. Build. Mater. 204 (2019)
740–753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.185.
[140] A. Baričević, M. Jelčić Rukavina, M. Pezer, N. Štirmer, Influence of recycled tire
polymer fibers on concrete properties, Cem. Concr. Compos. 91 (2018) 29–41,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.04.009.
[141] C. Coelho Martuscelli, J. Cesar dos Santos, P. Resende Oliveira, T. Hallak
Panzera, M.T. Paulino Aguilar, C. Thomas Garcia, Polymer-cementitious
composites containing recycled rubber particles, Constr. Build. Mater. 170
(2018) 446–454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.017.
[142] Y. Wang, J. Chen, D. Gao, E. Huang, Mechanical properties of steel fibers and
nanosilica modified crumb rubber concrete, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018 (2018) 1–10,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6715813.
[143] A. Alsaif, S.A. Bernal, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Durability of steel fibre
reinforced rubberised concrete exposed to chlorides, Constr. Build. Mater.
188 (2018) 130–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.122.
[144] Y. Park, A. Abolmaali, Y.H. Kim, M. Ghahremannejad, Compressive strength of
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with crumb rubber partially replacing
sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 118 (2016) 43–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.05.001.
[145] 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2013.12.007.
[146] M.K. Ismail, A.A.A. Hassan, Ductility and cracking behavior of reinforced self-
consolidating rubberized concrete beams, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2017)
04016174, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001699.
[147] A.S.M. Mendis, S. Al-Deen, M. Ashraf, Effect of rubber particles on the flexural
behaviour of reinforced crumbed rubber concrete beams, Constr. Build. Mater.
154 (2017) 644–657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat. 2017.07.220.
[148] R. Hassanli, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, Experimental investigations of reinforced
rubberized concrete structural members, J. Build. Eng. 10 (2017) 149–165,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.03.006.
[149] O. Youssf, M.A. ElGawady, J.E. Mills, Static cyclic behaviour of FRP-confined
crumb rubber concrete columns, Eng. Struct. 113 (2016) 371–387, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.01.033.
[150] K. Strukar, T. Kalman Šipoš, I. Miličević, R. Bušić, Potential use of rubber as
aggregate in structural reinforced concrete element – A review, Eng. Struct.
188 (2019) 452–468, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.031.
[151] O. Ali, D. Bigaud, H. Riahi, Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame
structures strengthened with FRP laminates using a reliability-based
advanced approach, Compos. Part B Eng. 139 (2018) 238–248, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.051.
[152] R. Hassanli, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, Seismic performance of precast
posttensioned segmental FRP-confined and unconfined crumb rubber
concrete columns, J. Compos. Constr. 21 (2017) 04017006, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000789.
[153] T.M. Pham, M. Elchalakani, A. Karrech, H. Hao, Axial impact behavior and
energy absorption of rubberized concrete with/without fiber-reinforced
polymer confinement, Int. J. Prot. Struct. 10 (2019) 154–173, https://doi.
org/10.1177/2041419618800771.
[154] F. Aslani, G. Ma, D.L. Yim Wan, G. Muselin, Development of high-performance
self-compacting concrete using waste recycled concrete aggregates and
rubber granules, J. Clean. Prod. 182 (2018) 553–566, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.02.074.
[155] F. Aslani, J. Kelin, Assessment and development of high-performance fibre-
reinforced lightweight self-compacting concrete including recycled crumb
rubber aggregates exposed to elevated temperatures, J. Clean. Prod. 200
(2018) 1009–1025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.323.
[156] B.H. AbdelAleem, A.A.A. Hassan, Development of self-consolidating
rubberized concrete incorporating silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 161
(2018) 389–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.146.