Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/powder-technology

Influence of rubber powder size and volume fraction on dynamic

compressive properties of rubberized mortar
Guoxiang Yang a, Yaojiang Fan a, Xing Li a, Ying Xu a, b, *
a
Institute of Geosafety, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Dynamic compressive properties of

rubberized mortar are investigated.
• Effects of rubber powder size and vol­
ume fraction on properties are
investigated.
• Failure process and energy absorption
capacity of rubberized mortar are
analyzed.
• Rubberized mortar has reduction in
strength but improvement in energy
absorption.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Rubber particles taken from waste tires have been proposed as a prospective substitute for natural aggregates.
Rubber powder Although the dynamic mechanical responses of rubberized concrete have been studied considerably, rubberized
SHPB mortar without coarse aggregates is desired for laboratory constitutive study due to the uniformity requirement.
Impact load
This work uses rubber particles with sizes of 40, 80, and 120 mesh and volume percentages of 10%, 20%, 30%,
Dynamic compressive strength
Energy absorption capacity
and 40% to prepare mortar specimens. A split Hopkinson pressure bar combined with a momentum-trap device is
utilized to apply dynamic loads. Experimental results indicate that the dynamic compressive strength of
rubberized mortar increases with rubber sizes but is negatively correlated to volume fraction. The reduction in
the dynamic strength of rubberized mortar is less evident as compared to that of rubberized concrete investigated
in previous studies. Additionally, the incorporation of rubber powder with smaller size can slightly improve the
energy absorption capacity of rubberized mortar.

1. Introduction annual new tire production goes over 1.6 billion units and around 1
billion waste tires are generated. The disposal of the waste tire is a
According to the 2021 Global Tire Recycling Market Report, the worldwide environmental problem due to its non-biodegradable nature

* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072,
China
E-mail address: maggie_xu@tju.edu.cn (Y. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2023.118376
Received 30 November 2022; Received in revised form 11 February 2023; Accepted 21 February 2023
Available online 24 February 2023
0032-5910/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G. Yang et al.
and combustion risk [1,2]. Direct landfill of the waste tire without
proper treatment occupies a large area and provides breeding grounds
for pests [3]. Furthermore, accidental burning of the exposed tires may
produce massive toxic gases. As a result, processing the waste tire into
the forms of crumb rubber or powdered rubber and incorporating them
into the cementitious materials as a partial or complete replacement of
mineral aggregates [4–6] is regarded as a sustainable approach in
relieving the waste tire-related environmental concerns.
Rubber is a polymer material characterized by high resilience and
toughness, low density but desired fatigue and impact resistance. The
inclusion of rubber into cementitious materials thus may not only pro­
duce a high-performance construction material (rubberized mortar or
rubberized concrete) with superior physical and mechanical properties,
but also ameliorate the greenness of the environment [7–10]. For
example, by incorporating a certain percentage of the rubber crumb, the
rubber mortar showed a nearly 35% reduction in the overall density,
whereas a significant acoustic attenuation enhancement (~40%) was
resulted [11]. The rubberized mortar is thus a promising choice in
constructing lightweight structures with remarkable noise isolation.
Güneyisi et al. [12], Kang and Jiang [13] proved that the incorporation
of crumb rubber helped reduce the shrinkage stress and thus restrict the
development of the shrinkage cracks within the concrete. The rubber­
ized cementitious composites also exhibited better abrasion resistance
than the conventional ones [14]. On ductility, Youssf et al. [15]
concluded that the rubberized concrete has better ductility than that of
plain concrete and a replacement of sand by 50% in the mixture could
increase its impact resistance by approximately 3.5 times. Moreover, the
rubberized cementitious materials also showed better performance in
thermal insulation [2], fatigue resistance [16], and energy absorption
capacity [17].
The above-mentioned advantages promote the rubberized cementi­
tious materials as an environmentally friendly civil engineering con­
struction alternative. However, because of the weak bond capacity
between the cement matrix and rubber particles, the rubberized
cementitious materials often show an obvious reduction in strength as
compared with the plain concrete or mortar [3,11,18–22]. The strength
reduction is sometimes acceptable for constructions like roadside bar­
riers [23], road pavement [24], and insulation layers of the buildings
[25], where high fatigue resistance and energy absorption capacity are
more preferred. Whereas for engineering construction applications such
as load-bearing beams, long-span bridge structures and the specific
armor units, the significant decrease of the compressive strength is not
desirable. Therefore，optimized rubber inclusion proportion and gran­
ulometry [11], addition of the effective binder material such as silica
fume [26,27], and chemical pretreatment of the rubber surface [28,29]
are proposed to effectively increase the cement-rubber paste bond and
thereby lessening the compressive strength reduction.
Particularly for structures in areas with strong tectonic activity or
near blasting operations, the dynamic compressive response is one of the
most important indexes involved in civil engineering constructions. To
date, very few efforts have been performed to study the dynamic
compressive properties of rubberized cementitious materials using the
SHPB system. Liu et al. [8] and Huang et al. [30] used a 70 mm-diameter
SHPB system to conduct the dynamic tests of the rubberize concrete,
concluding that the dynamic compressive strength showed obvious rate-
dependent behavior, and the dynamic fracture toughness and energy
dissipation capacity of concrete were significantly enhanced. Yang et al.
[31] analyzed the dynamic failure modes and energy absorption char­
acteristics of rubberized concrete under various impact loading condi­
tions, demonstrating that the total energy absorption of dynamic
compression was greater than that of split tension. The enhancement in
energy absorption capability helps to absorb and dissipate the energy of
earthquakes, reducing the risk of damage to the building and improving
its overall stability. However, the pulse shaping technique as suggested
for testing brittle solids [32,33] was not utilized in these studies to
facilitate the stress uniformity within the specimens, the enhancement
2
Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376
ratio of energy absorption needs to be re-examined.
Considering the pulse shaping, Pham et al. [34,35] and Feng et al.
[36] pointed out that the rubberized concrete showed higher sensitivity
to the loading rate and the rate-sensitivity went up with the volume
percentage of the added rubber chips. The presence of the rubber chips
slowed down the propagation of the cracks and exhibited progressive
failure in comparison with the normal concrete. Besides, in order to
enable the valid analysis of the failure and fragmentation characteristics
of the dynamic compressive specimens, the momentum-trap technique
is usually adopted to ensure the single pulse compressive loading
[37,38]. To date, this technique has not yet been used related to dy­
namic compression and fragmentation research of rubberized mortar.
In the preparation of the rubberized concrete, different sizes (i.e.,
chipped, crumb and powdered rubber) and percentages of rubber par­
ticles were always simultaneously adopted to replace the fine and coarse
aggregates according to the ASTM standard C136 [21,39] or other
related industrial standards [7,12,20]. However, the use of chipped
rubber or crumb rubber as the replacement of the coarse aggregates may
be problematic for fabricating laboratory specimens, because of the
introduction of macroscopic heterogeneity [40–42]. Furthermore, the
addition of the rubber chips often leads to greater strength loss [5],
preventing its application in construction applications. Therefore, this
study focuses on the rubber mortar containing only fine aggregate to
study the effects of particle size and volume fraction of rubber powder
on its dynamic mechanical properties and energy absorption
characteristics.
The aim of this work is to study the influences of rubber powder size
and volume fraction on the dynamic compressive properties and energy-
absorbing ability of rubberized mortar. The modified SHPB apparatus
containing a momentum-trap device was adopted to conduct the dy­
namic compressive tests. Prior to the dynamic test, the scanning electron
microscope (SEM) was employed to identify the microstructures of the
prepared mortar. A high-speed camera was utilized to record the time-
varying failure process during the dynamic compression. With the
force balance realized, the dynamic compressive strength, failure pro­
cess and energy absorption capacity of the rubberized mortars were
compared and analyzed. Finally, the effects of loading rate, powder size
and volume fraction of the added rubber on the dynamic failure and
fragmentation characteristics were carefully analyzed. This work can
reveal the dynamic mechanical behavior and energy-absorbing perfor­
mance of the rubberized mortar, and has particular guiding significance
for applying rubberized mortar as an alternative material in the con­
struction of seismic-resistant structures.
2. Experimental setup
2.1. Specimen preparation and characterization
Portland cement with 20% (by mass fraction) limestone addition was
adopted as the binding material in this study. Two types of aggregates, i.
e., the ISO 679 standard sand with an average density of 1.590 g/cm3,
and rubber powder with a density of 0.405 g/cm3 of different sizes (40,
60, and 80 mesh) were adopted. The average size of the rubber powder is
approximately identical to that of the standard sands. Besides, a certain
percentage of mineral powder [43,44], silica fume [45], fly ash [46],
and other concrete admixtures such as antifoaming agents [47] and
polycarboxylate superplasticizer [48] were also added to enhance the
density, workability, and interface bonding ability, and eventually to
meliorate the physical and mechanical performance of the mixtures.
Powdered rubber with sizes of 40 mesh, 80 mesh and 120 mesh was
separately added to partially replace the fine sand in the mixtures by
10%, 20%, 30% and 40% volume percentage. For the purpose of com­
parison, the plain mortar without rubber particles was also fabricated,
and the detailed composition fraction of the mixture can be found in our
earlier work [49].
According to the mixing procedure suggested by Güneyisi et al. [12]
G. Yang et al.
and Jalal and Mansouri [50], the solid components except the rubber
powder were first stirred for 5 min using a laboratory power-driven
revolving pan mixer. Then the water containing the antifoaming
agents and polycarboxylate superplasticizer were poured and mixed for
5 min. Afterwards, the rubber powder with volume fraction and pre­
scribed size was incorporated to the mixture, during which the mixer
kept working to avoid the rubber packing. The reason for incorporating
rubber powder at the end is to prevent the adverse effect on the hy­
dration reaction of cement [51]. Thereafter, the homogeneous mortar
mixture was carefully poured into a 100 mm3 cubic mold and fully
compacted, after which all molds were wrapped with plastic film to
prevent excessive moisture loss and kept undisturbed for 24 h in an air-
conditioned room at 25 ◦ C. Then the cubic blocks were demolded and
moved to a standard curing box with a constant temperature of 25 ◦ C
and relative humidity of 50% for 28 days. Upon completion of the
curing, cylinders with size of 50 mm (in diameter) × 100 mm (in height)
were first drilled from the cubic block. Some of the cylinders were
polished on both ends (Fig. 1a) for quasi-static compressive tests, other
were further cut into 50 mm in height with ends polished (Fig. 1b) for
dynamic tests according to the suggested methods [52].
Fig. 1c and d show the variations of density and acoustic velocity for
mortar cylinders with different rubber powder sizes and volume frac­
tions. Both the density and the velocity decrease with increasing the
rubber inclusion proportion, while the variation of these properties with
the rubber powder size is not as that significant. This is expected because
the rubber powders play a similar role as the air voids in the plain
mortar. Besides, although some additives (e.g., fly ash and silica fume)
were incorporated to enhance the interface adhesion between the rubber
powder and cement matrix and also act as void fillers, numerous voids (i.
e., rubber-induced pores) can still be identified (Fig. 2) in the interfacial
transition zone (ITZ). This is due to the non-polar property of rubber
powders, i.e., increasing the air-trapping capacity and results in a more
porous structure during the water evaporation process in comparison
with the plain mortar [25,53]. Moreover, the rubber powder almost
maintained its original shape due to its high chemical stability. In
Fig. 1. Photos and basic physical properties of the rubberized mortar: (a) specimens for static tests, (b) specimens for SHPB tests, (c) the density and (d) the acoustic
velocity for different rubber size and rubber percentage.
3
Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376
contrast, the surrounding cement paste underwent a certain degree of
deformation during the hydration reaction, thus generating tensile stress
at the bonding interface and alliterating the separation between the
rubber powder and the matrix. Additionally, the microstructural
investigation by SEM also shows extensive micro cracks emerged from
the vicinity of the bonding interface and developed into the interior of
the cement matrix, which can be ascribed to the deformation mismatch
induced by the complex stress state between the cement paste and
rubber powder during the processes of hydration. The existence of the
ITZs and internal micro-cracks will greatly impact the mechanical
properties of the rubberized mortar, i.e., the more the interface transi­
tion zones, the higher the porosity and the looser the structure, thereby
leading to a worse bonding effect and a lower resultant strength.
2.2. Experimental apparatus
The quasi-static compression tests were performed using a conven­
tional uniaxial servo-hydraulic testing system at a constant loading rate
of 0.02 mm/min, which is capable to simulate a strain rate of ~10− 6 s− 1.
To conduct the dynamic test, a modified SHPB apparatus containing the
momentum-trap device (as illustrated in Fig. 3) was adopted.
The traditional SHPB apparatus mainly includes a striker bar (0.3 m
in length and 50 mm in diameter), an incident bar (5 m in length and 50
mm in diameter), a transmitted bar (2.5 m in length and 50 mm in
diameter), and a data acquisition system. The other parameters of the
apparatus can be also found in the literature [38]. As mentioned earlier,
the stress uniformity within the specimen is vital for dynamic testing of
the material. Therefore, the pulse shaper made of C11000 copper disc
was adopted to filter and obtain a non-dispersive bell-shaped incident
stress wave with a relatively long rising edge, thereby allowing the stress
wave to have enough time to propagate forward and back several times
before the peak. In this way the dynamic force balance on the two ends
of the samples can be achieved.
Particularly for the dynamic compressive failure mode and frag­
mentation analysis, the achieving of the single-pulse loading is an
G. Yang et al. Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376

Fig. 2. SEM images showing the microstructure of the rubberized mortar.

Fig. 3. Schematic of the SHPB apparatus with the momentum-trap device.

important issue. In a conventional SHPB test, the reflected wave
generated at the specimen surface will propagate back to the impact end,
where it transforms from tension to compression and propagates again
towards the specimen. This wave will load the specimen for the second
time. This process repeats leading to the multiple loading on the spec­
imen. For this reason, the energy responsible for the specimen damage is
ill-defined, resulting in complications to the specimen failure analysis. In
this work, the momentum-trap technique [54,55] was adopted to ach­
ieve a single loading during dynamic compression tests so as to facilitate
failure analysis. The momentum-trap system mainly consists of a hollow
cylinder rigid mass and a flange plate attached to the incident bar near
its impact end as shown in Fig. 3. The working principle of the technique
has been described in our earlier work [37].
Fig. 4a displays the waveforms measured in a typical dynamic
compressive test using the momentum-trap technique. It is observed that
the second loading wave consists of a compression part with very low
amplitude and a subsequent tension part. The tension portion of the
wave helps to separate the incident bar from the specimen and prevent
the subsequent compressive pulse acting on the specimen. The specimen
thus only undergoes a single-pulse compression during the dynamic
loading, realizing the so-called soft-recovery of the specimen and thus
facilitating the accuracy of failure analysis. Fig. 4b indicates the dy­
namic stress histories for a typical dynamic compressive test. It is
observed that the magnitude of stress acting on the left side of the

Fig. 4. (a) Typical stress waveforms when using the momentum-trap technique. (b) Stress equilibrium in a typical dynamic compressive test.

4
G. Yang et al.
specimen (the sum of the reflected and incident wave) is almost identical
to that of the right side (transmitted wave) from 210 μs to the peak
moment (~ 300 μs), demonstrating that the force balance has been
realized and the dynamic test is valid. Besides, there exists an obvious
platform in the reflected wave, meaning that the constant strain rate
loading is realized. With the stress equilibrium attained, the slope of the
linear part of the transmitted wave is defined as the loading rate [33].
Moreover, the dynamic compressive stress and strain can be calculated
using the incident, reflected and transmitted waves,
AE
σ (t) = (εi (t) + εr (t) + εt (t) )
2As
C
∫ t
ε(t) = (εi (t) − εr (t) − εt (t) )dt
Ls
0
where σ is the compressive stress applied on the specimen, ε denotes the
strain on the bars with subscript i, r, t indicating the waves on three bars.
As and Ls refer to the cross-sectional area and length of the specimen. A
and C denote the cross-sectional area and one-dimensional P-wave ve­
locity. E is the elastic modulus of the bars.
3. Experimental results and discussions
3.1. Compressive behaviors of rubberized mortar under quasi-static
loading state
Fig. 5 implies the static compressive strength, elastic modulus, and
failure characteristics of the rubberized mortar with various inclusion
parameters of rubber powder. For a given powder size, the compressive
strength approximately linearly reduces with the increase of rubber
volume fraction (Fig. 5a), which is consistent with the results in existing
Fig. 5. The mechanical properties and failure modes of the rubberized mortar. (a) compressive strength, (b) elastic modulus, and (c) failure modes.
Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376
studies [2,5,41,56]. Fig. 5b indicates the elastic modulus changes versus
the rubber powder size and volume fraction. It is observed that the
modulus decreases with the increase of rubber volume fraction. This can
be ascribed to the soft nature of the rubber. However, it can be also
observed that the elastic modulus of the rubberized mortar is weakly
dependent on the rubber powder size.
Besides, the incorporation of rubber powder plays an adverse effect
on the overall strength of rubberized mortar, mainly induced by the
weak bond interface between the cement and rubber paste, and also the
lower load-carrying capacity of the rubber powder themselves. Aver­
(1) agely, the strength of the rubberized mortar decreases by 14.7%, 19.4%,
25.2%, and 32.5% for the inclusion proportion of 10%, 20%, 30% and
40%, respectively. It is noted that the observed reduction in strength is
(2) much lower than those for the rubberized concrete as reported in the
literature [57–59] where a 45–60% strength reduction was observed for
20% rubber proportion. Moreover, for a given inclusion proportion, the
strength decreases in general with the decrease of the powder size. This
is because for a given inclusion proportion, the number of powder
particles increases with the decrease of powder size. More rubber par­
ticles mean more defects and thus decrease the overall strength of
rubberized mortar. This result contradicts with the size effect reported in
the literature [21,22,57,59,60]. In those studies, the tire chips with sizes
roughly ranging from 10 to 30 mm were used to replace the coarse ag­
gregates, which might introduce remarkable macroscopic heterogene­
ities into the specimens at the material testing scale. According to the
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering (ISRM)
suggested method for testing the mechanical properties of brittle solids,
the specimens should be uniform in petrography, intact and represen­
tative of the testing material [61]. The diameter of the specimen should
be at least 10 times of the average grain size of the brittle solids.
Therefore, with incorporating the chipped rubber, significant stress
concentration may occur in the vicinity of the ITZs. Excessive cracks
5
G. Yang et al.
might initiate in these areas due to the deformation mismatch between
the cement matrix and rubber powder under the action of the external
loads, leading to premature failure of the rubberized concrete. As a
result, the large size rubber chip dominates the failure and results in
reduced compressive strength.
In this work, only the fine-grained sands were partially replaced by
rubber powder with relatively small particle size, the resultant mortar
can thus be considered as a homogenous material [62,63]. Therefore,
the main failure mechanism is the debonding between the rubber par­
ticle and the cement matrix. The mortar specimen with smaller rubber
powder has more particles and greater specific surface area, thereby
leading a lower strength. The failure modes of the rubberized mortar are
displayed in Fig. 5c, most of the specimens exhibit tensile failure mode,
and the number of tensile cracks is positively correlated to the powder
percentage but negatively correlated to the rubber size. This observation
confirms the failure mechanism for rubberized mortar.
3.2. Dynamic stress-strain curves and strength variations of the
rubberized mortar
Fig. 6 shows the complete stress-strain curves of rubberized mortar
with 40 mesh rubber powder under different loading rates and rubber
percentage. It is observed that for a given rubber percentage, the dy­
namic strength shows obvious rate dependency (Fig. 6a), i.e., the dy­
namic strength increases with the loading rate. Besides, the dynamic
elastic modulus is almost unchanged with the loading rate. These ob­
servations match well with those for homogenous rock materials [64,65]
but are partially different from those for rubberized concretes [34,52].
In their work, the elastic modulus slightly varied in an arbitrary manner,
which again may be attributed to the inhomogeneity of the specimen. As
the rubber powder inclusion percentage increases, the dynamic strength
decreases (Fig. 6b). At the meaning time, the dynamic elastic modulus
gradually decreases with increasing the rubber volume fraction, indi­
cating that the incorporation of the rubber powder reduces their
deformation resistance.
The dynamic compressive strength of the rubberized mortars is
depicted in Fig. 7. The dynamic strength is obviously greater than the
corresponding static one. Regardless of the rubber powder size, the
dynamic strength approximately increases linearly with the increase of
the loading rate but declines with increasing the volume fraction. The
strength reduction is mainly due to reduced mechanical properties at the
ITZs. Massive microcracks may develop quickly within these regions and
accelerate the failure of the overall cement-rubber mixtures [39].
To better illustrate the effects of rubber powder percentage and size
on the dynamic strength, the strength against the loading rate and the
rubber size at a given rubber inclusion percentage is shown in Fig. 8.
When rubber powder volume fraction is 10%, the reduction in the dy­
namic strength of the rubberized mortar is neglectable (less than 10%
Fig. 6. Complete stress-strain curves of rubberized mortar (40 mesh) with different (a) loading rates and (b) rubber inclusion percentages.
6
Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376
reduction compared to that of the control mortar) regardless of the
rubber size. As the rubber volume fraction is increased, the strength
reduction ratio gradually increases until an approximate 27% reduction
is observed when 40% of the fine aggregated is replaced. The dynamic
strength reduction ratio is much smaller than that of the rubberized
mortar under the static load, where a nearly 40% reduction is observed
with the same replacement percentage (Fig. 5). Furthermore, consistent
with the static strength observation, the dynamic strength of mortar
with a larger rubber size (i.e., 40 mesh) is larger than that of mortar with
smaller rubber size (i.e., 120 mesh) at given loading rate and rubber
inclusion percentage. For example, for the mortar with 10% rubber and
the loading rate of ~2000 GPa/s, the dynamic strength of mortar with
rubber size of 40 mesh is 80.5 MPa, whereas only 72.1 MPa for mortar
with rubber size of 120 mesh, nearly an 11% strength difference.
Compared with the larger rubber particles, the increase of surface area
induced by smaller rubber powders facilitates the growth of ITZs in
cement-based matrix, thus contributes to the decrease in the compres­
sive strength [42,53,65].
In order to quantitively describe the improvement in compressive
strength of rubber mortar under different loading rates, the dynamic
increase factor (DIF) is introduced and defined as the ratio of dynamic
compressive strength to quasi-static strength [41]. The calculated DIFs
of the rubberized mortar are plotted in Fig. 9. It is shown that the DIFs
linearly increase with both the loading rate and rubber volume fraction.
Although the plain mortar exhibits the highest dynamic compressive
strength, the greatest DIF value occurs for the rubberized mortar with
40% rubber powder volume percentage, demonstrating that the
rubberized mortar shows higher sensitivity to the loading rate. This
observation matches well with the experimental results in previous
studies on rubberized concrete or rubberized geopolymer concrete
[34,52]. In this study, it is also observed that the dynamic strength is
weakly dependent on the rubber size for the rubberized mortar as shown
in Fig. 9b.
3.3. Energy-absorbing capacity of rubberized mortar
The dynamic dissipated energy, Ws, defined as the enclosed area
underneath the dynamic stress-strain curve of the tested specimen, can
be directly calculated from the incident, reflected, and transmitted wave
data,
Ws = Wi − Wr − Wt (3)
∫
t
Wk = E0 C0 ε2k (t)dt (4)
0
where Wi, Wr and Wt are the elastic energy carried by three stress waves.
The subscript k in equation represents the waves on three different bars.
To reduce the errors caused by the specimen size deviations, the
G. Yang et al. Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376

dissipated energy density, wd, is introduced [66] and governed by,

Ws
wd = (6)
Vs

where Vs is the volume of the tested specimen.

Fig. 10 implies the tendency of dissipated energy density of the
rubberized mortar. Note that the dissipated energy data for plain mortar
are also plotted for comparison. According to the figure, the dissipated
energy almost linearly changes with the loading rate and exhibits an
upward trend with the rubber volume fraction. This matches well with
the observations reported by Aly et al. [67], in which the drop-weight
test was employed to reveal the energy absorption characters by the
geopolymer concrete. Therefore, the rubberized mortar requires higher
energy to fail as compared with the plain mortar [4]. The excellent
impact energy absorption capacity of rubber mortar makes it being a
promising building material, such as roadside barriers and various
pavements. Besides, given a constant rubber percentage, the rubberized
mortar with 120 mesh rubber powder assumes the highest energy ab­
sorption capacity, followed by the mortars with 80 mesh and 40 mesh
rubber powder inclusion. Moreover, it is also found that the increase
gradient of the fitting curves (dashed lines) for each mortar group are
roughly identical, indicating that the rubber powder size has little effect
on the rate sensitivity of the energy-absorption capacity. To summarize,
adding rubber powder to the cementitious material will improve its
energy absorption capacity. Although the dynamic peak strength de­
clines with the increase of volume fraction of the rubber powder (Fig. 7),
the energy absorption capacity of rubber mortar is positively correlated
with rubber content. Therefore, the rubber with a smaller size is more
preferred for constructions requiring less load-carrying capacity but
higher energy absorbing ability. In addition, the maximum increase in
energy absorption is observed in the mortars with 40% rubber inclusion.
The dissipated energy density approximately increases by 1.49 (40
mesh), 1.70 (80 mesh) and 2.01 (120 mesh) times that of the plain
mortar, respectively.

3.4. Dynamic failure patterns and fragmentation analysis

The failure modes of rubber mortar with respect to different vari­

Fig. 7. Dynamic compressive strength of mortar with power size (a) 40 mesh,
(b) 80 mesh, and (c) 120 mesh.
ables are illustrated in Fig. 11. Unlike the observation of recovered
specimens from static compressive tests, the cracks on dynamically
loaded specimens are dominated by axial cracks, which is due to the
uniaxial loading with reduced end effect as compared with the static
compression. At the lower loading rate, several macroscopic tensile
cracks are observed at failure, whereas many visible cracks appear with
higher loading rate (Fig. 11a). Note that during the failure process, only
a few mortar fragments that fly away from the failed specimens are
observed, indicating that the kinetic energy carried by the flying frag­
ments is negligible and most of the input energy is consumed in the
development of the new crack surfaces. Meanwhile, the crack density at
failure evidently increases with the rubber powder volume fraction
(Fig. 11b) and decreases with increasing the rubber powder size
(Fig. 11c), which keeps up with the variation trend of the absorption
energy density. It is worth mentioning that Pham et al. [34] pointed out
that the added rubber in the concrete acts as the crack arrestor that helps
impede the propagation of the cracks. Thus, the failed rubberized mix­
tures show larger fragments and lower crack density under a similar
loading rate as compared with normal concretes. It is believed that the
larger size (5–10 mm, over 10 times that employed in our work) rubber
crumbs used to replace the coarse aggregates can cause bridging be­
tween the cracks and reasonably restrict the expansion of existing
cracks. Whereas the use of rubber powder with the size roughly equal to
the fine grading sand has little crack bridging effect, and thus the
specimens with higher rubber percentage and smaller rubber size are
more likely to shatter into small pieces under dynamic loads.
Fig. 12 shows the fragment size distributions of the recovered

7
G. Yang et al. Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376

Fig. 8. Dynamic compressive strength of mortars with different rubber dimensions. (a) Rubber percentage 10%; (b) rubber percentage 20%; (c) rubber percentage
30%; (d) rubber percentage 40%.

Fig. 9. The DIF values versus the loading rate with different (a) volume percentages and rubber sizes.

specimens in the typical dynamic tests using the momentum-trap tech­
nique. The size distribution was measured by sieving and weighting the
debris and is known as the fragment mass distribution [37,53], and the
sieve size was determined as 0.075 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm,
5 mm and 10 mm. It is observed that the percentage of larger fragments
significantly reduces with the increase of the loading rate. Due to the
inefficient time allowing crack propagation along the tortuous granular
surface under the higher loading rates, more microcracks are formed and
transgranular fracture is dominant [64,68]. Besides, as mentioned
earlier, adding a higher percentage or smaller size of rubber powder
contributes to more ITZs. These ITZs serve as weak planes to provide
primary propagation paths for newly created cracks under impact loads,
thereby leading to a higher fragmentized degree. To quantify the frag­
ment size distribution characteristics, the sieving curves of recovered
specimens with different loading rates and rubber inclusion parameters
are illustrated in Fig. 13. For a given rubber percentage and size, i.e.,
10% rubber percentage and 40 mesh rubber size, the median diameter
d50 of the recovered fragments, is reduced from 17.85 mm to 6.18 mm
within the loading rate range of 1161 GPa/s to 2867 GPa/s, almost
reduced by 2/3. When the rubber percentage changes from 0% to 40% at
a constant rubber size and loading rate, the parameter d50 drops from
9.91 mm to 8.53 mm with a reduction of nearly 14%, whilst only a
decrease of approximate 7% is observed when the rubber size changes
from 40 mesh to 120 mesh at a similar loading rate of ~2100 GPa/s and

8
G. Yang et al. Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376

w
w

Fig. 10. Dissipated energy density for rubberized mortar at different loading rates and rubber sizes with various rubber volume fractions.

Fig. 11. Failure snapshots of (a) rubberized mortar (20%, 40 mesh) with different loading rates (b) rubberized mortar (40 mesh, ~ 1390 GPa/s) with different
inclusion percentages and (c) rubberized mortar (20%, ~ 1550 GPa/s) with different rubber sizes.

9
G. Yang et al. Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376

Fig. 12. Recovered fragments of tested rubberized mortar with (a) different loading rates, (b) rubber percentages and (c) rubber sizes.

Fig. 13. Size distribution of recovered fragments from the rubber mortars at different loading rates and with different rubber volume fractions and sizes.

rubber percentage of 10%. Therefore, the loading rate has the most
significant effect on the fragmentation characteristics, followed by the
rubber volume fraction, whereas the rubber size acts a relatively limited
role in affecting the size distribution characteristics of the recovered
fragments.
4. Conclusions
In this work, the dynamic compressive behavior of homogeneous
rubberized mortar with different rubber volume percentages and pow­
der sizes was studied. The SHPB apparatus in conjunction with the
momentum-trap technique was used to conduct the dynamic compres­
sion tests, based on which the dynamic strength, DIF variation, failure
mode, energy absorption capacity and fragment size distribution char­
acteristics are comprehensively analyzed. The findings from the current
work can be briefly summarized as follows:
(1) The dynamic compressive strength of the rubberized mortar in­
creases with the loading rate and rubber powder size but declines
with increasing the rubber volume fraction. The maximum
reduction of 27% in strength is observed when the rubber per­
centage is 40% and rubber size is 120 mesh, which is much
smaller than those of the dynamic strength reported for the
rubberized concrete in previous studies.
(2) The dynamic increase factor linearly rises with both the loading
rate and rubber volume fraction but shows weak dependence on

10
G. Yang et al.
rubber size. Adding rubber powder improves energy absorption
capacity of the rubberized mortars. Typically, the energy ab­
sorption capacity of rubberized mortar has a clear positive cor­
relation with the loading rate and volume fraction of rubber
powder, whereas a negative correlation between the energy ab­
sorption capacity and rubber powder size is observed. Using
rubber powder as a partial substitute for mortar fine aggregate
shows an acceptable reduction in dynamic compressive strength
but a remarkable improvement in the energy absorption capacity.
(3) The dynamic failure and recovered fragment size distribution
characteristics are closely related to the dynamic energy ab­
sorption capacity of the rubberized mortar. The higher loading
rate, greater rubber volume fraction and smaller rubber size
result in more visible cracks at failure onset and a higher frag­
mentized degree. Moreover, the loading rate has the most sig­
nificant influence on the fragmentation characteristics among the
size and volume fraction of rubber powder.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Guoxiang Yang: Writing – original draft, Data curation. Yaojiang
Fan: Data curation. Xing Li: Visualization, Conceptualization, Writing –
review & editing. Ying Xu: Supervision, Project administration, Writing
– review & editing, Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This work has been supported by the Natural Science Foundation of
China (NSFC) under Grants #51879184, #52079091 and #42277164.
References
[1] P.R. Badarayani, R. Artoni, B. Cazacliu, E. Ibraim, P. Richard, Segregation of sand-
rubber chips mixtures subject to vertical tapping under confinement, Powder
Technol. 393 (2021) 764–772, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.08.008.
[2] A. Wongsa, V. Sata, B. Nematollahi, J. Sanjayan, P. Chindaprasirt, Mechanical and
thermal properties of lightweight geopolymer mortar incorporating crumb rubber,
J. Clean. Prod. 195 (2018) 1069–1080, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.06.003.
[3] X. Shu, B. Huang, Recycling of waste tire rubber in asphalt and Portland cement
concrete: an overview, Constr. Build. Mater. 67 (2014) 217–224, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.027.
[4] A. Siddika, M.A.A. Mamun, R. Alyousef, Y.H.M. Amran, F. Aslani,
H. Alabduljabbar, Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in concrete: a
review, Constr. Build. Mater. 224 (2019) 711–731, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.07.108.
[5] R. Roychand, R.J. Gravina, Y. Zhuge, X. Ma, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, A comprehensive
review on the mechanical properties of waste tire rubber concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 237 (2020), 117651, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117651.
[6] W. Maherzi, I. Ennahal, M. Benzerzour, Y. Mammindy-Pajany, N.-E. Abriak, Study
of the polymer mortar based on dredged sediments and epoxy resin: effect of the
sediments on the behavior of the polymer mortar, Powder Technol. 361 (2020)
968–982, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.10.104.
[7] 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.
[8] F. Liu, G. Chen, L. Li, Y. Guo, Study of impact performance of rubber reinforced
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 604–616, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.06.014.
[9] S.M.A. Qaidi, A.S. Mohammed, H.U. Ahmed, R.H. Faraj, W. Emad, B.A. Tayeh,
F. Althoey, O. Zaid, N.H. Sor, Rubberized geopolymer composites: a comprehensive
review, Ceram. Int. 48 (2022) 24234–24259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ceramint.2022.06.123.
[10] S.M. Qaidi, Y.Z. Dinkha, J.H. Haido, M.H. Ali, B.A. Tayeh, Engineering properties
of sustainable green concrete incorporating eco-friendly aggregate of crumb
11
Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376
rubber: a review, J. Clean. Prod. 324 (2021), 129251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.129251.
[11] A. Angelin, E. Miranda Jr., J. Dos Santos, R. Lintz, L. Gachet-Barbosa, Rubberized
mortar: the influence of aggregate granulometry in mechanical resistances and
acoustic behavior, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 248–254, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.123.
[12] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoglu, N. Naji, S. İpek, 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.
[13] J. Kang, Y. Jiang, Improvement of cracking-resistance and flexural behavior of
cement-based materials by addition of rubber particles, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol.
23 (2008) 579–583, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-006-4579-8.
[14] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, G. Khoshnaw, S. İpek, 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.
[15] 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.
[16] 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) 1436027, https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311916.2018.1436027.
[17] E. Eltayeb, X. Ma, Y. Zhuge, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, Influence of rubber particles on
the properties of foam concrete, J. Build. Eng. 30 (2020), 101217, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101217.
[18] P. Asutkar, S. Shinde, R. Patel, Study on the behaviour of rubber aggregates
concrete beams using analytical approach, Eng. Sci. Technol. 20 (2017) 151–159,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.07.007.
[19] M. Elsayed, B.A. Tayeh, Y. Taha, A. Abd El-Azim, Experimental investigation on the
behaviour of crumb rubber concrete columns exposed to chloride–sulphate attack,
Struct. Elsevier (2022) 246–264.
[20] G. Girskas, D. Nagrockienė, Crushed rubber waste impact of concrete basic
properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 36–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.02.107.
[21] 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.
[22] M.M. Reda Taha, A.S. El-Dieb, M. Abd El-Wahab, M. 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).
[23] 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.
[24] 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.
[25] 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.
[26] 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.
[27] W.S. Alaloul, M.A. Musarat, S. Haruna, K. Law, B.A. Tayeh, W. Rafiq, S. Ayub,
Mechanical properties of silica fume modified high-volume fly ash rubberized self-
compacting concrete, Sustainability 13 (2021) 5571, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13105571.
[28] B. Munoz-Sanchez, 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) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1617/
s11527-016-0912-7.
[29] N. Segre, I. Joekes, Use of tire rubber particles as addition to cement paste, Cem.
Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 1421–1425, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)
00373-2.
[30] Z. Huang, L. Sui, F. Wang, S. Du, Y. Zhou, J. Ye, Dynamic compressive behavior of a
novel ultra-lightweight cement composite incorporated with rubber powder,
Compos. Struct. 244 (2020), 112300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2020.112300.
[31] R. Yang, Y. Xu, P. Chen, J. Wang, Experimental study on dynamic mechanics and
energy evolution of rubber concrete under cyclic impact loading and dynamic
splitting tension, Constr. Build. Mater. 262 (2020), 120071, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120071.
[32] X. Li, S. Wang, Y. Xu, W. Yao, K. Xia, G. Lu, Effect of microwave irradiation on
dynamic mode-І fracture parameters of Barre granite, Eng. Fract. Mech. 224
(2020), 106748, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106748.
[33] Y.X. Zhou, K. Xia, X.B. Li, H.B. Li, G.W. Ma, J. Zhao, Z.L. Zhou, F. Dai, Suggested
methods for determining the dynamic strength parameters and mode-I fracture
toughness of rock materials, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 49 (2012) 105–112,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.10.004.
[34] T.M. Pham, W. Chen, A.M. Khan, H. Hao, M. Elchalakani, T.M. Tran, Dynamic
compressive properties of lightweight rubberized concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
238 (2020), 117705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117705.
G. Yang et al.
[35] T.M. Pham, J. Davis, N. San Ha, E. Pournasiri, F. Shi, H. Hao, Experimental
investigation on dynamic properties of ultra-high-performance rubberized concrete
(UHPRuC), Constr. Build. Mater. 307 (2021), 125104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.125104.
[36] W. Feng, F. Liu, F. Yang, L. Jing, L. Li, H. Li, L. Chen, Compressive behaviour and
fragment size distribution model for failure mode prediction of rubber concrete
under impact loads, Constr. Build. Mater. 273 (2021), 121767, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121767.
[37] X. Li, W. Yao, C. Wang, The influence of multiple dynamic loading on
fragmentation characteristics in dynamic compression tests, Rock Mech. Rock. Eng.
54 (2021) 1583–1596, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02324-8.
[38] S. Wang, Y. Xu, K. Xia, T. Tong, Dynamic fragmentation of microwave irradiated
rock, J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13 (2021) 300–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrmge.2020.09.003.
[39] N.N. Gerges, C.A. Issa, S.A. Fawaz, Rubber concrete: mechanical and dynamical
properties, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018), e00184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2018.e00184.
[40] O. Büyüköztürk, M.A. Taşdemir, Nondestructive Testing of Materials and
Structures, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[41] K.-M. Kim, S. Lee, J.-Y. Cho, Effect of maximum coarse aggregate size on dynamic
compressive strength of high-strength concrete, Int. J. Impact Eng. 125 (2019)
107–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.11.003.
[42] O.M.O. Ibrahim, B.A. Tayeh, Combined effect of lightweight fine aggregate and
micro rubber ash on the properties of cement mortar, Adv. Concr. Constr. 10
(2020) 537–546, https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2020.10.6.537.
[43] J. Tikkanen, V. Penttala, A. Cwirzen, Mineral powder concrete–effects of powder
content on concrete properties, Mag. Concr. Res. 63 (2011) 893–903, https://doi.
org/10.1680/macr.10.00048.
[44] S. Pal, A. Mukherjee, S. Pathak, Investigation of hydraulic activity of ground
granulated blast furnace slag in concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 1481–1486,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00062-0.
[45] A. Mehta, D.K. Ashish, Silica fume and waste glass in cement concrete production:
a review, J. Build. Eng. 29 (2020), 100888, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2019.100888.
[46] E. Kearsley, P. Wainwright, The effect of high fly ash content on the compressive
strength of foamed concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (2001) 105–112, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00430-0.
[47] J.-H. Kim, R.E. Robertson, Prevention of air void formation in polymer-modified
cement mortar by pre-wetting, Cem. Concr. Res. 27 (1997) 171–176, https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0008-8846(97)00001-x.
[48] S. Sha, M. Wang, C. Shi, Y. Xiao, Influence of the structures of polycarboxylate
superplasticizer on its performance in cement-based materials-a review, Constr.
Build. Mater. 233 (2020), 117257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117257.
[49] X. Li, K. Xia, W. Yao, Y. Xu, Investigation on the dynamic tensile behaviour of
rubberized mortar using the Brazilian disc method, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 119
(2022), 103339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103339.
[50] M. Jalal, E. Mansouri, Effects of fly ash and cement content on rheological,
mechanical, and transport properties of high-performance self-compacting
concrete, Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. 19 (2012) 393–405, https://doi.org/10.1515/
secm-2012-0052.
[51] 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 (2015)
197–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.02.019.
12
Powder Technology 420 (2023) 118376
[52] T.M. Pham, J. Liu, P. Tran, V.-L. Pang, F. Shi, W. Chen, H. Hao, T.M. Tran, Dynamic
compressive properties of lightweight rubberized geopolymer concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 265 (2020), 120753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.120753.
[53] A.A. Al-Attar, H.M. Hamada, B.A. Tayeh, P.O. Awoyera, Exploring engineering
properties of waste tire rubber for construction applications-a review of recent
advances, Mater. Today: Proc. 53 (2022) A1–A17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2022.03.228.
[54] B. Song, W. Chen, Loading and unloading split Hopkinson pressure bar pulse-
shaping techniques for dynamic hysteretic loops, Exp. Mech. 44 (2004) 622–627,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014485104048911.
[55] K. Xia, W. Yao, Dynamic rock tests using split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar system–a
review, J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 7 (2015) 27–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrmge.2014.07.008.
[56] S.L. Correia, T. Partala, F.C. Loch, A.M. Segadães, Factorial design used to model
the compressive strength of mortars containing recycled rubber, Compos. Struct.
92 (2010) 2047–2051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.007.
[57] N.N. Eldin, A.B. Senouci, Measurement and prediction of the strength of rubberized
concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 16 (1994) 287–298.
[58] J. Xue, M. Shinozuka, Rubberized concrete: a green structural material with
enhanced energy-dissipation capability, Constr. Build. Mater. 42 (2013) 196–204,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.005.
[59] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized Portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 11 (1999) 206–213, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999)11:3
(206).
[60] M. Gesoglu, E. Güneyisi, O. Hansu, S. İpek, 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.
[61] R. Ulusay, The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and
Monitoring: 2007–2014, Springer, 2014.
[62] M. Elsayed, B.A. Tayeh, D. Kamal, Effect of crumb rubber on the punching shear
behaviour of reinforced concrete slabs with openings, Constr. Build. Mater. 311
(2021), 125345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125345.
[63] W.S. Alaloul, M.A. Musarat, B.A. Tayeh, S. Sivalingam, M.F.B. Rosli, S. Haruna, M.
I. Khan, Mechanical and deformation properties of rubberized engineered
cementitious composite (ECC), Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 13 (2020), e00385,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00385.
[64] W. Yao, Y. Xu, K. Xia, Damage evolution during rock pulverization induced by
dynamic compressive loading, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth (2020),
e2020JB019388, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB019388.
[65] M. Elsayed, B.A. Tayeh, M. Mohamed, M. Elymany, A.H. Mansi, Punching shear
behaviour of RC flat slabs incorporating recycled coarse aggregates and crumb
rubber, J. Build. Eng. 44 (2021), 103363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2021.103363.
[66] P. Feng, Y. Xu, F. Dai, Effects of dynamic strain rate on the energy dissipation and
fragment characteristics of cross-fissured rocks, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 138
(2021), 104600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104600.
[67] A.M. Aly, M.S. El-Feky, M. Kohail, E.-S.A.R. Nasr, Performance of geopolymer
concrete containing recycled rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 207 (2019) 136–144,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.121.
[68] D.A. Shockey, D.R. Curran, L. Seaman, J.T. Rosenberg, C.F. Petersen,
Fragmentation of rock under dynamic loads, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr. 11 (1974) 303–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(74)91760-4.