RUBBERIZED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

By Zaher K. Khatib1 and Fouad M. Bayomy,2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The use of recycled tire rubber in a portland cement concrete (PCC) mixture is investigated as a
possible alternative for nonconventional PCC mixtures. This study is focused on the determination of the prac-
ticality of producing such mixes and evaluating their engineering properties. An experimental program was
developed to use two types of tire rubber (fine crumb rubber and coarse tire chips) in PCC mixtures. A control
PCC mix is designed using American Concrete Institute mix design methods, and three groups of rubberized
PCC mixes were developed by partially replacing the aggregate with rubber. Eight tire rubber contents were
used in each group. Mixes were tested in compressive and flexural strength in accordance to ASTM standards.
Results show that rubberized PCC mixes can be made and are workable to a certain degree with the tire rubber
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

content being as much as 57% of the total aggregate volume. However, strength results show that large reductions
in strength would prohibit the use of such a high rubber content. It is suggested that rubber contents should not
exceed 20% of the total aggregate volume. A characteristic function that quantifies the reduction in strength for
rubberized concrete mixes was developed that could be useful for mix design purposes. Rubberized concrete
mixes may be suitable for nonstructural purposes such as lightweight concrete walls, building facades, and
architectural units. They could also be used as cement aggregate bases under flexible pavements. Fire hazards
are of major concern and need to be thoroughly investigated before recommendations for practical implemen-
tation are drawn.

INTRODUCTION The use of recycled tire rubber in asphalt pavements has

Solid waste disposal is a major environmental issue to cities
around the world. Recent studies (Amirkhanian and Manugian
1994; Collins and Ciesielski 1994; Epps 1994) have indicated
that roughly 4.6 billion tons of nonhazardous solid waste ma-
terials are produced annually in the United States. Domestic
and industrial wastes constitute almost 600 million tons of this
total. The remaining 4.0 billion tons are divided about equally
between agriculture and mineral waste resources, a large per-
centage of which are located in remote areas. The disposal of
waste tires represents a major issue in the solid waste dilemma
because there are more than 242,000,000 scrap tires, approx-
imately one tire per person, generated each year in the United
States (Epps 1994). This steady stream of scrap tires, plus 2
3 billion waste tires that have accumulated in stockpiles and
uncontrolled tire dumps, and the millions of tires scattered in
deserts, forests, grasslands, and empty lots have created a sig-
nificant disposal problem. Innovative solutions to solve the tire
disposal problem have long been in development.
State highway agencies have been proactive in their efforts
to evaluate usable materials and to recycle or incorporate such
materials into the highway system whenever possible. The use
of waste tires in the construction of asphalt pavements has
been a success to the point where the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (Intermodal 1991)
mandated the use of recycled rubber in any federally assisted
asphalt pavement project. The 1991 ISTEA mandate was to
use a minimum of 5% recycled rubber by weight of asphalt
placed. The percent of rubber used was to increase gradually
up to 20% by the year 1997 and thereafter. Undoubtedly, the
ISTEA 1991 act created incentives and produced applicable
technologies for the use of recycled tire rubber in asphalt pave-
ments. The mandate was, however, revoked in 1996. Even
though the mandate was revoked, recycled tire rubber can still
be used in asphalt pavement construction.
1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-
1022. E-mail: zkhatib@uidaho.edu
2
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg. Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID. E-
mail: bayomy@uidaho.edu
Note. Associate Editor: Paul J. M. Monteiro. Discussion open until
January 1, 2000. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Septem-
ber 25, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, August, 1999. ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
99/0003-02060213/$8.00 $.50 per page. Paper No. 16661.
206 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999
been addressed in many research publications and reports.
Epps (1994) has reviewed over 500 publications and his results
are published in the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Synthesis of Highway Practice 198. Unfortunately,
not much attention was paid to the use of scrap tires in portand
cement concrete (PCC) mixtures, particularly for highway use.
Limited work was done by researchers to investigate the po-
tential use of recycled rubber tires in PCC mixtures.
Eldin and Senouci (1993) conducted experiments to exam-
ine the strength and toughness properties of rubberized con-
crete mixtures. They used two types of tire rubber with dif-
ferent rubber content. Their results indicate that there is about
an 85% reduction in compressive strength, whereas the tensile
strength reduced to about 50% when the coarse aggregate was
fully replaced by rubber. A smaller reduction in compressive
strength (65%) was observed when sand was fully replaced by
fine crumb rubber. Concrete containing rubber did not exhibit
brittle failure under compression or split tension. A more in-
depth analysis of their results indicates a good potential of
using recycled rubber in PCC mixtures because it increases
fracture toughness. However, an optimized mix design is
needed to optimize the tire rubber content in the mixture. Biel
and Lee (1994) have used recycled tire rubber in concrete
mixes made with magnesium oxychloride cement, where ag-
gregate was replaced by fine crumb rubber up to 25% by vol-
ume. Their results of compressive and tensile strength indi-
cated that there is better bonding when magnesium
oxychloride cement is used. They discovered that structural
applications could be possible if the rubber content is limited
to 17% by volume of the aggregate. Schimizze et al. (1994)
developed two rubberized concrete mixes using fine rubber
granulars in one mix and coarse rubber granulars in the sec-
ond. While these two mixes were not optimized and their de-
sign parameters were selected arbitrarily, their results indicate
a reduction in compressive strength of about 50% with respect
to the control mixture. The elastic modulus of the mix con-
taining coarse rubber granulars was reduced to about 72% of
that of the control mixture, whereas the mix containing the
fine rubber granulars showed a reduction in the elastic mod-
ulus to about 47% of that of the control mixture. The reduction
in elastic modulus indicates higher flexibility, which may be
viewed as a positive gain in rubberized PCC (RPCC) mixtures
used in stabilized base layers in flexible pavements.
Concrete strength is greatly affected by the properties of its

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.

 constituents and the mixture design parameters. Because ag-
gregates represent the major constituent of the bulk of a con-
crete mixture, its properties affect the properties of the final
product of the mixture. Aggregate has been customarily treated
as an inert filler in concrete. However, due to increasing
awareness of the role played by aggregates in determining
many important properties of concrete, the traditional view of
the aggregate as an inert filler is being seriously questioned
(Mehta and Monteiro 1993). Certain aggregate characteristics
are required for proportioning concrete mixtures. These in-
clude density, grading, and moisture state (Kosmatka and Pan-
arese 1990). Porosity or density, grading, shape, and surface
texture determine the properties of a plastic concrete mixture.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ter-cement ratio. Results of this mix design are given in Table
1. To develop the other rubberized concrete mixes, all mix
design parameters were kept constant except for the aggregate
constituents. That is, the cement content, water-cement ratio,
and aggregate volume were kept constant. Then rubber was
used as a replacement for an equal part of aggregate by vol-
ume. Three groups of rubberized mixes were developed.
Group A: In this group the rubber material was crumb
rubber and only replaced the fine aggregate. Eight des-
ignated rubber contents in the range of 5100% by vol-
ume of fine aggregate were selected for this group. This
means that for a 100% rubber content all sand was re-

The mineralogical composition of aggregate affects its crush- placed by crumb rubber.
ing strength, hardness, elastic modulus, and soundness, which Group B: Tire chips were used to replace coarse aggregate
in turn influence the strength and durability properties of hard- in this group. Similar to Group A, eight designated rubber
ened concrete. Existing concrete mix design methods, for ex- contents in the range of 5100% were used. Similar to
ample, the Portland Cement Association (Kosmatka and Pan- Group A, for the 100% rubber content, all coarse aggre-
arese 1990) or the American Concrete Institution (ACI) gate was replaced by tire chips.
(Standard 1991) are available for concrete mixtures con- Group C: In this group, both types of rubbers were used
taining normal aggregates. Once the aggregate matrix contains (crumb and chip). However, the criteria to replace sand
nontraditional components such as polymer additives, fibers, by crumb and the coarse by chips was maintained. Also,
iron slag, and other waste materials, special provisions would eight designated rubber contents were used (5100%).
be required to design and produce these modified mixes. At The rubber content was divided equally between the
present, there are no such guidelines for how to include scrap crumb and the chip. That is, for a 100% rubber content,
tire particles in PCC mixtures. crumb rubber replaced 50% of the sand volume and tire
The scope of this paper is limited to the development of the chips replaced 50% of the coarse aggregate volume. Thus,
rubberized concrete mixes and evaluation of its basic engi- in Group C, the maximum content of rubber replacement
neering properties. was 50% of the total aggregate volume.
MATERIALS AND CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
To unify the rubber content units, these designated percent-
The materials used to develop the concrete mixes in this ages for each group were transferred to percentages of the total
study were fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, tire rubber, and aggregate volume. The equivalent values of rubber content by
cement. The fine aggregate (sand) and the coarse aggregate total aggregate volume are listed in Table 2.
(gravel) were obtained from Brazos River. Two types of scrap
tire rubber were used, crumb rubber (Ultra Fine-GF 1), which
is a fine material with gradation close to that of the sand, and
tire chips (Tire Derived Fuel), which are produced by me-
chanical shredding and contain coarser particle sizes. Scrap
tire rubber materials were provided by Aranular Products of
Mexia, Tex. type I portland cement was used in all mixes. The
properties of fine and coarse aggregates were determined ac-
cording to ASTM standard test methods C 127, C 128, C 29,
and C 136. The gradation of tire rubber materials was deter-
mined based on the ASTM C 136 method. It was not possible
to determine the gradation curve for the tire chips, as for nor-
mal aggregates, because they are elongated particles that range
in size from about 10 to 50 mm (0.4 to 1.9 in.) Specific grav-
ities for the aggregate and rubber materials are listed in Table
1. Gradation curves are provided in Fig. 1.
A normal PCC mix with 35 MPa (5,000 psi) targeted com- FIG. 1. Sieve Analysis of Aggregate and Crumb Rubber
pressive strength was designed as a control mix following ACI
Standard 211.1 (Standard 1991). The mix required 0.48 wa- TABLE 2. Designated Rubber Contents for Rubberized
Mixtures
TABLE 1. Properties of Materials and Mix Design of PCC Con-
trol Mix Designated Rubber Contenta (%)
rubber content
Specific Weight Volume (%) Group A Group B Group C
Material gravity (kg/m3) (m3/m3) (1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) Control mix 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coarse aggregate (gravel) 2.650 1,024.0 0.386 5 2.16 2.84 2.50
Fine aggregate (sand) 2.670 786.0 0.294 10 4.32 5.68 5.00
Portland cement (type I) 3.150 388.0 0.123 15 6.49 8.51 7.50
Water 1.000 186.0 0.186 20 8.65 11.35 10.00
Air voids n/aa n/aa 0.010 40 17.30 22.70 20.00
Crumb rubber 1.180 0.0 0.000 60 25.95 34.05 30.00
Tire chips 1.120 0.0 0.000 80 34.59 45.41 40.00
Total 2,384.0 1.000 100 43.24 56.76 50.00
a a
Not applicable. By total aggregate volume.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 207

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 2. Effect of Rubber Content on Properties of Fresh RPCC Mixtures
To evaluate mix properties, fresh concrete properties
(slump, air content, and unit weight) were measured. For hard-
ened concrete, all mixes were tested for compressive and flex-
ural strength after 7 and 28 days. The curing was standard
moist cure for both ages. The compressive strength test was
performed on a cylindrical sample that was 152.4 mm in di-
ameter and 304.8 mm in height in accordance to ASTM C 39.
These large samples were preferred over the regular laboratory
samples, 101.6 mm in diameter and 203.2 mm in height, to
allow a better representation of the material because, as men-
tioned earlier, some of the tire chips particles were as long as
50 mm. The flexural strength tests were performed on beams
152.4 152.4 508.0 mm in accordance to ASTM C 78.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Properties of Fresh Concrete
Fresh concrete properties (slump, air content, and unit
weight) are presented in Fig. 2. At rubber contents of 80% or
higher (40% by total aggregate volume), the slump was near
zero and the mix was not workable by hand mixing. Samples
at these high rubber contents had to be compacted using a
vibrator. The reduction in workability as indicated by the re-
duction in slump values at the higher rubber volumes increased
the air contents and decreased the unit weights as shown in
Fig. 2. High values of air content were obtained at these high
rubber contents in spite of the added compaction effort. The
208 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.
rate of increase in air content was almost the same for the
three groups when rubber content was <30% of total aggregate
volume. Interestingly, Group B (mixes with tire chips only)
had a lower air content than Group A (mixes with crumb
rubber only) for rubber contents >30%. It is believed that this
is a result of the extra compaction effort required for the Group
B samples at high rubber contents. In general, the air content
increased and the unit weight decreased uniformly. Fig. 2
shows that the unit weight data fits a perfect straight line for
all three groups.
Based on the fresh concrete properties, it is concluded that
RPCC mixes are workable to a certain degree and they result
in lighter-weight concrete mixes. Unit weight can be decreased
to as low as 75% of the normal concrete weight.
Compressive Strength
The results presented in Fig. 3 show a systematic reduction
in concrete compressive strength with the increase of rubber
content. The initial 28-day compressive strength of about 38
MPa decreased to almost 3 MPa when full replacement of
coarse aggregate by rubber chips was made. For the mix with
crumb rubber replacement, the strength decreased to about 3.6
and 3.2 MPa for mixes with crumb and chip rubber replace-
ment, respectively. This represents about a 90% reduction in
the 28-day strength when 100% of the aggregate volume is
replaced by rubber. However, for the 7-day strength, the rate
of strength reduction was much less than that of the 28-day
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3. Effect of Rubber Content on Compressive Strength of PCC Mixtures

strength. As shown in Fig. 3, curves for all mix groups became the strength of the rubberized PCC mixtures. The third pos-
asymptotic to the horizontal, reaching a minimum strength sible reason for strength reduction is the fact that PCC strength
value of about 3 MPa. is dependent greatly on the coarse aggregate, density, size, and
Although strength reduction is certainly a negative property hardness (Mehta and Monterio 1993). Because the aggregates
that may hinder the use of rubber, one can see the positive are partially replaced by rubber, the reduction in strength is
effect in the form of the failure mode. It was observed in all anticipated.
tests that as rubber content increases, samples tend to fail grad-
ually in either conical or columnar shape failure mode [see Flexural Strength
photographs in Fig. 4(a) as one example]. The samples sus-
Results of bending or flexural strength of all designated con-
tained a much higher deformation than the control mix. With
crete mixes are presented in Fig. 5. Graphs in Fig. 5 show that
rubber content near 60%, the samples exhibited significant
the flexural strength decreased with the increase of the rubber
elastic deformation, which was retained on unloading. Thus,
content in a fashion similar to that observed in the compressive
flexibility and ability to deform elastically is increased signif-
strength. However, it was noticed that the initial rate of
icantly.
strength reduction was steeper than that of the compressive
By investigating the shape of failure and the cross section
strength. This is due to the weak bond between cement paste
of failed samples [Fig. 4(b)] the reasons for strength reduction
and rubber particles. When analyzing the failed samples vi-
in RPCC mixes can be hypothesized. First, because the rubber
sually, it was observed that rubber particles could be removed
particles are much softer (elastically deformable) than the sur-
from the cement paste by ones fingers. Furthermore, visual
rounding cement paste, on loading, cracks are initiated quickly
observations during testing indicated that beam samples of the
around the rubber particles in the mix, which accelerates the
rubberized mixtures had much higher deflections before failure
failure of the rubber-cement matrix. Secondly, due to the lack
than beam samples of the control mixture. Unfortunately, de-
of adhesion between rubber particles and the paste, soft rubber
flection data were not recorded.
particles may be viewed as voids in the concrete matrix. The
assumed increase in void content would certainly cause a re-
PROPOSED MODEL FOR STRENGTH REDUCTION
duction in strength. Eldin and Senouci (1993) discussed the
FACTOR (SRF)
latter assumption in more detail, where they resembled the
rubber content to the air content in its effect on the concrete To quantify the strength reduction of the RPCC mixtures in
strength. They developed a model based on an early analysis relation to the rubber content in the mix, an attempt was made
by Goodier (1933) to quantify the effect of voids or flaws on to simulate the strength reduction by a characteristic function
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 209

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 4. Example for Illustration of RPCC Mixtures and Their
Mode of Failure
and determine the parameters of this function by regression
analysis. Hence, an SRF is defined by the ratio of the strength
of the PCC mixture containing rubber content R to the strength
of the control mix. The assumption here is that mixes must
have the same constituents and volumetric contents. In the
rubberized mixes, rubber is replacing the aggregate by an
equal volume. The rubber content R is a volumetric ratio by
the total aggregate volume. At 0% rubber (control mix), SRF
must equal unity. Thus, the SRF characteristic function must
be a decreasing curvilinear function with a starting value of
unity at zero rubber content. Close analysis of the data re-
vealed that such a function needs to be asymptotic to horizon-
tal at high rubber content. These properties of the SRF char-
acteristic function are identified based on the observed data in
Figs. 3 and 5. Several mathematical functions were investi-
gated including various degrees of polynomial functions. It
was found that the best mathematical function that can resem-
ble the trend of the strength reduction curves is in the form
SRF = a b(1 R)m (1)
with the condition that
a=1b (2)
where SRF = strength reduction factor; R = rubber content,
volumetric ratio by total aggregate volume; and a, b, and m =
function parameters.
The exponent m reflects the degree of curvature of the
downward curve; hence indicating the sensitivity of the mix
to the loss of strength with the rubber content. For example,
a mix with an m value of 2 is less sensitive than a mix with
an m value of 4.
210 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.
To determine the parameters of the SRF function for the
mixtures considered in this study, SRF values were determined
for all tested conditions. Results for the 7- and 28-day com-
pressive strength are plotted in Fig. 6(a). These are denoted
by different markers for each group. Regression analysis was
performed to fit a function in the form of (1) for each group
and for all groups as one set. It was discovered that for the
mixes tested in this study, one function (i.e., a function with
the same parameters a, b, and m) fits the three sets of data.
The function parameters and its coefficient of determination,
r 2 are tabulated in Table 3. To examine the validity of the SRF
proposed function on other types of mixes, the data published
by Eldin and Senouci (1993) were reanalyzed to calculate the
SRF values for their mixes. The plots in Fig. 6(b) show the
calculated SRF values of their strength data along with the
fitted SRF curves. The function parameters and its coefficient
of determination r 2 values are listed in Table 3 as well. From
these analyses, it is clear that the mixes tested in this study
are more sensitive to rubber content than those of Eldin and
Senouci. However, the SRF function seems to fit perfectly as
observed and as seen by its high r 2 values.
Analysis of the flexural strength data, presented in Fig. 7,
indicate that m value is as high as 17 for the 28-day flexural
strength. This high m value is due to few data points at low
rubber content. It is believed that these data points need to be
reconfirmed by further testing. Note that the 7-day flexural
strength SRF values did not show this high deviation at the
same rubber content. No published data were found in the
searched literature on the flexural strength of rubberized
mixtures, and therefore, checking on whether a high m value
is true is left for future investigation. The split tensile strength
data published by Eldin and Senouci (1993) were reanalyzed,
as was done for the compressive strength, and the results are
presented in Fig. 8. Again, the SRF function fits very well for
the split-tensile strength.
DISCUSSION
The above analyses indicate that the general SRF model
presented by (1) is adequate in estimating the expected reduc-
tion in the mix strength on replacing aggregate with rubber by
volume. Thus, it is suggested that the proposed SRF function
is a characteristic function that can be used with any type of
RPCC mix strength (as demonstrated with the split tensile
strength data developed by other researchers in Fig. 5 and
Table 3). All SRF data of the 28-day strength (compressive,
flexural, and split-tensile) were plotted together in Fig. 9. A
family of curves for (1) with varied m values is also plotted
in Fig. 9. All curves have the same a value (0.10). The curves,
as shown, confine all of the SRF data, except those of the
flexural strength at low rubber content. With this exception,
the SRF function fits very well.
A family of curves such as those in Fig. 9 can assist in
the mix design of the rubberized concrete mixtures. For ex-
ample, if the rubber content is restricted to a practical high
level of about 20% of the aggregate volume, the expected SRF
would be about 0.40 for an m value of 5 and an a value of
0.10. This means if the targeted strength of the mix is, for
example, 20 MPa, the RPCC mix should be designed on the
basis of 50 MPa (20/0.40 = 50). The key factor here is the
assessment of the parameter m, because it reflects the mix
sensitivity.
In view of the applicability of the rubberized mixes, rubber
can be added as high as 4050% of the aggregate volume
without major workability problems. However, severe reduc-
tion in strength prohibits the use of such high rubber contents
in most applications. If the strength is not a major factor in
the design, for example, with lightweight concrete walls,
building facades, or other building architectural units, the rub-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Effect of Rubber Content on Flexural Strength of PCC Mixtures

FIG. 6. Relationship of Compressive SRF and Rubber Content

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 211

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.

 TABLE 3. Parameters for SRF Function [Eq. (1)]

Compressive SRF Model Flexural SRF Model Split-Tensile SRF Model

Model
Rubber type parameters 7-day 28-day 7-day 28-day 7-day 28-day
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Ultra-fine crumb and tire- a 0.18 0.10 0.30 0.10
derived fuel chips b 0.82 0.90 0.70 0.90
rubber m 10 7 10 17
ra 0.908711 0.93889 0.898853 0.810821
Edger chips and Preston a 0.18 0.10 0.30 0.10
rubbera b 0.82 0.90 0.70 0.90
m 4 3 4 2
ra 0.967185 0.963466 0.922647 0.965699
a
Based on analysis of data published by Eldin and Senouci (1993).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 7. Relationship of Flexural SRF and Rubber Content FIG. 8. Relationship of Split-Tensile SRF and Rubber Content
[Based on Data Published by Eldin and Sencouci (1993)]

berized concrete mixes could give a viable alternative to the

normal weight concrete. The relatively high flexibility of the
RPCC mixes suggests the use of such mixes in areas of energy
and impact attenuation such as Jersey concrete barriers. How-
ever, a study is needed to assess its resistance to impact loads
before such a recommendation is drawn. The rubberized mixes
could be used in places where cement-stabilized aggregate
bases are needed, particularly under flexible pavements.
Other nonstructural uses such as traffic noise barriers on high-
ways, sidewalks, sport courts, etc., may be other viable appli-
cations.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this investigation, the following conclusions can be
drawn.
the rubber content. The strength of RPCC mixes can be
reduced to as low as 10% of the original control mix
strength for high rubber contents, >60% by aggregate
volume.
3. From a practical viewpoint, rubber content should not
exceed 20% of the aggregate volume due to the severe
reduction in strength.
4. A characteristic function is developed [given by (1)],
which estimates the reduction in the strength for any
RPCC mixture with respect to rubber content by aggre-
gate volume. This function is helpful in establishing the
targeted strength for mix design purposes. Analysis of
the function parameters revealed that the function ex-
ponent m is an indicator of the mix sensitivity to loss of
strength with rubber content.

1. Rubberized PCC mixtures can be made using ground tire
rubber in partial replacement by volume of normal fine
or coarse aggregates. The workability of RPCC mixtures
is dependent on the rubber content in the mix. Based on
the mix workability, an upper level of rubber content of
about 50% of the total aggregate volume may be used.
2. Strength data developed in this investigation (compres-
sive and flexural) and by others (split tensile) indicate a
systematic reduction in the strength with the increase of
Studies of the durability of RPCC mixes, its fire resistance,
and life cycle cost are needed before any recommendation can
be made on their use in practice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was partially supported by the Texas Department of Trans-
portation and Federal Highway Administration. The Civil Engineering
Department at the University of Idaho provided support in the preparation
of this paper and for continued research on RPCC.

212 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Syracuse University Library on 06/04/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 9. Family of Curves for Proposed SRF Characteristic Function
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Amirkhanian, S., and Manugian, D. (1994). Utilization of waste mate-
rials in highway construction. Proc., ASCE 3rd Mat. Engrg. Conf.,
Infrastructure: New Mat. and Methods of Repair, 919927.
Biel, T. D., and Lee, H. (1994). Use of recycled tire rubbers in con-
crete. Proc., ASCE 3rd Mat. Engrg. Conf., Infrastructure: New Mat.
and Methods of Repair, 351358.
Collins, R. J., and Ciesielski, S. K. (1994). Recycling and use of waste
materials and by-products in highway construction. Synthesis of high-
way practice 199, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Eldin, N. N., and Senouci, A. B. (1993). Rubber-tire particles as con-
crete aggregate. J. Mat. in Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 5(4), 478496.
Epps, J. A. (1994). Uses of recycled rubber tires in highways. Synthe-
sis of highway practice 198, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1999.11:206-213.
Goodier, J. N. (1933). Concentration of stress around spherical and cy-
lindrical inclusions and flaws. Trans., ASME, 55, 3944.
Illston, J. M., ed. (1994). Construction materials: Their nature and be-
haviour. E & FN Spon, London.
Intermodal surface transportation efficiency act of 1991, section 1038.
(1991). Public Law 102-240-Dec. 18, U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Washington, D.C.
Kosmatka, S. H., and Panarese, W. C. (1990). Design and control of
concrete mixtures, 13 Ed., Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill.
Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M. (1993). Concrete structure, prop-
erties, and materials, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Schimizze, R., Nelson, J., Amirkhanian, S., and Murden, J. (1994). Use of
waste rubber in light-duty concrete pavements. Proc., ASCE 3rd Mat.
Engrg. Conf., Infrastructure: New Mat. and Methods of Repair, 367374.
Standard practice for selecting proportions for normal, heavyweight and
mass concrete (Standard 211.1). (1991). ACI manual of concrete
practice, part 1, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 213