Construction

and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Viability analysis and constructive applications of lightened

mortar (rubber cement mortar)
a,* b,1 a
Mercedes del Rı́o Merino , Jaime Santa Cruz Astorqui , Mariano González Cortina
a
Department of Architecture Constructions and their Control, E.U. Arquitectura Técnica, U.Politécnica, Avda. Juan de Herrera 6, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b
Department of Building Technology, E.U. Arquitectura Técnica, U.Politécnica, Avda. Juan de Herrera 6, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Received 27 April 2005; received in revised form 19 January 2006; accepted 25 May 2006
Available online 28 September 2006

Abstract

The aim of this research project presented here was the suitability assessment using rubber granulation in lightened cement mortars.
This rubber granulation was made from worn tyres. It was obtained by mechanical grinding. The uses proposed for this type of mortars
in the construction field are as packing material. Therefore, the only condition needed is the low density and easy handling on the con-
struction. From the results obtained, more expensive lightweight aggregates could be substituted by rubber granulation derived from the
rejected tyres.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mortar; Rubber; Cement; Lightweight

1. Introduction CE of the European Union Council, regarding waste

Presently in Spain, 80% of the worn tyres are placed
directly in dumps (40% illegal dumps), 3% (7500 t) are
assessed for energy and just 1% (2500 t) is recycled. Leav-
ing aside the massive disposal problem, a historical stock
of approximately four million tons of worn tyres in dumps
and uncontrolled areas has existed. The problem lies in the
difficult elimination of such used tyres due to the great vol-
ume they occupy, as well as to the low degradation of its
components designed to assure the maximum durability
during the useful life. There is also the added problem of
water accumulation in the interior of the tyres, which pro-
vides ideal temperature and moisture conditions for the
spreading of mice, mosquitoes, and other diseases transmit-
ting species. The European Catalogue [1] of waste includes
worn tyres as non-dangerous waste. In the Directive 99/31/
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 3367596; fax: +34 91 3367634.
E-mail address: mercedes.delrio@upm.es (M. del Rı́o Merino).
1
Tel.: +34 91 3367599; fax: +34 91 3367637.
dumps, the prohibition of dumping whole tyres started
three years after the directive come into force (16-07-
2003). For cut up tyres, the ban will start six years after
it (16-07-2006).
Due to the enormous problem stated different methods
to solve the accumulation have been established, such
as:
 Incineration without energy recuperation: In spite of
being prohibited by the Directive 2000/76/CE regarding
waste incineration, it is a frequently used practice, but it
is not desirable due to the high toxicity of the combus-
tion products emitted to the atmosphere.
 Tyre incineration with energy recuperation: Although it is
a controlled combustion, it still is a contamination pro-
cess. This is the reason why all the directives tend to limit
the use of it, or even prohibit it in some cases. Its low
profitability has to be added, as the energy produced by
the incineration of rubber (9 kwh/k) is significantly
smaller than the energy needed to produce them
(32 kwh/k).

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.014
1786 M. del Rı́o Merino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791
 Tyre manufacturing: This application has had its peak in
the 90s, but nowadays the manufacturing companies
tend to use synthetic rubber.
 Thermolysis: In this process the rubber grinded from the
worn tyres is heated in a atmosphere without oxygen,
obtaining hydrocarbon chains. With this method a total
recuperation of all the tyre components is achieved. The
disadvantage is the high energy consumption of the
process.
 Pyrolysis: This system is not widely used in Spain,
although Taiwan recycles 28,000 t/year. The products
obtained through this method are, liquid industrial oil
(which can be refined to obtain diesel), coke, and steel.
At the same time, references have been found about the
reuse of worn tyres in the fields of civil engineering, such as
for concrete road bases [2], soil packing, or asphaltic pave-
ment [3]. These solutions imply many advantages com-
pared to the traditional systems and could absorb the
total waste generated by worn tyres. In the hypothetical
case where all the asphaltic mixtures used in Spain would
be changed, it would be necessary to use 300,000 t of rub-
ber dust/year and 250,000 t of used tyres would be needed
in order to obtain it.
Regarding the reuse in the construction field, it should
be pointed out that very few applications have been
developed. An example of it is the manufacture of rubber
compounds for anti-shock pavings. These types of pav-
ings are traded in the shape of conglomerated rubber
slabs to be used in sport places and as playing surfaces.
Nevertheless, they do not amount to a great reutilization
volume.
Other references have been found about research pro-
jects defining new construction elements incorporating rub-
ber additions, to improve acoustic or thermal insulation.
Some of these projects are: the one developed by the
Department of Environmental Acoustics of the Acoustics
Institute (CSIC) manufacturing acoustic anti-sound screen,
and the constructive system ‘‘Bom Plac’’ for social housing
in Brasil. In this case, prefabricated blocks have been used,
made of a mixture of cement, sand, steel, water and rubber
made from worn tyres.
Regarding the addition of rubber in mortars or con-
crete, several bibliographic references have been found
dealing with research projects using rubber granulation as
addition to concrete, and partially substituting the fine
aggregate or gravel [4]. These studies share the fact that this
addition modifies concrete behaviour in the following way:
 It reduces cracks through plastic retraction.
 Compressive and tensile strength decrease proportion-
ally to the amount of rubber included.
 Young module diminishes and concrete plasticity
increases.
 It shows a greater ductile break. In concrete with rubber
fibres, there is no separation observed in the fractured
parts.
 Dynamic actions performance improves.
 Impact resistance improves.
 Rubber fibre is inalterable in a concrete alkaline medium.
Nevertheless, no references about the use of rubber in
great quantities – in mortar cements or as packing materi-
als – in the construction field have been found.
2. Test methodology
Prismatic test pieces series of 4 cm · 4 cm · 16 cm
(three per series) are prepared. In them, the mortar
cement is substituted by the rubber granulation and they
are tested for mechanical strength (flexotraction and com-
pression) and shore C hardness. At the same time, the
weight loss from the form removal until fracture is ana-
lyzed. From the tests results and conclusions, the mortar
with a better density/mechanical strength relationship will
be determined.
 In an initial stage a great number of test pieces are made
to find the reference dosage, that is, the one which inte-
grates the greatest rubber granulation in cement, main-
taining good workability. This reference dosage is
named rubber 100% (maximum addition of rubber
granulation).
 Once the reference mortar has been determined, test
pieces are made reducing the quantity of rubber added
in the reference mortar up to a 50% and 75%. Glass fibre
is added as well, in 1% and 2% of the conglomerate
weight in order to evaluate possible improvements in
the material mechanical behaviour [5].
 Finally, from the results obtained in the test performed,
the best mortar is chosen. The properties of this mortar
are compared with mortar where the lightweight mate-
rial has been substituted with standardized sand. It is
also compared to the results obtained with expanded
clay mortars from earlier researches [6]. From all these
tests, the advantages and drawbacks of these mortars
as packing materials will be stated, and different applica-
tions are suggested.
2.1. Materials used
– Cement: Type CEM II/A- L32,5N.
– Rubber: Rubber granulation made from mechanical
grinding of worn tyres.
Granulometry Geometric Bulk Water retention
density density (% in weight)
G3 (0.4–2.0 mm) 0.38 0.84 79.8
– Glass fibres CEM-FIL 62/2 18 mm long, from Vetrotex,
Saint Gobain.
– River sand.
– Water.
 M. del Rı́o Merino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791 1787

2.2. Making up of test pieces Rubber 100%

2
Rubber 75%
During the manufacturing of test pieces in the mixing of

Flexotractión S. (MPa)
the batch, a bad smell is noticed. The lack of adherence Rubber 50%

between the cement and the rubber granulation produces Exp clay 100%
a dispersion of the mortar where the cement grout is dec- 1
Rubber 100%+1%glass f
anted at the bottom.
Rubber 100%+2%glass f
This lack of adherence can be caused by the rubber
Rubber 75%+1%glass f
retention of a great quantity of air bubbles on the surface
(greater in fine granulometries). This problem appears 0 Rubber 75%+2% glass f
when there is an increase in the rubber quantity in relation 0 0.5 1 1.5
Rubber 50%+1%glass f
to that of cement, making workability more difficult and Density (g/cm3)
Rubber 50% +2%glass f
obtaining extremely fragile test pieces which break right
when they are removed form the mould. Fig. 1. Density/flexotraction strength.

3. Test result and conclusions
3.1. Density
In general, in the first seven days all the test pieces made
show a loss of 6% of their weight. After 14 days, they lose a
18% and they are stabilized in between 21 and 28 days.
The addition of rubber implies a decrease in the geomet-
ric density of more than a 60% compared to a non-light-
ened mortar. But the quantity of added rubber is not
proportional to the decrease in the obtained density. In a
similar way, with additions of half of that of the reference
test piece, similar results are obtained.
On the other hand, the density values of rubber light-
ened mortars are greater than those obtained with mortar
lightened with clays. The greater density reductions have
been obtained for similar consistencies (measured by the
settlement suffered by the batch in the first two minutes
after being poured in a standardized cone).
The addition of glass fibres does not significantly alter
the mortar density.
mortars. But the figures obtained for lightened mortar with
a 50% added rubber are similar to those obtained for
expanded clay lightened mortars. In the same way as in
the flexotraction test, a prolongation in the plastic period
is stated, and when the fracture is produced the test pieces
are completely destroyed; in fact they are flattened and
joined all together.
The addition of glass fibres does not imply an improve-
ment in the compressive strength values (see Fig. 2).
3.4. Superficial hardness test
The obtained results are much smaller than the ones
obtained with the non-lightened mortar test pieces and even
more so than those from expanded clay lightened mortar.
The addition of glass fibres in this rubber mortars
increases the mortar porosity. This results in a greater
decrease in the values obtained for the superficial hardness
test (see Fig. 3).
3.5. Fixing water absorption coefficient

3.2. Flexotraction test
In every case, even in mortars with minimum addition of
rubber, a significant loss of strength is obtained, compared
to the non-lightened mortar or to those mortars lightened
with expanded clay. This can be caused by the rubber-air
effect of adherence, as it implies a decrease of the contact
surface between the cement matrix and rubber. The greater
the rubber volume the smaller the strength. Nevertheless,
The test is carried out weighting the test pieces totally
dry (Pd) and sinking them thoroughly in water for 72 h
until the total saturation of the pores is achieved (Ps). By
doing so, the saturated weight of the test pieces is
determined.
3
Rubber 100%
Compressive S. (MPa)

Rubber 75%
an improvement in the fracture behaviour is stated when
2 Rubber 50%
alternative energy absorption mechanisms are proposed. Exp clay 100%
This prolongs the plastic period and the pieces are main- Rubber 100%+1%glass f
tained joined together after the breakage. Rubber 100%+2%glass f
The addition of glass fibres does not improve the flexo- 1 Rubber 75%+1%glass f
Rubber 75%+2%glass f
traction strength results (see Fig. 1). Rubber 50%+1%glass f
Ruber 50% +2%glass f
3.3. Compressive strength test 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Density (g/cm3)
The results obtained in this test with lightened mortars
are much smaller that those obtained with non-lightened Fig. 2. Density/compressive strength.
1788 M. del Rı́o Merino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791

Table 2
Rubber 100%
Average results of tests performed with mortar lightened with expanded
90 Rubber 75% clay [6]
Rubber 50% Cement lightened Density Flexotraction Compressive C shore
72 with expanded (g/cm3) strength strength hardness
Exp clay 100%
clay (MPa) (MPa)
54 Rubber 100%+1%glass f
C Shore

0.56 1.02 1.39 80

Rubber 100%+2%glass f
36
Rubber 75%+1%glass f
Table 3
18 Rubber 75%+2%glass f
Average results of tests performed with non-lightened cement mortars
Rubber 50%+1%glass f
0 Density Flexotraction Compressive C shore
0 0.5 1 1.5 Rubber 50% +2%glass f (g/cm3) strength (MPa) strength (MPa) hardness
Density (g/cm3) Non-lightened 2.04 3.9 16 92.83
cement
Fig. 3. Density/C shore.

age in volumes without rubber addition, although exter-

The test is carried out on non-lightened mortar test nally, the increase in cm decreases in 58.33%. This
pieces and on test pieces lightened with a 50% initial rub- confirms that mortar lightened with rubber is more porous
ber, because these ones present a better relation between and keeps more water inside, though it is not externally
density and mechanical strength. Cabs of cement mor- shown (see Tables 1–3).
tar = 4.10%. Cabs of rubber mortar = 15.12%.
Rubber mortar is more porous; as a consequence, the 4. Constructive applications with cement–rubber mortars
absorption of rubber mortar increases in relation to a
cement and sand mortar up to a 11.02%. The possible application fields of cement–rubber mor-
tars are the following:
3.6. Test pieces capillary absorption tests
Product Application
The test carried out consisted of sinking the test pieces in a Non-structural Flat roofs packing
tank filled with 1 cm water and measuring the water rise and mortar with
the weight increase of the test pieces every 10 min. The test granulated rubber
finishes when water does not rise anymore, after 50 min. Slab
The test is performed on non-lightened mortars and on Slab rehabilitation packings
test pieces of mortar lightened with 50% of initial rubber, Old foundations underpinning
because these ones offer a better strength and mechanical
strength relationship. Water column in the rubber mortar
test pieces: 1.25 cm, that is 0.025 cm/min. Water column
in the cement mortar test pieces: 3 cm, that is 0.06 cm/ 4.1. Slope creation in flat roofs
min. Weight increase in rubber mortar test pieces: 8.35 g,
that is 0.167 g/min. Weight increase in cement mortar test The use of lightened mortars (normally with expanded
pieces: 5.10 g, that is 0.102 g/min. clay) in the formation of slopes is fairly common due to
The capillary absorption capacity of the final dosage has the weight reduction. The main disadvantage is the high
increased in weight in a 63.73% in relation to the same dos- prices of the light aggregate, which can be substituted

Table 1
Average results of test performed with mortars lightened with rubber
Cement lightened material Density (g/cm3) Flexotraction strength Compressive strength C shore hardness
28 days (MPa) 28 days (MPa) 28 days 28 days
Rubber (100%) 0.82 0.5 1.0 19.6
Rubber (100%) + 1% glass f. 0.89 0.6 Broken before testing 17.3
Rubber (100%) + 2% glass f. 0.86 0.6 Broken before testing 12
Rubber (75%) 0.89 0.65 0.84 18.7
Rubber (75%) + 1% glass f. 0.89 0.65 1.4 20.6
Rubber (75%) + 2% glass f. 0.84 0.6 1.3 17.9
Rubber (50%) 0.97 0.85 1.4 31.6
Rubber (50%) + 1% glass f. 0.91 0.85 1.4 28
Rubber (50%) + 2% glass f. 0.93 0.9 1.4 27.6
 M. del Rı́o Merino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791
(partially or totally) by cork granulate. On the other
hand, the addition of rubber would improve the reaction
toward cracks by retraction, and even more so, when con-
tractions and expansions occur due to thermal variations
(see Fig. 4).
4.2. Soleplates
This application is probably the most suitable one. Due
to the requirements of the soleplates, and the most com-
mon pathologies, the rubber mortar adapts itself perfectly
well because:
– The greater deformability implies a decrease in the
cracks produced by the ground movement (normally
derived from the volumetric variations due to moisture
changes).
– The addition of rubber granulate minimizes the cracking
due to plastic retraction, a frequent damage in soleplates.
– It contributes with some thermal insulation, which can
be important for soleplates of heated basements.
Fig. 4. Formation of slopes.
Fig. 5. Concrete with rubber soleplate.
1789
Fig. 6. Scheme of an interphase in a mixed packing.
Fig. 7. Slab rehabilitation.
– Finally, it is an application which allows for the reutili-
zation of great volumes of recycled rubber (with the
resulting saving of natural aggregate) (see Fig. 5).
4.3. Packings in slab rehabilitation
The frequent existing deformations in this type of slabs
imply that the concrete used has to be very light (and less
resistant) or it should be levelled with a board system
over furrings. When the level difference is very pro-
nounced, packing with dry expanded clay can be used.
In any case, the great proportion of expanded clay makes
the operation much more expensive, and the concrete
lightened in this way lacks the desired cohesivity (see
Figs. 6 and 7).
The addition of rubber to these mortars permits the for-
mulation of a light mortar for this type of application with
similar interesting characteristics:
– Low weight.
– Greater flexibility ensuring a better performance of the
packing in deformations produced by the new weight
situations.
– A thermal insulation as well as impact noise insulation
increase.
4.4. Underpinning in old foundations
In the ditches underpinning old foundations – frequently
made of stone conglomerate or gypsum mortar – the fol-
lowing conditions are normally present:
1790 M. del Rı́o Merino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791
– The volumes to be packed are usually irregular, making
the incorporation of the reinforcement and the packing
of the entire void difficult.
– The existing foundations use to have low strengths, and
little or no cohesivity.
– Once the underpinning is made, and in cases where other
parts of the building are being worked on, movements
due to settlement are normally produced. Adapting to
the new load state (or because of the sequence unload-
ing–loading) can produce differential settlements and
deformations in the foundations.
The use of conventional concrete (high resistance and
rigidity) seems not to be the most adequate material in this
context, or at least it is not compatible with the existing
foundation. Therefore, the mortar characteristics with the
rubber addition is more suitable for this type of interven-
tion, and specially so because of its greater deformability
and smaller elasticity module, where the decrease in resis-
tance is not important.
As a conclusion, every packing situation should be care-
fully stated and checked regarding:
 Batch proportion of the rubber used in the fibre and
granulation, as well as the most adequate size
(granulometry).
 Possible mixture with coarse aggregate. In this case, rub-
ber surrounds the aggregate forming an elastic inter-
phase improving the packing performance.
 Packing performance with high temperatures (in case of
packings in interior elements).
5. Conclusions
From the results obtained in the tests performed with
the rubber mortar test pieces, it can be concluded that
for the same workability and consistency, mortar lightened
with expanded clay reaches less density as well as
higher values in flexotraction strength and superficial
hardness.
In spite of this, cement–rubber mortar obtains a similar
density to that of lightened mortars now in the market
and within the additions analysed. An addition of 50% rub-
ber is recommended because it presents the best relation
among the densities, mechanical strengths and superficial
hardness.
In addition, using rubber instead of other aggregates to
reduce the density of cement mortars, brings the following
advantages:
Sustainability: The use of a great volume of waste substi-
tuting natural materials (sand, aggregate, etc.). It repre-
sents a great advantage from the point of view of
sustainability in construction.
Cost: It can be predicted that the cost of recycled rubber
can considerably diminish due to two causes: the adminis-
tration financing the costs (ecologic product) and a reduc-
tion in the prices when the demand of the product is greater.
Elasticity: The material used has a low elasticity module.
It shows a greater adaptation in between nearby elements
(soil and retaining wall/slab, soil and ducts, slab and pav-
ing, etc.) where a difference in rigidities is frequently found,
causing cracks in the most fragile element due to move-
ments in the support element.
Unalterableness: Recycled rubber is a nearly inert mate-
rial (even with cement hydrating products), assuring a sta-
bility in time of the whole construction (including the cases
with presence of aggressive products as in some soils). The
impermeability and lack of porosity have to be added.
Thermal insulation: The rubber granules form a certain
thermal insulation, which, although small, it is much
greater than the one obtained with aggregate packings.
This advantage falls into the protection of the extrados ele-
ment when there are external thermal variations (for exam-
ple, in packings of soleplate and basements and pipe ditch
packing).
Acoustic insulation: Due to its characteristics, the rubber
packing provides an impact acoustic insulation (packings
used under pavings or slabs).
Density: The low bulk density of rubber granulation,
allows great volume packings disregarding its weight (pac-
kings used in slabs for rehabilitation).
Regarding the rubber aggregate drawbacks, the follow-
ing has been noticed:
Performance with fire: The rubber combustibility and
high toxicity of the combustion products oblige to a perfect
insulation of those packings in any event of fire. This is
possible in external packings (ditches, extrados of retaining
walls, etc.) but presents a problem in internal packings,
where its performance with high temperature has to be
studied in shut-away places (packings under slabs or cham-
ber fillings).
Regarding the possible applications of rubber–cement
mortars in the construction field, this material shows a
variety of possibilities in the building of soleplates, slopes,
flat roofs, foundations underpinnings etc.
 M. del Rı́o Merino et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1785–1791
Acknowledgement
Our thanks to Isabel Salto-Weis.
References
[1] Catálogo Europeo de Residuos (CER) diciembre de 1993. Catálogo de
residuos utilizables en la construcción–Ministerio de medio Ambiente,
2002. Tejela Otero, JA. Jornadas de Medio Ambiente: Reciclaje de
neumáticos fuera de uso (26-06-2003). Ley 10/1998 de Residuos de 21
de abril.
[2] Nhedi Moncef, Khan Ashfaq. Cementitious composites containing
recycled tire rubber: an overview of engineering properties and potential
applications. Cement, Concrete Aggr, CCAGDP 2001;23(1):3–10.
1791
[3] Raghavan D, Huynh H, Ferraris CF. Workability, mechanical
properties, and chemical stability of a recycled tire rubber-filled
cementitious composite. J Mater Sci 1998;33:1745–52.
[4] Huynh H, Raghavan D, Ferraris CF. Rubber particles from
recycled tires in cementitious composite materials. NISTIR 5850
R, May 1996. Reda Taha MM, El-Dieb AS, Abdel-Wahab
MM. Fracture toughness of concrete incorporating rubber tire
particles. ICPCM – a new era of building. Cairo (Egypt) Feb
18–20, 2003.
[5] Rı́o Merino Mercedes, Comino Almenara Pablo. Influencia del grado
de dispersabilidad de la fibra de vidrio tipo E en el comportamiento
mecánico y la trabajabilidad de la escayola. Mater Construcc
2001;51(261):33–44.
[6] Rı́o Merino Mercedes. Hormigones aligerados con arcilla expandida y
caucho reciclado.