Construction and Building Materials 91 (2015) 145–149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Effects of rubber particles on mechanical properties of lightweight

aggregate concrete
Jing Lv ⇑, Tianhua Zhou, Qiang Du, Hanheng Wu
School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 Fine nature aggregate was replaced with rubber particles at various percentage.
 Addition of rubber particles decreases the slump value and air-dry unit weight.
 The increased replacement exerts a negative impact on mechanical properties.
 Addition of rubber particles results in reduction of static modulus of elasticity.

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

Article history: This paper presents the compiled experimental data of slump value, compressive strength, splitting ten-
Received 19 November 2014 sion strength, flexural strength, static modulus of elasticity and unit weight for eleven different mixtures
Received in revised form 10 April 2015 of rubber lightweight aggregate concretes cured up to 1, 7 and 28 days. The eleven different mixtures
Accepted 2 May 2015
cover one fundamental mixture and ten different replacements of rubber particles for sand volume from
Available online 16 May 2015
10% to 100%. Based on the experimental results, incorporating rubber particles profoundly has a detri-
mental effect on the slump and mechanical strength, while the unit weight of concrete dropped. The sta-
Keywords:
tic modulus of elasticity decreased from 24.1 GPa to 6.3 GPa with the replacement of rubber particles
Lightweight aggregate concrete
Rubber particles
increasing from 0% to 100%. The toughness of rubber lightweight aggregate concretes is obvious superior
Mechanical properties to the plain lightweight aggregate concretes. The application of rubber particles in lightweight aggregate
Recycling concretes provides further opportunity to recycle waste tires.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In theory, properties of normal concrete would be affected by

The remarkable increase in the number of vehicles worldwide
and the lack of both technical and economical mechanisms make
that waste tires are considered a serious pollution problem in
terms of waste disposal. In practice, the best way to dispose waste
tires is to reuse them. Up to date many researchers have been
involved in this area. In an effort to solve this problem, several spe-
cial tentative strategies in recent years have been conducted to
reuse the recycled waste tires. For instance, Ling et al. [1] reported
that the recycled waste tires could be crushed into particles with
different sizes and subsequently using them as aggregate in
cement mortar and concrete. The experiments indicated that using
the rubber particles to replace the aggregate in concrete were able
to save the natural resources significantly and the environment
would be protected from waste deposits simultaneously [2,3].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 29 82337201; fax: +86 29 82339228.
E-mail address: lvjing21@chd.edu.cn (J. Lv).
inclusion of waste rubber particles. For example, Al-Mutairi et al.
[4] and Ozbay et al. [5] ascertained that the workability of concrete
decreased gradually with increasing percentage of rubber particle.
And the density of rubberized concrete decreased gradually with
increasing rubber particle percentage because of the low specific
gravity of rubber particle [6]. Khaloo et al. [7] and Sukontasukkul
et al. [8] have determined the strength and toughness of concrete
with a portion of coarse aggregates replaced by waste tire chips.
They observed that the compressive strength and splitting tensile
strength were reduced, while its toughness and ability to absorb
fracture energy were enhanced significantly. Yilmaz et al. [9] and
Ganesan et al. [10] verified that flexural strength of concrete
increased with the increase of crumb rubber percentage.
However, few studies showed a reduction in flexural strength with
increasing the replacement level of rubber content.
In contrast, the concrete panels made with rubber particles
were proofed to have better sound and thermal properties than
plain concrete [11]. During practical applications, it has been found

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.038
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
146 J. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 91 (2015) 145–149
that the shrinkage of rubberized concrete is usually associated
with the size and shape of the rubber particles. Typically,
Turatsinze et al. [12] reported that the shrinkage of rubberized
concrete increase with the increase of replacement of rubber par-
ticles. Based on these unique properties of rubberized concrete
above-mentioned, rubberized concrete had been used as exterior
wall materials [13], rubberized concrete blocks materials [14],
trench bedding materials [15], etc. Such usages of rubberized con-
crete have been found beneficial for roadway central reservations
obviously. More specifically, the introductions of rubberized con-
crete into various substrates have offered the combined protection
and traffic noise reduction, and improve thermal and acoustic insu-
lation for small machinery housing structures as well as enhance
thermal insulation for flooring in buildings [16,17]. In brief, it
seems that the greater environmental and economic benefits have
been achieved provided plenty of waste tires would be recycled
and reused in such industrial areas.
Lightweight aggregate concrete is a new type of concrete with
the properties of lightweight, good thermal, fire resistance, seismic
resistance and environmental friendliness. It has been widely
applied in the high-rise buildings and long span bridges [18].
Plenty of previous research works were found to mainly focus on
studying the performance of lightweight aggregate concrete
[19,20]. Similar to the normal rubberized concrete, the rubber par-
ticles could also be considered to apply in the lightweight concrete.
However, there is very few existing research about the properties
of rubber lightweight aggregate concrete. The most recent report
appears to be Wang et al. [21], in which the fresh properties of con-
trol low-strength rubber lightweight concrete and 1 day-aged
compressive strength were carried out only. However, the multi-
factorial effect of rubber particles in lightweight aggregate con-
crete on hardened mechanical properties was not examined in
details.
As stimulated by these backgrounds, the focus of this research is
to determine the multifactorial effect of rubber particles on light-
weight aggregate concrete properties for the first time. The rubber
lightweight aggregate concrete (RLAC) fundamental designs, con-
taining up 11 different mixtures from 0% to 100% volume replace-
ment of fine aggregate with rubber particles, are investigated. The
properties and performance of samples including slump value,
compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength,
static modulus of elasticity and unit weight were evaluated,
respectively. The characteristic of raw materials and mechanical
traits were tested according to relevant standards.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials and mixture proportions
Materials making the test samples included ordinary Portland cement, light-
weight aggregate (LWA), fine aggregate, rubber particles, water and a
polycarboxylate-based high range water reducer (HRWR). The physical properties
and chemical compositions of the cement is shown in Table 1. The properties of
Table 1
Chemical compositions and physical properties of ordinary Portland cement.
Chemical analysis (%) Ordinary Portland cement
CaO 62.81
SiO2 20.36
Al2O3 5.67
Fe2O3 3.84
MgO 2.68
SO3 2.51
K2O 0.87
Na2O 0.19
Loss on ignition 1.07
Specific gravity 3.14
Fineness (m2/kg) 329
the LWA were water absorption capacity 2.3%, crushing strength 8.75 MPa, loose
bulk density 830 kg/m3 and particle size between 4.75 mm and 19.0 mm. Fine
aggregate (modulus of fineness 2.7, density 2.62 g/cm3 and absorption capacity
1.6%) was provided from local river. Recycled rubber particles produced by mechan-
ical shredding, ranging from 0.15 mm to 4.75 mm in size, the modulus of fineness
2.6, the density 1.16 g/cm3 and the loose bulk density 365 kg/m3 was used as a sand
replacement by volume. The particle size distribution curve of the fine aggregate
and rubber particles are shown in Fig. 1.
The mixing water was tap water. The HRWR with a solid content of approxi-
mately 40% was used to achieve the desired workability for all concrete mixtures.
The mix proportion for the control concrete was set at 1.00:0.35:1.46:1.27:0.01
(Cement:Water:Fine aggregate:LWA:HRWR). In the case of rubber lightweight
aggregate concrete (RLAC), the rubber particles were used to replace fine aggregate
at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and 100% by volume (Table 2).
Eleven mix proportions were used for slump test, compressive strength test,
splitting tensile strength test, flexural strength test, static modulus of elasticity test
and unit weight test. All mixtures were mixed in a standard mixer. Before adding
water, all solid ingredients were firstly mixed dry for about 1 min. Water and
HRWR were put together and then added into the dry mixture, mixed for 2 min.
The mixture was then cast into molds and demoulded after 24 h. After demoulded,
all specimens were cured for1, 7 and 28 days in a standard curing room where the
temperature is 20 ± 2 °C and the relative humidity (RH) is more than 95%.
2.2. Specimens preparation and measurement
The fresh slump was tested according to ASTM C143 [22]. The compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength and static modulus of elasticity were both mea-
sured on three cylinder specimens of 100  200 mm according to ASTM C39 [23],
ASTM C496 [24] and ASTM C469 [25]. The flexural strength was measured on three
prisms of 100  100  500 mm dimensions under three-point bending according to
ASTM C293 [26]. The unit weight was measured on three cylinder specimens of
152  305 mm according to ASTM C567 [27]. The value of slump, compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength, static modulus of elasticity, flexural strength
and unit weight were determined by the average readings.
For the compressive strength, the specimens were tested at a constant rate of
loading 3.0 kN/s. The compressive load was applied using a servo-controlled
hydraulic testing machine of 1000 kN capacity. The splitting tensile strength was
tested at a constant rate of loading 0.5 kN/s and the flexural strength was at
0.1 kN/s. The unit weight was measured as air-dry unit weight.
The static modulus of elasticity was measured as a secant modulus in the elastic
range. Each of these specimens was fitted with two dial indicators having the cap-
able of measuring deformation to 0.002 mm and then loaded three times to 40% of
the ultimate load of companion cylinder. The first set of readings of each cylinder
was discarded and the modulus was reported as the average of the second set of
readings. The static modulus of elasticity was determined from the average of the
three specimens.
3. Results and discussion
The experimental testing results of slump value is listed in
Table 2, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural
strength, static modulus of elasticity and unit weight are listed in
Table 3.
100
90
Fine aggregate
80 Rubber particles
70
Percentage passing, %
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size, mm
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of fine aggregate and rubber particles.
 J. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 91 (2015) 145–149 147

Table 2
Mix proportions and slump value.

Type of concrete Replacement (by volume) (%) Weight per cubic meter (kg/m3) Slump (mm)
Rubber C FA LWA Water HRWR
CC 0 0 480 700 610 168 4.8 215
RC10 10 31 480 630 610 168 4.8 205
RC20 20 62 480 560 610 168 4.8 200
RC30 30 93 480 490 610 168 4.8 195
RC40 40 124 480 420 610 168 4.8 180
RC50 50 155 480 350 610 168 4.8 175
RC60 60 186 480 280 610 168 4.8 150
RC70 70 217 480 210 610 168 4.8 135
RC80 80 248 480 140 610 168 4.8 135
RC90 90 279 480 70 610 168 4.8 130
RC100 100 310 480 0 610 168 4.8 125

Table 3
The experimental testing results of compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, static modulus of elasticity and unit weight.

Type of concrete Compressive strength Splitting tensile strength Flexural strength (MPa) Static modulus of Unit weight (kg/m3)
(MPa) (MPa) elasticity (GPa)
1d 7d 28d 1d 7d 28d 1d 7d 28d 1d 7d 28d 28d
CC 13.4 30.9 41.5 1.22 3.11 4.38 1.32 3.35 4.68 5.6 16.8 24.1 1820
RC10 12.1 27.4 39.2 1.14 2.94 3.85 1.24 3.17 4.44 4.7 14.6 22.5 1780
RC20 10.7 25.1 36.4 1.09 2.77 3.67 1.11 2.92 4.05 4.1 13.7 20.4 1714
RC30 9.4 20.6 29.5 0.98 2.31 2.98 1.02 2.54 3.57 3.5 13.1 18.5 1650
RC40 7.3 16.8 22.8 0.79 1.87 2.51 0.83 2.26 3.24 3.1 12.7 16.1 1607
RC50 5.1 11.5 16.6 0.61 1.52 1.93 0.69 1.99 2.79 2.7 11.5 14.8 1533
RC60 4.4 9.4 13.3 0.49 1.21 1.52 0.53 1.78 2.23 2.5 9.1 12.3 1487
RC70 3.7 7.7 10.9 0.41 0.95 1.12 0.45 1.45 1.81 2.4 8.7 9.8 1436
RC80 3.3 6.9 9.2 0.37 0.83 0.98 0.42 1.13 1.53 2.4 6.8 8.9 1398
RC90 3.0 6.3 8.2 0.33 0.72 0.87 0.38 0.97 1.08 2.3 5.6 7.7 1366
RC100 2.9 5.8 7.1 0.31 0.68 0.79 0.35 0.77 0.87 2.1 5.3 6.3 1321

3.1. Slump 3.2. Compressive strength

The results demonstrated that the slump value of the fresh
lightweight aggregate concrete decreased with the increase in
replacement of rubber particles. As seen in Fig. 2, the highest
slump value happened on the control concrete with 100% natural
fine aggregate, whereas the mixture incorporating 100% rubber
particles replacement reached the lowest one. This might be attrib-
uted to the irregular shape as well as relatively rough surface of
rubber particles. As a result, to improve the workability, the more
HRWR could be added in the mixture.
Fig. 3 shows that the compressive strength of RLAC demon-
strated a decreasing tendency with increasing mixing ratio of the
rubber particles content while a increasing with age. The increase
in rubber particles content from 0% to 100% resulted in a gradually
decrease in the compressive strength from 41.5 MPa to 7.8 Mpa,
which is equivalent to about a 83% reduction of strength on day
28. The reduction of compressive strength on day 7 and day 1 were
81% and 78% respectively. It can be seen that most reduction
occurred when the replacement ratio was lower than 50%. The

45

220 40 1 Day
7 Days
35 28 Days
Compressive strength, MPa

200
30
Slump value, mm

180 25

20
160
15

140 10

5
120
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Replacement level of rubber, % Replacement level of rubber, %

Fig. 2. Slump value of RLAC versus replacement level of rubber particles. Fig. 3. Compressive strength of RLAC versus replacement level of rubber particles.
148 J. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 91 (2015) 145–149

5 5

1 Day
1 Day
7 Days
4 7 Days 4
28 Days
Splitting tensile strength, MPa

28 Days

Flexural strength, MPa

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Replacement level of rubber, % Replacement level of rubber, %

Fig. 4. Splitting tensile strength of RLAC versus replacement level of rubber Fig. 5. Flexural strength of RLAC versus replacement level of rubber particles.
particles.

3.5. Static modulus of elasticity

possible reasons for this strength reduction could be assigned to
the reduction of the amount of the solid load-carrying material
with increasing rubber particles content. Also, the adhesion
between the boundaries of the rubber particles and cement paste
might significantly degrade, and thus increase the volume of weak
phase and interface transition zone [28]. In order to improve the
bonding performance between rubber particles and cement hydra-
tion products, silane coupling agent could be added as a cementi-
tious coating layer around rubber particles [29].
3.3. Splitting tensile strength
The variations of splitting tensile strength with replacement
level of rubber particles at 1, 7 and 28 days are listed in Table 3.
It can be seen that the splitting tensile strength reduced with an
increase in substitutions content of the rubber particles in the mix-
ture at 1, 7 and 28 days. Fig. 4 shows that compared to the control
mixture, the decreases in the strength of the mixture containing
rubber particles from 0% to 100% were approximately 75% for
1 day, 78% for 7 days and 82% for 28 days. The reduction of splitting
tensile strength at 28 days was greater than 7 and 1 days. It is
understandable that at the early age, the aggregate strength had
not been fully utilized and the splitting tensile strength of rubber
lightweight aggregate concrete is depended on the interface bond-
ing and the strength of harden cement paste.
The static modulus of elasticity impacts the serviceability and
performance of concrete structures. The aim to evaluate the mod-
ulus of elasticity is to observe the change in behavior of deforma-
tion capacity of RLAC.
The static modulus of elasticity for RLAC is shown in Fig. 6. It
can be observed that the lightweight aggregate concrete with rub-
ber particles has less rigidity in comparison to the plain light-
weight aggregate concretes. In general, the static modulus of
elasticity of RLAC increases with age while decreases with the
increase of rubber particles content. The modulus declined from
24.1 to 6.3 GPa with increasing rubber particles replacement rate
from 0% to 100% at 28 days. At the early age (1 day), the reduction
of modulus with substituent ratio from 0% to 100% was lower than
7 and 28 days. This characteristic might be due to the low modulus
of elasticity of rubber particle aggregate with respect to mineral
aggregates. Hence, the rubber particle aggregate just act as large
pores, and do not significantly contribute to the resistance to exter-
nally applied loads. Therefore, an increase in rubber particles
25
1 Day
7 Days
20
Static modulus of elasticity, GPa

28 Days

15
3.4. Flexural strength

The flexural strength of RLAC is presented in Fig. 5. The flexural 10

strength values between 4.68 and 0.87 MPa at 28 days, 3.35 and
0.77 MPa at 7 days, 1.32 and 0.35 MPa at 1 day were achieved, in
which the control concrete had the highest strength value.
5
Addition of rubber particles into lightweight aggregate concrete
adversely affected the flexural strength as in conventional con-
crete, so that there was a systematic decrease with increasing
0
the rubber particles content. This trend of strength with respect 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
to substituent ratio was in close agreement with published trend
Replaecement level of rubber, %
from Ganjian et al. [30], who claimed that the reduction of strength
was due to the lack of good bonding between rubber particles and Fig. 6. Static modulus of elasticity of RLAC versus replacement level of rubber
cement paste. particles.
 J. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 91 (2015) 145–149
1900
1800
1700
3
Unit weight, kg/m
1600
1500
1400
1300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Replacement level of rubber, %
Fig. 7. Unit weight of RLAC versus replacement level of rubber particles.
replacement for fine aggregates in lightweight aggregate concrete
would cause the modulus to be reduced.
3.6. Unit weight
The dry unit weight values of RLAC were between 1321 and
1820 kg/m3 (Fig. 7), which decreased as the amount of rubber par-
ticles increased in concrete mixture. The reduction of unit weight
could be explained by the low specific weight of rubber
(1.16 g/cm3) compared to the fine aggregate (2.62 g/cm3).
4. Conclusions
In summary, the effects of rubber particles used as fine aggre-
gate replacement on the mechanical properties of lightweight
aggregate concrete were investigated. Based on the findings of this
study, the following items may be drawn:
 The addition of rubber particles can decrease the slump value of
lightweight aggregate concrete. The dry unit weight of hard-
ened rubberized lightweight aggregate concrete decreases with
the increasing replacement level.
 Significant reduction in compressive strength, flexural strength
and splitting tensile strength was recorded in mixtures contain-
ing rubber particles. The most reduction of strength occurs
when the replacement ratio was lower than 50%.
 The reduction in static modulus of elasticity indicates higher
flexibility, which can be viewed as a positive gain in rubberized
lightweight aggregate concrete mixtures.
 The normal strength lightweight aggregate concrete applica-
tions containing rubber particles could be produced, and it
can be used in no primary structures, such as building exterior
wall, partition walls, sidewalks, crash barriers and paving, etc.
Hence, the future for large-scale recycling of waste tires as fine
aggregate in lightweight aggregate concrete is also promising, and
this will inevitably bring about huge environmental and sustain-
ability benefits.
Acknowledgements
The research work was jointly funded by the Central University
Fund of Ministry of Education of China for a High-Tech Research
149
Program (2014G2280013), the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (CHD2012TD012) and Key International
Cooperative Program of Shaanxi Provice of China (2013KW13-01).
References
[1] Ling TC, Nor HM, Lim SK. Using recycled tyre in concrete paving blocks. ICE –
Waste Resour Manage 2010;163(1):37–45.
[2] Son KS, Hajirasouliha I, Pilakoutas K. Strength and deformability of waste tyre
rubber-filled reinforced concrete columns. Constr Build Mater
2011;25(1):218–26.
[3] Gupta T, Chaudhary S, Sharma RK. Assessment of mechanical and durability
properties of concrete containing waste rubber tire as fine aggregate. Constr
Build Mater 2014;73(12):562–74.
[4] Al-Mutairi N, Al-Rukaibi F, Bufarsan A. Effect of microsilica addition on
compressive strength of rubberized concrete at elevated temperatures. J Mater
Cycles Waste Manage 2010;12(1):41–9.
[5] Ozbay E, Lachemi M, Sevim UK. Compressive strength, abrasion resistance and
energy absorption capacity of rubberized concretes with and without slag.
80 90 100 Mater Struct 2011;44:1297–307.
[6] Taha MMR, Asce M, El-Dieb AS, El-Wahab MAA, Abdel-Hameed ME.
Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of rubber concrete. J
Mater Civ Eng 2008;20(10):640–9.
[7] Khaloo AR, Dehestani M, Rahmatabadi P. Mechanical properties of concrete
containing a high volume of tire-rubber particles. Waste Manage
2008;28(12):2472–82.
[8] Sukontasukkul P, Chaikaew C. Properties of concrete pedestrian block mixed
with crumb rubber. J Constr Build Mater (JCBM) 2006;20(7):450–7.
[9] Yilmaz A, Degirmenci N. Possibility of using waste tire rubber and fly ash with
Portland cement as construction materials. Waste Manage 2009;29:1541–6.
[10] Ganesan N, Bharati RJ, Shashikala AP. Flexural fatigue behavior of self
compacting rubberized concrete. Constr Build Mater 2013;44:7–14.
[11] Sukontasukkul P. Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and sound
properties of concrete panel. J Constr Build Mater (JCBM) 2009;23(2):1084–92.
[12] Turatsinze A, Bonnet S, Granju JL. Potential of rubber aggregates to modify
properties of cement based-mortars: improvement in cracking shrinkage
resistance. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(1):176–81.
[13] Zhu H, Thong-On N, Zhang X. Adding crumb rubber into exterior wall
materials. Waste Manage Res 2002;20(5):407–13.
[14] Ling TC. Prediction of density and compressive strength for rubberized
concrete blocks. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(5):4303–6.
[15] Sukontasukkul P, Chaikaew C. Properties of concrete pedestrian block mixed
with crumb rubber. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(7):450–7.
[16] Najim KB, Hall MR. A review of the fresh/hardened properties and applications
for plain-(PRC) and self-compacting rubberized concrete (SCRC). Constr Build
Mater 2010;24(11):2043–51.
[17] Bignozzi MC, Sandrolini F. Tyre rubber waste recycling in self-compacting
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2006;36(4):735–9.
[18] Waldron CJ, Cousins TE, Nassar AJ, Gomez JP. Demonstration of use of high-
performance lightweight concrete in bridge super structure in Virginia. J
Perform Constr Facil 2005;19(2):146–55.
[19] Gökçe MV, Koç I. Use of diatomite in the production of lightweight building
elements with cement as binder. Sci Res Essays 2012;7(7):774–81.
[20] Lo TY, Cui H, Tang WC, Leung WM. The effect of aggregate absorption on pore
area at interfacial zone of lightweight concrete. Constr Build Mater
2008;22(4):623–8.
[21] Wang HY, Chen BT, Wu YW. A study of the fresh properties of controlled low-
strength rubber lightweight aggregate concrete (CLSRLC). Constr Build Mater
2013;41(1):526–31.
[22] ASTM C 143. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete.
West Conshohocken; 2012.
[23] ASTM C 39. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. West Conshohocken; 2012.
[24] ASTM C 496/C496M-11. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken; 2004.
[25] ASTM C 469. Test method for static modulus of elasticity and poisson’s ratio of
concrete in compression. West Conshohocken; 2011.
[26] ASTM C 293/C293M. Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete
(using simple beam with center-point loading). West Conshohocken; 2010.
[27] ASTM C567. Standard test method for determining density of structural
lightweight concrete. West Conshohocken; 2005.
[28] Poon CS, Shui ZH, Lam L. Effect of microstructure of ITZ on compressive
strength of concrete papered with recycled aggregates. Constr Build Mater
2004;18(6):461–8.
[29] Dong Q, Huang BS, Shu X. Rubber modified concrete improved by chemically
active coating and silane coupling agent. Constr Build Mater
2013;48(7):116–23.
[30] Ganjian E, Khorami M, Maghsoudi AA. Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for
aggregate and filler in concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:1828–36.