See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289327846

Experimental study on waste tyre rubber replaced concrete - an ecofriendly:

Construction material

Article  in  Journal of Applied Sciences Research · June 2012

CITATIONS READS

19 2,656

2 authors:

Senthil Vadivel Thiyagarajan THENMOZHI R

Adamas knowledge city Government College of Technology
34 PUBLICATIONS   76 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   202 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental Management View project

Engineering Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Senthil Vadivel Thiyagarajan on 13 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2966
Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012
ISSN 1819-544X
This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Experimental Study on Waste Tyre Rubber Replaced Concrete - An Ecofriendly
Construction Material
1
T. Senthil Vadivel & 2R. Thenmozhi
1
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, KPR Institute of Engineering & Technology,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India. Email: tsnsenthu@rediffmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Thandhai Periyar Government Institute of Technology,
Vellore – 632 002, Tamilnadu, India.

ABSTRACT

The disposal of waste tyres is becoming a major waste management problem in the world at the moment. It
is estimated that 1.2 billions of waste tyre rubber produced globally in a year. It is estimated that 11% of post-
consumer tyres are exported and 27% are sent to landfill, stockpiled or dumped illegally and only 4% is used for
civil engineering projects. Hence efforts have been taken to identify the potential application of waste tyres in
civil engineering projects. In this essence, our present study aims to investigate the optimal use of waste tyre
rubber crumbs as fine aggregate in concrete composite. A total of 90 cubes, cylinders and beam specimens were
cast with the replacement of fine aggregate by shredded rubber crumbs with the proportion of 2, 4, 6, 8, and
10% by weight and compared with 18 conventional specimens. Fresh and hardened properties of concrete such
as workability, compressive strength, tensile strength and flexural strength were identified and finally it is
recommended that 6% replacement of waste tyre rubber aggregate with fine aggregate will gives optimal and
safest replacement in concrete composites.

Key words: Waste Management, Shredded Tyre, Stockpile, Crumb Rubber

Introduction

The discharge of waste tyres is expensive and the continuously decreasing numbers of landfills generates
significant pressure to the local authorities identifying the potential application for this waste products. The
growing problem of waste tyre disposal in the world can be alleviated if new recycling routes can be found for
the surplus tyres. One of the largest potential routes is in construction, but usage of waste tyres in civil
engineering is currently very low. Ali and Ali (1996) found the evaluation of properties and failure
characteristics of Portland cement concrete filled with different contents of fine rubber particles, replacing an
equal amount of fine aggregate. It was found that incorporation of rubber particles might adversely affect the
concrete strength. Goulias et al (1998) used the granulated tyres as elastic aggregate with Portland cement
modifying the brittle failure of concrete and increasing its ability to absorb higher amounts of energy during
failure. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effects of rubber aggregate on Portland cement concrete
properties. Results showed large deformation without full disintegration of concrete. Fairburn et al (2001)
investigated the use of concrete derived from shredded rubber from old tyres for resurfacing a cracked
pavement. He found that the concrete was more slip resistant, highly elastic, lighter in weight, and could be used
for fireproofing, waterproofing and insulation. Larsen (2003) found that crumb rubber in concrete could reduce
thermal expansion, contraction, drying shrinkage, ride noise, freeze-thaw damage, brittleness and weight in road
pavements. Aforesaid discussion proves that the application of rubber crumbs is quite limited and there is no
study is available to suggest the optimal use of rubber crumbs in concrete. Hence a study is been initiated to
recognize the potential use of shredded rubber crumbs into Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete. This
project will present the workability and strength properties of concrete incorporating crumb tyre rubber as a
partial replacement for fine aggregate in the concrete.

Material Investigation:

Cement is a basic requisite for any construction work and also provides a binding medium for the discrete
ingredients. In the present study Ordinary Portland Cement of 53 grade, which is readily available is used. The
specific gravity of cement is 3.14. Natural River sand passing through 4.75mm IS sieve is used for making of
concrete. The specific gravity test is conducted and the result is 2.63 and fineness modulus of sand is 4.91. As
per IS: 383 – 1973 natural river sand was categorized under grading zone II. Crushed with angular size coarse

Corresponding Author: T. Senthil Vadivel, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, KPR Institute of
Engineering & Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.
E-mail: tsnsenthu@rediffmail.com
 2967
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

aggregate is used for concreting the specimen. The maximum size of coarse aggregate is 20 mm. The specific
gravity test results showed 2.61 & Fineness modulus shows 7.42 for coarse aggregate. Shredded rubber crumbs
are used for fine aggregate replacements. Its specific gravity figured as 1.16 gm/cc & fineness modulus as 5.35.

Fig. 1: Waste Tyre Rubber Aggregates Replaced with Fine Aggregate.

Mix Design:

Mix design was carried out as per Indian Standard Code Method (IS 10262 – 1982) for the test specimen.

Table 1: Mix proportion for the Concrete Cube Specimen.

S.No. Grade of Concrete Target Mean Strength W/C Ratio Mix Proportion
(N/mm2)
1 M20 26.60 0.50 1:1.43:3.03
2 M25 31.60 0.45 1:1.21:2.71

Replacement Ratio Selection:

The next step is to select the replacement of waste tyre rubber instead of fine aggregate and decided
accordingly by weight. Rubber replacement for 2, 4, 6, 8 & 10% in each grade with fine aggregate are
mentioned in Table 2.

Table 2: Rubber Replacements with Fine Aggregate.

S. Grade of Replacement of Notations Total Quantity of Quantity of Rubber
No. Concrete Rubber by percentage Fine Aggregate (kg) Replacements (kg)
0 Conventional 71.400 0.000
1. M20 2 R2 69.972 1.428
4 R4 68.544 2.856
6 R6 67.116 4.284
8 R8 65.688 5.712
10 R10 64.260 7.140
0 Conventional 60.690 0.000
2. M25 2 R2 59.476 1.214
4 R4 58.262 2.428
6 R6 57.049 3.641
8 R8 55.835 4.855
10 R10 54.621 6.069

Test Specimen Casting:

The test cubes, cylinders & beams were cast in two different mix proportions of M20 and M25 Grade by
weight with water cement ratios of 0.50 and 0.45 respectively. The moulds of size 150 x 150 x 150 mm cube,
150 x 300 mm cylinder and 100 x 100 x 500 mm beam were placed on an even surface and the materials were
mixed in hand mixer. First coarse aggregate and fine aggregate were added and mixed thoroughly in a dry
condition then cement and water added to get fresh concrete mix. Compaction were done using vibrating table
for all the specimens used in the test. The moulds were striped after 24 hours. The test specimens were cured for
7 days, 14 days & 28 days in the curing tank.

Experimental Investigation:

A Total of 108 specimens of cube, cylinder & beam were prepared with M20, & M25 mix for this study
with 2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 percentage of replacement of waste tyre rubber with fine aggregate. The specimen details
are available in Table 3.
 2968
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

Table 3: Specimen Details.

Grades Notations 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days
M20 Conventional 3 3 3
R2 3 3 3
R4 3 3 3
R6 3 3 3
R8 3 3 3
R10 3 3 3
M25 Conventional 3 3 3
R2 3 3 3
R4 3 3 3
R6 3 3 3
R8 3 3 3
R10 3 3 3
Total ( 36 + 36 + 36 = 108) 36 36 36

Workability:

The slump factor is used to measure the horizontal free flow known as workability of concrete. The test has
been carried out for both M20 & M25 grade concrete and results are shown in Fig. 2 & 3. From the illustration it
has been identified all the rubber replaced with fine aggregate concrete might behaved very close to the flow of
conventional concrete. Hence it is preferred to make use of workability factor 0.50 for M20 Grade and 0.45 for
M25 Grade concrete from the graphical representation.

Fig. 2: Slump Factor for M20 Concrete with various Rubber Replacements.

Fig. 3: Slump Factor for M25 Concrete with various Rubber Replacements.
 2969
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

Compressive Strength:

The compression test is carried out with cube specimen to find out the compressive strengths of
conventional and rubber replaced concretes using compression testing machine and the results are tabulated in
Table 4 & 5.

Table 4: Results of M20 Grade Concrete Average Compressive Strength.

Cube Notation 7 Days Specimen 14 Days Specimen 28 Days Specimen
Collapse Load Comp. Collapse Load Comp. Collapse Load Comp. Strength
(KN) Strength (KN) Strength (KN) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Conventional 475 21.11 536 23.82 600 26.67
R2 435 19.33 500 22.22 598 26.58
R4 430 19.11 495 22.00 581 25.82
R6 400 17.78 525 23.33 580 25.78
R8 355 15.78 380 16.89 510 22.67
R10 300 13.33 360 16.00 460 20.44

Fig. 4: M20 Grade Concrete Compressive Strength.

Table 5: Results of M25 Grade Concrete Average Compressive Strength

Cube Notation 7 Days Specimen 14 Days Specimen 28 Days Specimen
Collapse Load Comp. Collapse Load Comp. Collapse Load Comp. Strength
(KN) Strength (KN) Strength (KN) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Conventional 625 27.78 700 31.11 740 32.89
R2 510 22.67 580 25.78 651 28.93
R4 500 22.22 575 25.56 650 28.89
R6 530 23.56 645 28.67 650 28.89
R8 420 18.67 470 20.89 625 27.78
R10 410 18.22 462 20.53 560 24.89

Fig. 5: M25 Grade Concrete Compressive Strength.

 2970
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

Split Tensile Strength:

The split tensile test has been carried out and comparative results of conventional and rubber replaced
concretes are tabulated in Table 6 & 7.

Table 6: Results of M20 Grade Average Tensile Strength.

Cylinder Notation 7 Days Specimen 14 Days Specimen 28 Days Specimen
Collapse Load Tensile Collapse Load Tensile Collapse Load Tensile Strength
(KN) Strength (KN) Strength (KN) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Conventional 95 1.34 135 1.91 150 2.12
R2 89 1.26 90 1.27 140 1.98
R4 75 1.06 120 1.69 170 2.4
R6 95 1.34 120 1.69 150 2.12
R8 50 0.71 100 1.41 140 1.98
R10 70 0.99 80 1.13 120 1.69

Fig. 6: M20 Grade Concrete Tensile Strength.

Table 7: Results of M25 Grade Average Tensile Strength.

S. No. Cylinder 7 Days Specimen 14 Days Specimen 28 Days Specimen
Notation Collapse Tensile Collapse Tensile Collapse Load Tensile
Load (KN) Strength Load Strength (KN) Strength
(N/mm2) (KN) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
1 Conventional 100 1.41 145 2.05 175 2.47
2 R2 95 1.34 125 1.76 145 2.05
3 R4 125 1.76 135 1.9 135 1.91
4 R6 110 1.55 115 1.63 140 1.98
5 R8 60 0.85 95 1.34 130 1.84
6 R10 95 1.34 120 1.69 140 1.98

Fig. 7: M25 Grade Concrete Tensile Strength.

 2971
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

Flexural Strength:

The beam specimens are tested in flexural testing machine to compare the results of conventional and
rubber replaced concretes and the results were tabulated in Table 8 & 9.

Table 8: Results of M20 Grade of Average Flexural Strength.

S. No. Beam Notation 7 Days Specimen 14 Days Specimen 28 Days Specimen
Collapse Flexural Collapse Flexural Collapse Load Flexural
Load (KN) Strength Load Strength (KN) Strength
(N/mm2) (KN) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

1 Conventional 10 5 12 6 13 6.5
2 R2 10 5 12 6 12 6
3 R4 10 5 10.5 5.25 14 7
4 R6 12 6 12 6 13 6.5
5 R8 10 5 10 5 10 5
6 R10 10 5 10 5 10 5

Fig. 8: M20 Grade Concrete Flexural Strength.

Table 9: Results of M25 Grade of Average Flexural Strength.

S. No. Beam Notation 7 Days Specimen 14 Days Specimen 28 Days Specimen
Collapse Flexural Collapse Flexural Collapse Load Flexural
Load (KN) Strength Load Strength (KN) Strength
(N/mm2) (KN) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
1 Conventional 12.5 6.25 13 6.5 15 7.5
2 R 2% 10 5 11 5.5 14.5 7.25
3 R 4% 9.5 4.75 10 5 16 8
4 R 6% 10 5 12 6 16 8
5 R 8% 10 5 10 5 14.5 7.25
6 R10% 10 5 10 5 14.5 7.25

Fig. 9: M25 Grade Concrete Flexural Strength.

 2972
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

Results and Discussion

Accordance with Fig. 4 & 5, it is clearly indicated that when rubber replacement increases the compressive
strength decreases in both M20 & M25 grade concrete.
In Fig. 4, the performance of rubber replaced concrete in M20 grade concrete is quite encouraging up to 6%
replacements nearly achieves the target mean compressive strength. 2% replacement of rubber aggregate almost
equals to the conventional specimen 4 & 6% replacements has very minor deviation. In the lot 10% replacement
of crumb rubber performs comparatively low that of 77% achievement of 28 days compressive strength of
conventional cube.
In Fig. 5, the performance of rubber replaced concrete of M25 grade attains 88% compressive strength up to
6% replacements compared with conventional specimen. 10% replacement of rubber crumbs performed lower
than that of others achieves 76% of conventional 28 days cube strength.
In M20 grade split tensile strength (Fig.6) all the percentage of replacements of crumb rubber attains more
than 80% of conventional specimen strength. Here 4% replacement performed exceptionally well and achieves
higher strength than that of conventional and 6% replacement equals the strength of 28 days conventional
specimen.
In M25 grade split tensile strength (Fig.7) all the replacements except 8% shows 80% and above and 8%
shows 75% result with 28 days conventional specimen.
In comparison of flexural strength of M20 grade rubber replaced concrete (Fig.8) up to 6% replacements
performs exceptionally well. 4% replacement provides higher strength and 6% replacement equals the ultimate
flexural strength of conventional beam specimen.
In M25 grade flexural strength all the rubber replaced concrete (Fig.9) provides very much equal strength of
the conventional beam specimen. 4 & 6% replacement provides higher strength than that of conventional beam.
Accordance with the aforementioned discussions clearly shows that the performance of 2, 4 & 6%
replacements proved better results in compressive strength on both grades M20 & M25. In split tensile strength
2, 4, 6 & 8% replacements shows good performance in M20 grade and 2, 4, 6 & 10% replacements shows
equally good results in M25 grade. In flexure strength all the replacements shows exceptionally better
performance. Accordance with the graphical representation it is very clearly known that 6% replacement of fine
aggregate with waste tyre rubber aggregate shows gradual and strong improvement in all the above mentioned
graphs in both grades of concrete in all the requisite strength.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussions the research concluded the following:

1. Compressive strength decreases when the percentage of replacement of shredded fine rubber crumbs
increases.
2. Split tensile strength decreases at the maximum of 25% when rubber crumbs replaces up to 10% in fine
aggregate.
3. Flexural strength of concrete increases when rubber crumbs increases up to 6%.
4. It is identified that the grade of concrete plays the major role in the ductility performance of rubber replaced
concrete.
5. Slump test results show no change in workability in all the percentage of replacement of rubber crumbs.
Hence no effect in consistency during rubber replaced concrete.
6. 6% replacement of waste tyre rubber proves exceptionally well in compression, tensile and flexural strength
and follow the curvature of the conventional specimens all the tests in both the grades.
Hence it is recommended that 6% replacement of waste tyre rubber aggregate with fine aggregate will gives
optimal and safest replacement in concrete composites. Further it is suggested to use this concrete composite for
lintel beams, floor slabs, and ribs where load carrying capacity not governing the design.

References

Ali, A.M. and D.G. Goulias, 1996. ‘Enhancement of Portland Cements Concrete with Tyre Rubber’,12th
International Conference On Solid Waste Management, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,PA.
Amirkhanian, S.N. and L.C. Arnold, 2001. ‘A Feasibility Study of the use of Waste Tyres in Asphaltic Concrete
Mixtures’, Report No. FHWA-SC-92-04.
Benazzouk, A., O. Douzane, K. Mezreb, M. Quéneudec, 2007. ‘Physico-mechanical Properties of Aerated
Cement Composites Containing Shredded Rubber Waste’, Cement & Concrete Composites, 29(4): 337-338.
Bignozzi, M.C. and F. Sandrolini, 2006. ‘Tyre Rubber Waste Recycling in Self-compacting Concrete’, Cement
& Concrete Research, 3(4): 735-739.
 2973
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(6): 2966-2973, 2012

Chou, L.H., C.K. Lu, J.R. Chang, M.T. Lee, 2007. ‘Use of Waste Rubber as Concrete Additive’, International
Solid Waste Association.
Chung, K.H. and Y.K. Hong, 1999. ‘Introductory Behavior of Rubber Concrete”, Journal of Applied Polymer
Science’, 72: 35-40.
Eldin, N.N. and A.B. Senuci, 1993. ‘Rubber-tyre Particles as Concrete Aggregate’, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 5(2): 478-496.
Eldin, N.N. and A.B. Senuci, 2002. ‘Experts Join Panels to Guide Industry and Asphalt Rubber Technology
Transfer’, Advisory Committee-RPA, Annual Meeting.
Fairburn, B. and J. Larson, 2001. ‘Experience with Asphalt Rubber Concrete – An Overview and Future
Direction’, National Seminar on Asphalt Rubber, Cansas City, Missouri, pp: 417-431.
Goulias, D.G. and A.H. Ali, 1998. ‘Evaluation of Rubber Filled Concrete and Correlation between Destructive
and Non-destructive Testing Results’, Cement, Concrete and Aggregate, CCAGDP, 20(1): 140-144.
Joe, P.E. and A.Z. Chandler, 1992. ‘Asphalt – Rubber System in Road Rehabilitation’, Board of Asphalt Rubber
Pavements, Technical Committee.
Li, G., G. Garrick, J. Edggers, C. Abadie, M.A. Tubblefield, S.S. Pang, 2004. ‘Waste Tire Fiber Modified
Concrete’, Composite Part B: Engineering.
Larson, J., 2003. ‘Mixing of Old Tyres Inflates Potential for Commercial Projects, Roads’, Arizona Republic.
Norman, D.T., 1992. ‘Rubber Grade Carbon Blocks’, Product Development Witco Corporation, Concarb
Division Houston, Texas.
Senthil Vadivel, T. and R. Thenmozhi, 2010. “Experimental Study on Waste Rubber Replaced Concrete”,
International Conference on Environmental Sustainability and Green Building Technology, Chennai,
Tamilnadu, pp: 148-151.
Senthil Vadivel, T. and R. Thenmozhi, 2011. “Experimental Behaviour of Concrete with Waste Tyre Rubber as
Coarse Aggregate”, “International Journal of Nature Environment and Pollution Technology”, 10(2): 173-
178.
Senthil Vadivel, T. and R. Thenmozhi, 2011. “Characteristic Study on Rubbercrete - An Innovative
Construction Material Produced through Waste Tyre Rubber”, “i-manager’s Journal of Civil Engineering”,
1(1): 34-39.
Senthil Vadivel, T. and R. Thenmozhi, 2011. “Waste Tyre Rubber Based Concrete - A New Generation Practice
for Solid Waste Management & Preventing Depletion of Natural Resources”, “i-manager’s Journal of Civil
Engineering”, 1(2): 47-54.
Senthil Vadivel, T. and R. Thenmozhi, 2012. “Determination of Deflection Profile Using Modified Bransons
Equation for Rubber Reinforced Concrete Beams”, “International Journal of Advances in Science and
Technology” 4(1): 58-66.
Siddique, R. and T.R. Naik, 2004. “Properties of concrete containing scrap – tyre rubber – An overview”.
Waste Management, 24: 563-569.
Zhu, A.H., 1999. ‘Florida’s Experience Utilizing Crumb Tyre Rubber in Road Pavements’, National Seminar on
Asphalt Rubber, Cansas City, Missouri, pp: 499-535.

View publication stats