Experimental and Numerical Study On The Behavior of Rubberized Concrete

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316052866
Experimental and Numerical Study on the Behavior of Rubberized Concrete
Article · April 2017

DOI: 10.1520/ACEM20160026
CITATION READS
1 915
4 authors, including:
Reza Hassanli Julie E. Mills

University of South Australia University of South Australia
58 PUBLICATIONS 179 CITATIONS 117 PUBLICATIONS 1,759 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Seismic Response of Retaining Walls View project
What Should I Study? Improving Tertiary Pathways by Improving Support for Prospective Students View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Hassanli on 05 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials
Experimental and numerical study on the behavior of

rubberized concrete
Journal: Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

Fo
Manuscript ID ACEM-2016-0026.R1
Manuscript Type: Technical Manuscript

r
Date Submitted by the Author: n/a
Complete List of Authors: Hassanli, Reza; University of South Australia, School of Natural and Built
Re
Environments
Mills, Julie; University of South Australia, School of Natural and Built
Environments
Li, Danda; University of South Australia, School of natural and Built
vi
Environments
Benn, Bernard; University of South Australia, School of Natural and Built
Environments
ew
ASTM Committees and C09.61 Testing for Strength < C09 Committee on Concrete and Concrete
Subcommittees: Aggregates
Rubberized concrete, Stress-strain relationship, Damping ratio, Dilation

Keywords:
behavior
On
ly
https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/astm-acem
Page 1 of 40 Advances in Civil Engineering Materials
1
2
3
4 Experimental and numerical study on the behavior of
5
6 rubberized concrete
7
8
9
10 Reza Hassanli1a; Julie E. Millsa ; Danda Lia ; Tom Benna
11 a
12 University of South Australia, Australia.
13
14
15
16
17
18 Abstract
Fo
19
20
21 In this study the properties of rubberized concrete were examined and finite element
22
r
23 (FE) models were developed to investigate the accuracy of a current concrete

24 material model in predicting the compressive behavior of rubberized concrete. The
Re
25
26 rubber particles, with a size of 1.18 mm were used at 0%, 6%, 12%, and 18%
27
28 volume replacement of fine aggregate, keeping the proportions of gravel, water and
vi
29 cement the same in all mixtures. Cylindrical and beam specimens were prepared
30
31 and tested to evaluate the effect of rubber content on the density, compressive
ew
32
33 strength, elastic modulus and damping ratio of the concrete. The results indicated
34 that the damping ratio of rubberized concrete increased by 5.5%, 27.8% and 64.8%
35
36 with rubber replacement of 6%, 12% and 18%, respectively. In addition to the
On
37
38 experimental study, non-linear finite element analysis was carried out using LS-
39 DYNA software. The FE model developed in this paper was able to closely simulate
40
41 the compressive behavior of the rubberized concrete specimens. The stiffness,
ly
42
43 compressive strength, volumetric response and the dilation behavior obtained using
44 the FE analysis agreed well with the values measured in the experimental work. The
45
46 results show that the current concrete material model can be considered for
47
48 rubberized concrete, provided that the compressive strength is modified to account
49 for the reduction in strength due to the added rubber.
50
51
52
53
54
55
1
56 School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, SA, Australia, e-mail:
57
58 reza.hassanli@unisa.edu.au
59
60 1
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials Page 2 of 40
1
2
3 Introduction
4
5
6 Huge volumes of waste tires produced each year have resulted in an increasingly significant
7 environmental problem all over the world. One of the solutions developed recently is to reuse tire
8
9 rubber in concrete as a partial replacement of aggregates. This method has been evolving particularly
10
for paving applications during the last couple of decades [1-4]. It has been reported that rubberized
11
12 concrete exhibits better performance in absorbing shocks and vibrations [5-8] . It has excellent freeze-
13
thaw characteristics [9] which results in less thermal expansion and contraction, and hence it exhibits
14
15 less shrinkage and cracking compared with plain concrete. Moreover, rubberized concrete is lighter
16
17 than plain concrete and also is more effective in insulation and noise control.
18 The main disadvantage of utilizing rubber in concrete is its negative effect on the compressive
Fo
19
20 strength [10-13]. The greater the rubber content, the lower the compressive strength. It has been
21 reported that the strength can be reduced to as low as 10% if more than 60% of coarse aggregate
22
r
23 volume is replaced with rubber [11]. To limit the adverse effect of rubber on the strength of concrete,
24 Khatib and Bayomy [11] proposed to limit the rubber content to 20%. They also developed an
Re
25
26 expression to predict the compressive strength of rubberized concrete as a function of rubber content.
27 The rubber used in concrete is either in the form of crumb (ground) rubber or rubber chips (crushed
28
rubber)[14, 15], where the rubber chips are used as a replacement of coarse aggregate and crumb
vi
29
30 rubber as a replacement of sand. In comparison with crumb rubber particles, the utilization of rubber
31
ew
32 chips usually causes a higher strength reduction. Eldin and Senouci [14] reported that the rubber chips
33 and crumb rubber reduced the compressive strength by 45% and 33% respectively at a replacement of
34
35 25%; and by 85% and 65% respectively with 100% replacement of the aggregates. Topcu [16] also
36
reported the adverse effect of rubber particle size on the compressive strength. The introduction of
On
37
38 various additives, such as silica fume [17, 18], fly ash [19], synthetic fibers[20] and steel fibers [21]
39
has also been used to improve concrete compressive strength . The additives used in high-strength
40
41 rubberized concrete have included silica fume, resulting in a strength increase rate of 10% [22] or as
ly
42
43
high as 160% [23]; and steel fibers, with a strength increase rate of 16% [21].
44 Pre-treatment of the rubber particle surface has been developed as an effective method of improving
45
46 the rubberized concrete strength [14]. The main aim is to enhance the internal bond between the
47 rubber particles and the cement matrix, and thus improve overall strength. One effective pretreatment
48
49 technology is to wash rubber particles with 10% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to remove the acidic
50 and/or carboxyl groups on rubber surfaces resulting in a compressive strength increase of 3% to 16%
51
52 compared with the equivalent un-treated rubberized concrete [24, 25]. In this paper, 10% sodium
53 hydroxide (NaOH) was used for rubber particle surface pretreatment.
54
55 In terms of seismic design, it is important to provide an appropriate evaluation of the mechanical
56 dynamic properties of structural materials, such as stiffness, damping, natural period and frequency.
57
58 Dynamic properties of rubberized concrete have been the focus of much research in recent years. Past
59
60 2
1
2
3 studies have shown that the addition of rubber increases ductility and energy dissipation of concrete
4
[6, 14, 26-28]. Hernandez-Olivares et al. [26] observed an increase of 23-30% in energy dissipated in
5
6 rubberized concrete with 3.5% to 5.0% volumetric fraction of rubber. Compared with conventional
7
concrete, rubberized concrete has also been reported to exhibit a higher level of damping [15], which
8
9 is one of the key factors to control vibration, minimize impact effect and avoid resonance modes.
10
11 For future potential structural applications, more detailed understanding of the rubber content effect
12 on concrete properties needs to be obtained. In this paper, three main research tasks were conducted,
13
14 through the combination of experimental study and numerical simulation:
15 • To examine the engineering and mechanical properties of rubberized concrete, such as unit
16
17 weight, stiffness, natural frequency, damping, energy dissipation.
18 • To investigate the dynamic properties of rubberized concrete.
Fo
19
20 • To develop finite element models to predict the behavior of rubberized concrete.
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25 Experimental Study
26
27
In order to investigate the mechanical properties and the behavior of rubberized concrete, a total of
28
vi
29 four mixes having various rubber contents were prepared. The mixes incorporated 0%, 6%, 12% and
30
18% crumbed scrap tire rubber as partial volume replacement of fine aggregates.
31
ew
32
33 Materials and Concrete mixes
34
35 According to the previous research [10-12] increasing the rubber content results in reduction in
36
On
compressive strength. According to AS 3600 [29] the characteristic compressive strength of concrete,
, of a structural concrete member must be within the range of 20 MPa and 100 MPa, however, a
37
38
39
40 strength of 25 MPa and 35 MPa is commonly used for infrastructure type structures [15]. To keep the
41
ly
strength of the rubberized concrete within the common range, and considering the negative effect of
42
43 rubber on the compressive strength, a concrete mix with a compressive strength of 55 MPa was used
44
for the control mix. The mix proportions provided in Table 1 are reported as mass per cubic meter. In
45
46 developing the concrete mixes, the mass of cement, water, and coarse aggregate were kept constant.
47
48 The variable was rubber content as a replacement of 0%, 6%, 12%, and 18% of sand by volume.
49 General purpose cement, in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) AS 3972 [30], was used as the
50
51 binder of all mixes. Natural sand with a maximum aggregate size of 5 mm was used as fine aggregate
52 and dolomite stone with a maximum aggregate size of 10 mm was used as coarse aggregate. Crumb
53
54 rubber obtained from waste tires with an average particle dimension of 1.18 mm and density of 530
55 kg/m3 was used in the mix.
56
57
58
59
60 3
1
2
3 In order to improve the workability and adjust the slump in the mixes, a polycarboxylic ether type
4
superplasticizer was added to the concrete mixtures. Superplasticizer was added to the mix gradually
5
6 and the slump test was performed regularly until the mix reached the targeted slump of 100-130 mm.
7
As a general trend, increase in rubber content resulted in decrease in the slump. According to the type
8
9 of concrete mix, superplasticizer dosage of 3.5-4.8 kg/m3 was added to the mix., which was within the
10
11 limit of 1–3% of the cement weight, recommended by the ASTM 494 standard [31].
12
13 The mixing started with blending sand and stone for one minute, followed by half the water and
14
mixing for another minute. The sand and stone mixture were then left to rest for two minutes to
15
16 absorb water. The cement and rubber were premixed before being added to the mixture, in order to
17
increase the rubber–cement interface adhesion which is a determining factor in the strength of
18
Fo
19 rubberized concrete [24]. The rest of the water and superplasticizer were added gradually and the
20
21 mixing continued until a uniform mixture was reached.
22
r
23 Table 1. Mix proportions of concrete (1 m3)

24
Re
25 Mix Rubber percentage* Cement 10 mm stone Sand Water Rubber

26
27 (%) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
28
RC0% 0 400 1080 687 200 0
vi
29
30 RC6% 6 400 1080 646 200 13.5
31 RC12% 12 400 1080 605 200 27.0
ew
32 RC18% 18 400 1080 563564 200 40.45

33
34
* percent of sand volume replaced by rubber
35
36 The concrete cylinders were prepared according to the Australian standard, AS 1012.1 [32]. The
On
37 traditional compaction method for the cast concrete was done using a standard compaction rod.
38
39 Curing of the cylindrical specimens was carried out according to AS1012.8.1 [33]. The cylindrical
40
specimens were demolded after 24 h, labeled and then placed in a water bath with a temperature of 22
41
ly
42 ± 2 °C and were kept until one day before the testing date. The specimens were then air dried for 24
43
hours, and the weight and the dimensions were measured to calculate the unit weight of concrete. The
44
45 ends of the concrete cylinders were then capped with traditional sulfur mortar following the
46
47 requirement of AS 1012.9 [34], 24 hours prior to testing.
48
49 Pre-treatment of rubber
50
51 Pretreatment of rubber particle surfaces is a well-accepted method for rubberized concrete strength
52
53 improvement [35]. In this study, the rubber particles were surface treated with 10% NaOH solution
54
[24]. The procedure of rubber treatment is shown in Figure 1. The rubber particles were first
55
56 submerged and stirred in NaOH solution for 15 minutes (Stage 1, Figure 1). The mixture was then
57
filtered and the rubber was washed with water. While washing, the pH of the rubber was measured
58
59
60 4
1
2
3 regularly using Phenolphthalein indicator to ensure the NaOH solution had been completely removed
4
from the rubber particles, in order to avoid any adverse effect of NaOH on the concrete durability
5
6 (Stage 2, Figure 1). The rubber was then left for a week to air (Stage 3, Figure 1). To remove any
7
surface moisture from the rubber, it was placed in the oven for 10 min at 80 °C and then was allowed
8
9 to cool down to room temperature, before being used in the mixture (Stage 4, Figure 1).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
Stage 2 Stage 3
vi
29 Stage1
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
Stage 4
42
43
44 Figure 1. Stages of rubber treatment
45
46
47 Specimens
48
49
50
Two types of specimens were used in this study, namely, concrete cylinders and beam specimens.
Concrete cylinders with the dimensions of 100 mm 200 mm were prepared to investigate the effect
51
52
53
of rubber content on the crack pattern, compressive strength, unit weight, modulus of elasticity,
54
55 dilation ratio and Poisson’s ratio. Beam specimens with height/width/length of 150 mm/150 mm/400
56
mm and were prepared to study the vibration properties and damping ratio of the specimens. The main
57
58 variable in this investigation was rubber content (0%, 6%, 12%, and 18% as a replacement of sand
59
60 5
1
2
3 volume). In total, 12 cylinders and four concrete beams (three cylinders and one beam specimen from
4
each mix) were prepared, and tested at 28 days and 42 days, respectively.
5
6
7 Experimental setup and instrumentation
8
9 Figure 2(a) shows the instrumentation used to capture the behavior of the cylindrical specimens. The
10
11 axial strains of the concrete cylinders were recorded using two linear variable displacement
12 transducers (LVDTs), 180° apart, measuring the axial displacement at the mid-height, with a gauge
13
14 length of 130 mm. An extra LVDT was also used to monitor the displacement between the machine
15 platens. Two electrical strain gauges, having a gauge length of 60 mm, were bonded horizontally 180°
16
17 apart at mid-height of the cylinder to measure the hoop strains.
18
Fo
19 In the beam experiments, the impact load was applied three times at the center of the beam specimens
20
21 and the time-acceleration responses were recorded using two accelerometers attached to the end of the
22 beam specimen, as shown in Figure 2(b).
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
(a)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 (b)
15
16 Figure 2. Test instrumentation for (a) cylindrical specimens and (b) beam specimens
17
18
Fo
19
20 Testing procedure
21
22 Uniaxial compression tests were carried out on concrete cylinders in accordance with Australian
r
23
24 standard, AS 1012.9 [34]. The cylindrical specimens were tested under increasing monotonic
Re
25 compression load and the compression test was performed with a constant rate of 10 ± 1 MPa/min
26
27 using a 1800 kN compressive testing machine. Compression testing of the three cylindrical specimens
28 of each mix was conducted 28 days after specimen casting according to AS 1012.9 [34], and the
vi
29
30 results presented as the average of the test specimens.
31
ew
32 The hammer excitation method was used to determine the damping ratios of the test beams. The
33
34 hammer beat was applied at the specified location at the beam center, as shown in Figure 2(b).
35
36
On
37
38
39 Results and discussion
40
41
ly
Failure and crack pattern

42
43
44 The failure and crack patterns of the cylinder tested under axial compression are described in this
45 section. During the tests, the plain concrete cylinders exhibited an explosive and sudden failure;
46
47 however, as the rubber content increased the failure became more gradual and ductile. The failure
48 mode of two cylinders with different rubber contents is compared in Figure 3. While the failure of the
49
50 plain concrete was characterized by limited major macro cracks, more fine cracks were observed with
51 increasing rubber content. As shown in Figure 3, compared with RC0%, the specimen RC18%
52
53 developed more extensively distributed fine cracks. The development and large distribution of these
54
small cracks resulted in increased deformation and energy absorption capacity of rubberized concrete.
55
56 This behavior can be attributed to the low modulus of elasticity of rubber compared with other
57
material in the concrete mixture [36]. As a soft material in the mixture with a lower elastic modulus,
58
59
60 7
1
2
3 rubber particles act as a barrier against the development of large cracks in concrete [10]. Inspection
4
of the crushed cylinders showed that the rubber particles of the rubberized concrete could be easily
5
6 detached from the crushed surfaces, implying that the bond between the cement past and rubber was
7
relatively weak. This resulted in reduced compressive strength in mixtures with higher rubber content.
8
9 Similar phenomenon have been observed by other researchers [10].
10
11
12
13
14 Major
15 macro
16 cracks
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
Fine
28
distributed
vi
29
30 cracks
31
ew
32
33
(a) (b)
34
35
36
Figure 3. Failure mode of mixe (a) RC0%, and (b) RC18%
On
37
38
39
40
41
Unit weight
ly
42
43 Figure 4 shows the density of the rubberized concrete mixes. The unit weight of the mixtures was
44
obtained using the dimensions and the weight of the cylindrical specimens, measured in their dry
45
46 condition before testing. As shown in the figure, due to the low specific gravity of rubber particle, the
47
unit weight of rubberized concrete reduced as the rubber content increased. As the rubber content
48
49 replacement of sand increased from 0%, 6%, 12% and 18%, the density reduced from 2379 kg/m3 to
50
51
2363kg/m3 , 2324kg/m3 and 2263 kg/m3, respectively; resulting in a slight density reduction of 1.6%,
52 2.3% and 4.9% in RC6%, RC12% and RC18% with respect to the plain concrete, mix RC0%.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 8
1
2
3
4 2400 2,379
2,363
5
Density (kg/m3)
2,324
6
7 2300 2,263
8
9
10 2200
11
12 2100
13 RC0% RC6% RC12% RC18%
14
Concrete mix
15
16
17 Figure 4. Effect of rubber on the unit weight of rubberized concrete
18
Fo
19
20
According to Figure 4 and Table 2, the density of concrete with no rubber was 2379 kg/m3.
21
22 Considering this and the density of 530 kg/m3 for rubber, the density of the rubberized concrete can
r
23
be estimated by taking the weighted average of the ratio of each material in the rubberized concrete
24
Re
25 mix. For example, according to the mix proportion provided in Table 1, for RC6%, the rubber and all
26
27 other material consist of 0.58% and 99.42% of the weight of the concrete mix respectively, hence, the
28 density can be estimated as,
vi
29
0.9942 2379 + 0.0058 530 = 2368 ⁄
30
31
ew
32
33
34
The density of RC12 and RC18 were calculated accordingly and are presented in Table 2. As shown
35 in the table, the density predicted using the weighted average was always larger than the density
36
obtained from the tests. As the rubber concrete increased from RC6% to RC18% the overestimation
On
37
38 of the estimated density obtained using the weighted average method increased from 0.22% to 4.7%.
39
40 This implies that there is a nonlinear relationship between the rubberized concrete components and its
41
ly
density. This can be attributed to the higher level of air entrapped in concrete mixes with higher
42
43 rubber content. Due to the non-polar nature of rubber particles and their tendency to entrap air on their
44 rough surfaces, concrete containing rubber aggregate has a higher air content than conventional
45
46 concrete [37].
47
48 Table 2. Concrete mixture properties
49
50 Rubber f'c Density (kg/m3) MicroStrain at peak Elastic Modulus (GPa)
Mixture
51 content (MPa) Measured Calculated Axial Hoop Measured Calculated
52
RC0% 0 55 2379 0.24 0.23 40.4 37.0
53
54 RC6% 6 49 2363 2367.9 0.21 0.15 39.5 34.6
55 RC12% 12 49 2324 2371.0 0.23 0.15 37.1 33.9
56 RC18% 18 38 2263 2374.2 0.21 0.13 36.3 28.5
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3 Compressive strength
4
The average compressive strength, ′ , of three concrete cylinders of each mixthe plain and
5
6
7 rubberized concrete, ′ , is presented in Table 2 and Figure 5. As predicted, the compressive strength
8
reduced as the rubber content increased. While the average compressive strength of RC0% was 55
9
10 MPa with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 3.3%, it reduced to 38 MPa (COV=1.2%) in
11
12 RC18%,The compressive strength reduced from 55 MPa in RC0% to 38 MPa in RC18%, with a
13 reduction rate of 31%. However, no significant differences were observed between the strength of
14
15 RC6% and RC12%, both had a average compressive strength of about 49 MPa with a COV of 4.9%
16 and 2.2%, respectively. There was no obvious reason why the strength of RC12% was higher than the
17
18 expected strength.
Fo
19
20
Compressive strength (MPa)
21 55
60
22 49 49
r
23 50
24 38
40
Re
25
26 30
27 20
28 10
vi
29
30 0
31 RC0% RC6% RC12% RC18%
ew
32 Concrete mix
33
34 Figure 5. Effect of rubber on the compressive strength of rubberized concrete
35
36
On
37
38 Stress-strain behavior
39
40
41 The hoop and axial stress-strain relationships of the cylinders tested in this study are presented in
ly
42 Figure 6(a). Axial strain was calculated using the average values obtained from the two vertical
43
44 LVDTs, and hoop strain was calculated using the two strain gauges attached circumferentially to the
45 mid height of the cylinders. As mentioned before, as a general trend an increase in rubber content
46
47 resulted in a decrease in the strength. To filter out the effect of rubber on the compressive strength, the
48 stress normalized by compressive strength of each concrete type is plotted verses hoop and axial strain
49
50 in Figure 6(b). As shown all types of concrete, regardless of the rubber content, exhibited
51 approximately similar hoop and axial stress-strain relationship.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 10
1
2
3 60 1.2
4
Compressive stress (MPa)

5 50 1
6
Normalized stress
7 40 0.8
8
9 30 0.6
RC0%
10 RC0%
20 0.4 RC6%
11 RC6%
12 RC12%
10 RC12% 0.2 RC18%
13
RC18%
14 0 0
15 -3000 -1000 1000 3000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
16
Hoop micro strain Axial micro strain Hoop micro strain Axial micro strain
17
18
Fo
19 (a) Compressive stress versus strain (b) Normalized compressive stress versus strain
20
21 Figure 6. Stress strain relationship
22
r
23
24
Re
25 Static modulus of elasticity, stress-strain response and dilation ratio

26
27 To determine the elastic modulus according to AS 1012.17 [38], the first point with a strain of
28
0.00005 and the second point corresponding to 40% of ultimate strain, were considered. The average
vi
29
30 of the elastic modulus for three specimens was 40.4 GPa, 39.5 GPa, 37.1 GPa and 36.3 MPa, for
31
ew
32 specimens RC0%, RC6%, RC12%, and RC18%, respectively (Figure 7). As the rubber content
33 increased to RC6%, RC12% and RC18%, the elastic modulus decreased by 2.16%, 8.25% and
34
35 11.02%, respectively.
36
On
37 The following equation is provided by the ACI 318 [39] to estimate the elastic modulus of concrete
38
39 considering its compressive strength and unit weight,
= 0.043 . ′

40
41
ly
(1)
42
43
44 where wc is the unit weight of concrete, and its value must be between 1440 kg/m3 (90 lb/ft3) and 2563
45 kg/m3 (160 lb/ft3). According to Table 2, the unit weight of all concrete mixes was within this range.
46
47 Using Eq. 1, the elastic modulus of the specimens is estimated and presented in Table 2 and Figure 7.
48 As shown, using Eq. 1, the elastic modulus of all mixes was underestimated by about 8%-22%.
49
50 Moreover, as a general trend, as the rubber content increased, elastic modulus underestimation
51
became more pronounced.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 11
1
2
3 45
4 Measured
40.4 39.5
5 Eq. 1
40
Elastic modulus (GPa)

6 37.0 37.1 36.3
7 34.6 33.9
35
8
9
30 28.5
10
11
12 25
13
14 20
15 RC0% RC6% RC12% RC18%
16 Concrete mix
17
18 Figure 7. Effect of rubber on the elastic modulus of
Fo
19
20
21
22 The axial strain versus hoop strain of the specimens is compared in Figure 8(a). As shown in the
r
23 figure, all specimens exhibited similar axial-hoop strain behavior. In all specimens, the axial- hoop
24
Re
25 strain relationship was approximately linear up to an axial strain of 0.001, beyond which a nonlinear
26 relationship between hoop and axial strain was observed. Figure 8(b) shows the calculated dilation
ratio, λ, versus stress normalized by compressive strength. The dilation ratio was calculated as,
27
28
λ = − /"
vi
29
30 (2)
31
where and " are hoop and axial strains, respectively. As shown in Figure 8(b), as the normalized
ew
32
33
34 axial stress increased, the dilation ratio increased. For all specimens, the dilation ratio increased from
35
36 about 0.2 at low stresses to 0.6-0.8 at the ultimate strengths. In the elastic zone the dilation ratio, λ, is
On
37 equal to the Poisson’s ratio, υ. No significant difference was noticed between the hoop-axial strain
38
39 relationship of the plain and rubberized concrete. As shown in Figure 8(b), for a stress up to 60% of
40
the compressive strength, a value of υ=0.2 is a reasonable value for dilation ratio in rubberized as well
41
ly
42 as plain concrete.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 12
1
2
3 3000 1.2
4
υ=0.2
5 2500 1
Normalized axial stress

Axial micro strain
6
7 2000
8 0.8
RC0%
9 1500
RC6%
10 RC0% 0.6
1000 RC12%
11
RC6% RC18%
12 0.4
500 RC12%
13
14 RC18%
0 0.2
15
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
16
17 Hoop micro strain Dilation ratio, λ
18
Fo
19 (a) (b)
20
21 Figure 8. (a) Axial versus hoop strain, and (b) dilation ratio
22
r
23
24
Volumetric behavior
Re
25
26
27 Understanding the volumetric behavior and evaluating the volumetric properties of concrete is one of
28
the key factors in predicting the response of concrete and in particular confined concrete. The
vi
29
30 behavior of confined concrete is important when considering applications such as FRP wrapped
31
ew
32 columns in seismic applications. Volumetric behavior is of high importance if three dimensional finite
33 element material modelling is considered for analysis. Due to a higher level of dilation ratios in
34
35 rubber compared with conventional concrete material, the volumetric response and hence the
36 contraction and expansion behavior of rubberized concrete might be different from plain concrete and
On
37
38 this needs to be investigated. Volumetric strain is defined as the summation of three mutually
39 perpendicular direct strains,
40
# = $ + % + "
41
ly
42 (3)
where $ , % and " are the strains in three perpendicular directions. In Eq. (3) positive and negative
43
44
45
46 values of strain must be considered for tensile and compressive strains, respectively. In cylindrical
specimens, due to symmetry, the two horizontal strains in x and y direction ($ and % ) are equal to
47
the hoop (circumferential) strain , hence,

48
49
50
# = 2 + "
51
(4)
52
53
54 Figure 9(a) shows the volumetric strain versus axial compressive strength of the specimens. To filter
55
56 out the effect of stresses and to better compare the volumetric strain, compressive stresses were
57 normalized by compressive strength for each specimen, as presented in Figure 9(b). As shown in the
58
59
60 13
1
2
3 figure, when the compressive stress reached about 90% of the ultimate strength of mixes RC0%,
4
RC6% and RC12%, and reached 85% of ultimate strength of mix RC18%, the rate of expansion in
5
6 hoop direction exceeded the rate of contraction in axial direction, resulting in the changing of the
7
slope of the volumetric strain from negative to positive. Opening of cracks at high compressive
8
9 stresses results in relatively extensive expansion of the specimens in the hoop direction.
10
11 As shown in Figure 9(b), RC18% experienced the least volumetric contraction of all mixes. This can
12
13 be attributed to the higher dilation ratio of rubber compared with concrete, which results in a higher
14
rate of expansion of RC18% compared with other mixes. It seems that rubberized concrete with
15
16 higher rubber content tends to expand more than conventional concrete. This might have significant
17
influence on the material properties of confined rubberized concrete. To better understand the
18
Fo
19 volumetric behavior of rubberized concrete, it is necessary to carry out some triaxial tests taking
20
21 different levels of lateral pressure into account.
22
r
23 60
24
Re
25 50
26
27 40
28
vi
29 30
30 RC0%
31 20
RC6%
ew
32
10 RC12%
33
34 RC18%
0
35
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
36
Volumetric micro strain
On
37
38
39
40 (a) (b)
41
ly
42 Figure 9. (a) Compressive stress vs volumetric strain, and (b) normalized stress vs volumetric
43 strain
44
45
46
47 Damping ratio
48
49
50 The damping ratio describes how oscillations in a system decay after a disturbance. Damping ratio
51 can be calculated by measuring the oscillation amplitude decaying over time from tests in laboratories
52
53 or real buildings [40]. One of the most popular excitation techniques to determine damping ratios is
54 the impact test using hammer excitation. In this method, the logarithmic decrement of the oscillation
is considered to determine the damping ratio, &, based on the assumption of viscous damping [40].
55
56
57
58
59
60 14
1
2
*1 − &' , 23
3
&' = ) 0 1- 4
2-. 23 456
4
5 (5)
( /
6
where 23 4 and 23 4 is an initial acceleration amplitude, and 23 456 is an amplitude after n cycles.
7
8
The damping ratio in concrete members is generally less than 20%, hence, &' , ≅ 0. Therefore the
9
10
11
12 damping ratio can be determined as [40],
1 23 4
13
&' = 8 9 1-
14
2-. 23 456
15 (6)
16
17 The decay in acceleration amplitude in three cycles within the acceleration range of 0.05-0.50 was
18
considered to determine the damping ratio. Examples of acceleration decay for different concrete
Fo
19
20 mixes are provided in Figure10. According to the results, the average damping ratio of plain concrete,
21
22 RC0% was 5.4%, however it reached 5.7%, 6.9% and 8.9% for mixes RC6%, RC12% and RC18%,
r
23 respectively, corresponding to an increase of 5.5%, 27.8% and 64.8%.

24
Re
25
26 0.6 0.6
: = 0.71; <'.=$ : = 0.79; <'>.?$

27 0.4 0.4
28
Acceleration [g]
Acceleration [g]
0.2 0.2
vi
29
30 0 0
31
-0.2 -0.2
ew
32
33 -0.4 -0.4
34 -0.6 -0.6
35 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
36
Time [sec] Time [sec]
On
37
38 (a) (b)
39
40 0.6 0.6
: = 0.84; <.=$ : = 0.90; <>@.A$

41
ly
0.4 0.4
42
Acceleration [g]
Acceleration [g]
43 0.2 0.2
44 0 0
45
46 -0.2 -0.2
47 -0.4 -0.4
48
49 -0.6 -0.6
50 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
51 Time [sec] Time [sec]
52
53 (c) (d)
54 Figure 10. Evaluation of damping ratio using acceleration VS time history for mix (a) RC0%,
55
56 (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
57
58
59
60 15
1
2
3 Finite element modeling
4
5
6 Three dimensional finite element modeling of the rubberized concrete was carried out using LS-
7 DYNA software. This software is capable of handling complicated numerical models for non-linear
8
9 analysis of concrete members under static and dynamic loading [41].
10
11 An eight-node brick solid element was used to model the cylinder components, having three degrees
12
13 of translational and three degrees of rotational freedom in each node.
Figure 11 shows the geometry of the finite element model of a 100 mm 200 mm cylinder, which
14
15
16
consisted of 2625 elements and 3016 nodes. An eight-node brick solid element with the average
17
18 element size of 8.5 mm was used to model concrete. An explicit time integration solution was
Fo
19
20 considered and sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the optimum size of the elements.
21 Displacement control, rather than force control was employed during the loading procedure.
22
r
23 Incremental increasing displacement with a rate of 0.002 mm/sec was applied to the nodes at the top
24 surface of the cylinder model. In order to simulate boundary conditions, two sets of nodes were
Re
25
26 created. The first set included the nodes at the bottom surface for which the translational degree of
27 freedom in x, y and z directions were set as fixed. The second set consisted of the nodes at the top of
28
the cylinder for which the translational degree of freedom in x and y directions were restrained.
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 Figure 11. Finite element mesh
58
59
60 16
1
2
3
4
5
The K & C concrete damage material model2 was assigned to the brick elements. This material model
6
7 is a plasticity model developed by Malvar et al. [42] that is able to account for the complexity of the
8
behavior of concrete. The main advantage of this material model over the other available models is
that it can be characterized by only a single parameter, uniaxial compressive strength, . Considering
9
10
a specific value of as the input parameter for concrete material parameter in the LS-DYNA
11
12
13 software, the other parameters can be generated automatically [43]. This material model is appropriate
14
15 for this study, as the information on different parameters of rubberized concrete results, including the
16 parameters describing the triaxial behavior, is not available.
17
18
The K & C material model decouples the volumetric and deviatoric response. The volumetric
Fo
19
20 behavior is governed by a compaction curve and the deviatoric response can be obtained using a three
21
22 pre-defined shear failure surfaces, including yield, maximum and residual failure surfaces. As shown
r
23 in Figure 12, these failure surfaces correspond to the onset of damage, ultimate and residual strength
24
of the material, respectively. The current stress surface can be linearly interpolated between two of the
Re
25
26 three independent shear failure surfaces [41, 44-46].
27
28
To be able to determine the parameters characterizing the failure surfaces, a series of triaxial tests are
vi
29
30 required. The values of yield, maximum and residual stresses can be obtained from a simple triaxial
31
ew
32
stress-strain curve (Point A, B and C in Figure 12(a)). The concrete material is supposed to behave
33 linearly up to the yield strength (Point A), exhibit a strain hardening response between the yield (Point
34
35 A) and ultimate strength (Point B), followed by a softening branch until the strength reaches the
36 residual strength (Point C). The stress condition at points A, B and C can be then converted to a ∆σ-P
On
37
38 coordinate system as shown in Figure 12(b). In order to obtain the entire curve, a series of triaxial
39 tests (at least three) with different levels of confining pressure is required.
40
41
ly
The triaxial behavior of normal concrete is incorporated in the K & C material model of the LS-
42
43 DYNA software. Hence, for normal concrete no triaxial test is required as the material parameters can
44
45 be generated automatically by only introducing a single input parameter, compressive strength (the
46 other parameters are functions of the compressive strength). However, the triaxial behavior of
47
48 rubberized concrete has not been yet studied and it is therefore unknown whether the automatically
49 generated parameters are appropriate for rubberized concrete material. However, due to the basic
50
51 similarities between the behaviors of normal and rubberized concrete, this study investigates if the
52 automatic generation option of the K & C material model in LS-DYNA can also be used for
53
54 rubberized concrete, provided that the compressive strength is modified to account for the reduction in
55 strength due to the added rubber.
56
57
58 2
MAT_CONCRET_DAMAGE_REL3
59
60 17
1
2
3
4
5
∆σ
6 Maximum surface
7 σ
8 B Maximum strength B Yield surface
9
10 A
Residual surface
11
12 A
13 C
14
15 Yield P
Residual strength
16 strength
17
18 C
Fo
19
20 ε
21
22
r
23 (a) (b)
24
Figure 12. (a) Concrete stress-strain relationship, and (b) Shear failure surfaces
Re
25
26
27
28
The concrete material model and the geometry described above were used to predict the behavior of
vi
29
30 the concrete cylinders. Density of 2400 kg/m3 and Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 were considered for all types
of concrete material. The only variable considered in the models was , which was taken as the
31
ew
32
33 compressive strength obtained from the compression test of each type of concrete mix.
34
35
36 Validation of the finite element (FE) model
On
37
38 The finite element (FE) models were validated by the experimental results obtained in this study.
39
Figure 13 compares the hoop and axial stress-strain curves obtained from experimental work and the
40
41 FE analysis. The same locations and gauge lengths as the experimental work were considered to
ly
42
43
determine the strains of the FE models. As shown in Figure 13, the FE model was able to closely
44 simulate the stress-strain behavior of the specimens, both in axial and hoop directions. For all
45
46 specimens the initial and tangent stiffness of the FE models agreed well with the experimental results.
47 However, the FE model slightly over-predicted the ultimate strength of the cylinders, by 3.6%-5.1%.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 18
1
2
3 60 60
4

5 50 50
6
7 40 40
8 30 30
9
10 20 20
11 EXP EXP
10 10
12 FEM FEM
13 0 0
14 -2000 0 2000 4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
15
16 Hoop micro strain Axial micro strain Hoop micro strain Axial micro strain
17
18 (a) (b)
Fo
19
20 60 60

21
22 50 50
r
23 40 40
24
Re
25 30 30
26
27 20 20
28 EXP EXP
10 10
FEM
vi
29 FEM
30 0 0
31 -2000 0 2000 4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
ew
33
34
35 (c) (d)
36 Figure 13. Stress-strain relationship for mix (a) RC0%, (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
On
37
38
39
40 The hoop strain versus axial strain obtained from the FE models and experimental work are compared
41
ly
42 in Figure 14. As shown, for all specimens, up to an axial micro strain of 1000, the hoop-axial strain
43 relationship obtained from the experimental work and FE analysis was similar. Beyond this value, as
44
45 the rubber content increased, the slope of the FE model curve reduced when compared with the
46 experimental results. For the case of RC18% the hoop-axial curve deviated significantly from the
47
48 experimental results. This can be attributed to the different lateral behavior of rubberized concrete and
49
plain concrete, which has been ignored in the model. Due to higher values of dilation ratios in rubber
50
51 compared with concrete, for the same level of axial strain, the lateral deformation of rubberized
52
concrete is generally larger than plain concrete, resulting in rubberized concrete exhibiting a larger
53
54 deformation capacity.
55
56 At higher levels of strains, the rubberized concrete tends to expand even more in the hoop direction.
57
58 Hence, in terms of modeling, if hoop strain at high level of axial strains is of concern, considering a
59
60 19
1
2
3 calibrated material model incorporating the effect of rubber in the hoop behavior of concrete is
4
necessary. Moreover, due to different lateral deformation behaviors of rubberized and plain concrete,
5
6 the confinement behavior of these materials seems to be different. Theoretically, if concrete is
7
confined, as the rubber content increases, the compressive strength reduces at a lower rate compared
8
9 with unconfined concrete. However, experimental study is required to support this assertion.
10
11
12
13
14 3000 3000
15
16 2500 2500
Axial micro strain

Axial micro strain
17
18 2000 2000
Fo
19
20 1500 1500
21
1000 1000
22
r
23 EXP EXP
500 500
24 FEM FEM
Re
25 0 0
26 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
27
Hoop micro strain Hoop micro strain
28
vi
29
30 (a) (b)
31
ew
32 3000 3000
33
34 2500 2500
Axial micro strain
Axial micro strain
35
2000 2000
36
On
37 1500
1500
38
39 1000 1000
40
EXP EXP
41 500
ly
500 FEM
42 FEM
43 0 0
44 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
45 Hoop micro strain Hoop micro strain
46
47
48 (c) (d)
49 Figure 14. Hoop strain versus axial strain (a) RC0%, (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
50
51
52
53 Figure 15 presents the dilation ratio versus compressive stress of the specimens. As shown, the FE
54
55 model could effectively predict the dilation behavior rubberized concrete at different ranges of
56 stresses.
57
58
59
60 20
1
2
3 60 60
4
υ=0.2

υ=0.2
5
50 50
6
7
8 40 40
9
10 30 30
11
12 20
EXP 20
13 EXP
14 FEM FEM
10 10
15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
16
17 Dilation ratio, λ Dilation ratio, λ
18
Fo
19
(a) (b)
20
21 60 60
22
r
23
υ=0.2
υ=0.2
24 50 50
Re
25
26 40 40
27
28
30 30
vi
29
30
31 20 20
EXP EXP
ew
32
FEM FEM
33 10 10
34 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
35
Dilation ratio, λ Dilation ratio, λ
36
On
37
38 (c) (d)
39
40 Figure 15. Dilation vs normalized stress (a) RC0%, (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
41
ly
42
43
44 As shown in Figs. 13-15, the FE model used in this paper was able to closely simulate the behavior of
45 the rubberized concrete specimens. The stiffness, compressive strength, volumetric response and the
46
47 dilation behavior obtained using the FE analysis agreed well with the values measured in the
48 experimental work. In conclusion, the K & C concrete material model can be used for rubberized
49
50 concrete modeling, provided that the compressive strength is modified to account for the reduction in
51 strength due to the added rubber. It should be noted that in terms of material modeling, the behavior
52
53 of FE models was verified up to the ultimate strength. The post-peak behaviors of the specimens were
54 not recorded during the experimental work due to the limitations of the testing machine. No other
55
56 appropriate experimental data was found in the literature that included the post-peak response of
57 rubberized concrete to be able to investigate the ability of the FE models to predict the post-peak
58
59
60 21
1
2
3 response. Experimental studies using a displacement control compression testing machine are
4
required to record the post-peak behavior of rubberized concrete and validate the FE models.
5
6 Moreover, to better understand the confined behavior of rubberized concrete and in order to determine
7
the values of parameters characterizing the failure surfaces of the material modeling, a series of
8
9 triaxial tests with a wide range of lateral pressure is required.
10
11
12 Conclusion
13
14 This paper presented an experimental and numerical finite element analysis of rubberized concrete.
15 Four different concrete types were considered and the only variable parameter was the rubber content
16
17 which replaced the sand by volume. The following conclusion can be made from this study:
18
Fo
19 - While the concrete cylinders with zero rubber (RC0%) exhibited an explosive and sudden
20
21 failure, the failure of the rubberized concrete specimens was more ductile. As the rubber
22 content increased the failure became more gradual and ductile. The failure of the plain
r
23
24 concrete was characterized by limited macro cracks, however, as the rubber content increased,
Re
25 more extensive and fine distributed cracks were observed.

26
27 - As the rubber content increased in mixes RC0% to RC6%, RC12% and RC18%, the density
28 reduced from 2379 kg/m3 to 2363 kg/m3, 2324 kg/m3 and 2262 kg/m3, respectively;
vi
29
30 corresponding to a density reduction of 1.6%, 2.3% and 4.9% in RC6%, RC12% and RC18%.
31
- Investigation on the density of the concrete mixes revealed that the level of air content in
ew
32
33 rubberized concrete is higher than plain concrete.
34
- As a general trend, an increase in rubber content resulted in a decrease in the compressive
35
36 strength and elastic modulus. The compressive strength and elastic modulus reduced from 55
On
37
38
MPa and 40.4 GPa in RC0% to 38 MPa and 36.4 GPa in RC18%, corresponding to a decrease
39 of about 31% and 11%, respectively.
40
41 - Using the ACI 318 expression to estimate the elastic modulus of rubberized concrete from the
ly
42 compressive strength, ′ , resulted in an underestimation of about 8%-22%.

43
44 - The dilation behavior of rubberized and plain concrete was similar. For all specimens, the
45 dilation ratio increased from about 0.2 at low stresses to about 0.6-0.8 at the ultimate
46
47 strengths. A Poisson’s ratio value of 0.2 can therefore be considered appropriate for both
48 rubberized and plain concrete.
49
50 - Opening of cracks at high compressive stresses results in relatively extensive expansion of the
51 specimens in the hoop direction at high range stresses. This behavior was more pronounced in
52
53 rubberized concrete. This might have significant influence on the material properties of
54 confined rubberized concrete, which needs to be investigated in future studies.
55
56
57
58
59
60 22
1
2
3 - While the average damping ratio of plain concrete, RC0% was 5.4%, it reached 5.7%, 6.9%
4
and 8.9% in mixes RC6%, RC12% and RC18%, respectively, indicating an increase of 5.5%,
5
6 27.8% and 64.8%.
7
8 - The FE model used in this paper was able to accurately simulate the behavior of rubberized
9 concrete. The stiffness, compressive strength, volumetric response and the dilation behavior
10
11 obtained using the FE analysis agreed well with the values measured in the experimental
12 work. Hence, the K & C concrete material model [41] with the automatic generation of
13
14 parameters option [43] can be used for rubberized concrete modeling, provided that the
15 compressive strength is modified to account for the reduction in strength due to the added
16
17 rubber.
18
Fo
19
20
References
21
22 [1] Ling TC. Effects of compaction method and rubber content on the properties of concrete paving
r
23 blocks. Construction and building materials. 2012;28:164-75.

24 [2] Ling T, Nor HM, Hainin MR, Lim S-K. Long-term strength of rubberised concrete paving blocks.
Re
25 Construction Materials. 2010;163:19-26.

26 [3] Schimizze RR, Nelson JK, Amirkhanian SN, Murden JA. Use of waste rubber in light-duty concrete
27
pavements. Infrastructure@ sNew Materials and Methods of Repair: ASCE; 1994. p. 367-74.
28
[4] Kaloush K, Way G, Zhu H. Properties of crumb rubber concrete. Transportation Research Record:
vi
29
30 Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2005:8-14.
31 [5] Bala A, Sehgal V, Saini B. Effect of Flyash and Waste Rubber on Properties of Concrete composite.
ew
32 Concrete Research Letters. 2014;5.

33 [6] Topcu I, Avcular N. Collision behaviours of rubberized concrete. Cement and concrete research.
34 1997;27:1893-8.
35 [7] Topcu I, Avcular N. Analysis of rubberized concrete as a composite material. Cement and
36 concrete research. 1997;27:1135-9.
On
37 [8] Fattuhi N, Clark L. Cement-based materials containing shredded scrap truck tyre rubber.
38 Construction and building materials. 1996;10:229-36.
39 [9] Prasada RR, Shubhada G. The Effect of Crumb Rubber on Freeze-Thaw Durability of Portland
40
Cement Concrete. Advances in Civil Engineering Materials. 2013;2:566-85.
41
ly
[10] Ganjian E, Khorami M, Maghsoudi AA. Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for aggregate and filler in
42
43 concrete. Construction and building materials. 2009;23:1828-36.
44 [11] Khatib ZK, Bayomy FM. Rubberized Portland cement concrete. Journal of materials in civil
45 engineering. 1999;11:206-13.
46 [12] Nehdi M, Khan A. Cementitious composites containing recycled tire rubber: an overview of
47 engineering properties and potential applications. Cement Concrete and Aggregates. 2001;23:3-10.
48 [13] Li L, Ruan S, Zeng L. Mechanical properties and constitutive equations of concrete containing a
49 low volume of tire rubber particles. Construction and Building Materials. 2014;70:291-308.
50 [14] Eldin NN, Senouci AB. Rubber-tire particles as concrete aggregate. Journal of materials in civil
51 engineering. 1993;5:478-96.
52 [15] Zheng L, Sharon Huo X, Yuan Y. Experimental investigation on dynamic properties of rubberized
53
concrete. Construction and building materials. 2008;22:939-47.
54
[16] Topcu IB. The properties of rubberized concretes. Cement and concrete research. 1995;25:304-
55
56 10.
57 [17] Youssf O, Mills JE, Hassanli R. Assessment of the mechanical performance of crumb rubber
58 concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 2016;125:175-83.
59
60 23
1
2
3 [18] Onuaguluchi O, Panesar DK. Hardened properties of concrete mixtures containing pre-coated
4 crumb rubber and silica fume. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014;82:125-31.
5 [19] Park Y, Abolmaali A, Kim YH, Ghahremannejad M. Compressive strength of fly ash-based
6 geopolymer concrete with crumb rubber partially replacing sand. Construction and Building
7 Materials. 2016;118:43-51.
8 [20] Park Y, Abolmaali A, Mohammadagha M, Lee S. Structural performance of dry-cast rubberized
9
concrete pipes with steel and synthetic fibers. Construction and Building Materials. 2015;77:218-26.
10
11
[21] Ganesan N, Bharati R, Shashikala AP. Behavior of Self-Consolidating Rubberized Concrete Beam-
12 Column Joints. ACI Material journal. 2013;110:697-704.
13 [22] Xue J, Shinozuka M. Rubberized concrete: A green structural material with enhanced energy-
14 dissipation capability. Construction and Building Materials. 2013;42:196-204.
15 [23] Pelisser F, Zavarise N, Longo TA, Bernardin AM. Concrete made with recycled tire rubber: Effect
16 of alkaline activation and silica fume addition. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2011;19:757-63.
17 [24] Youssf O, ElGawady MA, Mills JE, Ma X. An experimental investigation of crumb rubber concrete
18 confined by fibre reinforced polymer tubes. Construction and Building Materials. 2014;53:522-32.
Fo
19 [25] Najim KB, Hall MR. Mechanical and dynamic properties of self-compacting crumb rubber
20 modified concrete. Construction and building materials. 2012;27:521-30.
21 [26] Hernández-Olivares F, Barluenga G, Bollati M, Witoszek B. Static and dynamic behaviour of
22
recycled tyre rubber-filled concrete. Cement and concrete research. 2002;32:1587-96.
r
23
[27] Toutanji H. Stress-strain characteristics of concrete columns externally confined with advanced
24
fiber composite sheets. ACI Materials Journal. 1999;96.
Re
25
26 [28] Smith JW. Vibration of structures: applications in civil engineering design: Chapman and Hall;
27 1988.
28 [29] Standards Australia. Concrete structures, AS3600. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia
vi
29 International; 2009.
30 [30] AS 3972. General purpose and blended cements, . Sydney, NSW: Standards Australia 2010.
31 [31] ASTM. C 494/C 494M. Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete. West
ew
32 Conshohocken, PA2001.
33 [32] Standards Australia. Methods of testing concrete - Sampling of concrete AS 1012.1. Sydney,
34 NSW2014.
35
[33] Standards Australia. Methods for sampling and testing aggregates, Method for making and
36
curing concrete - Compression and indirect tensile test specimens, AS1012.8.1. Sydney, NSW2000.
On
37
38 [34] AS 1012.9. Methods of testing concrete - Compressive strength tests - Concrete, mortar and
39 grout specimens. Sydney, NSW: Standards Australia,; 2014.
40 [35] Pacheco-Torgal F, Ding Y, Jalali S. Properties and durability of concrete containing polymeric
41 wastes (tyre rubber and polyethylene terephthalate bottles): An overview. Construction and Building
ly
42 Materials. 2012;30:714-24.
43 [36] Xie J-h, Guo Y-c, Liu L-s, Xie Z-h. Compressive and flexural behaviours of a new steel-fibre-
44 reinforced recycled aggregate concrete with crumb rubber. Construction and Building Materials.
45 2015;79:263-72.
46 [37] De Brito J, Saikia N. Recycled aggregate in concrete. Use of industrial, construction and
47 demolition waste (1st ed), Springer, London. 2013.
48
[38] AS 1012.17. Methods for testing concrete, Determination of the static chord modulus of
49
elasticity and Poisson's ratio of concrete specimens, . Sydney, NSW: Standards Australia, ; 1997.
50
51 [39] ACI 318-08. Building code requirements for structural concrete. Farmington Hills, MI.: American
52 Concrete Institute; 2008.
53 [40] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 2007.
54 Prentice Hall, New Jersey2007.
55 [41] LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. California,
56 USA2007.
57
58
59
60 24
1
2
3 [42] Malvar L, Crawford J, Morrill K. K&C concrete material model Release III–Automated generation
4 of material model input. Karagozian and Case Structural Engineers, Technical Report TR-99-243.
5 2000.
6 [43] Schwer LE, Malvar LJ. Simplified concrete modeling with* MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3. JRI
7 LS-Dyna User Week. 2005.
8 [44] Magallanes JM, Wu Y, Malvar LJ, Crawford JE. Recent improvements to release III of the K&C
9
concrete model. 11th international LS-DYNA Users conference, Dearborn, MI, 2010. p. 6-8.
10
11
[45] Markovich N, Kochavi E, Ben-Dor G. An improved calibration of the concrete damage model.
12 Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 2011;47:1280-90.
13 [46] Malvar LJ, Crawford JE, Wesevich JW, Simons D. A plasticity concrete material model for
14 DYNA3D. International Journal of Impact Engineering. 1997;19:847-73.
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20 Stage 2 Stage 3
Stage1
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33 Stage 4
34
35
36 Figure 1. Stages of rubber treatment
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Load
cell
8
9
10
11 LVDT
12
13
130 mm
14
15
16
17 Hoop
18 strain
gauge
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
(a)
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36 (b)
On
37
38
39
Figure 2. Test instrumentation for (a) cylindrical specimens and (b) beam specimens
40
41
ly
42
43

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5 Major
6 macro
7
cracks
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19 Fine
20 distributed
21
cracks
22
r
23
24
Re
25 (a) (b)
26
27
28 Figure 3. Failure mode of mixe (a) RC0%, and (b) RC18%
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 2400 2,379
2,363
5
Density (kg/m3)
2,324
6
7 2300 2,263
8
9
10 2200
11
12 2100
13 RC0% RC6% RC12% RC18%
14
Concrete mix
15
16
17 Figure 4. Effect of rubber on the unit weight of rubberized concrete
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Compressive strength (MPa)

9 60 55
10 49 49
50
11 38
12 40
13 30
14
15 20
16 10
17 0
18
RC0% RC6% RC12% RC18%
Fo
19
20 Concrete mix
21
22 Figure 5. Effect of rubber on the compressive strength of rubberized concrete
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6 Compressive stress (MPa) 60 1.2
7
50 1
8
Normalized stress
9 40 0.8
10
11 30 0.6
12 RC0%
RC0% RC6%
13 20 0.4
RC6%
14 RC12%
15 10 RC12% 0.2 RC18%
16 RC18%
0 0
17
-3000 -1000 1000 3000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
18
Fo
20
21
(a) Compressive stress versus strain (b) Normalized compressive stress versus strain
22
r
23 Figure 6. Stress strain relationship

24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
45
6 Measured
7 40.4 39.5 Eq. 1
40
Elastic modulus (GPa)

8 37.0 37.1 36.3
9 34.6
35 33.9
10
11
12 30 28.5
13
14 25
15
16 20
17
RC0% RC6% RC12% RC18%
18
Concrete mix
Fo
19
20 Figure 7. Effect of rubber on elastic modulus
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
3000 1.2
6
υ=0.2
7
2500 1
8
Axial micro strain
Normalized axial stress

9 2000
10 0.8
RC0%
11 1500
12 RC6%
RC0% 0.6
13 1000 RC12%
14 RC6% RC18%
500 RC12% 0.4
15
16 RC18%
17 0 0.2
18 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Fo
19 Hoop micro strain Dilation ratio, λ
20
21
(a) (b)
22
r
23 Figure 8. (a) Axial versus hoop strain, and (b) dilation ratio
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 60 1.2
𝑓𝑐 𝑓𝑐 =0.9
5
6 50 1
Normalized stress
7
8 40 0.8
9 𝑓𝑐 𝑓𝑐 =0.85
10 30 0.6
11 RC0% RC0%
12 20 0.4
RC6% RC6%
13
10 RC12% 0.2 RC12%
14
15 RC18% RC18%
16 0 0
17 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
18 Volumetric micro strain Volumetric micro strain
19
20
(a) (b)
Fo
21
22 Figure 9. (a) Compressive stress vs volumetric strain, and (b) normalized stress vs volumetric
23
24 strain
rR
25
26
27
28
29
ev
30
31
32
iew
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On
40
41
42
43
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
0.6 0.6
6
7 0.4 0.4
0.71 ^ 101.7 0.79 ^ 106.8
Acceleration [g]
Acceleration [g]
8 0.2 0.2
9
10 0 0
11 -0.2 -0.2
12
13 -0.4 -0.4
14 ‐0.6 -0.6
15 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
17
18 (a) (b)
Fo
19
20 0.6 0.6
21 0.4 0.4
22 0.84 ^ 131.7 0.90 ^ 169.4
Acceleration [g]
Acceleration [g]
r
23 0.2 0.2
24 0 0
Re
25
26 -0.2 -0.2
27 -0.4 -0.4
28
-0.6 -0.6
vi
29
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
30
ew
32
33 (c) (d)
34 Figure 10. Evaluation of damping ratio using acceleration VS time history for mix (a) RC0%,
35
36 (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21 200
22 mm
r
23 z
24
Re
25 x y
26
27
28
vi
29
100 mm
30
31
Figure 11. Finite element mesh
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
Δσ
6 Maximum surface
7 σ
8 B Maximum strength B Yield surface
9
10 A
Residual surface
11
12 A
13 C
14
15 Yield P
Residual strength
16 strength
17
18 C
Fo
19
20 ε
21
22
r
23 (a) (b)
24
Figure 12. (a) Concrete stress-strain relationship, and (b) Shear failure surfaces
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6 Compressive stress (MPa) 60 60

7 50 50
8
9 40 40
10
11 30 30
12 20 20
13
10 EXP 10 EXP
14
FEM FEM
15
16 0 0
17 -2000 0 2000 4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
Fo
19
20
(a) (b)
21
22 60 60
r
23

24 50 50
Re
25
26 40 40
27 30 30
28
vi
29 20 20
30 EXP EXP
31 10 10
FEM FEM
ew
32 0 0
33 -2000 0 2000 4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
34
36
On
37 (c) (d)
38
39 Figure 13. Stress-strain relationship for mix (a) RC0%, (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 .
4
5
6
7
8 3000 3000
9
10 2500 2500
Axial micro strain

Axial micro strain
11
12 2000 2000
13
14 1500 1500
15
1000 1000
16
17 EXP EXP
500 500
18 FEM FEM
Fo
19 0 0
20 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
21
Hoop micro strain Hoop micro strain
22
r
23
24 (a) (b)
Re
25
26 3000 3000
27
2500 2500
28
Axial micro strain
Axial micro strain
vi
29 2000
2000
30
31 1500 1500
ew
32
33 1000 1000
34 EXP
EXP 500
35 500 FEM
FEM
36
0
On
37 0
38 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
39 Hoop micro strain Hoop micro strain
40
41
ly
42 (c) (d)
43 Figure 14. Hoop strain versus axial strain (a) RC0%, (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 60 60
5
υ=0.2

υ=0.2
6 50 50
7
8
40 40
9
10
11 30 30
12
13 20
EXP 20
14 EXP
15 FEM FEM
16 10 10
17 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
19
20
Fo
21 (a) (b)
22
23 60 60
24
rR

υ=0.2
υ=0.2
25
50 50
26
27
28 40 40
29
ev
30
30 30
31
32
iew
33 20 20
EXP EXP
34
35 FEM FEM
36 10 10
37 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
39
On
40
41 (c) (d)
42 Figure 15. Dilation vs compressive stress (a) RC0%, (b) RC6%, (c) RC12%, and (d) RC18%
43
ly
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
View publication stats

Experimental and Numerical Study On The Behavior of Rubberized Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental and Numerical Study On The Behavior of Rubberized Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Experimental and Numerical Study on the Behavior of Rubberized Concrete

Article · April 2017

Reza Hassanli Julie E. Mills

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seismic Response of Retaining Walls View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Experimental and numerical study on the behavior of

Journal: Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

Manuscript Type: Technical Manuscript

Rubberized concrete, Stress-strain relationship, Damping ratio, Dilation

23 (FE) models were developed to investigate the accuracy of a current concrete

23 Table 1. Mix proportions of concrete (1 m3)

25 Mix Rubber percentage* Cement 10 mm stone Sand Water Rubber

32 RC18% 18 400 1080 563564 200 40.45

Failure and crack pattern

Compressive stress (MPa)

25 Static modulus of elasticity, stress-strain response and dilation ratio

 = 0.043 . ′

Elastic modulus (GPa)

Normalized axial stress

the hoop (circumferential) strain  , hence,

23 respectively, corresponding to an increase of 5.5%, 27.8% and 64.8%.

: = 0.71; <'.=$ : = 0.79; <'>.?$

: = 0.84; <.=$ : = 0.90; <>@.A$

Compressive stress (MPa)

Compressive stress (MPa)

Compressive stress (MPa)

Axial micro strain

Compressive stress (MPa)

25 more extensive and fine distributed cracks were observed.

42 compressive strength, ′ , resulted in an underestimation of about 8%-22%.

23 blocks. Construction and building materials. 2012;28:164-75.

25 Construction Materials. 2010;163:19-26.

32 Concrete Research Letters. 2014;5.

Compressive strength (MPa)

23 Figure 6. Stress strain relationship

Elastic modulus (GPa)

Normalized axial stress

Compressive stress (MPa)

Compressive stress (MPa)

Axial micro strain

Compressive stress (MPa)

Compressive stress (MPa)

View publication stats

You might also like

= 0.043 . ′

the hoop (circumferential) strain , hence,

: = 0.71; <'.=$ : = 0.79; <'>.?$

: = 0.84; <.=$ : = 0.90; <>@.A$