Properties of Crumb Rubber Concrete
Kamil E. Kaloush, George B. Way, and Han Zhu
Crumb rubber is a material produced by shredding and commutating
used tires. There is no doubt that the increasing piles of used tires create
environmental concerns. The long-term goal of this research is to find
means to dispose of the crumb rubber by placement of the rubber in port-
land cement concrete and still provide a final product with good engi-
neering properties. The Arizona Department of Transportation and
Arizona State University have initiated several crumb rubber concrete
(CRC) test sections throughout Arizona over the past few years. Labora-
tory tests were conducted to support the knowledge learned in the field
and enhance the understanding of the material properties of CRC. Con-
crete laboratory tests included compressive, flexural, indirect tensile
strength, thermal coefficient of expansion, and microscopic matrix analy-
ses. The unit weight and the compressive and flexural strengths decreased
as the rubber content in the mix increased. Further investigative efforts
determined that the entrapped air, which caused excessive reductions
in compressive strength, could be reduced substantially by adding a
deairing agent. The higher tensile strains at failure observed from the
tests were indicative of more ductile, energy-absorbent mix behavior. The
coefficient of thermal expansion test results indicated that CRC was more
resistant to thermal changes. The CRC specimens tested remained intact
after failure and did not shatter as a conventional mix did. Such behavior
may be beneficial for a structure that requires good impact resistance
properties. If no special considerations are made to maintain higher
strength values, the use of CRC mixes in places where high-strength
concrete is not required is recommended.
Since 1990 it has been the policy of the state of Arizona that the recy-
cling and reuse of waste tires be of the highest priority. The Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) has long supported the use
of recycled waste tire rubber in asphalt rubber hot mix. In the past
3 years, cooperative work between ADOT and Arizona State Uni-
versity (ASU) was conducted to extend the use of mixes of crumb
rubber (CR) in portland cement concrete (PCC). The intent was to
use such mixes on urban development-related projects. A list of fea-
sible projects was identified. Examples are roadways or roadway
intersections, sidewalks, recreational courts and pathways, and wheel-
chair ramps (for better skid resistance). This collaboration has also
expanded to include members from industry associations, concrete
suppliers, and consultants.
There is no doubt that the increasing piles of used tires create
environmental concerns. Finding a way to dispose of the rubber in
concrete would enhance the understanding of how CR can be incor-
porated for greater use in engineering projects. It is realized that
K. E. Kaloush and G. B. Way, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State University, P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306. H. Zhu,
Civil Engineering Department, Tian-Jin University, Tian-Jin, China 300072.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1914, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2005, pp. 8–14.
8
partnership with states, industries, and consultants is vital for the
success of such an initiative.
Several test sections with CR in concrete were built throughout the
state of Arizona and are being monitored for their performance. Lab-
oratory tests were conducted at ASU and industry associations to
support the knowledge learned in the field. This paper summarizes
the findings obtained to date and the knowledge learned in the field.
PAST RESEARCH
Crumb rubber is a material produced by shredding and commutat-
ing used tires. The huge stockpile of used tires in the United States,
which is estimated to be about 2 billion to 3 billion tires, poses envi-
ronmental and health hazards to the public. How those stockpiled
tires should be reused has been a driving force for new ideas, which
has led to a number of field experiments of the use of CR in PCC.
Here, the term “rubber concrete” is used as a generic name for a
mixture of conventional PCC with CR, or CR concrete (CRC).
Early studies by Eldin and Senouci (1) and Fedroff et al. (2)
explored the effects of rubber chips on the compressive and flexural
strengths of CRC mixes. Schimizze et al. suggested that tires be used
in light-duty concrete pavements (3). Biel and Lee experimented
with a special cement (of the magnesium oxychloride type) for the
purpose of enhancing the bonding strength between the rubber par-
ticles and the cement (4). Goulias and Ali used the resonant fre-
quency method to measure the dynamics modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio (5). They found that the use of rubber particles would
improve the engineering characteristics of concrete. Toutanji’s study
focused on replacing the mineral coarse aggregate with rubber tire
chips (6). Fedroff and colleagues investigated the freeze–thaw dura-
bility of rubber concrete (7). Lee et al. investigated the addition of
CR into latex concrete (8). Khatib and Bayomy proposed a com-
pressive strength reduction model of concrete mixes with added rub-
ber content (9). Thong-On reported on the mechanical behavior of
CR cement mortar (10).
Similar work on mechanical evaluation of rubber concrete has also
been reported outside of the United States. This work includes stud-
ies by Li et al. in Hong Kong (11). In Spain, Hernandez-Olivares
et al. provided scanning electron micrographs of the rubber–cement
interface and evaluated the complex modulus (12). The Proceedings
of the International Conference on Concrete in Dundee, United
Kingdom, also contained a number of studies on this subject matter.
Most studies mentioned above were analytical or laboratory-
based experimental work. The major findings were that rubber con-
crete would suffer a reduction in compressive strength, while it may
have increased ductility. Whether rubber concrete is suitable for any
practical application has remained to be explored.
Since 1999, a wave of pioneering efforts to build rubber concrete
test sites in Arizona was undertaken by ASU, ADOT, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, and local concrete and tire
recycling industries (13). In February 1999, rubber concrete was
Kaloush, Way, and Zhu 9

poured on a section of sidewalk on the campus of ASU; the CR con- • Evaluate the possible advantages of using CRC, including
tent was 40 lb per cubic yard of concrete. In May 2001, the ADOT resistance against cracking, reduction of thermal expansion and
Materials Group built a section of parking lot in its Phoenix Division contraction, and light weight.
site with a design of 50 lb of CR per cubic yard. A routine amount of
sampling and testing was performed. The compressive strengths of Through a series of tests with the test sections mentioned above,
cored samples were as high as 3,260 psi. In June 2001, a wheelchair these possible advantages were evaluated, and the results are discussed
ramp near a building on the ASU campus was also poured and had a in the following sections.
design of 20 lb of CR per cubic yard. In March 2002, a resident of
Mesa, Arizona, had the contractor pour his patio foundation with rub-
ber concrete (20 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete). In March 2003, MIX CHARACTERISTICS AND TEST RESULTS
one of the authors (K. E. Kaloush) experimented with the use of rub-
Mix Information
ber concrete (25 lb of CR per cubic yard) for a sidewalk at his home
in Scottsdale, Arizona. The CRC samples used in this study were obtained from different field
In April 2002, four concrete mixes were placed under the super- experiments and were produced by local concrete suppliers. The mix
vision of two of the authors (H. Zhu and G. B. Way) on the cam- information and identities of the various samples are shown in
pus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona (a cold Table 1. The first six samples were trial mixes with various amounts
climate with 7 months of freeze–thaw cycles). Three mixes had up of CR (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 300 lb) per cubic yard of concrete.
to 60 lb of CR per cubic yard, with no air-entraining agent. The The mix with 60 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete was for a test slab
major purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the use of CRC at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. It was a standard 4,000-
as a means for reducing the need for air-entraining agents in a cold psi concrete with no air-entraining agent. The mixes with CR contents
climate. Again, an extensive sampling and testing program was of 300 and 400 lb per cubic yard of concrete were obtained from test
conducted. slabs prepared for the tennis court experiment in Phoenix. These
Perhaps the single largest project that used higher contents of CR mixes were a standard 6,000-psi concrete with no air-entraining agent.
in concrete was an experimental outdoor tennis court in Phoenix. Figure 1 shows the development of the compressive strength, slump,
Leading to the final construction of this tennis court, a series of and air content of the trial mixes as a function of the rubber content.
experimental test slabs (each 2 × 4 ft and 2 to 3 in. thick) were built Figures 2 and 3 show cross-sectional views of the CR content varia-
in January 2003 with rubber contents that varied from 50 to 300 lb tions in the trial mixes and a microscopic view of the CR distribution
of CR per cubic yard. The experimental testing program included in the mix with 400 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete, respectively.
testing for compressive strength, flexural strength, indirect tensile The CR sizes were about 1 to 2 mm.
strength, and thermal coefficient of expansion. The preliminary
results were encouraging. TABLE 1 Mix Ingredients for CRC Mixes
It is hypothesized that rubber crumbs may function as a distri-
bution of miniexpansion or control joints inside the concrete. Thus, Dry Weight of Materials
CRC may exhibit good characteristics in controlling crack initia- (lbs/y3)
Project/Mix Unit Weight W/C
tion and propagation. To evaluate this hypothesis further, in Janu- ID # (lbs/cu ft) Ratio Cement FA CA
ary 2003 the first of several test slabs (5 × 25 ft and 2 in. thick) was
built. The slab contained 400 lb of CR per cubic yard (which rep- 0 lbs per 147.8 0.42 525 1417 1731
resents 25% of the concrete mix, by volume), and it was placed y3 (trial)
without any joints at Hanson’s Aggregates in Phoenix, Arizona. No 50 lbs per 140.1 0.44 525 1367 1731
shrinkage cracks have been observed to date. It should be noted that y3 (trial)
the slab serves a parking facility for trucks. Encouraged by the per- 100 lbs per 135.7 0.45 525 1317 1731
y3 (trial)
formance of this first slab, additional slabs have been built and are
being evaluated. 150 lbs per 125.7 0.46 525 1267 1731
y3 (trial)
The building of these test slabs has provided useful experience
200 lbs per 126.5 0.47 525 1217 1731
and the means by which to evaluate firsthand knowledge about the y3 (trial)
mixing, hauling, pumping, placement, finishing, and curing of CRC.
300 lbs per 109.2 0.48 525 1117 1731
In 2004, ADOT experimented with the use of CRC on two thin y3 (trial)
whitetopping PCC pavements. Laboratory evaluation tests included 60 lbs per 137.8 0.44 317 855 1044
compressive strength, thermal coefficient of expansion, fracture, y3 (NAU)
shrinkage cracking, and microscopic matrix analyses. 300 lbs per 112.1 0.48 525 467 1371
y3 (const.)
400 lbs per 98.8 0.50 525 117 1251
OBJECTIVES y3
Whitetopping 147.5 0.37 752 1195 1800
The objectives of this paper are to PCC, control
Whitetopping 139.5 0.39 752 1145 1800
• Enhance the understanding of the material properties of CRC PCC, 50 lbs
through laboratory testing and field evaluation; CR per y3
• Develop test information that may aid in the eventual goal
NOTE: All mixes had an additional 125 lb of fly ash. W/C  water-to-cement
of drafting a practical specification for rubber in concrete for ratio; FA  fine aggregates; CA  coarse aggregates; NAU  Northern
nonstructural and low-load uses; and Arizona University; Const.  construction.
10 Transportation Research Record 1914

5000 160
Compressive Strength, psi 3-day Strength
4500
7-day Strength 150
4000
28-day Strength

Unit Wt, lbs/ft3

3500
140
3000
2500 130
2000
120
1500
1000 110
500
0 100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Rubber Content, Ibs/y3 Rubber Content, Ibs/y3
(a) (b)

35 6
30 5
25

Slump, in.
4
Air %

20
3
15
2
10
5 Air %C138 1
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Rubber Content, Ibs/y3 Rubber Content, Ibs/y3
(c) (d)
FIGURE 1 Compressive strength, unit weight, air content, and slump variations with rubber content.

Tests
Mechanical tests were conducted at room temperature by using two
replicates for each test–mixture combination. Compression tests
were conducted with cylindrical specimens of 3 × 6 in. under closed-
loop control with measurements of axial and radial strains. Three-
point bending flexural tests were performed with beam specimens
18 × 4 × 4 in. with an initial notch of 0.5 in. A test span of 16 in. was
used. Specimen displacement and crack opening were measured by
using linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs). The crack
mouth opening deformation (CMOD) of the three-point bending
specimens was measured across the face of the notch by using an
extensometer with a range of 1.3 mm. The deflection of the beam
was also measured by using a spring-loaded LVDT with a 0.1-in.
range. The test was performed with the loading controlled by
CMOD feedback. The development of these testing procedures has
been discussed in an earlier work (14).
The coefficient of thermal expansion test was conducted accord-
ing to AASHTO TP60-00 provisional standards. The indirect ten-
sile strength was conducted with disk specimens approximately 1 in.
thick and 4 in. in diameter. The load was applied at a constant rate
of deformation of 0.5 in./min. The test was stopped at total failure

FIGURE 2 Cross-sectional views of CR content variations in trial mixes.

Kaloush, Way, and Zhu 11

where fc is the compressive strength at 28 days and RC is the rub-

FIGURE 3 Microscopic view of CR distribution in mix with 400 lb
of CR per cubic yard of concrete.
of the specimen. The horizontal tensile stress at the center of the test
specimen was calculated. The indirect tensile strength is the maxi-
mum stress that develops at the center of the specimen in the radial
direction during loading for a fixed geometry. The time until failure
and the numbers of strains at failure were also recorded.
Test Results
Compressive Strength
Trials and Tennis Court Mixes Figure 1 shows the compressive
strength, unit weight, slump, and air content as a function of the rub-
ber content. Figure 1 shows that, on average, 60% of the 28-day
strength was achieved at 3 days and 80% was achieved at 7 days.
The compressive strength decreased as the rubber content increased.
A polynomial model representing this relationship is given by
fc = 0.0366( RC)2 − 24.726( RC) + 4, 557.7 (1)
ber content per cubic yard of concrete. The model coefficient of
determination is 0.9721.
The unit weight decreased approximately 6.2 lb/ft3 for every 50 lb
of CR added. On the other hand, the proportion of air increased
about 5% for every 50-lb increase in the CR content, suggesting that
the entrapped air needs to be better controlled with the addition of
CR. The slope was also notably decreased, and at a CR content of
300 lb, the mix was so dry that additional water needed to be added
to improve workability.
Investigative efforts by Thornton Kelly of Hansen Aggregates,
Phoenix, Arizona, determined that the entrapped air could be sub-
stantially reduced by adding a deairing agent into the mixing truck
just before placement of the concrete. By doing so, trial mixes placed
by Kelly recaptured a large portion of the compressive strength lost
by the addition of the rubber; thus creating a more durable finished
product. Regrettably, much of Thornton Kelly’s work on the mixing
and placement of CRC did not continue after he died in early 2004.
Pavement Sections Table 2 presents the results of additional
closed-loop compression tests conducted at 14 and 28 days for the
tennis court mixes (as constructed, with 300 lb of CR per cubic yard
of concrete, and with a trial mix of 400 lb of CR per cubic yard of
concrete), in addition to the thin whitetopping PCC pavement sec-
tions (a control mix and a mix with 50 lb of CR per cubic yard of
concrete). First, high rubber contents greatly reduce the compres-
sive strengths of the mixes; the closed-loop compressive strength
(controlled by the stress that develops in the specimen) yields lower
compressive strength results compared with those obtained by a con-
ventional compressive strength test. However, for the tennis court
(nonstructural use), the compressive strength was considered ade-
quate. The peak axial strain is 6 to 10 times higher than that of a con-
trol mix or a mix with a low rubber content. The modulus of
elasticity decreased slightly for the mix with a low CR content and
was also drastically reduced for the mixes with high CR contents
(the modulus was almost equivalent to that of asphalt concrete). The
Poisson’s ratios calculated were in the expected ranges. The pave-
ment section with 50 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete had about
75% less compressive strength at 28 days than the control mix.

TABLE 2 Compressive Strength Test Results

Peak
Average Axial
Compressive Strain Axial Modulus
Age Strength (in./in., of Elasticity Poisson’s
Mix ID (days) (psi) 10−3) (psi, 106) Ratio

300 lbs per 7 822 9.65 0.15 NA

y3 (const.)
300 lbs per 28 1080 10.32 0.16 NA
y3 (const.)
400 lbs per 14 546 6.50 0.11 NA
y3
TW_CTR 14 5363 1.05 5.30 0.25
TW_CTR 28 5975 0.52 6.10 0.26
TW_CR 14 3704 1.29 3.14 0.25
TW_CR 28 4430 0.73 5.63 0.22

NOTE: CTR  control mix; CR  thin whitetopping PCC with 50 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete;
NA  not available (not measured); TW_CTR  thin whitetopping control mix; TW_CR  thin white-
topping crumb rubber mix.
12 Transportation Research Record 1914

TABLE 3 Flexural Strength Test Results

Flexural CMOD Flexural

Age Load (in., Strength Toughness
Mix ID (days) (lbs) 10−3) (psi) (psi × in.)

300 lbs per 28 481 1.85 157 9.4

y3 (const.)
TW_CTR 14 1049 0.97 341 8.4
TW_CTR 28 1188 1.30 387 10.3
TW_CR 14 807 1.67 263 7.6
TW_CR 28 932 1.39 303 9.5

NOTE: CTR  control mix; CR  thin whitetopping PCC with 50 lb of CR per (a) (b)
cubic yard of concrete.

Flexural Strength

The flexure response in this test is dominated by the cracking that

initiates at the notch and that grows along the depth of the specimen.
The controlled variable in the flexural test is the crack mouth open-
ing (CMOD), which is similar to displacement. Once the entire load
deformation response of the specimen under load is measured, the
energy absorbed throughout the loading cycle can be used to calcu-
late the toughness of the material. The test results are then compared
as an indicator of the potential performance of the mixtures. Table 3
presents a summary of the flexural strength tests conducted at 14 and
(c) (d)
28 days for the tennis court mix and the thin whitetopping PCC
pavement sections. FIGURE 4 Tensile strength failure mechanism.
The control mix exhibited the highest flexural capacity compared
with those of the other mixes. The pavement mix with 50 lb of CR
per cubic yard of concrete showed a flexural capacity 22% less than values are 95, 107, 55, and 47 psi in./in. for mixes with 0, 200, 300,
that of the control mix. The flexural strength of the tennis court con- and 400 of CR per cubic yard of concrete, respectively. Therefore,
trol mix was almost 50% less than that of the control mix. How- the mix containing 200 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete had the
ever, the rubber mixes had higher CMOD values and toughness highest energy value. Doubling of the CR content reduced the
(energy absorption), and these values were comparable to those for energy value by almost half.
the control mix. Figure 4 presents views of a CR mix (Figures 4a and 4b) and a
conventional mix (Figures 4c and 4d ) before (Figures 4a and 4c)
and after (Figures 4b and 4d) the indirect tensile strength test was
Indirect Tensile Strength conducted. Figure 4 shows that the sample containing 400 lb pounds
of CR per cubic yard did not shatter, whereas the conventional con-
Indirect tensile strength tests were conducted with disks sawn from
crete sample without CR did. A similar breaking mechanism was
cylindrical specimens. The tests were conducted with the trial mixes
also noted during the compressive strength tests. Notably, the CRC
with various rubber contents (0 to 400 lb). The tensile strength and
specimens appeared to stay intact (did not shatter) and the upper half
strain at failure results are shown in Table 4. The results show that
of the specimen failed, indicating that the rubber particles absorbed
as the rubber content increased, the tensile strength decreased but
the compressive force and did not distribute it to the lower half. Such
the strain at failure increased. A higher tensile strain at failure is
behavior may be beneficial for a desired material or structure that
indicative of a more ductile and a more energy-absorbent mix. In
requires good impact resistance properties.
fact, the product of the tensile strength and the strain at failure is
indicative of the energy absorbed by each mix until failure. These
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
TABLE 4 Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results
Figures 5 and 6 compare the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)
Tensile Strain at test results obtained for mixes with various rubber contents and
Rubber Content Thickness Diameter Load Strength Failure compare these results with those obtained for other PCC mixes. Fig-
(lbs per y3) (in.) (in.) (lbs) (psi) (%)
ure 5 shows that the CTE values decreased as the rubber content was
0 0.85 4 410 307 0.31 varied from 60 to 300 or 400 lb of CR per cubic yard of concrete.
200 0.77 4 192 159 0.67 Similar results were obtained from expansion (heating) and con-
300 0.96 4 193 128 0.43 traction (cooling) cycles. Figure 6 compares the CTE results for the
mix with 300 lb of CR with those for other mixtures commonly used
400 1.03 4 139 86 0.54
in Arizona. Comparison of the average CTE results for all four
Kaloush, Way, and Zhu 13

7
5.24 Heating Cooling
6 4.74

3.77 3.74
5
3.36 3.23

CTE (10-6/ C)
o
4

0
60 lbs 300 lbs 400 lbs
Crumb Rubber Content/Mix

FIGURE 5 Comparison of CTE as function of CR content.

mixes in Figure 6 shows that the CRC mix had the lowest CTE
value. It was 50% less than the value for the standard control mix.
The mix with high fly ash content exhibited the highest CTE value
among all the mixes. Compared with the CTE values in Figure 5, the
addition of CR (60 lb per cubic yard of concrete) reduced the CTE
values by about 29% compared with that for the control mix. These
results indicate that the crumb mixes are more resistant to thermal
changes; however, these lower values are also associated with a drop
in compressive strength. If no special considerations are made to
maintain higher strength values (as discussed earlier), the use of such
mixes is recommended in places where the strength of the concrete
is not as important (e.g., sidewalks).
CONCLUSIONS
There is no doubt that the increasing piles of used tires create envi-
ronmental concerns. Finding a way to dispose of the rubber by plac-
ing it in concrete would enhance the understanding of how the CR
can be incorporated for greater use in engineering projects. It is real-
ized that partnership with states, industries, and consultants is vital
for the success of such an initiative.
Several CRC test sections were built in Arizona and are being
monitored for their performance. Laboratory tests were conducted at
ASU and industry associations to support the knowledge learned in
the field. This paper summarized the findings that have been obtained
to date and some knowledge learned in the field. The following are
preliminary conclusions that can be made from this study:
• The unit weight of the CRC mix decreased approximately
6 lb/ft3 for every 50 lb of CR added.
• The compressive strength decreased as the rubber content
increased. Part of the strength reduction was contributed by the
entrapped air, which increased as the rubber content increased.
Investigative efforts showed that the strength reduction could be
substantially reduced by adding a deairing agent into the mixing
truck just before placement of the concrete.
• The mix with a high CRC content (tennis court) had a flexural
strength almost 50% less than that of the control mix. However, the
CRC mix had more ductility than the control mix and toughness
values comparable to those for the control mix.
• As the rubber content increased, the tensile strength decreased,
but the strain at failure also increased. A higher tensile strain at
failure is indicative of a more energy-absorbent mix.

8
6.63 Cooling 6.70
7
5.21
6
CTE (10-6/ C)

5
o

3.23
4
3
2
1
0
Conventional Fiber Reinforced CRC- 300 lbs High Fly Ash
Content
PCC Mix

FIGURE 6 Comparison of CTE for variety of PCC mixes.

14
• The coefficient of thermal expansion test results indicated that
the CRC mixes are more resistant to thermal changes.
• In all failure tests, the CRC specimens stayed intact (did not
shatter), indicating that the rubber particles may be absorbing the
forces acting upon them. Such behavior may be beneficial for a
structure that requires good impact resistance properties.
• Because the long-term performance of these mixes in the field
is not known, especially for pavement sections, the use of such
mixes is recommended in places where high concrete strength is not
as important (e.g., sidewalks).
Future follow-up work will strengthen the conclusions arrived at
in this work and will add to the state of knowledge in this area. One
specific area is the freeze–thaw durability of CRC mixes in north-
ern or high-altitude climates, where CR would aid in reducing the
need for air-entraining agents.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of the Arizona Department
of Transportation, Ford Motor Company, Recycled Tires Engi-
neering and Research Foundation, FNF Construction, Hanson
Aggregates, and the Arizona Cement Association for their support
of this research work.
REFERENCES
1. Eldin, N. N., and A. B. Senouci. Rubber-Tired Particles as Concrete
Aggregate. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 4,
1993, pp. 478–496.
2. Fedroff, D., S. Ahmad, and B. Z. Savas. Mechanical Properties of Con-
crete with Ground Waste Tire Rubber. In Transportation Research
Transportation Research Record 1914
Record 1532, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1996, pp. 66–72.
3. Schimizze, R. R., J. K. Nelson, S. N. Amirkhanian, and J. A. Murden.
Use of Waste Rubber in Light-Duty Concrete Pavements. Proc., Third
Material Engineering Conference, Infrastructure: New Materials and
Methods of Repair, San Diego, Calif., 1994, pp. 367–374.
4. Biel, T. D., and H. Lee. Use of Recycled Tire Rubbers in Concrete.
Proc., Third Material Engineering Conference, Infrastructure: New
Materials and Methods of Repair, San Diego, Calif., 1994, pp. 351–358.
5. Goulias, D. G., and A. H. Ali. Non-Destructive Evaluation of Rubber
Modified Concrete. Proc., ASCE Special Conference, New York, N.Y.,
1997, pp. 111–120.
6. Toutanji, H. A. Use of Rubber Tire Particles in Concrete to Replace
Mineral Aggregates. Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 18, No. 2,
1996, pp. 135–139.
7. Fedroff, D., S. Ahmad, and B. Z. Savas. Freeze–Thaw Durability of
Concrete with Ground Waste Tire Rubber. In Transportation Research
Record 1574, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1997, pp. 80–88.
8. Lee, H. S., H. Lee, J. S. Moon, and H. W. Jung. Development of Tire-
Added Latex Concrete. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 95, No. 4, 1998,
pp. 356–364.
9. Khatib, Z. K., and F. Bayomy. Rubberized Portland Cement Concrete.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3, Aug. 1999,
pp. 206–213.
10. Thong-On, A. Crumb Rubber in Mortar Cement Application. M.S.
thesis. Arizona State University, Tempe, 2001.
11. Li, Z., F. Li, and J. Li. Properties of Concrete Incorporating Rubber
Tyre Particles. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1998,
pp. 297–304.
12. Hernandez-Olivares, F., G. Barluenga, M. Bollati, and B. Witoszek.
Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Recycled Tyre Rubber-Filled Concrete.
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 32, No. 10, 2002, pp. 1587–1596.
13. Zhu, H. Rubber Concrete: A Preliminary Engineering and Business
Prospective. Scrap Tire News, June, 2002, pp. 16–17.
14. Gettu, R., B. Mobasher, S. Carmona, and D. Jansen. Testing of Con-
crete Under Closed-Loop Control. Journal of Advanced Cement Based
Materials, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 1996, pp. 54–71.
The Properties of Concrete Committee sponsored publication of this paper.