ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

THE USE OF RECYCLED RUBBER TIRES AS A PARTIAL REPLACEMENT FOR COARSE AGGREGATES IN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of the Addis Ababa UniversityinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterof ScienceinCivilEngineering(ConstructionTechnologyandManagement)

By Abrham Kebede Seyfu Advisor: Professor Abebe Dinku (Dr.-Ing.) June 2010

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

THE USE OF RECYCLED RUBBER TIRES AS A PARTIAL REPLACEMENT FOR COARSE AGGREGATES IN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

By Abrham Kebede Seyfu June 2010

Approved by Board of Examiners Professor Abebe Dinku (Dr. -Ing.) Advisor Dr. -Ing Adil Zekaria External Examiner Dr. Esayas G/youhannes Internal Examiner Ato Geremew Sahilu Chairman

Signature

Date

Signature

Date

Signature

Date

Signature

Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am so delighted to seize this opportunity and express my heartfelt gratitude to my advisor Professor Abebe Dinku (Dr.Ing.). He provided me a lot of expert guidance, valid comments, suggestions, continuous support and untiring efforts not only while carrying out this research work but also throughout the entire postgraduate program. His dedication and excellence have always been an inspiration for my academic and professional career. I am so thankful to the Addis Ababa University School of Graduate Studies for providing me the platform to undergo my postgraduate studies and for delivering the financial support required for this thesis. My Special thank goes to Ato Daniel Kifle and his colleagues in the Material testing laboratory for their cooperation and assistance while carrying out the various tests. The mechanical engineering workshop staffs have given their hands while preparing a modified apparatus for impact resistance test. Their willingness is highly appreciated. This research work would not have been feasible without the sincere cooperation and support of the organizations and individuals who have provided me with all the relevant information and data. These are, Matador Addis Tire, Environmental Development Action-Ethiopia (ENDA), The Ethiopian Tire and Rubber Economy plant PLC and Traditional tire recyclers in Addis Ababa. The manual cutting of the tires into the required small sizes was not an easy task and Ato Shume Gizachew, who is one of the traditional tire recyclers, has helped me a lot. I would also like to give thanks to my friends who gave me the encouragement and unconditional support while carrying out this research. Besides, I am so grateful to all the people who helped me in one way or the other while carrying out this research. I am greatly indebted to my family, sisters and brothers for their faith in me. Their support, encouragement and advice were invaluable. They gave me due attention and delivered what they can throughout my academic career. They helped me to be where I am today. Beyond all, my usual thank goes to the Almighty God for He is in all that exists.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..... TABLE OF CONTENTS. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES.. LIST OF ANNEXES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.. ABSTRACT.. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study. 1.2 Statement of the Problem i ii vi vii viii ix x 1 1 3

2. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY... 2.1 Objectives of the Study. 2.1.1 General Objective 2.1.2 Specific Objectives . 2.2 Scope of the Study.. 2.3 Methodology of the Study.. 2.4 Terminology ...

5 5 5 5 6 6 7

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 General Characteristics and Constituents of Concrete... 3.1.1 Characteristics of Concrete......... 3.1.2 Constituents of Concrete..... 3.1.2.1 Cement. 3.1.2.1.1 Types of Portland Cements...... 3.1.2.2 Aggregates...

8 8 8 9 9 9 11

ii

3.1.2.2.1 Natural Aggregates.. 3.1.2.2.2 Non Natural Aggregates.. 3.1.2.3 Water . 3.1.2.4 Chemical Admixtures.. 3.2 The Use of Recycled Materials in Concrete Construction. 3.2.1 General.... 3.2.2 Recycling of Waste Tires.... 3.2.2.1 Composition of a Tire.. 3.2.2.2 The Need for recycling of Waste Tires 3.2.2.3 Methods of Recycling Tires.... 3.2.2.4 Benefits of Recycled Tires... 3.3 Material Constituents of Rubberized Concrete... 3.3.1 General.... 3.3.2 Rubber Aggregate... 3.3.2.1 Surface Treatment of Rubber Aggregates... 3.3.3 Natural Aggregates in Rubberized Concrete. 3.3.4 Cement in Rubberized Concrete.. 3.3.5 Admixtures in Rubberized Concrete... 3.3.6 Water in Rubberized Concrete.... 3.4 Properties of Fresh Rubberized Concrete... 3.4.1 Aesthetics.... 3.4.2 Workability 3.4.3 Air Content.. 3.5 Properties of Hardened Rubberized Concrete. 3.5.1 Unit Weight.... 3.5.2 Compressive Strength .... 3.5.3 Tensile Strength 3.5.4 Impact Strength and Other Mechanical Properties......

11 12 13 13 16 16 17 17 18 22 22 23 23 23 28 29 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 34 34

iii

3.5.5 Flexural Strength..... 3.6 Applications of Rubberized Concrete. 3.7 Cost Considerations in Rubberized Concrete 3.7.1 Used Tire Recycling Costs...... 3.7.2 Cost Savings due to Material substitution . 3.7.3 Cost Savings through Performance. 3.7.4 Whole life Cost reductions 3.7.5 Cost Savings by Protecting the Environment .

35 36 38 38 38 39 40 40

4. MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND MIX DESIGN... 4.1 General.. 4.2 Cement.. 4.3 Aggregates 4.3.1 Properties of the Fine Aggregate. 4.3.1.1 Sieve Analysis for Fine Aggregate and Fineness Modulus..... 4.3.1.2 Specific Gravity and Absorption Capacity for Fine Aggregate 4.3.1.3 Moisture Content for Fine Aggregate 4.3.1.4 Silt Content of Fine Aggregate.. 4.3.1.5 Unit Weight of Fine Aggregate. 4.3.2 Properties of the Coarse Aggregate. 4.3.3 Rubber Aggregate.... 4.4 Chemical Admixture... 4.5 Water... 4.6 Selection of Concrete Mix Proportions (Mix Design)............................................ 4.6.1 General 4.6.2 Testing Arrangement .. 4.6.3 Trial Mixes.. 4.6.4 Batching of Materials......

42 42 42 42 43 43 45 45 45 46 46 48 49 50 50 50 51 52 54

iv

4.6.5 Mixing And Test Sample Preparation.....

55

5. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS. 5.1 General 5.2 Fresh Concrete Properties... 5.2.1 Workability Test.. 5.3 Hardened Concrete Properties..... 5.3.1 Determination of Unit Weight. 5.3.2 Compressive Strength Test .... 5.3.3 Splitting Tensile Strength Test.... 5.3.4 Impact Resistance Tests.. 5.3.4.1 Drop Weight Test 5.3.5 Flexural Strength Tests

57 57 57 57 59 59 62 68 72 73 75

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 6.1 Conclusions. 6.2 Recommendations... REFERENCES. ANNEXES.

79 79 81 84 87

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1
Table 4.2 Table 4.3

Typical solid wastes that have been considered as Aggregate for Concrete Percentage Composition of a Passenger and a Truck Car Sieve Analysis Test for Fine aggregate

13 18 44 46 47 52 53 54 55 57 60 63 69 74 76

......

...

Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6

... Sieve analysis for Coarse Aggregate.. Material Constituents of the Trial mix ...
Physical Properties of the Coarse aggregate Slump and Compressive Strength Test Results of the Trial mix Mix Proportioning for 1m3 of concrete

....

...

Mix Proportions for 0.068 m3 of concrete... Slump Test Results.. Unit Weights of the control and Rubberized concretes

Compressive Strength Test Results .... Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results

...

Impact Resistance Test Results Flexural strength Test Results

....

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.1 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9 Stockpiles of Waste tires Samples of Coarse granules of Waste tire. Mechanically Shredded Fine Tires Tire Rubber cuts of 4.12 mm. Graph for Sieve analysis of Fine aggregate. Graph for Sieve analysis of Coarse aggregate Used Medium Truck Tires 20 mm size Rubber aggregate.. Rubber aggregates coated with Cement paste... Concrete mixing using a Pan mixer.. Slump Test Graphical Comparison of Unit weight values....... Compressive Strength Development... Comparisons of Compressive strength Test Results..................................... Splitting tensile strength Test Comparisons of Splitting tensile strength Test Results.. Failure patterns of Concrete cylinders after Splitting tensile strength tests.. A Concrete sample arranged for Impact Resistance test... Comparisons of Flexural strength Test Results........... 3 25 26 26 44 47 48 48 49 56 57 62 65 67 68 71 72 73 78

vii

LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A A1 A2 ANNEX B B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 ANNEX C C1 C2 C3 ANNEX D ANNEX E ANNEX F ANNEX G Material Properties 87 Physical properties of fine aggregate Physical properties of coarse aggregate 87 88

Mix Design...... 90 Mix Design for C15 (Trial Mix).............................. 90 Mix Design for C25 (Trial Mix).. 91 Mix Design for C30 (Trial Mix).. 92 Mix Design for C40 (Trial Mix).. 93 Mix Design for C15 (Final Mix). Mix Design for C25 (Final Mix). Mix Design for C30 (Final Mix). Mix Design for C40 (Final Mix). Compressive Strength and Unit weight results 7th Day Test Results 94 95 96 97 98 98

28th Day Test Results... 102 56th Day Test Results... 106 Splitting tensile strength test results 110

Impact resistance test results 113 Flexural strength test results 116

Photos.. 119

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CCl4 DOE F.M. Fig. ggbs gm HRWR kg Kg/m3 Km2 lt m m3 mm MOC MPa Mt OPC SSD t U.S.A. UK w/c wt. % Carbon tetra chloride Department of Environment Fineness Modulus Figure Ground granulated blast furnace slag Gram High range water reducing Kilogram Kilogram per meter cube Kilometer square litre meter Meter cube Millimeter Magnesium Oxychloride Cement Mega Pascal Metric Tone Ordinary Portland cement Saturated Surface dry tone United States of America United Kingdom Water cement ratio weight Percent

ix

ABSTRACT
Concrete is one of the most widely used construction materials in the world. Cement and aggregate, which are the most important constituents used in concrete production, are the vital materials needed for the construction industry. This inevitably led to a continuous and increasing demand of natural materials used for their production. Parallel to the need for the utilization of the natural resources emerges a growing concern for protecting the environment and a need to preserve natural resources (such as aggregate) by using alternative materials which are recycled or waste materials. In this research, a study was carried out on the use of recycled rubber tires as a partial replacement for coarse aggregates in concrete construction using locally available waste tires. In the first part of this thesis, the background of the study and the extent of the problem were discussed. A review of relevant literatures was done to study previous works in the subject matter. The research was carried out by conducting tests on the raw materials to determine their properties and suitability for the experiment. Concrete mix designs are prepared using the DOE method and a total of 16 mixes were prepared consisting of four concrete grades (C15, C25, C30 and C40). The specimens were produced with percentage replacements of the coarse aggregate by 10, 25 and 50 % of rubber aggregate. Moreover, a control mix with no replacement of the coarse aggregate was produced to make a comparative analysis. The prepared samples consist of concrete cubes, cylinders and beams. Laboratory tests were carried out on the prepared concrete samples. The lists of tests conducted are; slump, unit weight, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, impact resistance and flexural strength tests. The data collection was mainly based on the tests conducted on the prepared specimens in the laboratory. The test results were compared with the respective conventional concrete properties and show that there is a reduction in compressive strength of the concrete due to the inclusion of rubber aggregates. Even though this may limit its use in some structural applications, it has few desirable characteristics such as lower density, higher impact resistance, enhanced ductility, and a slight increase in flexural strength in the lower compressive strength concrete categories. The overall results show that it is possible to use recycled rubber tires in concrete construction as a partial replacement for coarse aggregates. Nevertheless, the percentage of

replacement should be limited to a specified amount and the application should be restricted to particular cases where the improved properties due to the rubber aggregates are desirable and when the corresponding demerits of the rubber aggregates dont affect the use of the structure. Key Words: Aggregate, Compressive strength, Concrete, Flexural strength, Impact resistance, Recycled tires, Rubberized concrete, Splitting tensile strength, Unit weight, Workability.

xi

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Cement and aggregate, which are the most important constituents used in concrete production, are the vital materials needed for the construction industry. This inevitably led to a continuous and increasing demand of natural materials used for their production. Parallel to the need for the utilization of the natural resources emerges a growing concern for protecting the environment and a need to preserve natural resources, such as aggregate, by using alternative materials that are either recycled or discarded as a waste. Concrete strength is greatly affected by the properties of its constituents and the mix design parameters. Because aggregates represent the major constituent of the bulk of a concrete mixture, its properties affect the properties of the final product. An aggregate has been customarily treated as an inert filler in concrete. However, due to the increasing awareness of the role played by aggregates in determining many important properties of concrete, the traditional view of the aggregate as an inert filler is being seriously questioned. Aggregate was originally viewed as a material dispersed throughout the cement paste largely for economic reasons. It is possible, however, to take an opposite view and to look on aggregate as a building material connected into a cohesive whole by means of the cement paste, in a manner similar to masonry construction. In fact aggregate is not truly inert and its physical, thermal, and sometimes chemical properties influence the performance of concrete [1]. Aggregate is cheaper than cement and it is, therefore, economical to put into the mix much of the former and as little of the latter as possible. Nevertheless, economy is not the only reason for using aggregate: it confers considerable technical advantages on concrete, which has a higher volume stability and better durability than hydrated cement paste alone [1]. According to Kumaran S.G. et al, the goal of sustainability is that life on the planet can be sustained for the foreseeable future and there are three components of sustainability: environment, economy, and society [2]. To meet its goal, sustainable development must ensure that these three components remain healthy and balanced. Furthermore, it must do so simultaneously and throughout the entire planet, both now and in the future. At the moment, the environment is probably the most important component and an engineer or architect uses sustainability to mean having no net negative impact on the environment.

Among the many threats that affect the environment are the wastes which are generated in the production process or discarded after a specific material ends its life time or the intended use. The wastages are divided as solid waste, liquid waste and gaseous wastes. There are many disposal ways for liquid and gaseous waste materials. Some solid waste materials such as plastic bottles, papers, steel, etc can be recycled without affecting the environment. However, studies on how to dispose some solid wastes such as waste tires in the most beneficial ways are not yet fully exhausted. Tire is a thermoset material that contains cross-linked molecules of sulphur and other chemicals. The process of mixing rubber with other chemicals to form this thermoset material is commonly known as vulcanization. This makes postconsumer tires very stable and nearly impossible to degrade under ambient conditions. Consequently, it has resulted in a growing disposal problem that has led to changes in legislation and significant researches worldwide [3]. On the other hand, disposal of the waste tires all around the world is becoming higher and higher through time. This keeps on increasing every year with the number of vehicles, as do the future problems relating to the crucial environmental issues. Kumaran S.G. et al stated that the increasing piles of waste tires will create the accumulation of used tires at landfill sites and presents the threat of uncontrolled fires, producing a complex mixture of chemicals harming the environment and contaminating soil and vegetation. It was estimated that in the UK alone, 37 million car and truck tires are being discarded annually and this number is set to increase. This is considered as one of the major environmental challenges the World is facing because waste rubber is not easily biodegradable even after a long period of landfill treatment. One of the solutions suggested was the use of tire rubber as partial replacement of coarse aggregate in cement-based materials [2]. If the tire is burned, the toxic product from the tire will damage the environment and thus creating air pollution. Since it is not a biodegradable material, this may affect the fertility of the soil and vegetation. Sometimes it may produce uncontrolled fire. Similarly, the other challenge to the human society is in the form of carbon dioxide emission and green house emission. These emissions are considered as highly threatening wastes to the universe [2]. Since 1990, it has been the policy of the State of Arizona that the recycling and reuse of waste tires are given the highest priority. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has long supported the use of recycled waste tire rubber in asphalt rubber hot mix. A

cooperative work between ADOT and Arizona State University (ASU) was conducted to extend the use of crumb rubber in portland cement concrete mixes. The intent was to use such mixes on urban development related projects. A list of feasible projects was identified. Examples are roadways or road 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. Several crumb rubber in concrete test sections were built throughout the state of Arizona and are being monitored for performance [4]. Figure 1.1 below shows stockpiles of waste tires.

Fig. 1.1 Stockpiles of Waste tires [3] Hence, all the above studies suggest that there is a strong need to use recycled materials in concrete and specifically waste tires should be used in an environmental friendly way. For this, concrete construction can be considered as a very realistic and convenient area of application.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Concrete has been a major construction material for centuries. Moreover, it would even be of high application with the increase in industrialization and the development of urbanization. Yet concrete construction so far is mainly based on the use of virgin natural resources. Meanwhile the conservation concepts of natural resources are worth remembering and it is very essential to have a look at the different alternatives. Among them lies the recycling

mechanism. This is a twofold advantage. One is that it can prevent the depletion of the scarce natural resources and the other will be the prevention of different used materials from their severe threats to the environment. It has been well reported that about 1 billion of used automobile tires are generated each year globally [5]. Specifically, 275 million of used rubber tires accumulate in the United States and about 180 million in European Union [6]. In Ethiopia, the amount of waste tires is expected to increase with the increase of vehicles. In addition to that, the traditional ways of recycling tires in our country like as a shoe making material and other tools is decreasing nowadays. This is considered as one of the major environmental challenges facing municipalities around the world because waste rubber is not easily biodegradable even after a long period of landfill treatment. The best management strategy for scrap tires that are worn out beyond hope for reuse is recycling. Utilization of scrap tires should minimize environmental impact and maximize conservation of natural resources. The regulatory practices include landfill bans and scrap tire fees. Because rubber waste does not biodegrade readily, even after long periods of landfill treatment, there is renewed interest in developing alternatives to disposal. One possible solution for this problem is to incorporate rubber particles into cement-based materials. Scrap tires can be shredded into raw materials for use in hundreds of crumb rubber products [7]. The other part of the problem is that aggregate production for construction purpose is continuously leading to the depletion of natural resources. Moreover, some countries are depending on imported aggregate and it is definitely very expensive. For example, the Netherlands does not possess its own aggregate and has to import [6]. This concern leads to a highly growing interest for the use of alternative materials that can replace the natural aggregates. Therefore, the use of recycled waste tires as an aggregate can provide the solution for two major problems: the environmental problem created by waste tires and the depletion of natural resources by aggregate production consequently the shortage of natural aggregates in some countries.

2. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

2.1 Objectives of the study
2.1.1 General Objective Most of the time, used tire rubber is not noticed to be applied in a useful way. It is rather becoming a potential waste and pollutant to the environment. Moreover, the collecting process of waste tires is not very costly as compared to the extraction or production of mineral aggregates used in normal concrete. Hence, this study is intended to show the feasibility of using crumb rubber concrete in Ethiopia as a partial replacement for coarse aggregate in concrete. The general objective of this research is to evaluate the fresh and hardened properties of the concrete produced by replacing part of the natural coarse aggregate with an aggregate produced from locally available recycled tire rubber. 2.1.2 Specific Objectives The specific objectives of the research are listed as follows: 1) With the increase in urbanization in Ethiopia, the number of cars and consequently the amount of used tire is going to increase significantly in the near future. Hence, the nonenvironmental nature of these wastes is going to be a potential threat. This study can show an alternative way of recycling tires by incorporating them into concrete construction. Of course, the concept that the problem emerges from urbanization and the solution goes along with it can also be appreciated. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to introduce an environmental friendly technology, which can benefit the society and the nation. 2) Application of used tires in concrete construction is a new technology and a welldeveloped mix design for material proportioning is not available. Through this study, it is intended to arrive at a suitable mix proportion and percent replacement using locally available materials by partial replacement of the natural coarse aggregates with recycled coarse rubber aggregates. Hence the possibility of using waste tires as an alternative construction material will be investigated. 3) By conducting different laboratory tests on prepared specimens, it is intended to analyze the results. Moreover, from the properties of the concrete the advantages and disadvantages of using it will be figured out.

2.2 Scope of the study

1) This study concentrated on the performance of a single gradation of crumb rubber. The waste tires are collected from local sources and manually cut into pieces to achieve a uniform size of 20 mm, which is the maximum aggregate size in the mix design. 2) The influence of different gradations of the rubber aggregate on concrete properties was not evaluated in this study but it should be considered in future researches. 3) All the waste tires collected were chosen from those manufactured by Matador Addis Tire S.Co to avoid any inconsistent properties that may arise by mixing materials from different sources. The properties of waste tires from other tire manufacturers were not included in this study. 4) The study was done on four grades of concrete (C15, C25, C30, and C40). The influence of using recycled tires in high strength concrete was not covered in the present study. The percentage replacements were limited to three categories i.e. 10, 25 and 50% replacement of the natural coarse aggregate. The different effects, which can be observed in different percentages of replacements, were not included in the present study.

2.3 Methodology of the study

The different methods utilized in this research include the following: i) Background study Literature survey was carried out to review previous studies related to this thesis. ii) Collection of raw Materials All the required materials were collected and delivered to the laboratory. These are; Cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, used rubber tires and admixture. iii) Material Tests Tests were conducted on the raw materials to determine their properties and suitability for the experiment. iv) Mix Proportioning (Mix Design) Concrete mix designs were prepared using the Department of Environment (DoE) method. A total of 16 mixes with four types of concrete grades (C15, C25, C30 and C40)

were produced. They were prepared with coarse aggregate replacements by 10, 25 and 50 % of the rubber aggregate. A control mix with no rubber aggregate replacement was produced to make a comparative analysis. v) Specimen preparation The concrete specimens were prepared in the A.A.U, Faculty of Technology, Civil Engineering Department Material Testing laboratory. The prepared samples consist of concrete cubes, cylinders and beams. vi) Testing of Specimens Laboratory tests were carried out on the prepared concrete samples. The tests conducted were slump, unit weight, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, impact resistance and flexural strength tests. vii) Data collection The data collection was mainly based on the tests conducted on the prepared specimens in the laboratory. viii) Data Analysis and Evaluation The test results of the samples were compared with the respective control concrete properties and the results were presented using tables, pictures and graphs. Conclusions and recommendations were finally forwarded based on the findings and observations.

2.4 Terminology
There are various terminologies given by different researchers to the concrete produced by replacing recycled tires. In a study by Chou L.H. et al, the resulting concrete formed by the addition of rubber aggregates was named as rubcrete [8]. Whereas Olivares F.H. et al used the term recycled tire rubber-filled concrete [9]. The term rubber modified concrete was referred to the resulting concrete by Kumaran S.G. et al [2]. Other researchers used the naming rubberized concrete in their studies [10-13]. All this terminologies have been used to describe a similar product formed by incorporating recycled tires. Using varieties of names at the same time may lead to ambiguity and some confusion over time. To promote clear understanding of the subject, the term rubberized concrete is used throughout this thesis.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 General Characteristics and Constituents of Concrete
3.1.1 Characteristics of Concrete Concrete is a composite material composed of coarse granular material (the aggregate or filler) embedded in a hard matrix of material (the cement or binder) that fills the space between the aggregate particles and glues them together [14].In its simplest form, concrete is a mixture of paste and aggregates. The paste, composed of Portland cement and water, coats the surface of the fine and coarse aggregates. Through a chemical reaction called hydration, the paste hardens and gains strength to form the rock-like mass known as concrete. Concrete is the worlds most important construction material. The quality and performance of concrete plays a key role for most of the infrastructures including commercial, industrial, residential and military structures, dams, power plants and transportation systems. Concrete is the single largest manufactured material in the world and accounts for more than 6 billion metric tons of materials annually. In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have nearly $1.5 trillion dollars in investment in the U.S. civil infrastructure. The worldwide use of concrete materials accounts for nearly 780 billion dollars in annual spending [15]. The ability of concrete to be cast to any desired shape and configuration is an important characteristic that can offset other shortcomings. Good quality concrete is a very durable material and should remain maintenance free for many years when it has been properly designed for the service conditions and properly placed. Of course, proper use of the structure for the intended function can have a significant role. Through choice of aggregate or control of paste chemistry and microstructure, concrete can be made inherently resistant to physical attack, such as from cycles of freezing and thawing or from abrasion and from chemical attack such as from dissolved sulfates or acids attacking the paste matrix or from highly alkaline pore solutions attacking the aggregates. Judicious use of mineral admixtures greatly enhances the durability of concrete. The main advantages of concrete as a construction material are the ability to be cast, being economical, durability, fire resistance, energy efficiency, on-site fabrication and its aesthetic properties. Whereas the disadvantages are low tensile strength, low ductility, volume instability and low strength to weight ratio [14]. Numerous advances in all areas of concrete technology including materials, mixture proportioning, recycling, structural design, durability requirements, testing and specifications

have been made. Innovative contracting mechanisms have been considered, explored and tried. Some progresses have been made in utilizing some of these technology innovations. The main concrete making materials are discussed below. 3.1.2 Constituents of Concrete 3.1.2.1 Cement Cement is a generic name that can apply to all binders. The chemical composition of the cements can be quite diverse but by far the greatest amount of concrete used today is made with Portland cements [14]. For this reason, the discussion of cement in this thesis is mainly about the Portland cement. Portland cement, the basic ingredient of concrete, is a closely controlled chemical combination of calcium, silicon, aluminum, iron and small amounts of other ingredients to which gypsum is added in the final grinding process to regulate the setting time of the concrete. Lime and silica make up about 85% of the mass. Common among the materials used in its manufacture are limestone, shells, and chalk or marl combined with shale, clay, slate or blast furnace slag, silica sand, and iron ore. Each step in the manufacturing of portland cement is checked by frequent chemical and physical tests in plant laboratories. The finished product is also analyzed and tested to ensure that it complies with all specifications [16]. The term "Portland" in Portland cement originated in 1824 when an English mason obtained a patent for his product. This was because his cement blend produced concrete that resembled the color of the natural limestone quarried on the Isle of Portland in the English Channel [14]. 3.1.2.1.1 Types of Portland Cements Different types of portland cement are manufactured to meet different physical and chemical requirements for specific purposes. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation C 150 provides for eight types of portland cements [17]. TYPE I Type I is a general-purpose portland cement suitable for all uses where the special properties of other types are not required. It is used where cement or concrete is not subject to specific exposures, such as sulfate attack from soil or water, or to an objectionable temperature rise due to heat generated by hydration. Its uses include pavements and sidewalks, reinforced

concrete buildings, bridges, railway structures, tanks, reservoirs, culverts, sewers, water pipes and masonry units. TYPE II Type II portland cement is used where precaution against moderate sulfate attack is important, as in drainage structures where sulfate concentrations in ground waters are higher than normal but not unusually severe. Type II cement will usually generate less heat at a slower rate than Type I. With this moderate heat of hydration (an optional requirement), Type II cement can be used in structures of considerable mass, such as large piers, heavy abutments, and heavy retaining walls. Its use will reduce temperature rise which is especially important when the concrete is placed in warm weather. TYPE III Type III is a high-early strength portland cement that provides high strengths at an early period, usually a week or less. It is used when forms are to be removed as soon as possible, or when the structure must be put into service quickly. In cold weather, its use permits a reduction in the controlled curing period. Although richer mixtures of Type I cement can be used to gain high early strength, Type III, high early- strength portland cement, may provide it more satisfactorily and more economically. TYPE IA, IIA, IIIA Specifications for three types of air-entraining portland cement (Types IA, IIA, and IIIA) are given in ASTM C 150. They correspond in composition to ASTM Types I, II, and III, respectively, except that small quantities of air-entraining materials are inter ground with the clinker during manufacture to produce minute, well distributed, and completely separated air bubbles. These cements produce concrete with improved resistance to freeze-thaw action. TYPE IV Type IV is a low heat of hydration cement for use where the rate and amount of heat generated must be minimized. It develops strength at a slower rate than Type I cement. Type IV portland cement is intended for use in massive concrete structures, such as large gravity dams, where the temperature rise resulting from heat generated during curing is a critical factor.

10

TYPE V Type V is sulfate-resisting cement used only in concrete exposed to severe sulfate action principally where soils or ground waters have high sulfate content. 3.1.2.2 Aggregates Aggregates generally occupy 70 to 80 % of the volume of concrete and can therefore be expected to have an important influence on its properties. They are granular materials derived for the most part from natural rock and sands. Moreover, synthetic materials such as slag and expanded clay or shale are used to some extent, mostly in lightweight concrete. In addition to their use as economical filler, aggregates generally provide concrete with better dimensional stability and wear resistance. Based on their size, aggregates are divided into coarse and fine fractions. The coarse aggregate fraction is that retained on the 4.75 mm sieve. While the fine aggregate fraction is that passing the same sieve [14]. Based on their origin, aggregates can be classified as natural aggregates and non natural aggregates [1]. 3.1.2.2.1 Natural Aggregates Mineral aggregates consist of sand and gravel, stones and crushed stone. Construction aggregates make up more than 80 percent of the total aggregates market, and are used mainly for road base, rip-rap, cement concrete, and asphalt. In 1998, roughly 3,400 U.S. quarries produced about 1.5 billion tons of crushed stone, of which about 1.2 billion tons was used in construction applications [18]. The sources of mineral aggregates are by directly extracting from the original sources like river basins or by manufacturing them into a desired shape from the parent rock in a crasher mill. It was also found out that manufactured sand offers a viable alternative to the natural sand by providing a higher compressive strength and delivering environmental benefits [19]. All natural aggregate particles are originally formed as part of a larger parent mass. This may have been fragmented by natural processes of weathering and abrasion or artificially by crushing. Thus, many properties of the aggregate depend entirely on the properties of the parent rock, e.g. chemical and mineral composition, specific gravity, hardness, strength, physical and chemical stability, pore structure, and color. On the other hand, there are some properties possessed by the aggregate but absent in the parent rock: particle shape and size, surface texture and absorption. All these properties may have a considerable effect on the quality of the concrete, either in the fresh or in the hardened state [1].

11

3.1.2.2.2 Non Natural Aggregates This category consists of aggregates that are artificial in origin. The reasons for their advent in concrete construction are: i) Environmental considerations are increasingly affecting the supply of aggregate. ii) There are strong objections to opening of pits as well as to quarrying. iii) At the same time, there are problems with the disposal of construction demolition waste and with dumping of domestic waste. However, these types of waste can be processed into aggregate for use in concrete and this is increasingly being done in a number of countries, for example, in the Netherlands [1]. Wide varieties of materials come under the general heading of solid wastes. These range from municipal and household garbage, or building rubble, such as brick and concrete, through unwanted industrial byproducts such as slag and fly ash or discarded or unused materials such as mine tailings [14]. Recycled tire rubbers can be categorized under municipal wastes. Table 3.1 below shows the different solid wastes that have been considered as aggregates for concrete with their composition and the associated industry. Table 3.1 Typical solid wastes that have been considered as aggregate for Concrete [14]. Material Mineral wastes Blast furnace slags Composition Natural rocks Industry Mining processing Silicates or alumino silicates of Iron and Steel calcium glasses Metallurgical slags Bottom ash Fly ash Municipal wastes Incinerator residues Building rubble Silicates, aluminosilicates and glasses Silica glasses Silica glasses Paper, glass, plastics, metals Metal refining Electric power Electric power Commercial and household wastes Container glass and metal and silica Municipal glasses Brick, concrete, reinforcing steel wastes Demolition and Industrial and magnesium silicate and mineral

12

3.1.2.3 Water Water is a key ingredient in the manufacture of concrete. Attention should be given to the quality of water used in concrete. The time-honored rule of thumb for water quality is If you can drink it, you can make concrete with it. A large amount of concrete is made using municipal water supplies. However, good quality concrete can be made with water that would not pass normal standards for drinking water [14]. Mixing water can cause problems by introducing impurities that have a detrimental effect on concrete quality. Although satisfactory strength development is of primary concern, impurities contained in the mix water may also affect setting times, drying shrinkage, or durability or they may cause efflorescence. Water should be avoided if it contains large amounts of dissolved solids, or appreciable amounts of organic materials [14]. 3.1.2.4 Chemical Admixtures Admixtures are ingredients other than water, aggregates, hydraulic cement, and fibers that are added to the concrete batch immediately before or during mixing. A proper use of admixtures offers certain beneficial effects to concrete, including improved quality, acceleration or retardation of setting time, enhanced frost and sulfate resistance, control of strength development, improved workability, and enhanced finish ability. It is estimated that 80% of concrete produced in North America these days contains one or more types of admixtures. According to a survey by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association, 39% of all readymixed concrete producers use fly ash, and at least 70% of produced concrete contains a water-reducer admixture [20]. The ASTM C494 specification covers materials for use as chemical admixtures to be added to hydraulic-cement concrete mixtures in the field for the purpose or purposes indicated by dividing into eight types as follows [16,17]. Type A - Water-Reducing Admixtures This category of admixtures usually reduces the required water content for a concrete mixture by about 5 to 10 percent. Consequently, concrete containing a water-reducing admixture needs less water to reach a required slump than untreated concrete. The treated concrete can have a lower water-cement ratio. This usually indicates that a higher strength concrete can be produced without increasing the amount of cement. Recent advancements in admixture technology have led to the development of mid-range water reducers. These admixtures

13

reduce water content by at least 8 percent and tend to be more stable over a wider range of temperatures. Mid-range water reducers provide more consistent setting times than standard water reducers do. Type B - Retarding Admixtures They slow the setting rate of concrete. Therefore, they are used to counteract the accelerating effect of hot weather on concrete setting. High temperatures often cause an increased rate of hardening which makes placing and finishing difficult. Retarders keep concrete workable during placement and delay the initial set of concrete. Most retarders also function as water reducers and may entrain some air in concrete. Type C- Accelerating Admixtures They increase the rate of early strength development by reducing the time required for proper curing and protection, and speeding up the start of finishing operations. Accelerating admixtures are especially useful for modifying the properties of concrete in cold weather. Type D- Water-Reducing and Retarding Admixtures The purpose of these admixtures are to offset unwanted effects of high temperature, such as acceleration of set and reduction of 28-day compressive strength, and to keep concrete workable during the entire placing and consolidation period. The benefits derived from retarding formulations include the following: 1. Permits greater flexibility in extending the time of set and the prevention of cold joints; 2. Facilitates finishing in hot weather; and 3. Permits full form deflection before initial set of concrete Type E- Water-Reducing and Accelerating admixtures Accelerating admixtures are added to concrete to shorten the setting time and accelerate the early strength development of concrete. Some of the widely used and effective chemicals accelerate the rate of hardening of concrete mixtures. The list includes; calcium chloride, other chlorides, triethanolamine, silicates, fluorides, alkali hydroxide, nitrites, nitrates, formates, bromides, and thiocyanates. The earlier setting time and increased early strength gain of concrete brought about by an accelerating admixture will result in a number of benefits, including reduced bleeding, earlier finishing, improved protection against early exposure to freezing and thawing, earlier use of structure, and reduction of protection time to

14

achieve a given quality. Accelerators do not act as anti-freeze agents; therefore, protection of the concrete at early ages is required when freezing temperatures are expected. Type F- Water-Reducing, high range Admixtures Super plasticizers, also known as plasticizers or high-range water reducers, reduce water content by 12 to 30 percent and can be added to concrete with a low-to-normal slump and water-cement ratio to make high-slump flowing concrete. Flowing concrete is a highly fluid but workable concrete that can be placed with little or no vibration or compaction. The effect of super plasticizers lasts only 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the brand and dosage rate, and is followed by a rapid loss in workability. Because of the slump loss, super plasticizers are usually added to concrete at the jobsite. The primary difference between these admixtures and conventional water-reducing admixtures is that high-range water-reducing (HRWR) admixtures, can reduce the water requirement, without the side effect of excessive retardation. By varying the dosage rate and the amount of mixing water, an HRWR admixture can be used to produce: 1. Concrete of normal workability at a lower w/c ratio; 2. Highly flowable, nearly self-leveling concrete at the same or lower w/c as concrete of normal workability; and 3. A combination of the two; that is, concrete of moderately increased workability with a reduction in the w/cm. When used for the purpose of producing flowing concrete, HRWR admixtures facilitate concrete placement and consolidation. Type G - Water-Reducing, High range, and Retarding Admixtures When the super plasticizers are also retarding, they are called type G admixtures. The admixture manufacturer should be able to provide information covering typical dosage rates, times of setting, and strength gain for local materials and conditions. But it was found out that the rate of application of a particular chemical admixture used has no pronounced effect on the strength of concrete [21].

15

3.2 The Use of Recycled Materials in Concrete Construction

3.2.1 General Waste materials are common problems in modern living. Waste accumulates from a number of sources including domestic, industrial, commercial and construction. These waste materials have to be eventually disposed of in ways that do not endanger human health. In light of this, waste minimization is increasingly seen as an ecologically sustainable strategy for alleviating the need for the disposal of waste materials, which is often costly, time and space consuming, and can also have significant detrimental impacts on the natural environment. Nowadays governments and organizations have been concerned with developing policies and programs to bring about successful outcomes to waste minimization. This is seen as being essential to reduce the total amount of waste materials going into landfill, especially in the urban areas where land is very scarce. The use of recycled materials is often cheaper for the consumers of the end product. Hence, there is also an economic justification for promoting its use. Construction is the largest consumer of natural resources. In addition to being a major consumer of natural resources, the construction industry is also one of the largest generators of waste. Due to the increasing concern of the limited amount of remaining landfill space for disposal, some countries like the UK prompted to introduce the Landfill Tax and a waste strategy in an attempt to secure behavioral changes and meet new waste targets. This tax, together with the aggregates levy has largely encouraged the use of alternative materials in construction. The aggregate levy in the UK is around 1.60 per tone and its main objectives are to reduce the demand for primary aggregates and encourage the use of alternatives [22]. When considering a waste material as a concrete aggregate, three major areas are relevant. The economy, compatibility with other materials, and the concrete properties. The economical use of waste material depends on the quantity available, the amount of transportation required, the extent of the benefits, and the mix design requirements [14]. The use of recycled materials generated from transportation, industrial, municipal and mining processes in transportation facilities is an issue of great importance. Recycled concrete aggregates and slag aggregates are being used where appropriate. As the useable sources for natural aggregates for concrete are depleted, utilization of these products will increase. Utilization of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (ggbs) in concrete addresses

16

this issue in addition to improving concrete properties. The replacement of Portland cement by fly ash or ggbs reduces the volume of cement utilized which is a major benefit since cement manufacturing is a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Silica fume is a comparatively expensive product and it is added in smaller quantities in concrete mixture rather than as a cement replacement [15]. It was also emphasized that the possibility of using solid wastes as aggregates in concrete serves as one promising solution to the escalating solid waste problem. The use of concrete for the disposal of solid wastes has concentrated mostly on aggregates, since they provide the only real potential for using large quantities of waste materials [14]. The effect of waste materials on concrete properties must be considered. For example, the lower modulus of elasticity of glass compared to that of good quality rock will lower the elastic modulus of concrete. Crushed recycled concrete has been used as an aggregate, producing concrete with strength and stiffness equal to about two-thirds of that obtained using natural aggregates. These effects will be much more pronounced if low strength, low modulus materials such as rubber and plastics are used. Scrapped tires have been proposed for use in concretes where high resiliency rather than strength are required [14]. All of these applications greatly emphasize the different attempts of using recycled materials in concrete and their respective advantages achieved so far. One of todays major problems and which will continue to do so for the foreseeable future is the environmental pollution resulting from industrial wastes and waste living materials. Particularly among the waste materials in the advancement of civilization are discarded waste tires. The main reason for this is that the amount of waste tires is increasing at an alarming rate due to the large number of cars and trucks. 3.2.2 Recycling of Waste Tires 3.2.2.1 Composition of a Tire A tire is an assembly of numerous components that are built up on a drum and then cured in a press under heat and pressure. Heat facilitates a polymerization reaction that crosslinks rubber monomers to create long elastic molecules. These polymers create the elastic quality that permits the tire to be compressed in the area where the tire contacts the road surface and spring back to its original shape under high-frequency cycles [23].

17

The fundamental materials of modern tires are rubber and fabric along with other compound chemicals. Their constructive make-up consists of the tread and the body. The tread provides traction while the body ensures support. Before rubber was invented, the first versions of tires were simply bands of metal that fit around wooden wheels in order to prevent wear and tear. The most recent and popular type of tire is pneumatic, pertaining to a fitted rubber based ring that is used as an inflatable cushion and generally filled with compressed air. Pneumatic tires are used on many types of vehicles [24]. Table 3.2 below shows the typical composition of a passenger tire and track tire respectively by listing the major classes of materials used to manufacture tires with the percentage of the total weight of the finished tire that each material class represents. From the percentage values of the composition, it can be observed that the main difference between the passenger car and truck car is in the composition of natural rubber and synthetic rubber. Otherwise, the other constituent materials are added in the same quantity for both types. Table 3.2 Percentage Composition of Materials for a Passenger and a Truck car [24]. Material Natural rubber Synthetic rubber Carbon black Steel Fabric, fillers, accelerators, antiozonants, etc. passenger car 14 % 27 % 28 % 14-15 % 16-17 % Truck car 27 % 14 % 28 % 14-15 % 16-17 %

3.2.2.2 The Need for Recycling of Waste Tires Properly handled, scrap tires do not present any major environmental problems. If improperly handled however, scrap tires can be a major threat to the environment. Tires exposed to the elements can hold water and be a breeding space for mosquitoes that carry disease. Tire piles can be set on fire through arson or accident. These fires are difficult to put out, and produce heavy smoke and toxic run off to waterways. Tire piles can also harbor other vermin, such as rats and snakes [13].

18

In the past waste tires were greatly used as a fuel source and they have been one of the major markets for scrap tires. However, landfills became the most popular low-cost option for disposal of tires after using them as a fuel source was prohibited in many countries due to their high amount of environmental pollution. The scrap tire recovery rate declined, promoting new legislation that supported research into methods for increasing tire recovery, reuse, and recycling. As states reduce tire stockpiles and subsequently shift the focus of their legislation concerning scrap tire management, scrap tire markets will likely be strengthened and encouraged [25]. Different countries have a variety of strategies and methods regarding scrap tire management. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that approximately 270 million scrap tires per annum are discarded in the US, adding to stockpiles totaling 2-3 billion tires around the country [22]. The disposal of waste tires represents a major issue in the solid waste dilemma because there are more than 242,000,000 scrap tires, approximately one tire per person and equivalent to 3 million tons, generated each year in the United States alone [12,26]. It was stated that, in the U.S.A, State legislation regarding scrap tires was initiated in the 1990s to combat problems related to the disposal of tires in landfills and piles. Currently, scrap tire management is governed by state legislation in all but two states in the United States. Many states are actively working to clean up tire piles, 38 states ban whole tires from landfills, and 11 states ban all scrap tires from landfills. More recent amendments to original scrap tire legislation represent a shift in the focus of tire legislation toward reducing the obstacles of developing scrap tire markets. The details of these amendments vary from state to state. For example, Oregon passed legislation to create a Waste Tire Program. The legislation did not ban tires from landfills, but created a $1 fee on each new tire sold at retail price. The revenue from this fee was allocated to scrap tire-recycling programs. The legislation and the programs were successful for several years and recovery rates for scrap tires reached 98% [25]. Management of waste tires is also a big concern in the European countries. The EU Directive on End of Life Vehicles also specifies targets for increasing reuse and recovery within this waste stream. There are several established markets which will have to absorb those tires that would have gone to landfill before the new legislation was introduced. If arisings of used tires do not fall then these markets should either have to expand their consumption or new markets should be developed for them [22]. Landfill disposal of scrap tires is becoming increasingly

19

difficult and the EU Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC The Landfill Directive) enforced that: The disposal of whole tires to landfill was banned since July 2003 and the disposal of shredded tires to was banned starting from July 2006. This ban does not include where tires are used in engineering applications for the development of a landfill site [27]. In the UK, Concentrating on solutions for post-consumer tires was considered vital because of the immediate challenge of the landfill directive which banned the disposal of whole tires to landfill and also prohibited shredded tires later. It is estimated that 4Mt of waste tire is generated each year in the UK and only 200,000t is currently recycled [22]. Currently only about 4.5% of tires are recycled in civil engineering applications. These tend to be smallscale applications in single projects. However, the potential market in civil engineering applications is enormous because about 1.8bn is spent annually in the UK on concrete products. In 2008, Singaporeans discarded about 6 million tons of waste tire, of which 56% was recycled, most of it from the commercial and industrial sectors. Considering the limited land area of Singapore (approximately 680 km2), it is part of its strategy to abolish landfill sites altogether and reduce the need for additional incineration plants, so as to increase the current 56% recycling rate to 60% by 2012. It is also reported that New Zealand produces around 3 million waste tires per year, with estimates varying from 2.2 to 4 million waste tires per year and the country is currently looking for different alternatives for recycling waste tires with a more emphasis given to engineering applications. Currently, New Zealand does have some waste tire processors that shred tires either to render them acceptable for land filling or to provide tire chips for such purposes as playground surface cover, drainage material, horse arena surfaces, embankment construction and land erosion control [27]. Coming to the Ethiopian experience, like in most developing countries tire recycling in our country is practiced informally. Tire recyclers are part of the informal sector manufacturers that also includes artisans, weavers, service providers etc. The sector provides goods that are substitute to conventional products produced in industries, which are beyond reach to most customers. Moreover, it provides employment and income to many. The culture of recycling seems to have taken naturally from collection to the final stage of producing recyclable materials. It is a common practice to separate solid waste at household level for sale, which for most low-income groups is a source of income.

20

According to the tire recyclers, tire-recycling dates to the time cars emerged in Ethiopia. It is said to have started in Asmara in 1928. During the Italian invasion an Italian individual, whose name is difficult to trace today, introduced the technique of using waste tires for recycling. And then two individuals brought the technique to the capital city in 1962. It has taken almost 34 years for the practice to reach Addis Ababa from Asmara. An elderly tire recycler recalls that there were only two types of shoes produced from old tire: bale'kertas kene'matcha and sandals. The bale'kertas kene'matcha is a special type of shoe made to resist hard surface in the countryside [28]. A sandal is a type of shoe with a buckle. It is strong, durable, and expensive. Then an Italian introduced a cheaper kind giving the name berebaso. The berebaso sandals were worn during the Italian invasion. Even today, it is still a popular shoe in some rural areas. It is given different names in different parts of the country (chefere, legibe, anekew, shebet etc.) [28]. Today, the way these sandals are made is changed. It is made in a simple way with traditional tools. A place with a name of "Goma Tera" in Addis is where old, large and small tires are recycled. They pay between 30 and 60 birr for old tires. Old tires are obtained from car owners selling their old tires, tire-repairing garages (Gomistas), auction at Matador Addis Tire Factory, governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Out of these old tires, they make shoe soles, heels and straps, sandals, doormats, stool and chair seats, conveyor belts, ceiling divider etc. The wires are used for fencing, making egg holders (containers). The strings out of the tire are used for musical instruments, thread (jeemat) coming out from the tire is used for sewing shoes, bags, etc. The leftover bits and pieces from recycled tires are bought by road constructors and used as fuel to melt the tar (asphalt). Thus in the past times, each part of old tires are either recycled or recovered. But according to the recyclers the need for these products are decreasing nowadays mainly due to modernization and the change in the living condition of the urban people. The Ethiopian tire and rubber economy plant plc is the pioneer company in Ethiopia in reprocessing of tires. The company has stayed in the business for more than 45 years. The company produces tiles, neolin sheets, car mats, foot mats, microcellular sheets, sandal, billiard rubber etc from rubber and tire [29]. Recently, the Ethiopian government made a proclamation regarding used tires on the Federal negarit gazette no.13 February 2007 under solid waste management proclamation No. 513/2007 article 9. And it states that [30]:

21

i) The importation of used tires into Ethiopian territory for the purpose of disposal is prohibited. ii) The importation of used tires for environmentally acceptable use shall be determined by directives issued by the authority. The modern approach to assessing the total environmental resource cost of a product or industry is to calculate the mass balance of natural resources consumed and wastes produced over the lifetime of the product or process under scrutiny [18]. A great resource use is associated with tire use, particularly the fuel used to overcome the rolling resistance of tires. As a result the greatest outputs are emissions (CO2 and H2O) resulting from fuel combustion. Hence, the recycling of waste tires and using them in a more usable form is mandatory at the current time. Post-consumer tires possess properties that make them very suitable for use as an alternative to primary and secondary aggregates in a number of different applications. Post-consumer, or used tires are those that have come to the end of their useful life in terms of their intended use. Materials that come to the end of their normal working life will become waste, and require some form of treatment or disposal. 3.2.2.3 Methods of Recycling Tires The numerous techniques and technologies available for processing postconsumer tires are enumerated below [3]. 1. Shredding and Chipping: This is mechanical shredding of the tires first in to bigger sizes and then into particles of 20 30 mm in size. 2. Crumbing: It is the processing of the tire into fine granular or powdered particles using mechanical or cryogenic processes. The steel and fabric component of the tires are also removed during this process. 3. DeVulcanising: This is the treatment of tire with heat and chemicals to reverse the vulcanisation process in the original tire production. 4. Pyrolysis and Gasification: These are two thermal decomposition processes carried out under different conditions. The processes produce gas, oil, steel, and carbon black (char). 5. Energy Recovery: It is the incineration of tires to generate energy. 3.2.2.4 Benefits of Recycled Tires A wide range of potential sectors which can benefit from using rubber from waste tires are identified. The areas were grouped into five classes [3].

22

a) Civil engineering, non-road b) Civil engineering, road and infrastructure c) Sport, safety and outdoor surfaces d) Consumer and industrial products, and e) Energy The proposed benefits of using waste tires in construction are three-fold: a) They can offer distinct engineering benefits over traditional aggregates. b) They can be used as an alternative to primary materials thereby reducing an environmental burden on extraction. c) Their use can help to reduce burden of waste disposal (including illegal stockpiling and disposal, such as fly-tipping, with their associated risks) and the impacts on the environment associated with some other uses of tires [22]. Waste tires have hardness and elasticity properties superior to those of rubber, good resistance to weathering, can be used for preventing impact damage, and as a pavement making material, because of their low specific gravity which is lower than most construction materials [31]. Crumb rubber from shredded tires has been successfully added to asphalt and is widely used. For example, it was used as a wearing course in Arizona and in two Colorado pilot projects. However, the addition of rubber to concrete is a newer technology [10]. The following section discusses the application of recycled tires in concrete.

3.3 Material constituents of Rubberized Concrete 3.3.1 General

The production of concrete using waste tire rubber added in different volume proportions is a very infant technology. Partially replacing the coarse or fine aggregate of concrete with some quantity of small waste tire cubes can improve qualities such as low unit weight, high resistance to abrasion, absorbing the shocks and vibrations, high ductility and so on to the concrete. Moreover, the inclusion of rubber into concrete results in higher resilience, durability and elasticity. In constructions that are subject to impact effects the use of rubberized concrete will be beneficial due to the altered state of its properties [2]. 3.3.2 Rubber Aggregate Rubber aggregates are obtained by reduction of scrap tires to aggregate sizes using two general processing technologies: mechanical grinding or cryogenic grinding. Mechanical

23

grinding is the most common process. This method consists of using a variety of grinding techniques such as cracker mills and granulators to mechanically break down the rubber shred into small particle sizes ranging from several centimeters to fractions of a centimeter. The steel bead and wire mesh in the tires is magnetically separated from the crumb during the various stages of granulation, and sieve shakers separate the fiber in the tire [13]. Cryogenic processing is performed at a temperature below the glass transition temperature. This is usually accomplished by freezing of scrap tire rubber using liquid nitrogen. The cooled rubber is extremely brittle and is fed directly into a cooled closed loop hammer-mill to be crushed into small particles with the fiber and steel removed in the same way as in mechanical grinding. The whole process takes place in the absence of oxygen, so surface oxidation is not a consideration. Because of the low temperature used in the process, the crumb rubber derived from the process is not altered from the original material [13]. At the early stages of research related to the use of recycled tires, chips were available and most of the time the particles contained steel wires and polyester fibers. With the advances in technology, now the recyclers are capable of removing all the wires and polyester fibers. In addition, the tire chips that were used at the early stages are disappearing and being replaced by crumbed rubber which has small or no residue of fibers and wires [32]. This tire crumb, a high specification product available in a range of grading from 0.5 mm to 30 mm, has been used by manufacturers and installers in the construction industry for around twenty-five years and the annual consumption continues to increase year on year [33]. Shredded tires can be used as filler material for soils, foundations and pavements. Crumbed or pulverized tire rubber can be combined with other polymeric material to form mats, playground tiles, or road barriers among others. By itself, it can be used as an aggregate for asphalt pavements or concrete mixes. Similar to the recycling of polymers, a solution is to substitute part of the aggregate in concrete mixes with pulverized tire rubber or shredded tires [32]. The idea of using tires as aggregates initially emerged from the reason that they have physical properties that can be substituted for existing materials, or because their properties provide an advantage over existing materials. These include; Durability, low unit weight, high hydraulic conductivity, low horizontal stress, flexibility for construction and thermal resistivity [27]. Concrete can be made by replacing some of its fine or coarse aggregate with granulated rubber crumbs from used rubber tires. These granulated rubber crumbs are achieved through

24

a process of cutting the tire rubber to create crumbs small enough to replace an aggregate as fine as sand or as coarse as gravel. Such kind of concrete is used in the manufacture of reinforced pavements and bridge structures and have a better resistance to frost and ice thawing [27]. In an experiment by Kumaran S.G. et al, two rubberized concrete mixes were developed using fine rubber granules in one mix and coarse rubber granules in the second. While these two mixes were not optimized and their design parameters were selected arbitrarily, their results indicated a reduction in compressive strength of about 50 % with respect to the control mixture. The elastic modulus of the mix containing coarse rubber granules was reduced to about 72 % of that of the control mixture. Whereas, the mix containing the fine rubber granular showed a reduction in the elastic modulus to about 47 % of that of the control mixture. The reduction in elastic modulus indicates higher flexibility, which may be viewed as a positive gain in rubberized concrete mixtures used as stabilized base layers in flexible pavements [2]. The starting point for this experiment was the works of other researchers who used crumbed waste tire fibers (average length 12.5 mm) and short polypropylene fibers (length from 12-10 mm) to modify concrete [2]. The research was conducted using the grade of cement 53, to improve the strength and fine sand plus coarse aggregate of a combination of 10 mm and 20 mm. The waste tire rubber was used in the form of chips and fibers by partially replacing the coarse aggregate with 0, 5, 10, 20 and 25 % values. Figure 3.1 below shows the waste tires chips used in the above mentioned experiment as a partial replacement of coarse aggregate in the concrete. The size of the waste tire chips were 25, 50 and 75 mm by 7 mm with an anchorage hole of different diameters.

Fig. 3.1 Samples of Coarse granules of Waste Tire [2]

25

Ling T.C. and Hasanan M.N. conducted a research using crumb rubber produced by mechanical shredding as a fine material with the gradation close to that of natural sand. In this study, two particle sizes of crumb rubber were used: 1-3 mm and 3-5 mm as a partial substitute for sand in the production of concrete paving block [34]. Figure 3.2 below shows the mechanically shredded fine tires.

Fig. 3.2 Mechanically Shredded Fine Tires [34] A research by Yunping Xi et al used two types of rubber particles of different sizes (large and small to study the size effect on mechanical properties of rubberized concrete. The average size of large particles was 4.12 mm, and the average size of small particles was 1.85 mm. The test results indicated that the particle size used in this study has no significant effect on compressive strength, brittleness and toughness of the concrete produced [35]. Figure 3.3 below shows rubber cuts of 4.12 mm.

Fig. 3.3 Tire Rubber Cuts of 4.12 mm [35] In a quite different manner, a study by Prakash P. et al has used crumb rubber to replace cement. The focus of the experimental program was to investigate the performance of Cement Stabilized Soil Blocks with treated crumb rubber as a partial replacement of cement

26

to produce cement stabilized soil blocks. By using cement as a binder and conventional soil cement stabilized blocks production process, the treated crumb rubber cement stabilized soil blocks were more durable and absorbed higher energy under impact [7]. Mixtures can be made using ground tire in partial replacement by volume of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate. Based on the workability, an upper level of 50 % of the total aggregate volume may be used. Strength data developed in an investigation (compressive and flexural) indicates a systematic reduction in the strength with the increase of rubber content. From a practical viewpoint, rubber content should not exceed 20 % of the aggregate volume due to severe reduction in strength. Once the aggregate matrix contains nontraditional components such as polymer additives, fibers, iron slag, and other waste materials, special provisions would be required to design and produce these modified mixes [2]. Most investigators replaced either the fine or coarse aggregates in the concrete mixes partially or wholly by volume of rubber aggregate. Ling T. C. et al used natural aggregates which include natural river sand as the fine aggregate and crushed granite with nominal size less than 10 mm as the coarse aggregate and finally replaced part of the fine aggregate with a rubber aggregate [34]. Gintautas S. et al also used crumb rubber as fine aggregate replacement [6]. And Kaloush K.E. et al also used crumb rubber particles sizes of about 1 mm [4]. Whereas Michelle Danko et al used recycled tires as a partial replacement of coarse aggregate to produce rubberized concrete [26]. Preparing waste tire powders and thin tire fibers is time, effort and money consuming. Sometimes the cost may be so high that it cannot be justified by its gain in performance. Because larger sized chips or fibers are very easy to produce, it is expected that the cost of larger sized chips or fiber-modified concrete will be very low. Indeed, waste tire chips and fiber is uniquely different to other waste materials, because its production method does not require any sophisticated machineries and it is easy to handle it economically. Much debate is still rising on whether recycled rubber is better used as a fine aggregate or as a coarse aggregate. However, whatever the case it may be, one thing is clear so far i.e. the introduction of recycled rubber aggregate changes the properties of concrete [26].

27

3.3.2.1 Surface Treatment of Rubber Aggregates Studies have suggested that the rougher the rubber aggregate used in concrete mixtures the better the bonding developed between the particles and the surrounding matrix, and therefore the higher the compressive strength achieved. If the bond between rubber aggregate and the surrounding cement paste is improved, then significantly higher compressive strength of rubberized concrete could be obtained and to achieve enhanced adhesion, it is necessary to pre-treat the rubber aggregate [13]. Pre-treatments vary from washing rubber aggregate with water to acid etching, plasma pretreatment and various coupling agents. The acid pretreatment involves soaking the rubber aggregate in an acid solution for 5 minutes and then rinsing it in water. It was reported that when observed through a microscope, the pre-treatment of rubber aggregate with acid increased the surface roughness of rubber, which had improved its attachment to the cement paste [13]. According to Neville A.M., it is generally found that as the paste aggregate bond increases so does the strength [1]. In rubberized concrete, the strength loss of the concrete is minimized, and the toughness of the concrete is enhanced by surface treatment of the rubber particles using coupling agents. Yunping Xi et al suggested that an 8 % silica fume pretreatment on the surface of rubber particles could improve properties of rubberized mortars. On the other hand, directly using silica fume to replace equal amount (weight) of cement in concrete mix has the same effect. Saturated NaOH solution can also be used to treat waste tire rubber powders. It was found that NaOH surface treatment increased rubber/cement paste interfacial bonding strength and resulted in an improvement in strength and toughness in waste tire powder modified cement mortar [35]. Michelle Danko et al applied pre-treating of the rubber with a sodium hydroxide solution to modify its surface, affecting the interfacial transition zone and allowing the rubber to better adhere with the cement paste. The use of treated tire rubber as addition to cement paste shows satisfactory results in concrete mechanical properties such as impact resistance and ductility [26]. Carbon tetrachloride was also utilized for pretreatment of rubber aggregates. It was attempted to clean the rubber using water and carbon tetrachloride (CCL4) solvent and water and a latex admixture cleaner. Results show that concrete containing washed rubber aggregate achieved about 16% higher compressive strength than concrete containing untreated rubber aggregates.

28

A much larger improvement in compressive strength (about 57%) was obtained when rubber aggregates treated with CCL4 were used [13]. The other method employed two coating system: coating with cement paste and coating with Methocel cellulose ether solution, a water-soluble polymer derived from cellulose. However, it was found that, although coating the rubber aggregate with cement paste can increase the compressive strength of the mixture by 30%, little improvement in flexural strength was observed compared with rubberized concrete containing plain rubber aggregate. Little improvement was observed when using rubber aggregate coated with Methocel. The use of Methocel reduced the compaction of the fresh concrete due to the high viscosity of the rubberized solution. This coating might also hinder the further hydration of the cement during curing and thus can further affect the compressive strength of the concrete. Later on, a single coating with cement paste only was experimented by Cairns R. et al. They had used coating with a rich mix of cement paste and allowed it to sufficiently dry by exposing it to air. The results showed that rubber aggregate coated with cement paste has improved properties [13]. The overall results show that using proper coupling agents to treat the surface of rubber particles is a promising technique, which produces a high performance material suitable for many engineering applications. 3.3.3 Natural Aggregates in Rubberized Concrete Rubberized concrete is produced by partially replacing the mineral aggregates with rubber. Therefore, the mineral aggregates are still part of the constituents as in the conventional concrete. Natural aggregates are usually obtained by mining or from natural sources like river in the case of sand. The coarse and fine aggregates are usually mined separately. Occasionally, aggregate is obtained as a by-product of some other processes (e.g., slag or recycled concrete). Aggregates may be crushed and may be washed [19]. They are usually separated into various size fractions and reconstituted to satisfy the grading requirements. They may need to be dried. A modest amount of energy is involved in all these processes. There is no specialty in the type of mineral aggregates used in rubberized concrete. The discussion in section 3.1.2.2.1 of this literature review is also applicable here.

29

3.3.4 Cement in Rubberized Concrete The choice of cement for a particular application depends on the availability, the cost and on the particular circumstances of equipment, skilled labor force, speeds of construction and of course on the exigencies of the structure and its environment [1]. Wide varieties of cements were used to produce rubberized concrete by different researchers. Ling T.C. and Hasanan M.N. used ordinary Portland cement in their research [34]. Ordinary Portland cement is suitable for many applications and it can also be used conveniently in rubberized concrete. On the other hand, Kumaran S.G et al used recycled tire rubber in concrete mixes made with magnesium oxychloride cement, where the aggregate was replaced by fine crumb rubber up to 25% by volume. The results of compressive and tensile strength tests indicated that there is better bonding when magnesium oxychloride cement is used. The researchers discovered that structural applications could be possible if the rubber content is limited to 17% by volume of the aggregate [2]. Cairns R. et al reported that the type of cement used in rubberized concrete mixtures greatly affects the mechanical strength. Recycled tire rubber aggregates were used in concrete mixtures made with both Magnesium Oxychloride Cement (MOC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). The percentage substitution of fine aggregate ranged from zero to 90 %, increasing by 15% for each set. It was observed that 90% loss of the compressive strength occurred for both the OPC rubberized concrete and MOC rubberized concrete when rubber was replaced by 90% of the fine aggregate (25% of the total aggregate). Whether with or without rubber aggregate inclusion, the MOC concrete exhibited approximately 2.5 times the compressive strength of the OPC concrete. The OPC concrete samples containing 25% of rubber by total aggregate volume retained 20% of their splitting tensile strength after initial failure, whereas the MOC concrete samples with similar rubber content retained 34% of their splitting tensile strength after initial failure. The ratio of the MOC rubberized concrete tensile strength to OPC rubberized concrete tensile strength rose from 1.6 to 2.8 with increased amounts of rubber. They argued that the high-strength and bonding characteristics provided by Magnesium Oxychloride cement greatly improved the performance of rubberized concrete mixtures and that structural applications could be possible if the rubber content is limited to 17% by total volume of the aggregate [13]. All the above studies show that a careful attention needs to be given to the type of cement to be used in rubberized concrete before starting the concrete mix preparation.

30

3.3.5 Admixtures in rubberized concrete The development of chemical admixtures has revolutionized concrete technology in the last fifty years. The use of air entraining admixtures, accelerators, retarders, water reducers and corrosion inhibitors are commonly used for bridges and pavements. To improve the strength characteristics and other mechanical properties of rubberized concrete, some admixtures (chemical or mineral) can be added as a partial replacement of cement to get more workability and strength enhancement of rubberized concrete [2]. 3.3.6 Water in rubberized concrete No special considerations are necessary for the use of water in the production of rubberized concrete. The discussion in section 3.1.2.3 of this literature review is also applicable for this part.

3.4 Properties of Fresh Rubberized Concrete

3.4.1 Aesthetics Cairns R. et al found that rubberized concrete showed good aesthetic qualities. The appearance of the finished surface was similar to that of ordinary concrete and surface finishing was not problematic. However, the authors reported that mixes containing a high percentage of larger sized rubber aggregate required more work to smooth the finished surface. They also found that the color of rubberized concrete did not differ noticeably from that of ordinary concrete. However, occasionally spots of rubber came to the surface, and need to push the pieces back down when working the finish [13]. 3.4.2 Workability A decrease in slump was observed with increase in rubber aggregate content. For rubber aggregate contents of 40% by total aggregate volume, the slump was close to zero and the concrete was not workable by hand. Such mixtures had to be compacted using a mechanical vibrator. Mixtures containing fine crumb rubber were, however, more workable than mixtures containing either coarse rubber aggregate or a combination of crumb rubber and tire chips [13]. It was found that increasing the size or percentage of rubber aggregate decreased the workability of the mix and subsequently caused a reduction in the slump values obtained. From the same study, it was noted that the size of the rubber aggregate and its shape (mechanical grinding produces long angular particles) affected the measured slump [13].

31

Rubber filled concrete tends to have a reduction in slump and density compared to ordinary Portland cement concrete. Reduction of around 85% on slump has been reported when comparing traditional aggregate concrete with mixes containing recycled rubber. Other researchers found out that roughly textured, angular, and elongated particles require more water to produce workable concrete than smooth, rounded compact aggregate [26,36]. The slump values of mixes containing long, angular rubber aggregate were lower than those for mixes containing round rubber aggregate (cryogenic grindings). Round rubber aggregate has a lower surface/volume ratio. Therefore, less mortar will be needed to coat the aggregates, leaving more to provide workability. The angular rubber aggregates form an interlocking structure resisting the normal flow of concrete under its own weight; hence, these mixes show less fluidity. It is also possible that the presence of the steel wires protruding from the tire chips also contributed to the reduction in the workability of the concrete mix [13]. 3.4.3 Air content There is a higher air content in concrete mixtures containing rubber when compared to control mixtures. Even without any air-entrainment admixtures being introduced, it has been reported that the air content is significant. The higher air content of rubberized concrete mixtures may be due to the non-polar nature of rubber aggregates and their ability to entrap air in their jagged surface texture. When non-polar rubber aggregate is added to the concrete mixture, it may attract air as it repels water [26]. This increase in air voids content would certainly produce a reduction in concrete strength, as does the presence of air voids in plain concrete [1]. Since rubber has a specific gravity greater than 1, it can be expected to sink rather than float in the fresh concrete mix. However, if air is trapped in the jagged surface of the rubber aggregates, it could cause them to float. Cairns R. et al have observed this segregation of rubber aggregate particles in practice [13].

3.5 Properties of Hardened Rubberized Concrete

3.5.1 Unit Weight The replacement of natural aggregates with rubber aggregates tends to reduce the density of the concrete. This reduction is attributable to the lower unit weight of rubber aggregate compared to ordinary aggregate. The unit weight of rubberized concrete mixtures decreases as the percentage of rubber aggregate increases [26]. The unit weight (density) of concrete

32

varies, depending on the amount and density of the aggregate, the amount of air that is entrapped or purposely entrained, and the water and cement contents, which in turn are influenced by the maximum size of the aggregate. Because of low specific gravity of rubber particles, unit weight of mixtures containing rubber decreases with the increases in the percentage of rubber content. Moreover, increase in rubber content increases the air content, which in turn reduces the unit weight of the mixtures. At 30% rubber content, the dry density diminished to about 95 % of the normal concrete. However, the decrease in dry density of rubber is negligible when rubber content is lower than 10-20 % of the total aggregate volume [34]. The reduction in the unit weight of the rubberized concrete mix increases as the percentage crumb rubber added increases [2, 4]. 3.5.2 Compressive Strength Compressive strength tests are widely accepted as the most convenient means of quality control of the concrete produced. Tests conducted by Kumaran S.G. et al on rubberized concrete behavior, using tire chips and crumb rubber as aggregate substitute of sizes 38, 25 and 19 mm exhibited reduction in compressive strength by 85% and tensile splitting strength by 50% but showed the ability to absorb a large amount of plastic energy under tensile and compressive loads [2]. Kaloush K.E. et al also noted that the compressive strength decreased as the rubber content increased. Part of the strength reduction was contributed by the entrapped air, which increases as the rubber content increases. Investigative efforts showed that the strength reduction could be substantially reduced by adding a de-airing agent into the mixing truck just prior to the placement of the concrete [4]. In another study by Ling T.C. and Hasanan M.N, test results have shown that there was a systematic reduction in the compressive strength with the increase in rubber content from 0 % to 30 % [34]. According to Felipe J.A. and Jeannette Santos, a maximum strength reduction of 50% was noted for a mix with 14% substitution in their studies [32]. Nevertheless, in a very different approach, Hanson aggregates achieved higher compressive strength in crumb rubber concrete by reducing entrapped air in the mix [10].

33

In most of the previous studies, a reduction in compressive strength was noted with the addition of rubber aggregate in the concrete mix but there is still a possibility of greatly improving the compressive strength by using de-airing agents [1]. 3.5.3 Tensile Strength The tensile strength of rubber containing concrete is affected by the size, shape, and surface textures of the aggregate along with the volume being used indicating that the strength of concretes decreases as the volume of rubber aggregate increases [26]. As the rubber content increased, the tensile strength decreased, but the strain at failure also increased. Higher tensile strain at failure is indicative of more energy absorbent mixes [4]. Tests conducted on rubberized concrete behavior, using tire chips and crumb rubber as aggregate substitute of sizes 38, 25 and 19 mm exhibited reduction in splitting tensile strength by 50% but showed the ability to absorb a large amount of plastic energy under tensile loads [2]. 3.5.4 Impact Strength and other mechanical properties Previous investigations have shown that the addition of rubber aggregate into the concrete mixture produces an improvement in toughness, plastic deformation, impact resistance and cracking resistance of the concrete. For concrete, it is found that the higher the strength, the lower the toughness. It is difficult to develop high strength and high toughness concrete without modifications. Owing to the very high toughness of waste tires, it is expected that adding crumb rubber into concrete mixture can increase the toughness of concrete considerably. Laboratory tests have shown that the introduction of waste tire rubber considerably increase toughness, impact resistance, and plastic deformation of concrete [34]. An analysis was carried out on rubberized concrete that used 15% replacement of waste tire for an equal volume of mineral coarse aggregate. It was used as a two phase material as tire fiber and chips dispersed in concrete mix. The result is that there is an increase in toughness, plastic deformation, impact resistance and cracking resistance. However, the strength and stiffness of the rubberized sample were reduced. The control concrete disintegrated when peak load was reached while the rubberized concrete had considerable deformation without disintegration due to the bridging caused by the tires. The stress concentration in the rubber fiber modified concrete is smaller than that in the rubber chip modified concrete. This means the rubber fiber modified concrete can bear a higher load than the rubber chip modified concrete before the concrete matrix breaks [2].

34

Using rubber waste in concrete, less concrete module of elasticity is obtained. Modulus of elasticity is related to concrete compressive strength and the elastic properties of aggregates have substantial effect on the modulus of elasticity of concrete. The larger the amount of rubber additives added to concrete, the lesser the modulus of elasticity [6]. It is hypothesized that rubber crumbs may function as a distribution of mini expansion joints inside the concrete. Thus, the crumb rubber concrete may exhibit good characteristics in controlling crack initiation and propagation. To evaluate this hypothesis further, in January 2003, the first of several test slabs was built. The slab contained crumb rubber consisting of 25% of the concrete mix by volume and it was placed without any joints in the laboratory. No shrinkage cracks have been observed. The intended use of the slab was to serve as a truck parking facility. The results show that the crumb rubber concrete mix had more ductility and comparable toughness values as to the control mix [4]. Results of tension test, fatigue test and ultrasound velocity test showed that the rubberized concrete has higher energy dissipation capacities than regular concrete, that is, the resulting concrete has high toughness and high ductility. The failure modes of the rubberized concrete indicate that the rubber concrete samples can withhold very large deformation and still keep their integrity [35]. It was also stated that Concrete containing rubber aggregate has a higher energy absorbing capacity referred to as toughness. In all failure tests, the crumb rubber concrete specimens stayed intact (did not shatter) indicating that the rubber particles may be absorbing forces acting upon it [26]. Such behavior may be beneficial for a structure that requires good impact resistance properties. The increase was more pronounced in concrete samples containing larger-size rubber aggregates [4, 13]. Hence, from the studies so far, the use of rubberized concrete can be a very feasible and realistic approach in applications where a higher toughness and impact strength is required. 3.5.5 Flexural Strength Kaloush K.E. et al found that the flexural strengths of rubberized concrete decreased as the rubber content in the mix increased [4]. On the contrary, Kang Jingfu et al reported that there is an improvement in flexural strength by the addition of rubber aggregates in roller compacted concrete. In comparison with the control concrete, when the compressive strength was kept constant for roller compacted concrete, the flexural strength, and ultimate tension elongation increased with the increase of rubber content [37].

35

3.6 Applications of Rubberized Concrete

There is a growing evidence for the feasibility of substituting waste tire rubber with a portion of natural aggregate in concrete production. While very little rubber from used tires goes into the production of new tires, hosts of other products made from recycled tire rubber have come to market in many areas of applications. Chips of shredded tire rubber are used as a fill in engineering projects. More finely cut and screened tire rubber is used in playground and landscaping areas. Crumb rubber is used to make better asphalt, while rubber mixed with urethane is used to make athletic track surfaces and a variety of molded products. The crumb rubber market has been one of the fastestgrowing scrap tire markets over the last few years [7]. Among the largest projects that utilized higher contents of crumb rubber in concrete was an experimental outdoor tennis court in Phoenix. Leading to the final construction of this tennis court, a series of experimental test slabs (0.61m x 1.22m in size, with a thickness of 5 to 8 cm) were built in January 2003 with rubber content varying between 20 to 130 kg of crumb rubber per m3 of concrete. The experimental testing program included compressive strength, flexural strength, indirect tensile strength, and thermal coefficient of expansion tests. The preliminary results were very encouraging [4]. The introduction of waste tire rubber considerably increased toughness, impact resistance, and plastic deformation of concrete, offering a great potential for it to be used in sound/crash barriers, retaining structures and pavement structures. A study revealed that it is possible to fabricate block containing rubber up to 30 % by sand volume using chemical and mineral admixtures, which gives better bonding characteristics to rubber and significantly improves the performance of crumb rubber concrete paving block [34]. New Zealand does have some current waste tire processors that shred tires either to render them acceptable for land filling or to provide tire chips for such purposes as playground surface cover, drainage material, horse arena surfaces, embankment construction and land erosion control [27]. There are also uses of rubberized concrete in building applications. It has been shown that crumb rubber additions in structural high strength concrete slabs improved its fire resistance, reducing its spalling damage under fire. This material provides a good mechanical behavior under static and dynamic actions and is being used for road pavement applications. The results of recycled tire rubber-filled concrete (RRFC) under fatigue loads show the feasibility

36

of using this composite material as a rigid pavement for roads on elastic sub grade [9]. Barnet J. et al suggested that landscaping applications like playground surface cover, athletic field turf amendment, and running track construction is a potential market. Rubber strips can also be partially embedded into concrete surfaces, such as in paving slabs, concrete floors, highway crash barriers, bollards, etc. to soften tread or dampen any impact [11]. Applications in the areas of horse arenas and playgrounds and landscape materials show that crumb rubber can bring some improved qualities to concrete. For it absorbs force and bounces back, does not freeze, and is not biodegradable. Small proportions of rubber are also used as an energy absorbing material in childrens play areas to prevent injury. In January 2003, Hanson's Aggregates built the first of several test slabs. The slab contained around 180 kg of crumb rubber per m3 (representing 25 percent of the concrete mix by volume) and was placed without any joints. No shrinkage cracks have been observed after a period of more than a year. This slab serves as a truck parking facility [10]. Currently, the waste tire rubberized concrete is used in precast sidewalk panel, non-load bearing walls in buildings and precast roof for green buildings. It can be widely used for development related projects such as roadways or road intersections, recreational courts and pathways and skid resistant ramps. With this new property, it is projected that these concretes can be used in architectural applications such as nailing concrete, where high strength is not necessary, in wall panels that require low unit weight, in construction elements and Jersey barriers that are subject to impact, in railroads to fix rails to the ground. Roofing tiles and other concrete products can now be made lighter with Rubberized concrete [13]. Benefits from using recycled rubber in landscaping projects include project cost savings, and improved product performance and safety. Greenhouse gas and public health benefits result from diverting tires from landfills and tire piles [25]. Looking at the possibilities for crumb rubber in future concrete products, one can visualize high-rises that are lighter in weight and more resistant to cracking. Moreover, concrete bases for heavy pounding machinery that absorb the sound and withstand the pressure can be achieved. All the applications discussed above show that there is a huge potential advantage that can be exploited from the use of rubberized concrete. It is a very promising technology that can deliver various outstanding benefits to the construction sector.

37

3.7 Cost Considerations in Rubberized Concrete

The use of recycled tires in concrete construction is an infant technology and the number of used tires that are recycled in civil engineering applications is very low at the current time. However, any new concrete products developed for the market need to be feasible in terms of cost, including material costs and production processes or the resulting advantage of improved properties should surpass any cost increment that may occur. The different factors associated with the cost of rubberized concrete are discussed below. 3.7.1 Used Tire Recycling Costs The costs incurred from postconsumer tire use are proportional to the degree of treatment, processing and transportation required in producing and delivering the finished material to the construction site. Tire recycling processes involve the reduction of used tires into smaller pieces such as chip and crumb sizes for reuse or further processing. For most current uses of recycled tires, the production processes attempt to add value to the basic material. This can be achieved by, for example, reducing the size, or by separating out the various components such as rubber, steel and fiber to produce a purer material. In addition, more value can be added by treating the crumb rubber in some way to improve its characteristics. However, as the amount of processing increases, the production costs and hence the price of the material also increases. This strategy is beneficial for producers and customers where the added value improves the profit margin for the producer and the cost of the new material is less than the material it replaces. Therefore, the economics of using recycling rubber in concrete can be expected to change, including the production costs, as the market potential of new products develops. The important economic drivers in a free-market economy are competition and the profit motive. As more recyclers enter the market, it can be expected that competition will bring down the cost of the recycled materials [18]. 3.7.2 Cost Savings due to Material substitution The other approach is to consider the replacement value of virgin materials used in current products. This calculates the acceptable price for rubber aggregate based upon the current price of virgin materials less an allowance for the cost of process changes. In this approach, the principle is that the use of rubber aggregate should be cost neutral. The acceptable price for rubber aggregate can then be compared with the actual price [13]. The process change costs are dependent on the particular application and are therefore difficult to estimate at

38

present. The cost of rubber aggregates also varies widely depending on the source of the rubber and the amount of processing during production. Taking the UK government as an example, its policy is to reduce demand for virgin materials and encourage the use of recycled materials by promoting a market solution through a mixture of statutory regulation and economic measures. The Landfill Tax was introduced in October 1996 to discourage the land filling of inert and active waste and the value of the tax is set to increase over time. The European Union legislation currently bans the disposal of whole tires in landfill sites. The implementation of the landfill ban will undoubtedly improve the viability and economics of tire recycling. It is possible that the tire retailers will need to pay more to the tire recyclers to take the used tires and that this cost will be passed on to tire purchasers [22]. Cost savings can be made by substituting aggregates for tires. Tires weigh less than most other options. The cost of transporting the equivalent m3/km in tires will thus be less than for other aggregates, however, the distance differential should also be considered carefully to ensure that any additional distance required to deliver tires or tire materials does not negate the advantage. 3.7.3 Cost Savings through Performance One of the most powerful drives for engineers to adopt alternative recycled materials is if they can be shown to offer significant technical advantages. The increasing use of industrial by-products such as pulverized fuel ash since the 1950s either as lightweight fills, lightweight aggregates for low-density concrete and for low bearing capacity ground fills, was entirely driven by their low weight and durability advantages [22]. In general, the value added in production and processing will determine the viability of any type of recycling. This is the case for basic rubber crumb and chip products as well as any products incorporating these materials. The first stage is to determine the additional production costs for potential rubberized concrete products, which can then be set against the benefits of using these products. For example, using ground rubber in landscaping applications resulted in significant cost savings from decreased project maintenance and from the benefits related to improved product performance (e.g. safety and suitability) [25].

39

Therefore, rubberized concrete can offer significant technical advantages and associated cost savings. Extended life expectancy and the increased durability of structures using rubber aggregate should add cost effectiveness over the long term by offsetting renewal and reducing repair and maintenance costs. 3.7.4 Whole life Cost reductions The cost savings potentially afforded by tires through material substitution and performance (lower construction, maintenance and renewal costs) could over the lifetime of a structure significantly reduce its whole-life cost. The objective of whole life costing is to minimize long-term expenditure by taking all costs associated with the provision of a structure into account including initial construction and subsequent maintenance, and monitoring and selecting the approach that offers the best value in the longer term [22]. 3.7.5 Cost Savings by Protecting the Environment One of the sustainability targets set by some governments for the construction industry is replacing natural aggregates with secondary or recycled alternatives while also reducing waste disposal. However, for use of alternative aggregates to be sustainable, there must be an economic supply of sufficient quantity. There must also be methods of quality assurance plus specification and a market appropriate to the costs of the processed wastes, as well as good technical performance [3]. The accumulation of used tires at landfill sites presents the threat of uncontrolled fires, producing a complex mixture of chemicals harming the environment and contaminating soil and vegetation. Reuse and recycling generally costs the environment less in resources to the benefit of wider society [3]. Additional benefits from using ground rubber in landscaping applications include benefits related to avoided disposal space savings (landfill space, land space), reduced risks to human health from tire piles, and avoided emissions from tire pile fires. The need for quarrying and waste disposal is reduced with the associated environmental impacts as well [25]. Provided that the cost of rubber aggregate can be kept to the lower end of the range, it can be seen that the cost increase should not be onerous for manufacturers. The less stringent processing requirements for rubber aggregate used in concrete are likely to further reduce the cost of rubber aggregate in this application. Simultaneously, environmental concerns are increasing all over the world. The recent Copenhagen summit of different nations has demonstrated how big and critical are the environmental issues and the problem our world is facing due to it. A growing fraction of the public in many modern societies would not hesitate

40

to favor the environmental protection. And that implies a certain willingness to pay more for a commodity that is clearly identified as environmentally friendly or to contain recycled materials. Recycling is associated with a number of cost items, like collection, separation, processing, transportation, and the required capital investments. On the other hand, solid waste that is not recycled or reused needs to be disposed in landfills, with direct costs in the form of tipping fees and indirect costs in the form of environmental impact and depletion of suitable landfill capacities. Hence, the successful use of waste tire chips and fibers in concrete could provide one of the environmentally responsible and economically viable ways of converting this waste into a valuable resource. So far, a review of the characteristics and constituents of concrete in general has been done. Following that, the use of recycled materials in concrete construction was discussed with recycling tires as the main subject. Previous works on rubberized concrete were also presented in this chapter. In addition, the production of rubber aggregates and the different surface treatment methods utilized by other researchers were clearly seen. Moreover, in the final parts of this chapter, the fresh and hardened properties of rubberized concrete were thoroughly reviewed. As to the knowledge of the author of this research, there is no reported research in Ethiopia in the use of recycled tires in concrete construction until now. Thus, the research is aimed at evaluating the fresh and hardened properties of concrete produced by partial replacement of the natural coarse aggregates with rubber aggregates that are obtained from local sources and physically reprocessed for the purpose of this research. All the information in this literature review have provided with a sufficient knowledge to go to the next part of the research. In the subsequent chapter, the different tests conducted and the properties of the ingredient materials from the test results are presented. Moreover, the mix proportioning procedure utilized is also explained.

41

4. MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND MIX DESIGN

4.1 General
Concrete mixtures with and without rubber aggregates for different compressive strength values were prepared in this research work. The materials used to develop the concrete mixes in this study were fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, rubber aggregate, cement, water and admixture. A total of 16 mixes were prepared consisting of four types of concrete grades (C15, C25, C30 and C40) with partial replacements of the coarse aggregate by 10, 25 and 50% of the rubber aggregate. Moreover, a control mix with no replacement of the coarse aggregate was produced to make a comparative analysis. In the subsequent parts, the different materials used in this study are discussed.

4.2 Cement
The cement type used in this research was imported Maple Leaf OPC cement manufactured in Pakistan. The main reason for using Ordinary Portland Cement (Type I) in this study is that, this is by far the most common cement in use and is highly suitable for use in general concrete construction when there is no exposure to sulphates in the soil or groundwater [1]. The choice of OPC from PPC also avoids any uncertainties in the results of the test.

4.3 Aggregates
The relevant tests to identify the properties of the aggregates that were intended to be used in this research were carried out. After that, corrective measures were taken in advance before proceeding to the mix proportioning. In general, aggregates should be hard and strong, free of undesirable impurities, and chemically stable. Soft, porous rock can limit strength and wear resistance; it may also break down during mixing and adversely affect workability by increasing the amount of fines. Aggregates should also be free from impurities: silt, clay, dirt or organic matter. If these materials coat the surfaces of the aggregate, they will isolate the aggregate particles from the surrounding concrete, causing a reduction in strength. Silt, clay, and other fine materials will also increase the water requirements of the concrete, and organic matter may interfere with cement hydration. To proportion suitable concrete mixes, certain properties of the aggregate must be known. These are; shape and texture, size gradation, moisture content, specific gravity and bulk unit weight [14].

42

4.3.1 Properties of the Fine Aggregate The fine aggregate sample used in this experiment was purchased from local sand suppliers at Addis Ababa around Legehar area. To investigate its properties and suitability for the intended application, the following tests were carried out. - sieve analysis for fine aggregate and fineness modulus - Specific gravity and absorption capacity for fine aggregate -Moisture content for fine aggregate -Silt content for fine aggregate -Unit weight of fine aggregate
4.3.1.1 Sieve Analysis for Fine Aggregate and Fineness Modulus

Sieve analysis is a procedure for the determination of the particle size distribution of aggregates using a series of square or round meshes starting with the largest. It is used to determine the grading, fineness modulus, an index to the fineness, coarseness and uniformity of aggregates. The quality of concrete to be produced is very much influenced by the properties of its aggregates. Aggregate grain size distribution or gradation is one among these properties and should be given due consideration [38]. The original test sample was not meeting the gradation requirement and therefore blending of the fine aggregate passing the 1.18 mm sieve was done with the original sample in a proportion of 60%:40%. Table 4.1 below shows the percentage passing each sieve size and Figure 4.1 shows the corresponding graph.

43

Table 4.1 Sieve Analysis Test for Fine Aggregate.

Sieve Size (mm) Wt. of Sieve (gm) Wt. of Sieve and Retained (gm) Wt. Retained (gm) % age Retained Cumul. Retained % passing Lower Limit Upper Limit

9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.06 0.03 0.015 pan

586 567 521 529 506 478 462 423

586 576 535 584 719 627 512 431

0 9 14 55 213 149 50 8

0.00 1.80 2.80 11.00 42.60 29.80 10.00 1.60

0.00 1.80 4.60 15.60 58.20 88.00 98.00 99.60

100.00 98.20 95.40 84.40 41.80 12.00 2.00 0.40

100.00 95.00 80.00 50.00 25.00 10.00 2.00

100 100.00 100.00 85.00 60.00 30.00 10.00

Fine Aggregate
120.00
% Passing

100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6

Lower Limit Upper Limit

% Passing

0.3

0.15

Sieve Size

Fig. 4.1 Graph for Sieve analysis of Fine aggregate

Fineness modulus (F.M) = cumulative coarser (%) ..[38] 100 F.M. = 266.2/100 =2.66

44

4.3.1.2 Specific gravity and absorption capacity of fine aggregate The specific gravity of an aggregate is considered to be a measure of strength or quality of the material. The specific gravity of a substance is the ratio between the weight of the substance and that of the same volume of water. This definition assumes that the substance is solid throughout. Aggregates, however, have pores that are both permeable and impermeable. The structure of the aggregate (size, number, and continuity pattern) affects water absorption, permeability, and specific gravity [38]. The following results were found for the fine aggregate sample. Bulk Specific gravity=2.41 Bulk Specific gravity (SSD basis)=2.51 Apparent specific gravity=2.69 Absorption capacity =4.38 % 4.3.1.3 Moisture content of fine aggregate A design water cement ratio is usually specified based on the assumption that aggregates are inert (neither absorb nor give water to the mixture). But in most cases aggregates from different sources do not comply with this i.e. wet aggregates give water to the mix and drier aggregates take water from the mix affecting in both cases, the design water cement ratio and therefore workability and strength of the mix. In order to correct for these discrepancies, the moisture content of aggregates has to be determined [38]. The moisture content of the fine aggregate sample used in this study was tested at different times prior to mixing and it was found to be in the range of 2.04 %. 4.3.1.4 Silt content of fine aggregate Sand is a product of natural or artificial disintegration of rocks and minerals. Sand is obtained from glacial, river, lake, marine, residual and wind-blown deposits. These deposits however do not provide pure sand. They often contain other materials such as dust, loam and clay that are finer than sand. The presence of such materials in sand used to make concrete or mortar decreases the bond between the materials to be bound together and hence the strength of the mixture. The finer particles do not only decrease the strength but also the quality of the mixture produced resulting in fast deterioration. Therefore, it is necessary that one make a test on the silt content and check against permissible limits [38]. From the silt content test performed on the sand, it was found that the original silt content was 11%. According to the Ethiopian standard, it is recommended to wash the sand or reject

45

if the silt content exceeds a value of 6 % [38]. Therefore, it was necessary to wash the sand to improve the property. Finally, the silt content reached 2% that is within the acceptable range. 4.3.1.5 Unit weight of fine aggregate Unit weight can be defined as the weight of a given volume of graded aggregate. It is thus a density measurement and is also known as bulk density. But this alternative term is similar to bulk specific gravity, which is quite a different quantity, and perhaps is not a good choice. The unit weight effectively measures the volume that the graded aggregate will occupy in concrete and includes both the solid aggregate particles and the voids between them. The unit weight is simply measured by filling a container of known volume and weighing it. Clearly, however, the degree of compaction will change the amount of void space, and hence the value of the unit weight. Since the weight of the aggregate is dependent on the moisture content of the aggregate, a constant moisture content is required. Oven dried aggregate sample is used in this test [38]. The unit weight of the fine aggregate sample used was found to be 1520 kg/m3. 4.3.2 Properties of the coarse aggregate Coarse aggregate for concrete shall consist of natural gravel or crushed rock or a mixture of natural gravel and crushed rock. Coarse aggregate used in this research was purchased
from Tikur Abay Construction Company. In a similar manner like the fine aggregate, laboratory tests were carried out to identify the physical properties of the coarse aggregate and the results are shown in Table 4.2 below. Table 4.3 shows the sieve analysis test results and figure 4.2 shows the

corresponding graph.
Table 4.2 Physical Properties of the Coarse Aggregate. Description Moisture content Test Result

1.37 %
1533.25 kg/m3 2.79 2.84 2.93 1.72 % 17.83 % 14.9 %

Unit weight of coarse aggregate

Bulk Specific gravity Bulk specific gravity(SSD basis) Apparent specific gravity Absorption capacity

Crushing value of aggregate Los Angeles Abrasion Test

46

Table 4.3 Sieve Analysis for the Coarse Aggregate. Sieve Size (mm)
37.5 19 12.5 9.5 4.75 Pan

Wt. of Sieve (gm)

1188 1419 1166 1171 1194 1060

Wt. of Sieve and Retained (gm)

1188 1419 3645 2682 2222 1150

Wt. of Retained (gm)

0 0 2479 1511 1028 90

% Retain.

Cum. Retain.

% Pass.

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

0.00 0.00 48.36 29.48 20.05 1.76

0.00 0.00 48.36 77.84 97.89 99.65

100.00 100.00 51.64 22.16 0.35 0.35

100.00 90.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 80.00 55.00 10.00 5.00

Natural Coarse Aggregate

120.00
% Passing

100.00

Lower Limit Upper Limit

80.00

% Passing

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00 37.5 19 12.5 9.5 4.75

Sieve Size
Fig. 4.2 Graph for Sieve analysis of Coarse aggregate

47

4.3.3 Rubber aggregate The source of the rubber aggregate was recycled tires which were collected from the local market commonly known as Goma Tera around Merkato area, Addis Ababa. For uniformity of the concrete production and convenience, all the tires collected were from those which were originally produced from Matador Addis Tire factory and the type was a medium truck tire as shown in figure 4.3. The reason for this is that the factory is the only tire producing company in the country as the other tires in the market are imported ones and the reason for choosing medium truck tires is that they can give the required shape and size which is similar to the common natural gravel. This study has concentrated on the performance of a single gradation of crumb rubber prepared by manual cutting. The maximum size of the rubber aggregate was 20 mm as shown in figure 4.4. Specific gravity test was conducted on the rubber aggregate chips and found to be 1.123. The rubber aggregates used in the present investigation were made by manually cutting the tire in to the required sizes. It was very laborious, time consuming and was not easy to handle at the initial stages. However, all this complications can be easily sorted out if a large scale production is devised and proper cutting tools and machineries are made for this particular usage.

Fig. 4.3 Used medium truck tires

Fig. 4.4 20 mm size Rubber aggregate

To come up with a rough cohesive surface of the rubber aggregate, surface treatment was done using cement paste. Rubber aggregates coated with cement paste were produced as follows: - After thoroughly washing the sample to remove dusts and impurities from the surface of the particles, the rubber aggregates were then immersed in

48

water for 24 hours until all particles were fully saturated (wetted both inside and on the surface). - The plain rubber aggregates were then taken to the saturated surface dry (SSD) condition by spreading them in a thin layer on a clean surface free from dust and rolled in a towel until all visible films of water are removed. In this condition, the rubber aggregate reached the saturated surface dry condition and thus requiring no alteration to the quantity of mixing water. - The next step was the surface treatment of the rubber aggregates. For this the procedure suggested by Cairns R. et al was adopted which utilizes a coating with cement paste. The rubber aggregates were thoroughly coated with a thin layer of cement paste, a mixture of cement powder and water. The average weight of cement used for coating was 3.23 kg for every cubic meter of the rubberized concrete. The coated rubber aggregates were then air dried by spreading them on a clean surface for about 24 hours. All the cement paste coating had an effect on the hydrophilicity of the rubber allowing it to adhere better to the cement paste that surrounded it as per the previous experience discussed in the literature review part of this research section 3.3.2.1. The rubber aggregate particles coated with cement paste are shown in figure 4.5 below.

4.5 (a)

4.5 (b)

Fig. 4.5 Rubber aggregates coated with Cement paste

4.4 Chemical Admixture

The admixture used in this research was Conplast SP430 which is a high performance super plasticizing admixture produced by FOSROC constructive solutions. Conplast SP430

49

conforms to ASTM C494 as Type A and Type F depending on the dosage used [39]. The main reasons for using this admixture in this study are: -To make possible major reductions in water cement ratio which allows the production of desired strength concrete without excessive cement contents and also satisfying the durability requirements in the mix design procedure. -To achieve increased workability levels with lower water cement ratios. -To achieve improved cohesion and particle dispersion which minimizes segregation and bleeding. This is a very essential characteristic as it can strengthen the weak cohesive nature and the floating tendency of rubber aggregates in the concrete. The suppliers product catalogue recommends a dosage that ranges from 0.70 to 2.00 liters/100 kg of cementitious material for a high workability concrete [39]. In this research, the minimum dosage of 0.7 liters/100 kg of cement was applied to the concrete mixes in all cases of the control concretes as well as the rubberized concrete mixes. The actual values used for each concrete class can be referred from Tables 4.6 and 4.7. 4.5 Water The quality of the water plays a significant role in concrete production. Impurities in water may interfere with the setting of the cement, may adversely affect the strength of the concrete or cause staining of its surface, and may also lead to corrosion of the reinforcement. For these reasons, the suitability of water for mixing and curing purposes should be considered. In this research, tap water supplied by Addis Ababa water and sewerage authority at roomtemperature was used in all mixes. 4.6 Selection of Concrete mix Proportions (Mix Design) 4.6.1 General The selection of mix proportions is a process of choosing suitable ingredients of concrete and determining their relative quantities with the object of producing as economically as possible concrete of certain minimum properties, notably strength, durability and a required consistency. The key to achieving a strong, durable concrete rests in the careful proportioning and mixing of the ingredients. A concrete mixture that has no enough paste to fill all the voids between the aggregates will be difficult to place and will produce rough, honeycombed surfaces and porous concrete. A mixture with an excess of cement paste will be easy to place

50

and will produce a smooth surface; however, the resulting concrete is likely to shrink more and be uneconomical. A properly designed concrete mix will possess the desired workability for the fresh concrete and the required durability and strength for the hardened concrete. Portland cement's chemistry comes to life in the presence of water. Cement and water form a paste that coats each particle of stone and sand. Through a chemical reaction called hydration, the cement paste hardens and gains strength. The character of the concrete is determined by the quality of the paste. The strength of the paste, in turn, depends on the ratio of water to cement. High-quality concrete is produced by lowering the water-cement ratio as much as possible without sacrificing the workability of fresh concrete [16]. Generally, using less water produces a higher quality concrete provided the concrete is properly placed, consolidated, and cured and fulfills any durability requirements requested. 4.6.2 Testing Arrangement In this study, a total of 16 mixes consisting of four types of concrete grades ( C15, C25, C30 and C40) were produced with partial replacements of the coarse aggregate by 10, 25 and 50 % of the rubber aggregate. Moreover, a control mix with no replacement of the coarse aggregate was produced to make a comparative analysis. The mix design process adopted was the Department of Environment (DOE) method. The mixture proportions of the basic ingredients i.e. cement, water, and fine aggregate, were the same for the control concrete and rubberized concrete. However, a certain amount of the coarse aggregate was replaced by an equal volume of rubber aggregate to form rubberized concrete. Four control mix designs, C15, C25, C30 and C40 were prepared for this investigation. The main reason for selecting this concrete grades is that these are by far the most commonly used concrete grades for most of the concrete construction works and hence application of the research can be more feasible. The following tests were performed on the different concrete samples produced in this study. 1) Slump test for workability 2) Determination of unit weight of hardened concrete 3) Compressive strength test (7th, 28th, and 56th day) 4) Splitting tensile strength test 5) Impact Resistance test, and 6) Flexural strength test

51

4.6.3 Trial Mixes Before proceeding to the preparation of the main mix design of the research, trial mixes were prepared for each of the control mixes. A particular mix design method determines a set of mix proportions for producing a concrete that has approximately the required properties of strength and workability. The method however is based on simplified classification for type and quality of the materials and it remains to check whether or not the particular aggregates and cement selected for use in a given case will behave as anticipated. This is the object of making the trial mix, and the subsequent feedback of information from the trial mix is an essential part of the mix design process [40]. Table 4.4 below shows the material constituents of the trial mix. Table 4.4 Material constituents of the Trial mixes.
Grade C15 C25 C30 C40 Comp. streng
(MPa)

15 25 30 40

Cement (kg/m3) 310 330 360 380

Fine agg. (kg/m3) 660 655 645 640

Coarse Agg. (kg/m3) 1285 1270 1250 1240

water (kg) 170 170 170 170

Admixture (lit/m3) 2.17 2.31 2.52 2.66

The slump test and compressive strength test results of the trial mix are tabulated in Table 4.5 below. The 7-day compressive strength tests are conducted for the trial mixes and the result is extrapolated to possible 28-day strength. Sidney Mindess et al suggested that the ratio of the 28-day strength to the 7-day strength lies between 1.3 and 1.7 but is usually less than 1.5 and it depends on the cement type and curing temperature [14]. In other words, the 7 day strength will be on the range between 60 and 75 % of the 28 day strength. For this study, considering the relative early strength development of OPC cement, the maximum value of 75 % of strength achievement at the 7 day was assumed to forecast the 28-day strength of the trial mixes. Later on, it was found out that the compressive strength test results of the final mixes have shown a similar trend of relationship between the 7th and the 28th day strengths.

52

Table 4.5 Slump and Compressive Strength Test results of the Trial mix.
Comp. Strength (MPa) Grade C15 C25 C30 C40 Slump (mm) 8 19 23 11
7 day Forecasted 28 day

36.25 39.15 44.3 48.27

45 49 55 60

For the workability, the designed slump was 10-30 mm. Hence, all the slump results except for C15 are within the intended range. For the purpose of preparing the final mix design, it was necessary to evaluate the compressive strength test results of the trial mix. The 7th and the forecasted 28th day compressive strength test results revealed that the attained results have exceeded the original intended values. This led to the understanding that there is still much more room for adjusting the mix design and a more economical mix can be produced. Based on this, the mix design was readjusted and the final proportioning for the main concrete samples was prepared. The mix proportions of the final mix are presented in Table 4.6 below. The designations A, B, C and D indicate the concrete grades of 15, 25, 30 and 40 MPa compressive strengths respectively. Whereas M1, M2, M3 and M4 indicate the corresponding concrete grades with percentage rubber aggregate replacements of 0, 10, 25 and 50 % of the coarse aggregate respectively. Example AM1- stands for the mix of C15 concrete with no rubber aggregate replacement AM2- stands for C15 concrete with 10 % volume of the coarse aggregate of the control mix replaced by an equivalent volume of the rubber aggregate. AM3- stands for C15 concrete with 25 % volume of the coarse aggregate of the control mix replaced by an equivalent volume of the rubber aggregate. AM4- stands for C15 concrete with 50 % volume of the coarse aggregate of the control mix replaced by an equivalent volume of the rubber aggregate.

53

Table 4.6 Mix Proportioning for 1m3 of Concrete.

Type AM1 Control A M2 A M3 A M4 BM1 Control B M2 B M3 B M4 CM1 Control C M2 C M3 C M4 DM1 Control D M2 D M3 D M4 Grade C-15 C-15 C-15 C-15 Cement (kg/m3) 230 230 230 230 Water (kg/m3) 170 170 170 170 Fine agg. (kg/m3) 690 690 690 690 Coarse agg. (kg/m3) 1340.0 1206.0 1005.0 670.0 Rubber agg. (kg/m3) 0.0 53.0 132.5 264.9 Admix. (lit/m3) 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61

C-25 C-25 C-25 C-25

280 280 280 280

170 170 170 170

670 670 670 670

1305.0 1174.5 978.8 652.5

0.0 51.6 129.0 258.0

1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

C-30 C-30 C-30 C-30

320 320 320 320

170 170 170 170

660 660 660 660

1275.0 1147.5 956.3 637.5

0.0 50.4 126.0 252.1

2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24

C-40 C-40 C-40 C-40

360 360 360 360

170 170 170 170

645 645 645 645

1250.0 1125.0 937.5 625.0

0.0 49.4 123.6 247.1

2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52

4.6.4 Batching of Materials Saturated Surface dry aggregates were used for the concrete mixes under research. Cement and aggregates were batched by weight while water and chemical admixtures were batched by volume. Chemical admixtures in the form of solutions were mixed with water and used in the preparation of concrete mixes. All the replacement for the coarse aggregate was done on a volume basis. To come up with the required volume of concrete to be produced, the total number of test specimens has to be to be determined primarily. Hence, the specimens required were as follows: Nine cube samples for compressive strength test Two cylinder samples for tensile strength test Two beam samples for flexural strength test Two cylinder samples for impact resistance test Total =0.03m3 =0.01 m3 =0.01m3 =0.01 m3 =0.06 m3

54

An additional 11 % volume is considered for the compaction factor as well as for the wastage that certainly occurs during the mixing and casting process. Finally, the required concrete volume to be produced in each of the 16 test arrangements was found to be 0.068 m3. Prior to the mixing process, all the required ingredients to produce the overall volume of concrete planned were delivered to the laboratory. Table 4.7 Mix Proportions for 0.068 m3 of concrete.
Type AM1 Control A M2 A M3 A M4 BM1 Control B M2 B M3 B M4 CM1 Control C M2 C M3 C M4 DM1 Control D M2 D M3 D M4 Grade C-15 C-15 C-15 C-15 Cement (kg) 15.64 15.64 15.64 15.64 Water (kg) 11.56 11.56 11.56 11.56 Fine agg. (kg) 46.92 46.92 46.92 46.92 Coarse agg. (kg) 91.12 82.01 68.34 45.56 Rubber agg. (kg) 0.00 3.60 9.01 18.02 Admix. (lit) 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

C-25 C-25 C-25 C-25

19.04 19.04 19.04 19.04

11.56 11.56 11.56 11.56

45.56 45.56 45.56 45.56

88.74 79.87 66.56 44.37

0.00 3.51 8.77 17.54

0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

C-30 C-30 C-30 C-30

21.76 21.76 21.76 21.76

11.56 11.56 11.56 11.56

44.88 44.88 44.88 44.88

86.70 78.03 65.03 43.35

0.00 3.43 8.57 17.14

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

C-40 C-40 C-40 C-40

24.48 24.48 24.48 24.48

11.56 11.56 11.56 11.56

43.86 43.86 43.86 43.86

85.00 76.50 63.75 42.50

0.00 3.36 8.40 16.81

0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

4.6.5 Mixing and Test Sample Preparation It is essential that the mix ingredients are properly mixed so as to produce fresh concrete in which the surface of all aggregate particles is coated with cement paste and which is homogeneous on the macro-scale and therefore possessing uniform properties [1]. Thorough mixing is essential for the complete blending of the materials that are required for the production of homogeneous, uniform concrete [14]. The type of mixer used in the laboratory for this research is a pan type as shown in Figure 4.6 below.

55

Fig. 4.6 Concrete Mixing using a Pan Mixer According to Neville A.M., this type of mixer has a considerable advantage as compared to the other types especially for this kind of research work. Pan mixers offer the possibility of observing the concrete in them, and therefore of adjusting the mix in some cases. They are particularly efficient with stiff and cohesive mixes. They are also suitable for mixing very small quantities of concrete hence they are mostly used in the laboratory [1]. All the dry ingredients were blended together prior to adding water. All batches were then wet-mixed by adding the required water and super plasticizer admixture SP430 was also added to the wet mix. In this chapter, the materials used in the research work were discussed. After identifying the properties of the materials, the testing arrangement was presented which was followed by the mix proportioning of the trial and final mixes respectively. In the subsequent chapter, the test results and discussions are presented.

56

5. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 General
This section describes the results of the tests carried out to investigate the various properties of the rubberized concrete mixes prepared in contrast with the control mixes. In the succeeding parts, the results for workability, unit weight, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength impact resistance and flexural strength tests are presented. Analysis and discussions are also made on the findings.

5.2 Fresh Concrete Properties

5.2.1 Workability Test A concrete mix must be made of the right amount of cement, aggregates and water to make the concrete workable enough for easy compaction and placing and strong enough for good performance in resisting stresses after hardening. If the mix is too dry, then its compaction will be too difficult and if it is too wet, then the concrete is likely to be weak [38]. During mixing, the mix might vary without the change very noticeable at first. For instance, a load of aggregate may be wetter or drier than what is expected or there may be variations in the amount of water added to the mix. These all necessitate a check on the workability and strength of concrete after producing. Slump test is the simplest test for workability and are most widely used on construction sites. In the slump test, the distance that a cone full of concrete slumps down is measured when the cone is lifted from around the concrete. The slump can vary from nil on dry mixes to complete collapse on very wet ones. One drawback with the test is that it is not helpful for very dry mixes [38]. The slump test carried out was done using the apparatus shown in Figure 5.1 below.

Fig. 5.1 Slump Test

57

The mould for the slump test is in the form of a frustum of a cone, which is placed on top of a metal plate. The mould is filled in three equal layers and each layer is tamped 25 times with a tamping rod. Surplus concrete above the top edge of the mould is struck off with the tamping rod. The cone is immediately lifted vertically and the amount by which the concrete sample slumps is measured. The value of the slump is obtained from the distance between the underside of the round tamping bar and the highest point on the surface of the slumped concrete sample. The types of slump i.e. zero, true, shear or collapsed are then recorded. Table 5.1 shows the results of the slump test for the control concretes and the rubberized concretes. Table 5.1 Slump Test Results. No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Specimen
AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4

Grade
C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15

% rubber
0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

w/c ratio
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Slump (mm)
32 38 41 49 7 14 21 42 9 15 21 27 8 16 18 13

BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4

CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C 25 C 25 C 25 C 25
C 30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 40

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47

The introduction of recycled rubber tires to concrete significantly increased the slump and workability. All concrete mixes were designed to have a slump of 10-30 mm. As can be seen from the results above, the control concretes (BM1, CM1 and DM1) had a slump of less than

58

10 mm which is below the designed value whereas the result for AM1 (32 mm) is close to the designed range. It was noted that the slump has increased as the percentage of rubber aggregate was increased in all samples except DM4 which needs further investigation. In the low strength category (AM1, AM2, AM3 and AM4 ) the observed slump is between 32 mm and 49 mm. This shows that the workability decreases as the strength of the concrete increases for a given amount of w/c ratio in rubberized concrete. But in the literature review it was noted that different researchers reported a reduction in slump in rubberized concrete mixes [13, 26, and 36]. The possible reason for the differences between the previous studies and this research can be the use of admixtures. Super plasticizing admixtures greatly increase the workability of the concrete and the improvement to the workability of the rubberized concrete can be attributed to the admixture. In most of the earlier studies, the use of admixtures to improve the workability of the concrete was not explained. Nevertheless, in a research by Kumaran S.G. et al, an admixture was used in rubberized concrete mix design but its effect on the workability of the rubberized concrete mix was not clearly explained [2]. A different observation which was noticed while casting the rubberized concrete was that the rubber aggregates have a high tendency to come out to the top surface when vibrated by a table vibrator. This is due to the low specific gravity of the rubber aggregate. In general, rubberized concrete mixes did not pose any difficulties in terms of finishing, casting, or placement and can be finished to the same standard as plain concrete.

5.3 Hardened Concrete Properties

The different tests that have been carried out to establish the hardened properties of the concrete samples produced were; determination of unit weight, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, impact resistance and flexural strength tests. 5.3.1 Determination of Unit weight The unit weight values used for the analysis of this section are measured from the concrete cube samples after 28 days of standard curing. From the results, it was found out that a reduction of unit weight up to 24 % was observed when 50 % by volume of the coarse aggregate was replaced by rubber aggregate in sample AM4. Whereas 3.39 and 9.48 % reductions were observed for 10 and 25 % rubber aggregate replacement in samples AM2 and AM3 respectively. In the second category (B group) a reduction in unit weight of 3.57 %,

59

7.72 and 18.62 % was noted for 10, 25 and 50 % of the coarse aggregate replacement by rubber aggregate. In samples CM1, CM2 and CM3 the reduction in unit weight was 4.18, 6.48 and 16.92 % for 10, 25 and 50 % of the replacement of coarse aggregate with the rubber aggregate respectively. In Mix category D, a reduction in unit weight of 2.53, 6.41 and 14.02 % were seen for the respective increments in the replacement of rubber aggregates. The low specific gravity of the rubber chips, 1.123, as compared to the mineral coarse aggregates, 2.84, produced a decrease in the unit weight of the rubberized concrete, as shown in Table 5.2. Since crumb rubber is nearly two and half times lighter than the mineral coarse aggregate, it was expected that the mass density of the mix would be significantly reduced. The results for the unit weight are presented in Table 5.2 below and Figure 5.2 demonstrates the comparative decrease in unit weight of the rubberized concrete in contrast with the respective control concrete. Table 5.2 Unit weights of the control concretes and rubberized concrete.
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Specimen AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 Grade C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15 % rubber 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 Unit wt. (kg/m3) 2468.82 2385.21 2234.90 1874.45 % Reduction 0.00 3.39 9.48 24.08 0.00 3.57 7.72 18.62 0.00 4.18 6.48 16.92 0.00 2.53 6.41 14.02

BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4

CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C 25 C 25 C 25 C 25
C 30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 40

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

2508.78 2419.33 2314.99 2041.75

2482.95 2379.16 2322.07 2062.89 2573.41 2411.57 2315.58 2127.26

60

C15
3000.00 Unitweight(kg/m3) 2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0.00 AM1 AM2 Specimens AM3 AM4

5.2 (a)

C25
3000.00 Unitweight(kg/m3) 2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0.00 BM1 BM2 Specimens BM3 BM4

5.2 (b)

C30
3000.00 Unitweight(kg/m3) 2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0.00 CM1 CM2 Specimens CM3 CM4

5.2 (c)

61

C40
3000.00 Unitweight(kg/m3) 2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0.00 DM1 DM2 Specimens DM3 DM4

5.2 (d) Fig. 5.2 Graphical Comparison of Unit weight values Using concrete with a lower density can result in significant benefits in terms of load bearing elements of smaller cross-section and a corresponding reduction in the size of foundations. Occasionally, the use of concrete with a lower density permits construction on ground with a low load-bearing capacity. Furthermore, with lighter concrete, the formwork need withstand a lower pressure than would be in case with normal weight concrete, and also the total mass of materials to be handled is reduced with a consequent increase in productivity. Concrete that has a lower density also gives better thermal insulation than ordinary concrete [1]. Therefore, the reduced density of concrete containing rubbers aggregates can provide with all the benefits mentioned which are associated with a lower density. 5.3.2 Compressive strength Test The compressive strengths of concrete specimens were determined after 7, 28 and 56 days of standard curing. For rubberized concrete, the results show that the addition of rubber aggregate resulted in a significant reduction in concrete compressive strength compared with the control concrete. This reduction increased with increasing percentage of rubber aggregate. Losses in compressive strength of 11.38 % (AM2), 16.30 % (BM2), 19.04 % (CM2) and 17.25 % (DM2) were observed when 10% of the coarse aggregate was replaced by an equivalent volume of rubber aggregate. The observed losses of strength when 25 % of the coarse aggregate was replaced by rubber aggregate were 28.19 % (AM3), 29.62 % (BM3), 34.94 % (CM3) and 31.15 % (DM3). For rubberized concrete containing 50% by volume of rubber aggregate replacement, losses of 55.55 % (AM4), 64.02 % (BM4), 61.67 % (CM4)

62

and 59.22 % (DM4) were noticed. Table 5.3 below shows the results of the 7th, 28th and 56th day compressive strength tests. Table 5.3 Results of compressive strength tests.
Compressive Strength (MPa) % Strength loss

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Spec. AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4

Grade C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15

% rubber 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

7 days 15.07 13.93 13.35 7.20

28 days 22.50 19.94 16.15 10.00

56 days 28.19 24.07 19.97 13.32

7 days 0.00 7.57 11.39 52.23 0.00 17.15 19.69 58.51 0.00 11.39 44.33 60.27 0.00 12.29 23.40 61.86

28 days 0.00 11.38 28.19 55.55 0.00 16.30 29.62 64.02 0.00 19.04 34.94 61.67 0.00 17.25 31.15 59.22

56 days 0.00 14.64 29.18 52.74 0.00 13.84 33.34 61.39 0.00 14.41 33.45 57.30 0.00 14.62 19.42 52.80

BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4

CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C 25 C 25 C 25 C 25
C 30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 40

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

29.33 41.09 24.30 34.39 23.55 28.92 12.17 14.78

35.78 31.71 19.92 14.22 42.47 37.25 32.53 16.20 49.13 39.78 31.97 18.83 55.74 46.13 38.38 22.73

46.62 40.17 31.08 18.00

55.34 47.37 36.83 23.63 60.20 51.40 48.51 28.42

Figure 5.3 below illustrates the trend of strength development in the different concrete specimens prepared and Figure 5.4 shows the comparison of the strength achieved in contrast with the control concrete.

63

C15
30.00 CompressiveStrength(MPa) 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 AM1 AM2 Specimens AM3 AM4 7days s 28day ys 56day ys

5. (a) .3

C25
50.00 5 CompressiveStrength(MPa) 45.00 4 40.00 4 35.00 3 30.00 3 25.00 2 20.00 2 15.00 1 10.00 1 5.00 0.00 BM1 BM2 Specimens BM3 BM4 7days 28days 56days

5.3 (b) 3

64

C30
60.00 CompressiveStrength(MPa) 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 CM1 CM2 Specimens CM3 CM4 7days 28days 56days

5.3 (c)

C40
70.00 CompressiveStrength(MPa) 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 DM1 DM2 Specimens DM3 DM4 7days 28days 56days

5.3 (d) Fig. 5.3 Compressive Strength Development

65

30.00 CompressiveStrength(MPa) 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 7days

C15
AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4

28days Duration

56days

5.4 (a)

C25
CompressiveStrength(MPa) 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 7days 28days Duration 56days BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4

5.4 (b)

C30
CompressiveStrength(MPa) 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 7days 28days Duration 56days CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4

5.4 (c)

66

C40
CompressiveStrength(MPa) 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 7days 28days Duration 56days DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

5.4 (d) Fig. 5.4 Comparisons of Compressive strength Test Results The reason for the compressive strength reductions could be attributed both to a reduction of quantity of the solid load carrying material and to the lack of adhesion at the boundaries of the rubber aggregate. Soft rubber particles behave as voids in the concrete matrix. Considering the very different mechanical properties of mineral aggregates and rubber aggregates, mineral aggregates usually have high crushing strength and they are relatively incompressible, whereas rubber aggregates are ductile, compressible and resilient. Rubber has a very low modulus of elasticity of about 7MPa and a Poissons ratio of 0.5 [13]. Therefore, rubber aggregates tend to behave like weak inclusions or voids in the concrete, resulting in a reduction in compressive strength. It is well known that the presence of voids in concrete greatly reduces its strength. The existence of 5 % of voids can lower strength by as much as 30 % and even 2 % voids can result in a drop of strength of more than 10% [1]. Another observation while carrying out the compressive strength test was the nature of crack formation. In rubberized concrete, crack formation is different from plain concrete because bond strength between rubber and cement paste is poor than that of between aggregate and cement paste. Therefore, initial cracks were formed around rubber aggregates and cement paste in rubberized concrete. Although the compressive strength values have considerably decreased with the addition of waste tire pieces as seen in Table 5.3, their values are still in a reasonable range for a 10 and

67

25 % replacement values because the intended compressive strength of 15, 25, 30, and 40 MPa respectively were achieved in these categories. 5.3.3 Splitting tensile strength Test The common method of estimating the tensile strength of concrete is through an indirect tension test. The splitting tensile test is carried out on a standard cylinder tested on its side in diametral compression. The horizontal stress to which the element is subjected is given by the following equation. Horizontal tension t= 2P/LD .... [14] Where: P - the applied compressive load L- the cylinder length, and D- the cylinder diameter The test is carried out on cylindrical specimens using a bearing strip of 3 mm plywood that is free of imperfections and is about 25 mm wide. The specimen is aligned in the machine and the load is then applied [14]. Figure 5.5 below shows the testing method for splitting tensile strength test and Table 5.4 shows the splitting tensile strength test results. The relative percentage of strength loss with respect to the control mixes are also tabulated together.

3mmplywood

Fig. 5.5 Splitting tensile strength Test

68

Table 5.4 Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results. No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Spec.
AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4

Grade
C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15

% rubber
0 10 25 50

Splitting Load(kN)
172 139.95 126.9 97.5 242.9 189.8 168.95 110.95 274.6 221.8 134.75 120.9 257 278.35 188.4 139.8

Splitting Streng.
(MPa)

% Strength loss
0.00 18.63 26.22 43.31 0.00 21.86 30.44 54.32 0.00 19.23 50.93 55.97 0.00 -8.31 26.69 45.60

2.43 1.98 1.80 1.38 3.44 2.69 2.39 1.57 3.88 3.14 1.91 1.71 3.64 3.94 2.67 1.98

BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4

CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C 25 C 25 C 25 C 25
C 30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 40

0 10 25 50
0 10 25 50 0 10 25 50

For rubberized concrete, the results show that the splitting tensile strength decreased with increasing rubber aggregate content in a similar manner to that observed in the compressive strength tests. However, there was a relatively smaller reduction in splitting tensile strength as compared to the reduction in the compressive strength. Losses of up to 18.63% (AM2), 21.86 % (BM2), 19.23 % (CM2) and a gain of 8.31% (DM2) were observed when 10% of the coarse aggregate was replaced by rubber aggregate. The observed losses of strength when 25 % of coarse aggregate was replaced by rubber aggregate were 26.22% (AM3), 30.44 % (BM3), 50.93 % (CM3) and 26.69 % (DM3) were noticed. Likewise, for rubberized concrete containing 50% by volume of rubber aggregate, losses of 43.31 % (AM4), 54.32 % (BM4), 55.97 % (CM4) and 45.6 % (DM4) were observed. The comparison of the results with the control concretes are shown graphically in Figure 5.6 below.

69

C15
Splittingstrength(MPa) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 AM1 AM2 Specimen AM3 AM4

5.6 (a)

C25
SplittingStrength(MPa) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 BM1 BM2 Specimen BM3 BM4

5.6 (b)

C30
SplittingStrength(MPa) 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 CM1 CM2 Specimen CM3 CM4

5.6 (c)

70

C40
SplitingStrength(MPa) 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 DM1 DM2 Specimen DM3 DM4

5.6 (d) Fig. 5.6 Comparisons of Splitting tensile strength Test Results . One of the reasons that splitting tensile strength of the rubberized concrete is lower than the conventional concrete is that bond strength between cement paste and rubber tire particles is poor. Besides, pore structures in rubberized concretes are much more than traditional concrete [26]. The splitting tensile strength test samples for control and rubberized concrete are shown after testing in Figure 5.7. It can be observed that the rubberized concrete does not exhibit typical compression failure behavior. The control concrete shows a clean split of the sample into two halves, whereas concrete with the rubber aggregate tends to produce a less well-defined failure.

5.7 (a) Control concrete at failure

5.7 (b) Control concrete after test

71

5.7 (c) Rubberized concrete at failure

5.7 (d) Rubberized concrete after test

Fig. 5.7 Failure patterns of Specimen during and after Splitting tensile strength tests 5.3.4 Impact Resistance Tests Impact strength is of importance when concrete is subjected to a repeated falling object, as in pile driving, or a single impact of a large mass at a high velocity. The principal criteria are the ability of a specimen to withstand repeated blows and to absorb energy. Concrete made with a gravel coarse aggregate has a low impact strength [1]. Several types of tests have been used to measure the impact resistance of concrete. These can be classified broadly, depending upon the impacting mechanism and parameters monitored during impact, into the following types of tests [41]: a) Weighted pendulum charpy-type impact test b) Drop-weight test c) Constant strain-rate test d) Projectile impact test e) Split-Hopkinson bar test f) Explosive tests g) Instrumented pendulum impact test In this study, the drop weight test was used.

72

5.3.4.1 Drop weight Test The simplest of the impact tests is the repeated impact drop weight test. This test yields the number of blows necessary to cause prescribed levels of distress in the test specimen. This number serves as a qualitative estimate of the energy absorbed by the specimen at the levels of distress specified. Concrete samples are made in molds according to procedures recommended for compressive cylinders but with an average depth of 63.5 mm and they can be sawn from full size cylinders to yield a specimen of the proper thickness. The samples are coated on the bottom with a thin layer of petroleum jelly or heavy grease. Then they are placed on the base plate within the positioning lugs with the finished face up. The drop hammer is placed with its base upon the steel ball and held there with just enough down pressure to keep it from bouncing of the ball during the test [41]. The hammer is dropped repeatedly and the number of blows required to cause the first visible crack on the top and to cause ultimate failure are both recorded. Ultimate failure is defined as the opening of cracks in the specimen sufficiently so that the pieces of concrete are touching three of the four positioning lugs on the base plate. Results of the test exhibit a high variability and may vary considerably with the different types of mixtures [41]. Fig 5.8 below shows a concrete sample arranged for impact resistance test in this study. And Table 5.5 shows the results of impact resistance test. The results in the table are the mean of four test samples as shown in annex E and hence some figures show decimals in the number of blows.

Fig. 5.8 A Concrete sample arranged for Impact resistance test

73

Table 5.5 Results of Impact Resistance test.

% rubber 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 Sample height (mm) 64.69 64.31 65.34 65.04 65.51 66.19 64.95 64.83 65.85 63.97 65.50 63.92 64.37 63.83 64.73 64.75 No. of Blows 1st Ultimate Crack Failure 17.25 128.50 181.00 55.00 59.25 148.75 186.50 38.00 517.00 599.50 639.75 103.00 654.00 682.00 629.75 118.00 21.00 143.25 197.25 70.75 69.50 158.75 203.75 50.75 523.50 618.25 672.25 132.00 676.25 694.75 647.00 140.25 Increase/Decr. 1st Ultimate Crack Failure 0.00 111.25 163.75 37.75 0.00 89.50 127.25 -21.25 0.00 82.50 122.75 -414.00 0.00 28.00 -24.25 -536.00 0.00 122.25 176.25 49.75 0.00 89.25 134.25 -18.75 0.00 94.75 148.75 -391.50 0.00 18.50 -29.25 -536.00

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Spec. AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 DM1 DM2 CM3 DM2

Grade C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15 C 25 C 25 C 25 C 25 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 40

For rubberized concrete, the results show that the addition of rubber aggregate resulted in a significant increase in impact resistance compared with the control concrete. This increment increased with increasing percentage of rubber aggregate for a 10 % and 25 % rubber aggregate replacement in mixes A, B and C. In the case of mix D, a reduction in impact resistance was noticed at 25 % replacement of the rubber aggregate. In all mixes except mix A, the impact resistance value for a 50 % rubber aggregate replacement was lower than the control concrete. The test results shows that the addition of rubber aggregate to concrete at a lower percentages of 10 and 25 % enhanced the impact resistance of the concrete greatly and hence the application of rubberized concrete can be of great help in structures which are exposed to vibrations and impact loads.

74

5.3.5 Flexural strength Tests This test gives another way of estimating tensile strength of concrete. During pure bending, the member resisting the action is subjected to internal actions or stresses (shear, tensile and compressive). For a bending force applied downward on a member supported simply at its two ends, fibers above the neutral axis are, generally, subjected to compressive stresses and those below the neutral axis to tensile stresses. For this load and support system, portions of the member near the supports are subjected to relatively higher shear stresses than tensile stresses. In this test, the concrete member to be tested is supported at its ends and loaded at its interior locations by a gradually increasing load to failure. The failure load (loading value at which the concrete cracks heavily) is then recorded and used to determine the tensile stress at which the member failed, i.e. its tensile strength [38]. The prepared beam samples were tested after 28 days of standard curing and the results of flexural strength tests for the control concretes and the rubberized concretes are summarized below in Table 5.6. The calculation of the flexural stress at failure is as follows: C =D/2 cm; M=PL/3 N.m ; I=bd3/12 m4 ;

=Mc/I MPa ...[38] = Bending Strength

L = Span of Specimen D = Depth of specimen B = Width of the specimen

Where: P = Failure Load M = Maximum Moment I = Moment of Inertia C = Centroidal depth

75

Table 5.6 Flexural Strength Test Results.

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Spec. AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 Grade C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15 % rubber 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 Failure Load (KN) 9.1 9.45 5.2 5.7 11.1 11.35 10.1 6 12.05 10.75 8.6 6.5 13.3 9.5 9.3 5.75 Flexural Strength (MPa) 9.10 9.45 5.20 5.70 11.10 11.35 10.10 6.00 12.05 10.75 8.60 6.50 13.30 9.50 9.30 5.75 % Strength loss 0.00 -3.85 42.86 37.36 0.00 -2.25 9.01 45.95 0.00 10.79 28.63 46.06 0.00 28.57 30.08 56.77

BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4

CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

C 25 C 25 C 25 C 25
C 30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 40 C 40 C 40 C 40

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 50.00

The results show that the flexural strength increased compared to the control mix for rubber aggregate content of 10 % and for the low strength concrete classes (i.e. AM2 and BM2). In these two categories of concretes, for rubber aggregate content of 25% and 50% a flexural strength reduction was observed as compared to the control mix. This indicates that improvements in flexural strength are limited to a relatively small rubber aggregate contents. On the other part for mix C (C 30) and Mix D (C40) a reduction in flexural strength is seen in all concrete samples containing the rubber aggregate. The observed percentage losses in mix C are 10.79, 28.69 and 46.06 % for a rubber content of 10, 25 and 50 percents respectively. Whereas the percentage loss in mix D was 28.57, 30.08 and 56.77 % for a rubber aggregate content of 10, 25 and 50 percents respectively. Figure 5.9 below shows a graphical representation of the comparison on the flexural strength of the control concretes and the rubberized concretes.

76

C15
FlexuralStrength(MPa) 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 AM1 AM2 Specimen AM3 AM4

5.9 (a)

C25
FlexuralStrength(MPa) 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 BM1 BM2 Specimen BM3 BM4

5.9 (b)

C30
FlexuralStrength(MPa) 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 CM1 CM2 Specimen CM3 CM4

5.9 (c)

77

C40
14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 DM1 DM2 Specimen DM3 DM4 FlexuralStrength(MPa)

5.9 (d) Fig. 5.9 Comparison of flexural strength test results From the results obtained, it can be concluded that as the amount of rubber content increases, the reduction in the flexural strength also increases with a concrete of medium and high strength compressive values. Nevertheless, a good advantage of increase in flexural strength can be achieved with a lower strength concretes C15 and C25 and by limiting the replacement value to only 10 % of the coarse aggregate.

78

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The general objective of this research was to evaluate the fresh and hardened properties of a concrete produced by replacing part of the natural coarse aggregates with an aggregate produced from locally available recycled waste tire and subjected to local conditions. From the test results of the samples, as compared to the respective conventional concrete properties, the following conclusions and recommendations are drawn out.

6.1 Conclusions
1. The introduction of recycled rubber tires into concrete significantly increased the slump and workability. It was noted that the slump has increased as the percentage of rubber was increased in all samples except DM4 which is with a targeted compressive strength of 40 MPa and a 50 % replacement of rubber aggregates for the natural coarse aggregates. 2. A reduction in unit weight of up to 24% was observed when 50% by volume of the coarse aggregate was replaced by rubber aggregate in sample AM4 which is with a targeted compressive strength of 15 MPa. A much similar trend of reduction in unit weight of the rubberized concrete was observed in all the other samples containing rubber aggregates. The low specific gravity of the rubber chips as compared to the mineral coarse aggregates produced a decrease in the unit weight of the rubberized concrete. Crumb rubber is nearly two and half times lighter than the conventional mineral coarse aggregate and hence it can be expected that the mass density of the mix would be relatively lower. Rubberized concrete can be used in non load bearing members such as lightweight concrete walls, building facades, or other light architectural units, thus the rubberized concrete mixes could give a viable alternative to the normal weight concrete. 3. For rubberized concrete, the test results show that the addition of rubber aggregate resulted in a significant reduction in concrete compressive strength compared with the control concrete. This reduction increased with increasing percentage of rubber aggregate. Losses in compressive strength ranging from 11.38 % to 64.02 % were observed. The reason for the strength reduction could be attributed both to a reduction of quantity of the solid load carrying material and lack of adhesion at the boundaries of the rubber aggregate, soft rubber particles behave as voids in the concrete matrix. Therefore, rubber aggregate tends to behave like weak inclusions or voids in the concrete resulting in a reduction in compressive strength. Although the compressive strength values have considerably

79

decreased with the addition of waste tire pieces, their values are still in the reasonable range for a 10 % and 25 % replacement values because the intended compressive strengths of 15, 25, 30 and 40 MPa were achieved in this categories. 4. The results of the splitting tensile strength tests show that, there is a decrease in strength with increasing rubber aggregate content like the reduction observed in the compressive strength tests. However, there was a smaller reduction in splitting tensile strength as compared to the reduction in the compressive strength. One of the reasons that splitting tensile strength of the rubberized concrete is lower than the conventional concrete is that bond strength between cement paste and rubber tire particles is poor. Besides, pore structures in rubberized concretes are much more than conventional concrete. 5. The visual observation of the patterns of failure mode revealed that the rubberized concrete does not exhibit typical compression failure behavior. The control concrete shows a clean split of the sample into two halves, whereas the rubber aggregate tends to produce a less well defined failure. Moreover, the mode of failure was a gradual type rather than the brittle failure in the control concretes. This may be an indication more ductility in rubberized concrete than the control concrete. However, it has to be clearly investigated by carrying out ductility tests. 6. The Impact resistance test results show that the addition of rubber aggregate resulted in a significant increase in impact resistance compared with the control concrete. These results shows that the addition of rubber aggregate to concrete at a lower replacements of 10 and 25 % enhanced the impact resistance of the concrete greatly. Hence, the application of rubberized concrete can be of great help in structures that are exposed to vibrations and impact loads. 7. A significant advantage of increase in flexural strength was achieved in lower strength concretes, C15 and C25, by limiting the replacement amount to only 10 % of the coarse aggregate. In these two categories of concretes, for rubber aggregate contents of 25 and 50 % a flexural strength reduction was observed compared to the control mixes. The reduction indicates that improvements in flexural strength are limited to relatively small rubber aggregate contents. Since the tendency of the flexural strength test results are a bit different from the other strength test results, this needs to be investigated through more

80

research. In general, it can be concluded that as the amount of rubber content increases, the reduction in the flexural strength also increases 8. A reduced compressive strength of concrete due to the inclusion of rubber aggregates limits its use in some structural applications. Nevertheless, it has few desirable characteristics such as lower density, higher impact and toughness resistance, enhanced ductility, and a slight increase in flexural strength in the lower strength concretes. 9. The use of rubber aggregates from recycled tires addresses many issues. These include; reduction of the environmental threats caused by waste tires, introduction of an alternative source to aggregates in concrete, enhancing of the weak properties of concrete by the introduction of different ingredients other than the conventionally used natural aggregates and ultimately leading to the conservation of natural resources. In addition to meeting recycling and sustainability objectives, it aims is to produce products with enhanced properties in specific applications. 10. In some applications of concrete, it is demanded that concrete should have low unit weight, Medium strength, high toughness and high impact resistance. Although concrete is the most commonly used construction material, it does not always fulfill these requirements. One of the ways to improve these properties can be the addition of the rubber into concrete as an aggregate. The overall results of this study show that it is possible to use recycled rubber tires in concrete construction as a partial replacement for coarse aggregates. However, the percentage replacement should be limited to specified amounts as discussed above and the application should be restricted to particular cases where the improved properties due to the rubber aggregates outweigh the corresponding demerits that may occur due to them.

6.2 Recommendations
1. Even though the use of waste tires for various applications by traditional recyclers has been a common practice in Ethiopia so far, with the increase in urbanization and the change in the living conditions of the society, the old ways cannot continue with time. Hence, there will be a potential accumulation of waste tires especially in the larger cities of the country. So far, the Government has made an attempt by declaring the solid waste management proclamation on the Negarit gazette prohibiting the import of waste tires. Moreover, the

81

country should also enforce laws regarding the management of waste tires before the problem expands and reaches to an uncontrollable level. 2. Since the use of rubber aggregates in concrete construction is not a common trend in our country, more studies and research works need to be done in this area and academic institutions should play a great role. 3. Tire manufacturers and importers in the country should be aware of the environmental consequences of waste tires and they should have research centers that promote an environmental friendly way of tire reprocessing. 4. Most of the time, it is observed that designers and contractors go to a high strength and expensive concrete to get few improved properties such as impact resistance in parking areas and light weight structures for particular applications. Nevertheless, these properties can be achieved through the application of rubberized concrete by first conducting laboratory tests regarding the desired properties. Therefore, the use of rubberized concrete as an alternative concrete making material needs an attention. 5. Since the long-term performance of these mixes was not investigated in the present study, the use of such mixes is recommended in places where high strength of concrete is not as important as the other properties. 6. Future studies should be continued in the following areas as part of the extension of this research work. i) In this research, a constant dosage of admixture was used for a particular mix category. It will be more helpful if the effects of various dosages of admixtures are investigated. ii) The effect of using de-airing agents to decrease the entrapped air in rubberized concrete should be studied. Consequently, a considerable increase in compressive strength can be achieved. iii) The existence of any chemical reactions between the rubber aggregate and other constituents of the rubberized concrete to make sure that there is no undesirable effects that are similar to alkali-silica and alkali-carbonate reactions in natural aggregates needs to be investigated.

82

iv) This research was done by preparing single graded rubber aggregates of size 20 mm. The effect of different sizes should be studied in the future. Besides to this, the effects in different percentage replacements other than those made in this research needs to be investigated. v) The test results in this study are based on results taken after 7th, 28th and 56th days of standard curing of the test samples. The long-term effects of rubberized concrete needs to be studied to find out the relevant properties associated with the age of the concrete.

83

REFERENCES
[1] [2] Neville A.M., Properties of Concrete, 4th edition, Addison Wesley Longman ltd, 1996. Kumaran S.G., Nurdin M. and Lakshmipathy M., A Review on Construction Technologies that Enable Environmental Protection: Rubberized Concrete, USA, Science Publications, 2008.

[3]

Groom R.E., Hanna J.A. and Tutu O., New Products incorporating Tire Materials, Northern Ireland: Questor Centre, 2005.

[4] [5]

Kaloush K.E, George B. W. and Han Z., Properties of Crumb Rubber Concrete, Arizona: Arizona State University, 2004.

Vanessa C., Linda G., Ase H., Joanne W. And Krishna R., Use of Shredded Tires as a Lightweight Backfill Material for Retaining Structures, Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 1995.

[6]

Gintautas S., Audrius G. and Benjaminas C., Deformation Properties of Concrete With Rubber Waste Additives, Lithuania: Kaunas University of Technology, 2007. Prakash P., Sharma S.C. and Murthy C.S., Study of Crumb Rubber waste in Cement stabilized soil blocks, Bangalore, 2006.

[7] [8]

Chou L.H., Chun K.L., Chang J.R. and Lee M.T., Use of waste rubber as Concrete additive, Taiwan: Waste Management and Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2007.

[9]

Olivares F.H., Barluenga G., Landa B.P., Bollati M. and Witoszek B., Fatigue behavior of Recycled tire rubber-filled concrete and Its implications in the Design of Rigid pavements, Madrid : Elsevier Ltd, 2006.

[10] Carol Carder, Rubberized concrete, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Construction, 2004. [11] Barnet J. and Associates Ltd, Recycling and Secondary Aggregates, Dublin, 2004.

[12] Emiroglu M., Kelestemur M.H. and Yildiz S., An Investigation on ITZ Microstructure of The Concrete Containing Waste Vehicle Tire, Istanbul: Firat University, 2007.

[13] Cairns R., Kew H.Y. and Kenny M.J., The Use of Recycled Rubber Tires in Concrete Construction, Glasgow: The Onyx Environmental Trust, 2004. [14] Sidney Mindess, Young J.F. and David Darwin, Concrete, 2nd edition, New Jersey: Prentice hall, 2003.

[15] Naik T.R. and Moriconi G., Environmental-friendly durable Concrete made with Recycled materials for Sustainable Concrete Construction, Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, 2005.

84

[16] The Portland Cement Association, http://www.cement.org, 2009. [Viewed 11 July 2009]

[17] ASTM International Standards, http: // www.astm.org/standards, 2009. [Viewed 04 August 2009]

[18] Meyer C., Concrete As a Green Building Material, New York, 2004.

[19] Shewaferaw Dinku, The Use of Manufactured Sand In Concrete Production: Test Results And Cost Comparison, MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa, 2006.

[20] The US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov,2009. [Viewed 13 Sept. 2009]

[21] Tigist Getaneh, Investigation on the Potential Use of Available Materials for the Production of High Strength Structural Concrete, MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa, 2002.

[22] Wallis M.J., Sustainable Re-use of Tires in Port, Coastal and River Engineering, Seattle: HR Wallingford, 2005.

[23] Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org, 2009 [Viewed 27 March 2009]

[24] The Rubber Manufacturers Association, http://www.rma.org, 2009 [Viewed 13 March 2009]

[25] John Stutz, Sara Donahue, Erica Mintzer, and Amy Cotter, Recycled Rubber Products in Landscaping Applications, Boston: Tellus Institute,2003.

[26] Michelle Danko, Edgar Cano and Jose Pena, Use of Recycled Tires as Partial replacement of Coarse Aggregate in the Production of Concrete, Purdue University Calumet, 2006.

[27] Paul Hallett, The Use of Post-Consumer Tires as Aggregate, London: ais, 2002.

[28] Mengistu Zerga, Yagelegelu Gomawochn meliso belela tikim lay mawal, Addis Ababa: Environmental development action-Ethiopia, 2001.

[29] Ethiopian Tire and Rubber Economy Plant P.L.C., 2009. [Brochure]

[30] Federal Negarit Gazette of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Solid Waste Management Proclamation, 13th year, No. 13, Addis Ababa, 2007.

[31] Naik T.R. and Rafat Siddique, Properties of Concrete Containing Scrap Tire rubber -an Overview, Milwaukee, 2002.

[32] Felipe J.A., Jeannette Santos, The Use of Recycled Polymers and Rubbers in Concrete, Florida, 2004.

85

[33] Michael Abbott, Crumb Rubber in Sport And Play, Dundee, 2001.

[34] Ling T.C. and Hasanan M.N., Properties of Crumb Rubber Concrete Paving Blocks with and without Facing Layer, Kuala lumpur, 2006.

[35] Yunping Xi, Yue Li, Zhaohui Xie, and Lee J.S., Utilization of Solid Wastes (Waste Glass and Rubber Particles) as Aggregates in Concrete, Colorado, 2003.

[36] U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Reuse Of Concrete Materials From Building Demolition, Washington DC, 2004.

[37] Kang Jingfu, Han Chuncui and Zhang Zhenli, Roller-Compacted Concrete using Tire-Rubber Additive, Tianjin,2008.

[38] Abebe Dinku, Construction Materials Laboratory Manual, Addis Ababa University Printing Press, Addis Ababa, 2002.

[39] Fosroc Product Catalogue, 2009.

[40] Abebe Dinku, DOE Method of Mix Design Process, Addis Ababa, 2008. [Lecture, AAU, Faculty of Technology, Civil Engineering Department, 2007/2008]

[41] ACI Committee 544, Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI 544.2R-89.

86

Annex A: Material Properties

A1:Physical Properties of the Fine Aggregate
Description 1- Moisture Content A- Weight of original sample B- Weight of oven dry sample Moisture content w (%)= 100*(A-B)/B 500 gm 490 gm 2.04 % Result

2- Unit weight of Aggregates Rodding Procedure Weight of Measure Weight of Measure and rodded aggregate Net rodded Aggregate volume of Measure Rodded Unit weight

4830 gm 26505 gm 21675 gm 14265.12 cc 1.52 gm/cm

3

3- Specific Gravity and Absorbtion Capacity Gravimetric (Pycnometer) Procedure weight original sample in air= A=weight of oven-dry sample in air (gm)= B= weight of pycnometer filled with water= C=weight of pycnometer with sample and water to calibration mark Bulk Specific gravity= A/(B+500-C) = Bulk Specific gravity(SSD basis)= 500/(B+500-C) Apparrent Specific Gravity= A/(B+A-C) Absorption(%)= 100*(500-A)/A 500 479 1271 1572 gm gm gm gm

2.41 2.51 2.69 4.38 %

87

A2: Physical Properties of the Coarse Aggregate

Description 1- Moisture Content A- Weight of original sample B- Weight of oven dry sample Moisture content w (%)= 100*(A-B)/B Result

2000 gm 1973 gm 1.37 %

2- Unit weight of Aggregates Rodding Procedure Weight of Measure Weight of Measure and rodded aggregate Net rodded Aggregate volume of Measure Rodded Unit weight 4830 gm 26702 gm 21872 gm 14265.12 cc 1.53 gm/cc 1533.25 kg/m3

3- Specific Gravity and Absorbtion Capacity of Coarse Aggregate A= weight of oven dry sample in air B = Weight of SSD sample in air C= weight of saturated sample in water Bulk Specific Gravity= A/(B-C) Bulk Specific Gravity(SSD basis) =B/(B-C) Apparent Specific Gravity = A/(A-C) Absorbtion Cap.(%)= 100*(B - A)/A 4944 gm 5029 gm 3259.5 gm 2.79

2.84 2.93 1.72 %

88

Description 4 Crushing Value of Aggregtae

Result

The test is done on agg. that passes 12.5mm sieve and retained on 10.0mm ASTM sieve A= the mass of surface dry sample (gm) = B= mass of the fraction passing 2.36mm = Percentage finesness = B/A 2810 gm 501 gm 17.83 %

5 Los Angeles Abrasion Test The Los Angeles Abrasion value is the % of finnes passing 1.18mm that gives the Abrasion resistance. A= the mass of specimen before abrasion B= the mass of specimen after abrasion Abrasion Value= 100*(A-B)/A 5000 gm 4255 gm 14.9 %

89

ANNEX B: MIX DESIGN (DOE method)

B1: C-15 Trial Mix
Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 15 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 15 + crushed uncrushed 0.75 0.55 Use the lower value
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 9.84 6 N/mm

2

9.84 N/mm2 25 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ _ 309 kg/m
3

kg/m3 kg/m3

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 310
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1946 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 661.6 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 660.0 7.26

34 % 660 kg/m3 1286 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1285 14.13

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 1.87

per trial mix of 0.011m

3.41

90

B2:C-25 (Trial Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 25 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 25 + crushed uncrushed 0.58 0.55 Use the lower value
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 13.12 8 N/mm

2

13.12 N/mm2 38 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ 309 kg/m
3

kg/m3 330 kg/m3 0.52

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 330
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1925 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 654.5 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 655.0 7.2

34 % 655 kg/m3 1270 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1270 13.97

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 1.87

per trial mix of 0.011m

3.63

91

B3: C-30 (Trial Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 30 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 30 +
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 13.12 8 N/mm

2

13.12 N/mm2 43 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

crushed uncrushed 0.52 0.55

Use the lower value

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ 327 kg/m
3

kg/m3 360 kg/m3 0.47

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 360
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1895 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 644.3 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 645.0 7.09

34 % 645 kg/m3 1250 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1250 13.75

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 1.87

per trial mix of 0.011m

3.96

92

B4: C-40 (Trial Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 40 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 40 +
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 13.12 8 N/mm

2

13.12 N/mm2 53 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

crushed uncrushed 0.45 0.55

Use the lower value

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified 378 kg/m
3

_ kg/m3 380 kg/m3 0.45

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 380
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1875 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 637.5 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 640.0 7.04

34 % 638 kg/m3 1237 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1240 13.64

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 1.87

per trial mix of 0.011m

4.18

93

B5: C-15 (Final Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 15 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 15 +
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 9.84 6 N/mm

2

9.84 N/mm2 25 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

crushed uncrushed 0.75 _

Use the lower value

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ _ 227 kg/m
3

kg/m3 kg/m3

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 230 15.64 fine aggregate (kg) 690.0 46.92 [=concrete density - water content -cement content] 2.66 known 2425 kg/m
3

2028 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 689.6 kg/m

3

take take

34 % 690 kg/m3 1338 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1340 91.12

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg) per a mix of 0.068 m3

Water (kg) 170 11.56

94

B6: C-25 (Final Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 25 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 25 +
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 13.12 8 N/mm

2

13.12 N/mm2 38 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

crushed uncrushed 0.61 _

Use the lower value

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ _ 279 kg/m
3

kg/m3 kg/m3

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 280 19.04
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1976 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 671.9 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 670.0 45.56

34 % 672 kg/m3 1304 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1305 88.74

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 11.56

per a mix of 0.068 m

95

B7: C-30 (Final Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 30 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 30 +
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 13.12 8 N/mm

2

13.12 N/mm2 43 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

crushed uncrushed 0.53 _

Use the lower value

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ _ 321 kg/m
3

kg/m3 kg/m3

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 320 21.76
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1934 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 657.6 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 660.0 44.88

34 % 658 kg/m3 1276 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1275 86.7

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 11.56

per a mix of 0.068 m

96

B8: C-40 (Final Mix)

Stage Item SELECTION OF TARGET Reference caculation or values

1 W/C RATIO.
1.1 Characteristic strength 1.2 Standard deviation () 1.3 Margin 1.4 Target mean strength 1.5 Cement Type 1.6 Aggregate type M=k fc= fck+M = specified OPC coarse fine Specified 40 N/mm Proportion defective N/mm k= 1.64 40 +
2

at 28 days 5% or no data M= 13.12 8 N/mm

2

13.12 N/mm2 53 N/mm

2

1.7 Free water/cement ratio 1.8 Maximum free water/cement ratio specified

crushed uncrushed 0.47 _

Use the lower value

SELECTION OF FREE

2 WATER CONTENT
2.1 Slump or V-B 2.2 Max. aggregate size 2.3 Free-water content specified specified 10-30mm 20 mm 170 kg/m
3

DETERMINATION OF

3 CEMENT CONTENT
3.1 Cement content 3.2 Maximum Cement Content 3.3 Minimum Cement Content 3.4 Modified FW/C DETERMINATION OF [Free water (w/c)] specified specified _ _ 362 kg/m
3

kg/m3 kg/m3

4 TOTAL AGGREGATE
4.1 Relative density of aggregate (SSD) 4.2 concrete density 4.3 Total aggregate content SELECTION OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE 5 CONTENT 5.1 Grading of fine aggregate 5.2 Proportion of fine aggregate 5.3 Fine aggregate content 5.4 Coarse aggregate content cement (kg) 360 24.48
3

2.66 known 2425 kg/m [=concrete density - water content -cement content]
3

1893 kg/m3

BS 882

Zone 2 30-37 % 643.7 kg/m

3

take take fine aggregate (kg) 645.0 43.86

34 % 644 kg/m3 1249 kg/m3 coarse agg. (kg) 1250 85

Quantities
3 per m (to nearest 5 kg)

Water (kg) 170 11.56

per a mix of 0.068 m

97

ANNEX C: Compressive Strength and Unit Weight Test Results C1: 7 Day Test Results
Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 15.25 14.90 15.05 15.07 14.22 13.98 13.58 13.93 13.16 12.73 14.16 13.35 7.39 7.20 7.00 7.20

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean AM4 C 15 50 AM3 C 15 25 AM2 C 15 10 AM1 C 15 0

15.01 14.95 14.92 14.96 14.91 15.00 14.95 14.95 15.00 15.35 15.02 15.12 14.93 15.34 15.07 15.11

15.00 15.07 15.01 15.03 14.98 14.97 14.96 14.97 15.20 15.03 15.19 15.14 14.97 15.30 14.99 15.09

15.18 15.12 15.06 15.12 15.04 15.09 15.10 15.08 14.93 14.96 15.01 14.97 15.13 15.15 15.15 15.14

3,418.45 3,407.16 3,372.90 3,399.50 3,357.41 3,388.00 3,375.57 3,373.66 3,403.82 3,453.71 3,421.87 3,426.47 3,379.79 3,555.05 3,424.65 3,453.16

8,386.00 8,264.00 8,290.00 8,313.33 8,032.00 8,126.00 8,044.00 8,067.33 7,806.00 7,724.00 7,770.00 7,766.67 6,825.00 6,939.00 6,800.00 6,854.67

343.10 335.20 338.60 338.97 320.00 314.60 305.50 313.37 296.10 286.40 318.70 300.40 166.20 168.90 158.10 164.40

2.45 2.43 2.46 2.45 2.39 2.40 2.38 2.39 2.29 2.24 2.27 2.27 2.02 1.95 1.99 1.99

98

ANNEX C: Compressive Strength and Unit Weight Test Results C1: 7 Day Test Results
Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 30.08 28.68 29.22 29.33 23.49 23.81 25.59 24.30 23.00 22.99 24.67 23.55 11.72 13.60 11.18 12.17

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean BM4 C 25 50 BM3 C 25 25 BM2 C 25 10 BM1 C 25 0

15.19 15.01 15.33 15.17 15.03 15.02 15.34 15.13 15.01 15.03 15.01 15.02 15.06 15.00 15.19 15.08

15.05 15.14 15.33 15.17 15.03 15.00 15.34 15.12 15.01 15.03 14.97 15.00 15.02 15.00 15.05 15.02

15.09 15.33 15.20 15.21 15.39 15.05 15.61 15.35 15.01 15.20 15.16 15.12 15.29 15.34 15.22 15.28

3,450.41 3,485.36 3,569.80 3,501.86 3,476.63 3,390.09 3,672.33 3,513.02 3,381.53 3,433.71 3,406.69 3,407.31 3,456.77 3,451.06 3,478.52 3,462.12

8,539.00 8,550.00 8,698.00 8,595.67 8,177.00 8,066.00 8,651.00 8,298.00 7,663.00 7,914.00 7,911.00 7,829.33 6,926.00 7,272.00 7,034.00 7,077.33

676.80 645.60 657.30 659.90 528.70 535.80 575.70 546.73 518.10 517.30 555.10 530.17 263.60 305.90 251.70 273.73

2.47 2.45 2.44 2.45 2.35 2.38 2.36 2.36 2.27 2.30 2.32 2.30 2.00 2.11 2.02 2.04

99

ANNEX C: Compressive Strength and Unit Weight Test Results C1: 7 Day Test Results
Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 35.88 35.26 36.21 35.78 31.55 29.88 33.69 31.71 18.30 21.42 20.04 19.92 15.78 13.49 13.38 14.22

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean CM4 C 30 50 CM3 C 30 25 CM2 C 30 10 CM1 C 30 0

15.00 14.96 15.06 15.01 14.98 15.03 15.32 15.11 14.99 14.87 14.95 14.94 15.00 15.20 15.00 15.07

15.24 15.27 15.18 15.23 15.00 15.25 15.58 15.27 15.19 15.23 15.27 15.23 15.00 15.10 15.10 15.07

14.97 14.92 15.05 14.98 15.19 14.98 15.30 15.16 14.99 14.89 15.09 14.99 15.30 15.10 15.30 15.23

3,422.38 3,406.50 3,438.77 3,422.55 3,410.47 3,431.72 3,652.13 3,498.10 3,413.43 3,371.49 3,446.43 3,410.45 3,442.50 3,465.75 3,465.45 3,457.90

8,456.00 8,446.00 8,440.00 8,447.33 8,267.00 8,239.00 8,791.00 8,432.33 7,669.00 7,778.00 7,756.00 7,734.33 7,239.00 7,103.00 7,116.00 7,152.67

807.40 793.50 814.80 805.23 710.00 672.40 758.10 713.50 411.80 481.90 451.60 448.43 355.10 303.70 301.20 320.00

2.47 2.48 2.45 2.47 2.42 2.40 2.41 2.41 2.25 2.31 2.25 2.27 2.10 2.05 2.05 2.07

100

ANNEX C: Compressive Strength and Unit Weight Test Results C1: 7 Day Test Results
Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 42.67 42.17 42.56 42.47 35.31 37.81 38.62 37.25 32.00 33.26 32.33 32.53 16.54 16.87 15.18 16.20

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean DM4 C 40 50 DM3 C 40 25 DM2 C 40 10 DM1 C 40 0

15.20 15.00 14.90 15.03 15.00 15.10 15.30 15.13 15.30 14.90 15.30 15.17 15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10

15.00 15.10 15.20 15.10 15.20 15.30 15.30 15.27 15.00 15.20 14.90 15.03 15.00 15.40 15.00 15.13

15.00 14.90 15.00 14.97 15.00 15.10 15.40 15.17 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.03 15.00 15.10 15.20 15.10

3,420.00 3,374.85 3,397.20 3,397.35 3,420.00 3,488.55 3,604.99 3,504.51 3,442.50 3,397.20 3,442.35 3,427.35 3,442.50 3,488.10 3,420.00 3,450.20

8,445.00 8,445.00 8,451.00 8,447.00 8,191.00 8,328.00 8,882.00 8,467.00 7,755.00 8,051.00 7,986.00 7,930.67 7,396.00 7,341.00 7,219.00 7,318.67

960.50 948.80 957.80 955.70 794.70 850.70 869.20 838.20 610.70 748.30 727.50 695.50 372.40 379.60 341.50 364.50

2.47 2.50 2.49 2.49 2.40 2.39 2.46 2.42 2.25 2.37 2.32 2.31 2.15 2.10 2.11 2.12

101

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Test Results

C2: 28 Day Results Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 22.68 22.32 22.49 22.50 21.59 19.49 18.73 19.94 13.39 15.20 17.41 15.33 6.48 4.30 7.45 6.08

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean AM4 C 15 50 AM3 C 15 25 AM2 C 15 10 AM1 C 15 0

15.00 14.90 15.00 14.97 15.00 15.00 15.30 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

14.90 15.00 15.00 14.97 15.00 14.90 15.30 15.07 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.00 15.10 15.03 15.20 15.00 15.30 15.17 15.10 15.20 15.20 15.17 15.30 15.20 15.30 15.27

3,352.50 3,352.50 3,397.50 3,367.50 3,420.00 3,352.50 3,581.58 3,451.36 3,397.50 3,420.00 3,420.00 3,412.50 3,442.50 3,420.00 3,442.50 3,435.00

8,386.00 8,264.00 8,290.00 8,313.33 8,162.00 8,002.00 8,532.00 8,232.00 7,556.00 7,704.00 7,620.00 7,626.67 6,368.00 6,289.00 6,660.00 6,439.00

510.50 502.40 506.20 506.37 485.90 438.80 421.30 448.67 301.40 342.30 392.00 345.23 145.80 97.00 168.00 136.93

2.50 2.47 2.44 2.47 2.39 2.39 2.38 2.39 2.22 2.25 2.23 2.23 1.85 1.84 1.93 1.87

102

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Test Results

C2: 28 Day Results Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 42.63 40.49 40.16 41.09 35.34 30.09 37.75 34.39 28.88 29.39 28.50 28.92 15.43 15.69 13.23 14.78

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean BM4 C 25 50 BM3 C 25 25 BM2 C 25 10 BM1 C 25 0

15.20 14.90 15.00 15.03 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.03 15.00 15.30 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.03

15.20 15.00 15.00 15.07 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.30 15.00 15.10 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.03

15.00 15.40 15.10 15.17 15.00 15.20 15.20 15.13 15.10 15.30 15.00 15.13 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30

3,465.60 3,441.90 3,397.50 3,435.00 3,375.00 3,420.00 3,442.80 3,412.60 3,397.50 3,581.58 3,375.00 3,451.36 3,465.45 3,465.45 3,442.50 3,457.80

8,947.00 8,484.00 8,425.00 8,618.67 8,134.00 8,156.00 8,480.00 8,256.67 7,886.00 8,244.00 7,837.00 7,989.00 7,030.00 7,143.00 7,007.00 7,060.00

959.20 911.10 903.70 924.67 792.00 677.30 849.40 772.90 649.10 661.30 641.20 650.53 352.00 353.10 297.70 334.27

2.58 2.46 2.48 2.51 2.41 2.38 2.46 2.42 2.32 2.30 2.32 2.31 2.03 2.06 2.04 2.04

103

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Test Results

C2: 28 Day Results Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 49.40 49.02 48.97 49.13 40.55 36.99 41.79 39.78 30.12 33.81 29.56 31.16 19.00 20.19 17.31 18.83

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean CM4 C 30 50 CM3 C 30 25 CM2 C 30 10 CM1 C 30 0

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.20 15.00 15.07 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.00 15.10 15.03 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.03 14.90 15.30 15.10 15.10 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.03

15.30 15.10 15.00 15.13 15.50 15.30 15.18 15.33 15.18 15.70 15.10 15.33 15.40 15.20 15.37 15.32

3,442.50 3,397.50 3,397.50 3,412.50 3,510.75 3,442.50 3,415.50 3,456.25 3,392.73 3,651.19 3,420.15 3,488.02 3,465.00 3,442.80 3,458.25 3,455.35

8,457.00 8,463.00 8,498.00 8,472.67 8,247.00 8,212.00 8,218.00 8,225.67 7,945.00 8,525.00 7,945.00 8,138.33 7,055.00 7,199.00 7,144.00 7,132.67

1,111.50 1,102.90 1,102.00 1,105.47 912.50 832.20 940.20 894.97 677.90 760.80 665.10 701.27 427.50 454.30 389.60 423.80

2.46 2.49 2.50 2.48 2.35 2.39 2.41 2.38 2.34 2.33 2.32 2.33 2.04 2.09 2.07 2.06

104

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Test Results

C2: 28 Day Results Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 55.98 56.24 55.01 55.74 47.41 47.36 43.62 46.13 38.00 39.00 38.15 38.38 22.39 23.20 22.61 22.73

Unit Weight [gm/cm 3]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean DM4 C 40 50 DM3 C 40 25 DM2 C 40 10 DM1 C 40 0

15.00 15.30 15.00 15.10 15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.30 15.00 15.10 15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.20 15.50 15.30 15.33 15.50 15.20 15.30 15.33 15.00 15.20 15.10 15.10 15.50 15.50 15.20 15.40

3,420.00 3,628.40 3,442.50 3,496.97 3,628.40 3,420.00 3,442.50 3,496.97 3,375.00 3,420.00 3,397.50 3,397.50 3,487.50 3,487.50 3,420.00 3,465.00

8,532.00 8,988.00 8,535.00 8,685.00 8,684.00 8,276.00 8,280.00 8,413.33 7,779.00 8,037.00 7,839.00 7,885.00 7,379.00 7,466.00 7,268.00 7,371.00

1,259.55 1,265.40 1,237.73 1,254.23 1,066.73 1,065.60 981.45 1,037.93 855.00 877.50 858.38 863.63 503.78 522.00 508.73 511.50

2.49 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.39 2.42 2.41 2.41 2.30 2.35 2.31 2.32 2.12 2.14 2.13 2.13

105

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

C3: 56 Day Results Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 27.28 29.31 27.99 28.19 26.20 24.70 25.20 25.37 19.93 20.00 22.40 20.78 16.40 17.15 16.00 16.52

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean AM4 C 15 50 AM3 C 15 25 AM2 C 15 10 AM1 C 15 0

14.96 14.97 14.98 14.97 14.97 15.31 14.98 15.09 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 14.90 15.20 15.03

15.03 14.96 15.05 15.01 14.95 15.02 15.00 14.99 15.00 15.30 15.00 15.10 15.20 15.20 15.00 15.13

15.14 15.13 15.25 15.17 15.05 15.13 15.20 15.12 15.40 15.30 15.30 15.33 15.10 15.50 15.00 15.20

3,403.08 3,388.16 3,438.09 3,409.78 3,370.24 3,477.41 3,413.63 3,420.43 3,465.00 3,511.35 3,442.50 3,472.95 3,442.80 3,510.44 3,420.00 3,457.75

8,329.00 8,408.00 8,420.00 8,385.67 8,191.00 8,314.00 7,962.00 8,155.67 7,765.00 7,767.00 7,818.00 7,783.33 6,869.00 7,279.00 6,714.00 6,954.00

613.90 659.80 629.80 634.50 589.50 555.90 567.00 570.80 448.60 450.00 503.90 467.50 369.00 385.90 360.00 371.63

2.45 2.48 2.45 2.46 2.43 2.39 2.33 2.38 2.24 2.21 2.27 2.24 2.00 2.07 1.96 2.01

106

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L C3: 56 Day Results Dimensions (cm) W H
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 43.87 47.99 48.01 46.62 38.66 40.57 41.30 40.18 31.35 32.75 29.14 31.08 18.10 16.90 19.00 18.00

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean BM4 C 25 50 BM3 C 25 25 BM2 C 25 10 BM1 C 25 0

14.99 15.26 14.97 15.07 14.98 15.03 14.99 15.00 15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10 14.90 15.30 15.10 15.10

15.00 15.30 14.99 15.10 14.97 15.00 14.89 14.95 15.30 15.10 14.90 15.10 15.20 15.30 15.00 15.17

15.16 15.35 15.09 15.20 15.23 15.21 15.11 15.18 15.60 15.20 15.30 15.37 15.30 15.40 15.10 15.27

3,408.05 3,583.18 3,385.97 3,459.07 3,413.08 3,428.87 3,372.79 3,404.91 3,651.80 3,442.80 3,419.55 3,504.72 3,465.14 3,604.99 3,420.15 3,496.76

8,508.00 8,974.00 8,517.00 8,666.33 8,235.00 8,318.00 8,193.00 8,248.67 8,346.00 7,817.00 7,823.00 7,995.33 6,979.00 7,265.00 6,980.00 7,074.67

987.20 1,079.80 1,080.40 1,049.13 870.10 912.80 929.20 904.03 705.80 736.80 655.80 699.47 407.25 380.25 427.50 405.00

2.50 2.50 2.52 2.51 2.41 2.43 2.43 2.42 2.29 2.27 2.29 2.28 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.02

107

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L C3: 56 Day Results Dimensions (cm) W H
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 56.00 55.00 55.03 55.34 49.41 45.76 46.93 47.37 37.27 38.00 35.24 36.84 24.00 25.24 21.64 23.63

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean CM4 C 30 50 CM3 C 30 25 CM2 C 30 10 CM1 C 30 0

15.30 14.90 15.00 15.07 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 14.90 15.20 15.00 15.03 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.03 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.40 15.30 15.20 15.30 15.40 15.40 15.20 15.33 15.10 15.00 15.30 15.13 15.20 15.20 15.40 15.27

3,604.99 3,419.55 3,420.00 3,481.51 3,488.10 3,488.10 3,465.75 3,480.65 3,397.35 3,442.80 3,465.45 3,435.20 3,420.00 3,420.00 3,465.00 3,435.00

8,903.00 8,467.00 8,514.00 8,628.00 8,437.00 8,371.00 8,334.00 8,380.67 7,866.00 7,766.00 7,908.00 7,846.67 7,204.00 7,038.00 7,249.00 7,163.67

1,260.00 1,237.50 1,238.18 1,245.23 1,111.73 1,029.60 1,055.93 1,065.75 838.58 855.00 792.90 828.83 540.00 567.84 486.84 531.56

2.47 2.48 2.49 2.48 2.42 2.40 2.40 2.41 2.32 2.26 2.28 2.28 2.11 2.06 2.09 2.09

108

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L C3: 56 Day Results Dimensions (cm) W H
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 59.00 60.20 61.40 60.20 52.10 51.80 50.30 51.40 49.10 48.75 47.69 48.51 27.99 29.00 28.26 28.42

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean DM4 C 40 50 DM3 C 40 25 DM2 C 40 10 DM1 C 40 0

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.20 15.30 15.17 15.20 15.30 15.30 15.27 15.10 15.40 15.20 15.23 15.40 15.50 15.40 15.43

3,375.00 3,420.00 3,442.50 3,412.50 3,420.00 3,442.50 3,442.50 3,435.00 3,397.50 3,465.00 3,420.00 3,427.50 3,465.00 3,487.50 3,465.00 3,472.50

8,522.00 8,449.00 8,566.00 8,512.33 8,279.00 8,257.00 8,272.00 8,269.33 7,792.00 7,806.00 8,085.00 7,894.33 7,140.00 7,243.00 7,373.00 7,252.00

1,327.50 1,354.50 1,381.50 1,354.50 1,172.25 1,165.50 1,131.75 1,156.50 1,104.75 1,096.88 1,072.97 1,091.53 629.72 652.50 635.91 639.38

2.53 2.47 2.49 2.49 2.42 2.40 2.40 2.41 2.29 2.25 2.36 2.30 2.06 2.08 2.13 2.09

109

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

C3: 56 Day Results Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L Dimensions (cm) W
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 27.28 29.31 27.99 28.19 26.20 24.70 25.20 25.37 19.93 20.00 22.40 20.78 16.40 17.15 16.00 16.52

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean AM4 C 15 50 AM3 C 15 25 AM2 C 15 10 AM1 C 15 0

14.96 14.97 14.98 14.97 14.97 15.31 14.98 15.09 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 14.90 15.20 15.03

15.03 14.96 15.05 15.01 14.95 15.02 15.00 14.99 15.00 15.30 15.00 15.10 15.20 15.20 15.00 15.13

15.14 15.13 15.25 15.17 15.05 15.13 15.20 15.12 15.40 15.30 15.30 15.33 15.10 15.50 15.00 15.20

3,403.08 3,388.16 3,438.09 3,409.78 3,370.24 3,477.41 3,413.63 3,420.43 3,465.00 3,511.35 3,442.50 3,472.95 3,442.80 3,510.44 3,420.00 3,457.75

8,329.00 8,408.00 8,420.00 8,385.67 8,191.00 8,314.00 7,962.00 8,155.67 7,765.00 7,767.00 7,818.00 7,783.33 6,869.00 7,279.00 6,714.00 6,954.00

613.90 659.80 629.80 634.50 589.50 555.90 567.00 570.80 448.60 450.00 503.90 467.50 369.00 385.90 360.00 371.63

2.45 2.48 2.45 2.46 2.43 2.39 2.33 2.38 2.24 2.21 2.27 2.24 2.00 2.07 1.96 2.01

106

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L C3: 56 Day Results Dimensions (cm) W H
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 43.87 47.99 48.01 46.62 38.66 40.57 41.30 40.18 31.35 32.75 29.14 31.08 18.10 16.90 19.00 18.00

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean BM4 C 25 50 BM3 C 25 25 BM2 C 25 10 BM1 C 25 0

14.99 15.26 14.97 15.07 14.98 15.03 14.99 15.00 15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10 14.90 15.30 15.10 15.10

15.00 15.30 14.99 15.10 14.97 15.00 14.89 14.95 15.30 15.10 14.90 15.10 15.20 15.30 15.00 15.17

15.16 15.35 15.09 15.20 15.23 15.21 15.11 15.18 15.60 15.20 15.30 15.37 15.30 15.40 15.10 15.27

3,408.05 3,583.18 3,385.97 3,459.07 3,413.08 3,428.87 3,372.79 3,404.91 3,651.80 3,442.80 3,419.55 3,504.72 3,465.14 3,604.99 3,420.15 3,496.76

8,508.00 8,974.00 8,517.00 8,666.33 8,235.00 8,318.00 8,193.00 8,248.67 8,346.00 7,817.00 7,823.00 7,995.33 6,979.00 7,265.00 6,980.00 7,074.67

987.20 1,079.80 1,080.40 1,049.13 870.10 912.80 929.20 904.03 705.80 736.80 655.80 699.47 407.25 380.25 427.50 405.00

2.50 2.50 2.52 2.51 2.41 2.43 2.43 2.42 2.29 2.27 2.29 2.28 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.02

107

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L C3: 56 Day Results Dimensions (cm) W H
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 56.00 55.00 55.03 55.34 49.41 45.76 46.93 47.37 37.27 38.00 35.24 36.84 24.00 25.24 21.64 23.63

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean CM4 C 30 50 CM3 C 30 25 CM2 C 30 10 CM1 C 30 0

15.30 14.90 15.00 15.07 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 14.90 15.20 15.00 15.03 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.30 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.10 15.03 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.10 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.40 15.30 15.20 15.30 15.40 15.40 15.20 15.33 15.10 15.00 15.30 15.13 15.20 15.20 15.40 15.27

3,604.99 3,419.55 3,420.00 3,481.51 3,488.10 3,488.10 3,465.75 3,480.65 3,397.35 3,442.80 3,465.45 3,435.20 3,420.00 3,420.00 3,465.00 3,435.00

8,903.00 8,467.00 8,514.00 8,628.00 8,437.00 8,371.00 8,334.00 8,380.67 7,866.00 7,766.00 7,908.00 7,846.67 7,204.00 7,038.00 7,249.00 7,163.67

1,260.00 1,237.50 1,238.18 1,245.23 1,111.73 1,029.60 1,055.93 1,065.75 838.58 855.00 792.90 828.83 540.00 567.84 486.84 531.56

2.47 2.48 2.49 2.48 2.42 2.40 2.40 2.41 2.32 2.26 2.28 2.28 2.11 2.06 2.09 2.09

108

C: Compressive Strength and Unit weight Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L C3: 56 Day Results Dimensions (cm) W H
3 Volume (cm ) Weight (gm)

Failure Load [kN]

Comp. Strength [Mpa] 59.00 60.20 61.40 60.20 52.10 51.80 50.30 51.40 49.10 48.75 47.69 48.51 27.99 29.00 28.26 28.42

Unit Weight 3 [gm/cm ]

1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean DM4 C 40 50 DM3 C 40 25 DM2 C 40 10 DM1 C 40 0

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00

15.00 15.20 15.30 15.17 15.20 15.30 15.30 15.27 15.10 15.40 15.20 15.23 15.40 15.50 15.40 15.43

3,375.00 3,420.00 3,442.50 3,412.50 3,420.00 3,442.50 3,442.50 3,435.00 3,397.50 3,465.00 3,420.00 3,427.50 3,465.00 3,487.50 3,465.00 3,472.50

8,522.00 8,449.00 8,566.00 8,512.33 8,279.00 8,257.00 8,272.00 8,269.33 7,792.00 7,806.00 8,085.00 7,894.33 7,140.00 7,243.00 7,373.00 7,252.00

1,327.50 1,354.50 1,381.50 1,354.50 1,172.25 1,165.50 1,131.75 1,156.50 1,104.75 1,096.88 1,072.97 1,091.53 629.72 652.50 635.91 639.38

2.53 2.47 2.49 2.49 2.42 2.40 2.40 2.41 2.29 2.25 2.36 2.30 2.06 2.08 2.13 2.09

109

ANNEX D: Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber Failure Load [kN] Splitting Strength [t=2P/LD] (MPa)

1 2

AM1

C 15

188.30 155.70

2.66 2.20 2.43 2.03 1.93 1.98 1.76 1.83 1.80 1.36 1.40 1.38 3.50 3.38 3.44 2.79 2.58 2.69

Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean

172.00 143.50 136.40 139.95 124.30 129.50 126.90 96.20 98.80 97.50 247.10 238.70 242.90 197.50 182.10 189.80

AM2

C 15

10

AM3

C 15

25

AM4

C 15

50

BM1

C 25

BM2

C 25

10

110

ANNEX D: Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber Failure Load [kN] Splitting Strength [t=2P/LD] (MPa)

1 2

BM3

C 25

25

147.70 190.20

2.09 2.69 2.39 1.41 1.72 1.57 3.72 4.05 3.88 3.27 3.01 3.14 1.89 1.93 1.91

Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean CM3 C 30 25

168.95 100.00 121.90 110.95 263.20 286.00 274.60 230.80 212.80 221.80 133.30 136.20 134.75

BM4

C 25

50

CM1

C 30

CM2

C 30

10

1 2

CM4

C 30

50

114.40 127.40

1.62 1.80 1.71

Mean

120.90

111

ANNEX D: Splitting Tensile Strength Test Results

Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber Failure Load [kN] Splitting Strength [t=2P/LD] (MPa)

1 2

DM1

C 40

266.40 247.60

3.77 3.50 3.64 3.84 4.03 3.94 2.62 2.71 2.67 2.04 1.92 1.98

Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean

257.00 271.50 285.20 278.35 185.40 191.40 188.40 144.20 135.40 139.80

DM2

C 40

10

DM3

C 40

25

DM4

C 40

50

112

ANNEX E: Impact Resistance Test Results

No. of Blows No. Specimen Grade % rubber Sample No. Sample height (mm) 64.28 64.91 65.03 64.53 64.69 10.00 1 2 3 4 Mean 3 AM3 C 15 25.00 1 2 3 4 Mean 4 AM4 C 15 50.00 1 2 3 4 Mean 5 64.23 64.89 64.31 63.80 64.31 65.58 66.26 65.30 64.21 65.34 66.01 66.11 63.24 64.79 65.04 1st Crack Ultimate Failure

AM1

C 15

0.00

1 2 3 4

15.00 15.00 27.00 12.00 17.25 110.00 141.00 134.00 129.00 128.50 203.00 191.00 160.00 170.00 181.00 58.00 66.00 62.00 34.00 55.00 77.00 54.00 60.00 46.00 59.25 138.00 190.00 127.00 140.00 148.75

18.00 19.00 31.00 16.00 21.00 121.00 147.00 139.00 166.00 143.25 215.00 220.00 171.00 183.00 197.25 141.00 77.00 23.00 42.00 70.75 86.00 61.00 76.00 55.00 69.50 146.00 196.00 146.00 147.00 158.75

Mean 2 AM2 C 15

BM1

C 25

0.00

1 2 3 4

66.13 65.38 65.57 64.94 65.51

Mean 5

BM2

C 25

10.00

1 2 3 4

66.00 68.18 65.35 65.23 66.19

Mean

113

ANNEX E: Impact Resistance Test Results

No. of Blows No. Specimen Grade % rubber Sample No. Sample height (mm) 62.33 66.23 65.79 65.44 64.95 1st Crack 170.00 160.00 220.00 196.00 186.50 40.00 32.00 43.00 37.00 38.00 680.00 414.00 554.00 420.00 517.00 580.00 674.00 549.00 595.00 599.50 650.00 615.00 680.00 614.00 639.75 100.00 150.00 92.00 70.00 103.00 Ultimate Failure 190.00 193.00 230.00 202.00 203.75 48.00 40.00 66.00 49.00 50.75 685.00 417.00 568.00 424.00 523.50 630.00 681.00 560.00 602.00 618.25 690.00 641.00 734.00 624.00 672.25 146.00 181.00 110.00 91.00 132.00

BM3

C 25

25.00

1 2 3 4

Mean 8

BM4

C 25

50.00

1 2 3 4

65.30 66.00 63.62 64.38 64.83

Mean 8

CM1

C 30

0.00

1 2 3 4

66.66 66.71 65.32 64.72 65.85

Mean 8

CM2

C 30

10.00

1 2 3 4

62.78 65.17 64.49 63.43 63.97

Mean 8

CM3

C 30

25.00

1 2 3 4

66.64 66.25 65.40 63.70 65.50

Mean 8

CM4

C 30

50.00

1 2 3 4

65.39 63.65 63.11 63.51 63.92

Mean

114

ANNEX E: Impact Resistance Test Results

No. of Blows No. Specimen Grade % rubber Sample No. Sample height (mm) 63.71 64.21 64.38 65.18 64.37 1st Crack 674.00 681.00 622.00 639.00 654.00 630.00 689.00 676.00 733.00 682.00 636.00 639.00 629.00 615.00 629.75 130.00 119.00 111.00 112.00 118.00 Ultimate Failure 687.00 684.00 664.00 670.00 676.25 644.00 706.00 685.00 744.00 694.75 648.00 658.00 645.00 637.00 647.00 146.00 144.00 136.00 135.00 140.25

DM1

C 40

0.00

1 2 3 4

Mean 8

DM2

C 40

10.00

1 2 3 4

64.34 64.13 63.66 63.18 63.83

Mean 11 CM3 C 40 25.00 1 2 3 4 Mean 14 DM2 C 40 50.00 1 2 3 4 Mean

64.72 66.25 64.13 63.80 64.73 64.99 63.46 65.21 65.34 64.75

115

ANNEX F: Flexural Strength Test Results

Dimensions (cm) Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L 50 AM1 C 15 0 50 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean BM2 C 25 10 50 50 10 10 10 10 BM1 C 25 0 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 AM4 C 15 50 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 AM3 C 15 25 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 AM2 C 15 10 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 B 10 D 10 P [kN] M [N.m]
4 I [m ]

C [cm]

[Mpa]

1 2

10.50 7.70 9.10 8.30 10.60 9.45 6.70 3.70 5.20 6.30 5.10 5.70 11.10 11.10 11.10 11.80 10.90 11.35

1,750.00 1,283.33 1,516.67 1,383.33 1,766.67 1,575.00 1,116.67 616.67 866.67 1,050.00 850.00 950.00 1,850.00 1,850.00 1,850.00 1,966.67 1,816.67 1,891.67

8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

10.50 7.70 9.10 8.30 10.60 9.45 6.70 3.70 5.20 6.30 5.10 5.70 11.10 11.10 11.10 11.80 10.90 11.35

116

ANNEX F: Flexural Strength Test Results

Dimensions (cm) Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L 50 BM3 C 25 25 50 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean CM4 C 30 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 CM3 C 30 25 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 CM2 C 30 10 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 CM1 C 30 0 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 BM4 C 25 50 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 B 10 D 10 P [kN] M [N.m] I [m4] C [cm]

[Mpa]

1 2

10.50 9.70 10.10 6.90 5.10 6.00 12.00 12.10 12.05 10.70 10.80 10.75 8.60 8.60 8.60 5.70 7.30 6.50

1,750.00 1,616.67 1,683.33 1,150.00 850.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,016.67 2,008.33 1,783.33 1,800.00 1,791.67 1,433.33 1,433.33 1,433.33 950.00 1,216.67 1,083.33

8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

10.50 9.70 10.10 6.90 5.10 6.00 12.00 12.10 12.05 10.70 10.80 10.75 8.60 8.60 8.60 5.70 7.30 6.50

117

ANNEX F: Flexural Strength Test Results

Dimensions (cm) Sample No. Specimen Grade % rubber L 50 DM1 C 40 0 50 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean DM4 C 40 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 DM3 C 40 25 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 DM2 C 40 10 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 50 50 10 10 10 10 10 10 B 10 D 10 P [kN] M [N.m] I [m4] C [cm]

[Mpa]

1 2

12.50 14.10 13.30 7.30 11.70 9.50 9.30 9.30 9.30 5.00 6.50 5.75

2,083.33 2,350.00 2,216.67 1,216.67 1,950.00 1,583.33 1,550.00 1,550.00 1,550.00 833.33 1,083.33 958.33

8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06 8.3333E-06

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

12.50 14.10 13.30 7.30 11.70 9.50 9.30 9.30 9.30 5.00 6.50 5.75

118

ANNEXG:Photos

Wastemediumtrucktires

Shreddingoftires

Manualcuttingoftheshreddedtiresintosmallsizestoformrubberaggregate 119

 Samplesofrubberaggregate

Washingofrubberaggregatetoremoveimpuritiesandthensurfacedrying

SurfaceCoatingoftherubberaggregate

Rubberaggregatecoatedwithcementpaste

120

 Aconcretemixwhichisreadyforcasting

SlumpTest

Specimenpreparationusingmolds

MechanicalvibrationusingatablevibratorandCompressivestrengthtest

121

 Splittingtensilestrengthtest

Failurepatternsofcontrolconcreteaftersplittingtensilestrengthtest 122

Failurepatternsofrubberizedconcreteaftersplittingtensilestrengthtest

123

ImpactResistancetestinga m a apparatusan ndTestsamp pleafterfailure u

Flexu uralStrength hTest

124

DECLARATION I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other university, and that all sources of materials used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name

Abrham Kebede Seyfu

Signature

Place

Addis Ababa University, School of Graduate Studies, Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Addis Ababa

Date of submission

June 2010

125