Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Review

Application of rubberized cement-based composites in pavements:

Suitability and considerations
Phuong Ngoc Pham a,b,⇑, Yan Zhuge a, Anaclet Turatsinze c, Ahmed Toumi c, Rafat Siddique d
a
School of NBE, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
b
Faculty of Bridge and Road Engineering, The University of Danang – University of Science and Technology, 54 Nguyen Luong Bang Str, Danang, Viet Nam
c
LMDC, INSAT/UPS Génie Civil, 135 Avenue de Rangueil, 31077 Toulouse Cedex 04, France
d
Civil Engineering Department, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, India

h i g h l i g h t s

 Rubberized cement-based composites are suitable materials for pavements.

 The composites have higher strain capacity and low propensity for cracking.
 Rubberized roller/self-compacted concretes were used for pavements.
 Field applications confirmed the applicability of the composites in pavements.
 Future considerations for rubberized cement-based pavements were discussed.

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

Article history: Properties of rubberized cement-based composites have been investigated and the up-to-date research
Received 18 March 2019 findings have demonstrated the practical feasibility of using the materials for large surface applications.
Received in revised form 10 May 2019 Despite the detrimental effect in some mechanical properties, beneficial characteristics known as
Accepted 1 August 2019
improved strain capacity, low propensity for restrained shrinkage cracking, high freeze-thaw resistance,
better sound insulation, etc. make such composites relatively interesting for pavements such as road ded-
icated for low traffic volume, base or sub-base courses, or overlays. This review paper focuses on advan-
Keywords:
tageous properties of rubberized cement-based materials and potential for pavement applications
Rubber aggregates
Rubberized cement-based composites
including rigid pavements, semi-flexible pavements, block pavers, cement-treated bases/sub-bases, and
Rigid pavements thin bonded overlays. General conclusions and further possible considerations to popularize the use of
Semi-flexible pavements rubber aggregates in pavements as one of the most relevant solutions to recycle end-of-life rubber tires
Block pavers are also presented.
Thin bonded overlays Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cement-treated bases/sub-bases

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1183
1.1. Needs to use rubberized-cement based composites in pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1183
1.2. Roles of RA in the cement-based composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184
1.2.1. Cracking initiation, propagation and opening controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184
1.2.2. Strain capacity and post-peak behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185
1.2.3. Water capillary absorption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185
1.2.4. Freeze-thaw resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185
1.2.5. Noise absorption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185

⇑ Corresponding author at: School of NBE, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
E-mail addresses: phuong.pham@unisa.edu.au (P.N. Pham), Yan.Zhuge@unisa.edu.au (Y. Zhuge), anaclet@insa-toulouse.fr (A. Turatsinze), toumi@insa-toulouse.fr
(A. Toumi), siddique_66@yahoo.com (R. Siddique).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.007
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195 1183

2. Concrete pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186

2.1. Composites suitable for rigid pavements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186
2.1.1. Rubberized concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186
2.1.2. Rubberized roller compacted concrete (RRCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186
2.1.3. Rubberized self-compacting concrete (RSCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1187
2.1.4. Rubber-modified recycled aggregate concrete (RRAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
2.2. Field applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
2.2.1. Road pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
2.2.2. Airport pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
2.3. Rubberized concrete pavement structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
2.3.1. Joint opening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
2.3.2. Thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
3. Semi-flexible pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
4. Block pavers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
4.1. Concrete blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
4.2. Stabilized-soil pavers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1191
5. Thin bonded overlays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1191
6. Cement-treated bases/ sub-bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
6.1. Cement-stabilized aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
6.2. Cement-treated soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
6.3. Other courses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192
7. Conclusions and further considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193
7.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193
7.2. Further considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193
Declarations of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1194

1. Introduction RA incorporation in cement-based pavements and asphalt con-

1.1. Needs to use rubberized-cement based composites in pavements
In cases of high traffic volume requirements and disadvanta-
geous moisture-temperature conditions, pavement structures are
constructed using cement-based composites. However, due to lim-
ited strain capacity and low tensile strength, conventional materi-
als (concrete, mortar, and cement-treated aggregates) are brittle
and highly susceptible to cracking. Hence, presence of joints in
such large surface applications is required to localize cracks at
expected positions. However, these joints are being the starting
locations of distresses (spalling, D-cracking, ingresses of aggressive
agents and water. . .), limiting the performance and the sustainabil-
ity of pavements [1]. Reinforced or continuous reinforced concrete
pavements have been therefore paved to overcome these prob-
lems. Unfortunately, micro-cracks still occur due to low strain
capacity of conventional concrete and are detrimental to pavement
performance owing to the sensitivity of the reinforcements to cor-
rosion and its aggravating consequence. Also, cement-treated
bases/ sub-bases are useful for roads undergoing large traffic vol-
ume or constructed on soft or wet soil areas. However, due to
the sensitivity for cracking under temperature changes or traffic
loadings, cracks appear in the bases/ sub-bases and propagate
towards the upper layers or pavement surface. Such phenomenon
is well-known as reflection cracking, resulting in premature dete-
rioration of overlaying layers [2]. Hence, the solution to design
the cement composite exhibiting higher deformation prior to
cracking localization is desired for the sustainability of large sur-
face structures. Accordingly, rubberized cement-based composites
are proposed and investigatied for such applications. They are
designed by partially replacing volume of fine/ coarse aggregates
in mortar/ concrete or cement-treated materials by rubber aggre-
gates (RA) achieved by grinding waste tires. Actually, in pavement
constructions, RA have been already introduced to asphalt mix-
tures as additives in order to improve the performance of asphalt
pavements, especially anti-slipping or anti-cracking capability
and fatigue resistance [3,4].
crete also contributes to solve environmental issue due to large
amount of waste tires currently accumulating and increasing
rapidly. In general, end-of-life rubber tires are disposed by differ-
ent methods such as land filling, tire-derived fuel, burning, applica-
tions in civil areas, etc. Tire stockpile or land filling solutions
usually create open spaces with or without storing water, breeding
habitat for mouses, mosquitoes, and other different pests [5].
Extracting fuel from old tires is more expensive; whereas the
cheapest method of tires disposal, a burning method, not only
causes fire hazards but also releases toxic gazes [6]. It should be
noted that tire burning solution can also provide a source of energy
(fuel) in cement industry. With regard to rubberized asphalt pave-
ments, there is a huge concern on hazardous pollutants discharged
by a burning process at elevated temperatures. Yang et al. [7]
reported that asphalt concrete modified with RA significantly
released poisonous xylene and toluene emissions higher than the
control one. Hence, adding RA as substitutes in cement composites
used for cement-based pavements presents less risk than that in
rubber modified-bituminous mixtures.
The use of waste tires under the form of ground aggregates, RA,
in civil engineering, especially in cement composites or asphalt
concrete, seems to be limited. For example, in United States, only
5.5% of waste tires was used in 2009, and this quantity just
increased up to 8% in 2017 [8]. Therefore, the review of using rub-
berized cement-based composites in pavement constructions in
this paper aims to look forward the strong promotion of incorpo-
rating RA in pavement materials as one of the most relevant solu-
tions to consume such an industrial by-product for the sustainable
development and circular economy:
(i) Solving waste rubber tires problems, not only contributing
to a clean and safe environment but also reducing current
demands of natural materials (conventional aggregates);
(ii) Constructing a more durable pavement system with low
cracking scale, better resistance to traffic loadings, to ther-
mal changes and to freeze–thaw conditions, and reduction
of noise pollution from vehicles.
1184 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
1.2. Roles of RA in the cement-based composite
Adding RA to cementitious mixtures is well-known to result in
reduction in some mechanical properties of the cement composite
[9–15]. This behaviour should be accepted largely owing to low
stiffness of RA [16,17]. On the other side, improving the bonding
between RA and cementitious matrix leads to an enhancement
on durability properties rather than on mechanical properties.
Indeed, the resulting materials demonstrate other valuable proper-
ties for pavements such as improved strain capacity and high post-
peak residual strength [1,18–20], low propensity for restrained
shrinkage cracking [14,17,18,20,21], higher freeze–thaw resistance
[22–29], better sound insulation [30–33], lower water capillary
absorption [16,34–38], etc. The roles of RA in cement-based com-
posites to make the materials achieving the properties relevant
for pavement applications can be summarized as follows.
Compression [42]
Flexion [35]
Restrained shrinkage related-cracks [14]
(a)
Fig. 1. Failure patterns of conventional composites (a) and of rubberized cement-based composites (b) at different conditions (adapted from [14,35,42]).
1.2.1. Cracking initiation, propagation and opening controls
RA may firstly act as mini-expansion joints inside rubberized
cement-based composites [39]. Compared to conventional aggre-
gates, RA exhibit high ability to absorb much more fracture energy
and to withstand large tensile deformation. Hence, RA delay the
occurrence of cracking [21] due to restrained and/or plastic shrink-
age. According to Turatsinze et al. [14], adding 30% RA to mortars as
a replacement for sand can postpone the crack initiation until
17 days compared to cracking age of 6 days for conventional mortar.
Then, any micro-crack in rubberized cement-based composites
reaches rubber-cement matrix interface, it will either stop propa-
gating or change direction of propagation because RA act as holes
in the materials, reducing the tip sharpness and resulting in stress
relaxation. Such phenomena help to slow down the kinetic propa-
gation of micro-cracks and further to delay micro-cracking coales-
cence in order to create macro-cracks [40].
(b)
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195 1185

RA finally behave as springs, delaying the opening of formed

cracks [11,41]. As demonstrated in Fig. 1, under compressive or
flexural loadings, rubberized cement-based specimens almost
remain their original shape though suffering from significant verti-
cal displacement and horizontal deformation. Tested specimens
seem to be partially recoverable their original conditions when
unloaded. According to Eldin et al. [11], under compression, high
horizontal internal tensile stresses were produced and concen-
trated at the top and the bottom of RA, resulting in many tensile
cracks appeared along the rubberized concrete specimens. Thanks
to spring effects, no full disintegration of the specimens was
observed. As for mortars subject to restrained shrinkage, multiple
short, narrow and discontinuous micro-cracks appear in rubber-
ized cement-based composites instead of a complete single, wide
and full-height crack with the conventional one (Fig. 1) [14]. Such Fig. 3. Air bubble-entrapment on RA surface immersed in water.

characteristics together with high residual strain of steel ring

obtained after cracking from ring tests are evidence of improved
bridging material phenomena in the cement materials incorporat-
ing RA.

1.2.2. Strain capacity and post-peak behaviour

Strain capacity of cement based-materials can be considered as
a deformation value at a peak-load. Typical findings of improved
strain capacity and higher post-peak residual strength of
rubberized-cement based composites are shown in Fig. 2, which
was obtained when Turatsinze et al. [40] incoporated different
RA contents (0%, 15%, and 25% by volume) as replacement for con-
ventional aggregates in self-compacting concrete (SCC). As
explained earlier, due to RA abilities to control cracking initiation,
crack propagation and opening, rubberized cement-based compos-
ites can reach higher deformations before a non-sudden failure
[1,18–20]. Especially, bridging effect in the materials makes them
behave better after post-peak loading than the conventional one.

1.2.3. Water capillary absorption

Water absorption of rubberized cement-based materials is
lower than that of conventional composites, and it is attributed
to water-repelled capability and hydrophobic property of RA
[16]. Air bubble-entrapment phenomena could be observed on
RA surface when they are immersed in water (Fig. 3). This phe-
nomenon can explain why hydration process is limited in the area
surrounding RA or why cement paste cannot be impregnated on RA
surface, resulting in bond defects at rubber-cement matrix inter-
face [16].
1.2.4. Freeze-thaw resistance
Resistance to freeze–thaw conditions of rubberized mortars, in
which 30% of sand volume was replaced by RA (size 0–4 mm), is
better than that of control mortar [43]. It was specially validated
Load (KN)
Fig. 4. Difference in length gain between control mortar (0R), untreated rubberized
mortar (30UR), and the composite adding coated RA (30CR-P) [43].
by a lower length gain of the composite as illustrated in Fig. 4. In
this figure, 0R, 30UR, and 30CR-P are control mortar, untreated
rubberized mortar, and the one incorporating copolymer-coated
RA, respectively. According to Pham et al. [43], RA appear to absorb
high energy of gel pores induced by freeze–thaw cycles, thus
reducing energy gradient between such pores and the capillary
ones, a typical reason for a reduction in expansion of the compos-
ites. Moreover, properties of RA known as air-entrapment and
water-repellent phenomenon are responsible for higher density
of pores in cementitious composites and at RA-cement matrix
interface, spaces to balance energy state in the composite. Hence,
the durability of rubberized cement-based materials exposed to
freeze–thaw cycles is improved. Bond enhancement between RA
and cement matrix by precoating RA with copolymer produced a
minor increase in length of tested specimens but the resulting
composite (30CR-P) was still durable in frost conditions. It was
explained by an improved strain capacity, a better performance
after peak-load, and reduced water absorption of rubberized

cement-based materials [43].

1.2.5. Noise absorption

Deflection (mm)
Fig. 2. Effect of RA incorporation on load-bearing and strain capacity of SCC [40].
Large pore volume induced by RA incorporation and bond
defects at RA-cementitious matrix interface increases sound insu-
lation of rubberized cement-based composites thanks to sound
absorption through such cavities. Park et al. [44] supposed that
increasing specific surface area of pores due to recycled materials
increased sound absorption coefficient. As seen in Fig. 5, noise
reduction coefficient of rubberized concrete increases with
1186 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
Fig. 5. Effects of RA content and/or silica fume addition on noise reduction
coefficient (adapted from [31]).
increasing RA content in the composite. With same amount of fly
ash (F) (15%), sound insulation capability of composites adding sil-
ica fume (S) at 5% and 10%, namely S5F15 and S10F15, was reduced
compared to the one of conventional mix (S0F15), the higher con-
tent of S, the lower coefficient of noise reduction [31]. It was attrib-
uted to pozzolanic reaction that helped to densify the
microstructure of the composites, especially to reduce pore volume
at rubber-cement matrix interface. Note that quantities of F and S
in this case were used as substitutions for cement by volume.
2. Concrete pavements
Properties of rubberized cement-based composites used for
rigid pavements (conventional concrete pavements, roller-
compacted pavements, and self-compacting concrete pavements)
have been investigated by several authors [1,5,21,35,38–40,42,
45–52]. In general, incorporation of RA in cement composites
reduces some mechanical properties of rubberized cement-based
pavements. However, RA content or mix design of the materials
can be adjusted to produce relevant cementitious mixtures for
pavements depending on requirements of the criteria for each road
pavement. For example, low traffic volume roadways, pedestrian
areas, or side walks can be paved with the cement composites
incorporating higher RA content. For pavements that require
higher technical standards, steel fiber reinforcement or other addi-
tives like silica fume can be solutions to overcome the decrease in
the properties of the composites in order to satisfy traffic volume
conditions [21,38,49,50,52]. Once the minimum requirements for
strengths of concrete pavement are targeted, rubberized concrete
pavements will perform better than the conventional ones at the
similar operating conditions. The characteristics such as improved
strain capacity, low propensity for cracking owing to restrained
shrinkage, higher freeze–thaw resistance, and better noise absorp-
tion of the composites make rubberized pavements more suitable
for durable applications. Hence, they can behave as flexible con-
crete pavement when rubberized cement-based composite is used
[38,49,50].
2.1. Composites suitable for rigid pavements
2.1.1. Rubberized concrete
Mohammadi et al. [48] designed rubberized concretes to com-
ply with Australian pavement design specifications by the use of
RA with size ranging from 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm to replace 10%,
20%, 30%, 40% volume of fine aggregates. The mix design and basic
mechanical properties of the composites are presented in Table 1.
As reported, RA were water-soaked before mixing. A significant
reduction in average crack widths, lengths, and areas induced by
plastic shrinkage was also observed when adding 20–25% RA into
the cementitious mixtures. Hence, the authors suggested that RA
content should be lower than 25% and 20% in the composites used
for pavements with 0.40 and 0.45 in water/cement (w/c) ratios,
respectively.
Despite low strengths of rubberized cement-based materials,
Ho et al. [1,45] concluded that Elastic Quality Index (EQI) of rub-
berized concrete, an indicator of pavement layer thickness for a
given traffic loadings and service life, at distinct temperatures of
20 °C, 40 °C and 70 °C remained in the range of values used for
pavement design on soil [45]. In Fig. 6, the letters C and R indicate
Concrete and RA; the numbers following C and R correspond to RA
content and temperature, respectively. For example, C40R70
means that EQI of concrete replacing 40% sand volume by RA
was determined at 70 0C. The EQI of concrete composites incorpo-
rating RA was greater than that of control concrete (without RA
incorporation), and also increased with increasing of temperature.
Based on the EQI values, concrete with RA addition up to 40% ful-
filled the requirements of type G4 for design of concrete pave-
ments (Fig. 6) [1].
Pacheco-Torres at al. [53] investigated fatigue properties of
composites adding distinct sizes of RA (1–4 mm, 10 mm, and
16 mm) at distinct contents of 10%, 20%, and 30%, by cement vol-
ume, and observed that the composite with 10% RA (size of
10 mm) withstood the largest number of fatigue loadings at a con-
stant deformation. The authors concluded rubberized concretes
were sustainable materials for rigid pavements. Kardos et al. [51]
also replaced partial volume of sand by RA (2.36 mm) at different
RA contents (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%). Similarly, the
decreases in split-tensile and compressive strengths, and in modu-
lus of rupture and of elasticity were noticed as RA content
increases. Based on Class P of pavement requirements of Colorado
Department of Transportation, they stated that 30% sand replace-
ment by RA (approximately 5.5% volume of the total mixture) pro-
duced suitable fresh and hardened properties of composites used
for concrete pavements [51].
As for fiber-reinforced and rubberized concrete, Alsaif et al. [50]
incoporated both fine RA (2–6 mm, 0.5–2 mm and 0–0.5 mm) and
the coarse ones (5–10 mm and 10–20 mm) into cementitious mix-
tures at 30% and 60%-replacements for both fine and coarse aggre-
gates volume. Simultaneously, 40 kg/m3 of both recycled tire and
manufactured steel fibers were used. Workability and flexural
strengths of obtained composites satisfied BS EN 13877-1 specifi-
cations for pavement design. Strain capacity and post-peak resid-
ual strength were improved by fiber reinforcement and enhanced
significantly with RA incorporation. When the composites were
exposed to 56 cycles of freezing and thawing, no internal damage
was observed, scaling level was acceptable, and mechanical prop-
erties were not affected. Hence, durable flexible concrete pave-
ments can be constructed using the composites as a relevant
alternative to bituminous-based materials [49,50].
2.1.2. Rubberized roller compacted concrete (RRCC)
Meddah et al. [35] investigated the use of RA (3–8 mm) in RRCC
pavements at different volume replacement of gravels, namely 5%,
10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% (Table 2). Despite reduction in RRCC
strengths with RA incorporation, the composites can still be
applied in roads with low traffic volume, rural ways, and pedes-
trian areas since they satisfied different technical requirements
for each pavement [35]. Based on failure pattern of specimens after
flexural test, the RRCC materials were supposed to be ductile and
more cracking-resistant. The authors also noticed that RA content
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195 1187

Table 1
Typical mix design and 28-day strengths of rubberized concrete [48].

w/c Cement Coarse aggregates Fine aggregates RA Slump Air contents Compressive Flexural
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (mm) (%) strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
10 mm 20 mm Contents Weights
(%) (kg/m3)
0.40 370 416 746 677 0 0 50 1.9 63.0 6.9
609 10 30 60 2.4 54.1 6.2
541 20 59 60 3.2 44.3 5.6
508 25 74 60 3.7 35.9 5.4
474 30 89 65 4.5 30.9 5.2
406 40 118 65 6.1 22.9 4.6
0.45 370 404 726 658 0 0 55 1.5 55.6 6.0
593 10 29 65 2.1 45.8 5.4
527 20 58 55 3.0 34.9 5.0
461 30 86 55 4.3 23.8 4.1
395 40 115 65 5.6 18.2 3.6

would affect compaction process owing to stress relaxation of RA

after decompression, especially when the rate of RA was higher
4
C0R20 than 20%.
C0R40
3 C20R20 C0R70 In order to reduce the deccrease in compressive and flexural
Direct tensile strength at 360 days ft (MPa)

C30R20 C20R40 strengths of RRCC pavements, Fakhri et al. [38] suggested to add
C20R70 silica fume (20 kg/m3) to rubberized mixtures in which sand vol-
2
C40R20 ume was replaced by RA at 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and
C40R40
G4 35%. As compared in Table 2, silica fume addition helps to recover
compressive and flexural strengths of rubberized concretes, and
C40R70 G3 such properties of the resulting composites can be competitive
1
with the ones of control concrete. Also, lower water absorption
G2 of RRCC was beneficial by silica addition due to higher densifica-
tion of composites induced by pozzolanic reaction. The authors
0.5 concluded that RRCC materials were likely to be of interest in the
G1 construction of flexible pavements.
0.4

0.3
2.1.3. Rubberized self-compacting concrete (RSCC)
Hesami et al. [52] designed and carried out some mechanical
0.2
tests to access properties of RSCC. As seen from Table 3, there is
a decrease in all strengths (compression, flexion, and tension)
and modulus of elasticity with an increase of RA content. Hence,
polypropylene fibers had been used to strengthen the composite.
2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 As reported by the authors, addition of polypropylene fibers up
3 to 0.12% by volume of concrete helped to recover the decrease in
Modulus of elasticity at 360 days Et (10 MPa)
tensile and flexural strengths and importantly maintained low
Fig. 6. Concrete classifications through EQI values [1]. modulus of elasticity of RSCC. The designed rubberized composites
could be used as paving materials [52].

Table 2
Mix design and 28-day compressive and flexural strengths of RRRC (strengths in case of silica fume addition in bracket) [35,38].

References RA contents Cement Sand Gravel W/C Silica fume Compressive Flexural
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
Medal et al. [35] 0 295 727 1136 Adjusted based on soil mechanicsprocedure 0 27.12 5.82
5 1043.2 25.69 4.42
10 1017.4 21.2 5.3
15 965.6 19.04 4.7
20 908.8 17.42 4.49
25 872 15.3 4.25
30 795.2 13.58 4.0
Fakhri et al. [38] 0 294 815 1145 0.43 20 40.1 (51.5) 5.4 (6.5)
5 774.6 42.9 (53.7) 5.9 (7.0)
10 733.9 43.8 (60.2) 5.3 (6.3)
15 693.1 37.6 (58.1) 5.2 (6.0)
20 652.3 36.1 (52.5) 4.9 (5.6)
25 611.5 35.9 (51.5) 4.5 (5.5)
30 570.7 35.6 (44.7) 4.3 (5.2)
35 530 33.7 (44.4) 4.1 (5.0)
1188 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195

Table 3
Mix design and some properties of RSCC [52].

Mixes/ properties RSCC0 RSCC5 RSCC10 RSCC15

3
Mix components (kg/m ) RA contents (%) 0 5 10 15
Gravel 772.00
Sand 826.00 784.70 743.40 702.10
RA 0 17.55 35.1 52.65
Lime stone powder 288.90
Cement 413.1
Water 162.00
Superplasticizer 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50
Mechanical properties Compressive strength (MPa) 78.05 68.12 59.94 55.15
Tensile strength (MPa) 4.90 4.82 4.63 4.20
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 42.53 40.21 38.56 35.03
Flexural strength (MPa) 8.45 8.03 7.48 6.98

2.1.4. Rubber-modified recycled aggregate concrete (RRAC)
Based on design requirements of concrete used for airport pave-
ments, Feng et al. [47] evaluated mechanical behaviour and fatigue
performance of RRAC composites, in which 10%, 20%, and 30% of
sand volume were replaced by RA (0.25 mm). Similar to rubberized
concrete, the reduction in modulus of elasticity and in compressive
and flexural strengths of RRAC were reported with an increase of
RA content. However, ductility-related parameters (deflection at
peak load and ultimate strain) and fatigue life of RRAC were
enhanced significantly compared to the one of control concrete.
Hence, the authors concluded that RRAC with 20% RA incorpora-
tion was considered as a suitable material for airport pavement
[47].
2.2. Field applications
Rubberized concrete pavement has been early constructed in
Kansas, United States, and it was then resurfaced by rubberized
asphalt overlay in 1994 [54]. Kaloush et al. [39] reported that sev-
eral in-situ pavement segments were paved using rubberized con-
crete throughout the Arizona state such as a sidewalk in the
campus of Arizona State University (February 1999), a parking area
(May 2001), a wheelchair ramp (June 2001), a patio foundation
(March 2002), and other walking areas (March 2003), etc. Espe-
cially, in 2003, a jointless slab (1.5 m  7.5 m in area and 0.05 m
thick) functioned as a parking space for trucks was constructed
with rubberized concrete (25% RA addition by volume of the con-
crete mixture), and no failures were observed on this pavement
area until 2005 [39].
2.2.1. Road pavements
In actual conditions of road pavement construction, Turatsinze
et al. [5] compared the sensitivity to restrained shrinkage cracking
of rubberized concrete to the one based conventional concrete. The
difference between both was the incorporation of RA (size 1–
3.15 mm) as a partial replacement of conventional aggregates
(30% of sand volume). For this objective, two close pavement seg-
ments were constructed in the area adjacent to the main road lanes
in Toulouse, France (Fig. 7-a). The dimensions of each experimental
pavement segment were 15 m in length, 2.5 m in width, and 0.1 m
in thickness. After paving, the curing compound was sprayed on
the surface of fresh concrete pavement to prevent the evaporation
phenomena of the mixing water, which being the main cause of
early plastic shrinkage cracking. Eventually, time to cracking, num-
ber of cracks, crack shape and their localization on the surface of
each pavement were observed and recorded over a one-year period
when these pavements were exposed to climate conditions. As
reported, three cracks (A1, A2, and A3) crossing the entire width
appeared on the control pavement after 21 days of curing
(Fig. 7-b). The rubberized pavement exhibited only a single crack
(B) on the 31st day of curing (Fig. 7-c). Hence, it could be concluded
that the control concrete was much more sensitive to crack due to
restrained shrinkage than the rubberized one. Based on these
results of the field experiments, the authors validated the labora-
tory findings and importantly accentuated that RA incorporation
into cementitious mixtures was a relevant solution to limit the
propensity of cement-based pavements for cracking due to
restrained shrinkage. They concluded that large surface structures
like jointless pavements can be constructed using rubberized
cement-based composites.
2.2.2. Airport pavements
As for airport pavements, Ferretti et al. [55,56] investigated
properties and performance of rubberized concrete paving for a
taxiway at the Bologna Guglielmo Marconi Airport in Italy. The
experiment had been carried out on an area of 14 m  23 m of
the taxiway. The tested space was divided into two portions
(7 m  23 m in area and 0.16 m thick each) in which one of them
was paved with control concrete and the other one with RA addi-
tion (rubber size 1–2.4 mm and 22% sand volume replacement).
The main concern in the experiment was to investigate changes
in vertical strain using strain gauges embedded in concrete for

Fig. 7. Pavement construction (a), and cracks observed on the control pavement (b) and on rubberized pavement (c) (adapted from [5]).
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195 1189

each pavement segment. As illustrated in Fig. 8-a, rubberized con-

crete pavement was more effective than the conventional one in
spreading loadings and importantly in distributing them over a lar-
ger area of a base course due to a smooth strain cure and to a
higher strain peak induced by rubberized concrete. The stress
distribution of two mixtures was determined and presented in
Fig. 8-b with the lower maximum stress available in the rubberized
pavement. High stress gradient normally results in distresses
under repeated traffic loadings. Hence, Ferretti et al. [55,56]
expected a longer service life of the rubberized airfield pavement
than the one paving with conventional concrete.

2.3. Rubberized concrete pavement structures

2.3.1. Joint opening

In regard to problems of joint openings and slab dimensions of
conventional rigid pavement, they are generally affected by tem-
perature changes, dry and wet conditions, properties of used con- Fig. 9. Low coefficient of thermal expansion of rubberized concrete (rubcrete)
crete, the length of designed slabs, etc. As investigated by Kaloush compared to other concrete types (adapted from [39]).
et al. [39], rubberized cement-based composites had lower coeffi-
cient of thermal expansion than the conventional one (Fig. 9). This
is one of the main reasons why joint opening width of rubberized
concrete pavement, as determined from Quin et al. [57], was smal-
ler than that without RA incorporation (Fig. 10). The authors
pointed out that total joint opening of a 6 m sized-rubberized con-
crete slab was similar to the control one of 4–5 m as testing and
calculting at the identical temperature gradient. Hence, longer rub-
berized pavement slabs can be constructed to prevent common
distresses usually appearing at conventional concrete pavement
joints.

2.3.2. Thickness
Based on fatigue tests, Hernández-Olivares et al. [46] estab-
lished the correlation between flexural strength and number of

Fig. 10. Joint opening comparison between rubberized concrete slabs and the
conventional ones (adapted from [57]).

loading cycle depending on RA content. The authors then calcu-

lated pavement thickness for control concrete and the ones incor-
porating 3.5% and 5% fiber-shaped RA by volume of the composite
via Westergaard theory. Herein, the number of loading cycles and
simple axle load were 106 cycles and 13 tons, respectively. The
thicknesses of the control and two rubberized concretes were
19.9 cm, 21.1 cm, and 24.3 cm, respectively. The data indicates an
increase of 1.2 cm and 4.4 cm if the concrete incorporates 3.5%
and 5% of RA, respectively, which is not prohibitive in this kind
of applications. Despite a slight increase in pavement thickness,
the authors accentuated that it could be compensated by higher
damping capacity of rubberized cement-based composites as well
as recycling low-cost waste rubber tires.

3. Semi-flexible pavements

Semi-flexible pavements, known as Grouted Macadams, are an

Fig. 8. In-situ strains measured and stresses calculated in conventional and in
rubberized concrete pavements (adapted from [55]).
alternative to take advantages of both rigid and flexible pavements
in order to mainly achieve better rutting resistance in comparison
with conventional asphalt concrete. A two-stage construction of
the pavements involves paving an open-graded asphalt skeleton
with large air void content ranging from 25% to 35% and, after
the cool of the bituminous layer, grouting it with a cementitious
1190 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
mix. However, one of the limitations of the pavement is anti-
cracking capability at low temperatures [58], or under traffic load-
ing repetitions due to low strain capacity of the grout used [59].
Hence, Chong et al. [58] added waste rubber powder to the cement
composite as a volume replacement of a mixture (cement, mineral
additives, sand, expansive admixture, water, and superplasticizer),
which was blended with a weight ratio of 1: 0.6: 0.6: 0.12: 0.6:
0.005, respectively. The authors observed decreases in compressive
behaviour of rubberized cement-based grout, in stiffness and in
rutting resistance of the resulting semi-flexible pavements. Never-
theless, based on higher tensile strain capacity of the pavement
obtained from flexural tests conducted at 10 °C, they concluded
that rubber-modified grout helped to improve cracking resistance
of the semi-flexible pavements even if subjected to low
temperatures.
4. Block pavers
Block pavers have been used popularly in road constructions
such as sidewalks, pedestrian areas or low-traffic volume road-
ways [60]. The usage of RA in manufacturing concrete pavers has
been investigated [31,61–67]. One of the most challenges of this
application is the occurrence of micro-cracks and the increase in
volume of block pavers thereafter decompression [62], leading
high quantity of rejected pavers (surface damage or expansion)
(Fig. 11). It can be explained by the fact that bound stresses appear
and concentrate on RA surface under compaction and they then
rebound as unloaded due to high deformation of RA. The rate of
rejected blocks from previous research is summarized in Fig. 12,
unfortunately, effective solutions to limit the rejection scale have
not recommended yet.
4.1. Concrete blocks
Similar to characters of rubberized cement-based composites,
there is a decrease in some mechanical strengths of rubberized
pavers compared to the conventional ones [31,62,65–67]. Sukonta-
sukkul et al. [67] replaced 10% and 20% weight of both fine and
coarse aggregates by RA in control mixture in which cement:
water: coarse aggregates: fine aggregates were designed at a
weight ratio of 1:0.33:1.5:1.5. As reported, flexural and compres-
sive strengths considerably reduced as RA contents increased. Sim-
ilarly, Mohammed et al. [31] observed a decrease in compressive
behaviour in composites with RA replacements at 10%, 25%, and
50% by fine aggregates volume in control pavers (with 1:1:2 in vol-
ume ratio of cement: fine aggregates: coarse aggregates). The
authors also added fly ash and/ or silica fume partly replacing
cement volume, but it seemed to be only effective on compressive
strength of the composites with low RA contents. Ling [62]
Fig. 11. Typical failures of rubberized concrete paving blocks (adapted from [62,65]).
Fig. 12. RA contents versus rejected percentages of rubberized blocks.
designed different rubberized mortar and concrete mixes incorpo-
rating different RA contents (0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%-sand replace-
ments by volume) used for a surface layer and a body course of
rubberized paving blocks, respectively (Table 4). As observed, com-
pressive and flexural strengths of obtained rubberized pavers were
only higher than the ones of conventional blocks just in a case of a
10%-RA incorporation. The reduction in the mechanical strengths
was attributed to higher air content in rubberized mixtures [31]
or to internal micro-cracking development within voids or at
rubber-cement matrix interface when RA returned to the actual
size after decompression [62]. Hence, Mohammed et al. [31] sug-
gested RA content should be limited at 6.5% and 40.7% to fulfill
the requirements of compressive strength for load-bearing paving
blocks and the non-structural ones, respectively. Also, Sodupe-
Ortega et al. [66] and Ling [62] suggested to use RA content lower
than 10% in order to avoid failure of rubberized pavers during
demoulding process in the plant-made method.
Despite some negative effects, the use of RA in pavers can firstly
provide lighter rubberized pavers. Sodupe-Ortega et al. [66]
obtained hollow blocks and bricks with density reachable to
1724 kg/m3 when they substituted RA (size 1–4 mm) for fine
aggregates from 10% to 40% by volume. Also, rubberized paving
blocks exhibit ductile behaviour with higher deflection at peak-
load and improved post-peak residual strength (Fig. 13) [62,67].
Ling et al. [61] investigated impact resistance of paving blocks
and concluded that the rubberized pavers behaved well under
dynamic loadings than the control ones. The authors observed
complete failures of the control blocks at the first drop, whereas
the ones with 30% RA addition only displayed fine cracks after nine
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195 1191

Table 4
Mix design and strengths of rubberized concrete paving blocks (RCPB) [62].

Mix design Mix ratio Cement (kg/m3) w/c RA contents (%) Compressive Flexural
strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
Face (C:FS) Base (C:A:CS) Face Base Face Base Face Base
RCPB-0 1:2.3 1:1.8:3.8 617 328 0.23 0.45 0 0 31.1 4.59
RCPB-10 1:2.1 1:1.8:3.4 585 317 0.23 0.43 8.8 9.7 42.5 5.24
RCPB-20 1:1.9 1:1.8:3.0 604 274 0.29 0.48 21.6 19.4 15.6 3.30
RCPB-30 1:1.7 1:1.8:2.6 574 286 0.26 0.39 30.4 29.0 11.7 2.54
C: Cement, CS: coarse sand, FS: fine sand, A: coarse aggregates

Fig. 13. Comparison of flexural behaviour between control (RCPB-0) and rubber-
ized pavers (10, 20, and 30% sand volume replaced by RA) [62].

to ten drops. Hence, rubberized pavers are capable of absorbing

traffic loadings and of resisting both cracking formation and prop-
agation. An improved insulation properties of rubberized pavers
have also been demonstrated such as higher sound absorption
and limited thermal conductivity [31]. For pavements, abrasion
and skid resistance are also important to provide comfort drive.
Rubberized pavers were found to be lower in abrasion, especially
in cases of higher content of RA. However, larger size of RA is most
efficient to design rubberized concrete paving blocks with better
skid resistance [67].
4.2. Stabilized-soil pavers
As for cement stabilized-soil pavers with RA addition, Li et al.
[68] reported that both clay and silt in the composites function
as binding materials to bond RA with soil granules. Such rubber-
soil bond enhancement helped to limit the decrease in compressive
strength of rubberized paving blocks using cement-stabilized soil
(RA size of 0.6 mm and 20% addition by weight of the composite).
5. Thin bonded overlays
Thin bonded overlay is a solution to smooth a damaged surface
and to recover the structural capacities of a deteriorated structure
by increasing its thickness [69]. However, during its performance,
cracking and, as a consequence, debonding of the overlay are
observed due to traffic loadings or to effects of different length
changes caused by different shrinkage levels between the new
material, the overlay and the old material, the substrate (Fig. 14).
For traditional rehabilitation solutions, bituminous-based materi-
als in lieu of the cementitious ones are used to overlay the surface
of degraded concrete pavements. However, various types of early
distresses including pothole, reflective cracking, and rutting
occurred on such resurfacing layers owing to the difference in
Fig. 14. Debonding mechanisms induced by (a) traffic loadings and (b) different
length changes (adapted from [21]).
physical properties between the current degraded concrete sub-
strates and the asphalt overlays [70].
Recently, cement-treated overlays have been designed as a
practical alternative due to their engineering properties quite close
to the ones of current deteriorated rigid pavements [71]. Normally,
the thickness of the thin bonded overlays is not greater than 10 cm.
According to Nguyen et al. [19], rubberized cement-based mortar
with fiber reinforcement produced a positive synergetic effect on
the tensile behaviour. The reinforcement is likely to counterbal-
ance the detrimental effect on tensile strength of the composite
when RA are incorporated, and strain capacity under tension is
improved by both RA and fibers. Such properties result in a delay
in initiation of shrinkage cracking and also in limiting the crack
opening [21]. It is therefore a suitable material for thin bonded
cement-based overlays. Gillani et al. [72] investigated the mechan-
ical performance of mortars overlaying on old concrete substrate
and concluded that, as illustrated in Fig. 15, despite reduction in
tensile strength of the cement composite incorporating RA (30%
replacement of natural aggregates by volume, RA size 0–4 mm),
such RA incorporation (30R0F) or fiber reinforcement (F) (30 kg/
m3) (0R30F) or a combination of both RA and fibers (30R30F) in
repair mortars helped to significantly improve the bonding tensile
behavior between the substrate and the overlays compared to con-
trol mortar (0R0F). It was attributed to compatibility and penetra-
tion capacity of such repair material into porous surface of
deteriorated concrete [72]. Toumi et al. [73] modeled debonding
propagation of thin bonded overlay under fatigue loadings and
clarified that the occurrence and the propagation of the debonding
phenomenon at the substrate-overlay interface could be limited by
using rubberized cement-based composites reinforced with steel
fibers.
1192 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
Fig. 15. Effect of RA incorporation and/or fiber reinforcement on tensile/ bonding
strengths of mortars used for thin bonded overlays (adapted from [72]).
6. Cement-treated bases/ sub-bases
RA can also be used in road bases or sub-bases as materials sub-
stituting into cement-stabilized aggregates [12,74–76] or cement-
treated soils [77].
6.1. Cement-stabilized aggregates
Due to high deformation of RA, incorporating RA into cement-
treated macadam can enhance its resistance to cracking induced
by shrinkage, and also help to effectively limit the reflection crack-
ing phenomenon [76]. However, few researchers investigated the
effect of RA in cement-stabilized composite mixtures typically
used for base and/or sub-base layers in pavement structures [74].
Farhan et al. [74,75] pointed out that the usage of such composites
in this application was more reasonable than paving asphaltic mix-
tures owing to their limited thickness with higher material and
construction costs in comparison with cement-stabilized courses.
In their studies, control cement-stabilized aggregate mixture and
the ones in which the 6 mm-sized natural aggregates replaced by
RA having similar grading curve at different contents, namely 0%,
15%, 30%, and 45% by volume, were investigated. Cement and opti-
mum water used in their investigations were fixed at 5% of aggre-
gates and at 4.6% of both aggregates and cement, respectively, by
dry weight. The authors observed a decrease in both flexural
strength (Fig. 16) and in direct tensile strength but an increase in
post-peak behaviour. However, due to detrimental effects of high
RA content on compaction, they suggested that a low percentage
of RA should be added in cement-stabilized aggregates in order
to ensure the sustainability of the base/ sub-base layers [74].
Guo et al. [76] established three-dimensional finite element
model using ANSYS to evaluate vertical displacement of rubberized
cement-stabilized macadam bases and results showed that it was
larger than the one of the control base. The value of the displace-
ment reduced with increasing modulus of elasticity and thickness
of base courses constructed using the composites.
6.2. Cement-treated soils
Wang et al. [78] investigated the effect of RA contents (5%, 10%,
15%, and 20% by cement weight) and RA sizes (30/40 and 60/80
meshes) on mechanical properties of rubberized cement-treated
soil. The authors reported that the inclusion of RA into the compos-
ites resulted in a reduction in stiffness, in compressive strength,
Fig. 16. Effects of RA incorporation on flexural properties of rubberized cement-
stabilized aggregates [75].
and in brittleness. They also stated that RA sizes had an insignifi-
cant influence on compressive behaviour of rubberized cement-
treated soil. According another study conducted by Yadav at al.
[77], clay was treated by cement at distinct levels of 0%, 3%, and
6% by mass of the composite. Then, RA with size ranging from
0.8 mm to 2 mm were incorporated in the mixtures, namely 0%,
2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10% by weight of clay. They finally investigated
compaction works, mechanical properties (compressive, tensile,
and shear strengths), California Bearing Ratio, swelling characteris-
tics, and consolidation of the cementitious clay-rubber composites
and concluded that RA incorporation in cement-treated clay low-
ered the unconfined compressive and splitting tensile strengths
but decreased swelling pressure. Higher post-peak strength at fail-
ure was also noticed, a result that could explained by the formation
of complex and tortuous cracking shape during the test as illus-
trated in Fig. 17. Also, 5% substitution of RA in the cement-
treated clay helped the processed soils perform better than the
control one, especially improving the shear strength. Hence, the
authors concluded that the composites were suitable for road
sub-bases with low traffic volume.
6.3. Other courses
For subgrade or untreated sub-bases/ bases (without cement
treatments), RA are also used for improvement of geotechnical
properties of natural soil or aggregate bases in pavements. For
example, Srivastava et al. [79] realized a reduction in swelling
and pressure of expansive black cotton soil when shredded end-
of-life tires were added. The authors also observed an increase in
shear strength (undrained cohesion) of the soil composite with
5% inclusion of coarse sized RA (2–4.75 mm) compared to the pure
one. Similar properties on expansive soil-rubber mixture was still
obtained when Seda at al. [80] added 30% waste tire rubber
(6.7 mm) by volume. Swelling of the soil was significantly reduced
with RA incorporation. The processed soil was also more compress-
ible than the untreated one. On the other hand, as for unbound
granular bases, permanent deformation of the base/ sub-bases con-
taining recycled concrete aggregates, coarse and fine RA was
higher [81].
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
Fig. 17. Failures of control cement-treated soil (a) and the rubberized one (b) [77].
7. Conclusions and further considerations
7.1. Conclusions
It is now quite clear about the practical interest of using RA
achieved by grinding waste rubber tires to manufacture rubberized
cement-based composites for pavement constructions. From
review focused on research findings related to advantageous prop-
erties of the materials and their impact in pavement applications
such as rigid pavement, semi-flexible pavements, paving blocks,
cement treated bases/sub-bases, and thin bonded overlay, some
major conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The most important properties of rubberized cement-based
composites making them suitable for pavement structures
are the improved strain capacity, the lower propensity for
cracking owing to restrained shrinkage, the higher freeze–
thaw resistance, and the better sound insulation. Hence, rub-
berized cement pavements perform better and are more
durable than the control one.
(2) Presence of RA in the cement composite helps to slow down
cracking initiation, to control cracking propagation, and to
limit crack mouth opening phenomenon owing to bridging
material phenomena, especially when a solution to enhance
rubber-cement matrix bond is adopted. Such improved bond
helps to limit the detrimental effect of RA on the strength of
the composite including strain capacity and post-peak
residual behaviour. Such properties are important for
cement-based pavements because these structures are
always subject to length changes under different weather
conditions.
(3) Different rubberized concretes including rubberized roller
compacted concrete, rubberized self-compacting concrete,
and rubber-modified recycled aggregate concrete have been
designed for pavement applications. In overall, increasing in
RA content appeared to be detrimental on some mechanical
properties of the composites mainly due to low stiffness of
RA. Despite such a drop in strength, the materials retain an
interest for some large surface applications depending on
criteria to be fulfilled. If required strengths are not achieved,
silica fume, steel fibers, recycled steel fibers from waste
tires, or propylene fibers could be used as reinforcement in
order to compensate, at least partially, strength loss induced
by incorporation of RA.
(4) The rubberized concrete pavement had been used in actual
conditions in different applications such as road pavements,
sidewalks, parking areas, and airport taxiway. All these field
tests have confirmed that rubberized cement-based com-
posites are suitable to prevent cracking due to restrained
1193
length changes (shrinkage or thermal length change) and
to provide better distribution of stress in the pavement
structure under traffic loadings.
(5) Rubberized cementitious slurry can be grouted into semi-
flexible pavements in order to obtain the composites with
better resistance to cracking under low temperature. Special
attention should be paid on the decrease in rutting resis-
tance and compressive strength of the pavements.
(6) Even though reduction in some mechanical properties and
high rejected percentage of rubberized paving blocks, such
pavers retain an interest because of some properties that
reveal themselves useful such as lower density, higher duc-
tility, better impact resistance, and improved insulation
properties.
(7) The use of rubberized cement-based mortars to overlay
deteriorated substrate is one of relevant approaches to
improve the bond between the new material (overlay) and
the substrate. Also, the composites help to delay cracking
formation due to their improved strain capacity and to pre-
vent debonding phenomenon, the main mechanism limiting
the durability of such applications.
(8) Bases/ sub-bases are not affected by the temperature and do
not require high strengths as surface layers. Micro-cracks are
induced when rubberized cement-based composites are
subject to elevated temperature. Hence, the use of the mate-
rials for bases/ sub-bases seems easier to be considered.
Especially, if base/ sub-base is exposed to high underground
water, low water capillary absorption of rubberized cement-
treated aggregates/ soils make them more durable than con-
ventional layers.
7.2. Further considerations
In order to popularize usage scale of pavements using rubber-
ized cement-based composites, further considerations are dis-
cussed as follows:
(1) Incorporation of RA in concrete is a suitable method to
lengthen joint spacing or to construct a jointless concrete
pavement thanks to the composite properties of high strain
capacity resulting in low propensity for shrinkage cracking.
The effect of low coefficient of thermal expansion coefficient
is also beneficial. However, maximum length of rubberized
cement-based pavement slabs without risks of cracking or
without joints is yet to be determined. Obviously this length
is intimately connected with RA content [5].
(2) For cement-treated bases, owing to high propensity for
cracking, cracks appear and propagate towards the upper
layers and are detrimental to the service life of asphalt layers
1194 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
or other thin bonded overlays. Hence, cracking resistance of
such bases incorporating RA to restrained shrinkage is nec-
essary to be investigated. Especially, large scale experimen-
tal and numerical models should be created to observe both
cracks of the composites induced by different shrinkage con-
ditions and their reflection on upper layers as well.
(3) Due to the sensitivity of rubberized cement-based materials
to elevated temperatures, micro-cracks appear [16]. Hence,
paving of the materials on the surface of pavements is a con-
cern. It is also very important to find some effective solu-
tions in order to stop or limit such micro-cracking problem
for the sustainability of rubberized pavements.
(4) As known, waste rubber tires consist of fibers. Therefore, the
use of the recycled fibers from a decomposed process of rub-
ber waste tires is highly encouraged. So far, only studies on
incorporating the recycled fibers in conventional composites
have been conducted. Findings showed a significant impact
on enhancing post-peak performance of the resulting mate-
rials dedicated for roller-compacted pavement [82] or
cement-stabilized pavement bases/ sub-bases [83] or con-
crete structures [84]. Hence, properties of rubberized
cement-based composites reinforced with such fibers should
be investigated to find more suitable materials in pavement
constructions.
(5) With regard to high rejected percentage of rubberized
pavers, it is necessary to find some relevant methods to limit
failure of rubberized paving blocks during manufacture and,
as a consequence, RA content used in blocks could be
increased. Solutions may be linked to selection of com-
paction pressure or to the way of coating RA in order to
reduce releasing stresses after demoulding. Two-layer rub-
berized pavers in which a control mortar based-facing layer
is placed on rubberized body can be a possible approach to
prevent the reduction in strengths and to increase RA con-
tent in rubberized paving blocks.
(6) In view of higher deformation of unbounded rubber-
conventional aggregate composites [81], more research
should be conducted for the materials before any future appli-
cations of such composites in road pavement constructions.
Declarations of interest
None.
References
[1] A.C. Ho, A. Turatsinze, R. Hameed, D.C. Vu, Effects of rubber aggregates from
grinded used tyres on the concrete resistance to cracking, J. Clean. Prod. 23
(2012) 209–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.016.
[2] V.V. Kumar, S. Saride, Evaluation of cracking resistance potential of
geosynthetic reinforced asphalt overlays using direct tensile strength test,
Constr. Build. Mater. 162 (2018) 37–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CONBUILDMAT.2017.11.158.
[3] H. Wang, X. Liu, P. Apostolidis, T. Scarpas, Review of warm mix rubberized
asphalt concrete: towards a sustainable paving technology, J. Clean. Prod. 177
(2018) 302–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.245.
[4] L.P. Davide, Recycled Tyre Rubber Modified Bitumens for road asphalt
mixtures: a literature review, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 863–881,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.007.
[5] A. Turatsinze, M. Measson, J.P. Faure, Rubberised concrete: from laboratory
findings to field experiment validation, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 8436 (2016) 1–10,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2016.1215688.
[6] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, A comprehensive review on the applications of waste
tire rubber in cement concrete, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 1323–
1333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.092.
[7] X. Yang, Z. You, D. Perram, D. Hand, Z. Ahmed, W. Wei, S. Luo, Emission analysis
of recycled tire rubber modified asphalt in hot and warm mix conditions, J.
Hazard. Mater. 365 (2019) 942–951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2018.11.080.
[8] Rubber Manufacturers Association, US Scrap Tire Management Summary
2009–2017, Washington, DC (2018).
[9] C. Albano, N. Camacho, J. Reyes, J.L. Feliu, M. Hernández, Influence of scrap
rubber addition to Portland I concrete composites: destructive and non-
destructive testing, Compos. Struct. 71 (2005) 439–446, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.09.037.
[10] K.-H. Chung, Y.-K. Hong, Introductory Behavior of Rubber Concrete, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 72 (1999) 35–40, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628
(19990404)72:1<35::AID-APP3>3.0.CO;2-B.
[11] N. Eldin, A. Senouci, Rubber-Tire Particles as Concrete Aggregate, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 5 (1993) 478–496, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1993) 5:4(478).
[12] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 11 (1999) 206–213, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1999) 11:3
(206).
[13] H.S. Lee, H. Lee, J.S. Moon, H.W. Jung, Development of tire-added latex concrete,
ACI Mater. J. 95 (1998) 356–364. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?
eid=2-s2.0-0032114708&partnerID=40&md5=da05b636d1494e42403b22918
30ba584.
[14] A. Turatsinze, J.L. Granju, S. Bonnet, Positive synergy between steel-fibres and
rubber aggregates: effect on the resistance of cement-based mortars to
shrinkage cracking, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (2006) 1692–1697, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.02.019.
[15] M. Turki, E. Bretagne, M.J. Rouis, M. Quéneudec, Microstructure, physical and
mechanical properties of mortar–rubber aggregates mixtures, Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (2009) 2715–2722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2008.12.019.
[16] N.P. Pham, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, Rubber aggregate-cement matrix bond
enhancement: microstructural analysis, effect on transfer properties and on
mechanical behaviours of the composite, Cem. Concr. Compos. 94 (2018) 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.08.005.
[17] N.P. Pham, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, Effect of Styrene-Butadiene Copolymer
Coating on Properties of Rubberized Cement-Based Composites, in: V.
Mechtcherine, V. Slowik, P. Kabele (Eds.), Strain-Hardening Cem. Compos.
SHCC4, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2018: pp. 342–350. doi:10.1007/
978-94-024-1194-2_40.
[18] A. Turatsinze, S. Bonnet, Potential of rubber aggregates to modify properties of
cement based-mortars : improvement in cracking shrinkage resistance,
Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2005) 176–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2005.06.036.
[19] T.-H. Nguyen, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, Mechanical properties of steel fibre
reinforced and rubberised cement-based mortars, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 641–
647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.05.006.
[20] A.C. Ho, A. Turatsinze, D.C. Vu, On the potential of rubber aggregates obtained
by grinding end-of-life tyres to improve the strain capacity of concrete, Concr.
Repair, Rehabil. Retrofit. I I (2009) 123–129.
[21] T.-H. Nguyen, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, F. Tazi, Restrained shrinkage cracking in
steel fibre reinforced and rubberised cement-based mortars, Mater. Struct. 45
(2011) 899–904, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9806-x.
[22] A. Benazzouk, M. Queneudec, Durability of cement rubber-composites under
freeze thaw cycles, in: Challenges Concr. Constr. Vol. 5, Sustain. Concr. Constr.,
Thomas Telford Publishing, 2002: pp. 355–362. doi:doi:10.1680/
scc.31777.0036.
[23] K.A. Paine, R.K. Dhir, R. Moroney, K. Kopasakis, Use of crumb rubber to achieve
freeze/thaw resisting concrete, Challenges Concr. Constr. Vol. 6, Concr. Extrem.
Cond. (2002) 485–498.
[24] N.M. Al-Akhras, M.M. Smadi, Properties of tire rubber ash mortar, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 26 (2004) 821–826, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.
2004.01.004.
_
[25] I.B. Topçu, A. Demir, Durability of Rubberized Mortar and Concrete, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 19 (2007) 173–178, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)
19:2(173).
[26] P. Turgut, B. Yesilata, Physico-mechanical and thermal performances of newly
developed rubber-added bricks, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 679–688, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.05.002.
[27] K.A. Paine, R.K. Dhir, Research on new applications for granulated rubber in
concrete, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Constr. Mater. 163 (2010) 7–17, https://doi.org/
10.1680/coma.2010.163.1.7.
[28] A.E. Richardson, K.A. Coventry, G. Ward, Freeze/thaw protection of concrete
with optimum rubber crumb content, J. Clean. Prod. 23 (2012) 96–103, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.013.
[29] M. Gesoglu, E. Guneyisi, G. Khoshnaw, S. Ipek, Abrasion and freezing-thawing
resistance of pervious concretes containing waste rubbers, Constr. Build.
Mater. 73 (2014) 19–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.047.
[30] A.R. Khaloo, M. Dehestani, P. Rahmatabadi, Mechanical properties of concrete
containing a high volume of tire–rubber particles, Waste Manag. 28 (2008)
2472–2482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.01.015.
[31] B.S. Mohammed, K.M. Anwar Hossain, J.T. Eng Swee, G. Wong, M. Abdullahi,
Properties of crumb rubber hollow concrete block, J. Clean. Prod. 23 (2012) 57–
67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.035.
[32] P. Sukontasukkul, Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and sound
properties of pre-cast concrete panel, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1084–
1092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.021.
[33] B. Zhang, C.S. Poon, Sound insulation properties of rubberized lightweight
aggregate concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 172 (2018) 3176–3185, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.044.
[34] N. Segre, I. Joekes, Use of tire rubber particles as addition to cement paste,
Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 1421–1425, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846
(00)00373-2.
 P.N. Pham et al. / Construction and Building Materials 223 (2019) 1182–1195
[35] A. Meddah, M. Beddar, A. Bali, Use of shredded rubber tire aggregates for roller
compacted concrete pavement, J. Clean. Prod. 72 (2014) 187–192, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.052.
[36] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, M. Qu, Transport of fluids in cement – rubber
composites, Composites 26 (2004) 21–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465
(02)00119-1.
[37] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, T. Langlet, K. Mezreb, J.M. Roucoult, M. Que,
Physico-mechanical properties and water absorption of cement composite
containing shredded rubber wastes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 732–740,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.07.001.
[38] M. Fakhri, S.K. Farshad, The effect of waste rubber particles and silica fume on
the mechanical properties of Roller Compacted Concrete Pavement, J. Clean.
Prod. 129 (2016) 521–530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.017.
[39] K. Kaloush, G. Way, H. Zhu, Properties of Crumb Rubber Concrete, Transp. Res.
Rec. J, Transp. Res. Board. 2005 (1914) 8–14, https://doi.org/10.3141/1914-02.
[40] A. Turatsinze, M. Garros, On the modulus of elasticity and strain capacity of
Self-Compacting Concrete incorporating rubber aggregates, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 52 (2008) 1209–1215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2008.06.012.
[41] I.B. Topcu, The properties of rubberized concretes, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (1995)
304–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(95)00014-3.
[42] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, K. Vessalas, In-depth assessment of Crumb Rubber
Concrete (CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for rigid
pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 71 (2014) 456–471, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.085.
[43] N.P. Pham, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, Effect of an enhanced rubber-cement
matrix interface on freeze-thaw resistance of the cement-based composite,
Constr. Build. Mater. 207 (2019) 528–534, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.02.147.
[44] S.B. Park, D.S. Seo, J. Lee, Studies on the sound absorption characteristics of
porous concrete based on the content of recycled aggregate and target void
ratio, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 1846–1854, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2004.12.009.
[45] A.C. Ho, A. Turatsinze, A. Abou-Chakra, D.C. Vu, Rubberised concrete for the
design of pavement on soil, Mater. Eng. Innov. 3 (2012) 101–116.
[46] F. Hernández-Olivares, G. Barluenga, B. Parga-Landa, M. Bollati, B. Witoszek,
Fatigue behaviour of recycled tyre rubber-filled concrete and its implications
in the design of rigid pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 1918–1927,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.06.030.
[47] F. Liu, L. Meng, G.-F. Ning, L.-J. Li, Fatigue performance of rubber-modified
recycled aggregate concrete (RRAC) for pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 95
(2015) 207–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.042.
[48] I. Mohammadi, H. Khabbaz, Shrinkage performance of Crumb Rubber Concrete
(CRC) prepared by water-soaking treatment method for rigid pavements, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 62 (2015) 106–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2015.02.010.
[49] A. Alsaif, L. Koutas, S.A. Bernal, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Mechanical
performance of steel fibre reinforced rubberised concrete for flexible concrete
pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 172 (2018) 533–543, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.04.010.
[50] A. Alsaif, S.A. Bernal, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Freeze-thaw resistance of
steel fibre reinforced rubberised concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 195 (2019)
450–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.103.
[51] A.J. Kardos, S.A. Durham, Strength, durability, and environmental properties of
concrete utilizing recycled tire particles for pavement applications, Constr.
Build. Mater. 98 (2015) 832–845, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.08.065.
[52] S. Hesami, I. Salehi Hikouei, S.A.A. Emadi, Mechanical behavior of self-
compacting concrete pavements incorporating recycled tire rubber crumb and
reinforced with polypropylene fiber, J. Clean. Prod. (2016), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.079.
[53] R. Pacheco-Torres, E. Cerro-Prada, F. Escolano, F. Varela, Fatigue performance
of waste rubber concrete for rigid road pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 176
(2018) 539–548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.030.
[54] G.A. Fager, Asphalt-rubber overlay on rubblized concrete pavement on I-135,
Transp. Res. Rec. 1543 (1996) 71–78, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0361198196154300109.
[55] E. Ferretti, M.C. Bignozzi, Stress and Strain Profiles along the Cross-Section of
Waste Tire Rubberized Concrete Plates for Airport Pavements, Comput. Mater.
Contin. 27 (2012) 231–273.
[56] E. Ferretti, Waste Tire Rubberized Concrete Plates for Airport Pavements:
Stress and Strain Profiles in Time and Space Domains, Comput. Mater. Contin.
31 (2012) 87–111, https://doi.org/10.1109/ESIME.2005.1502803.
[57] F. Qin, Z. He, Q. Huang, Research on the contraction joint width of rubberized
concrete pavement, Adv. Mater. Res. 287–290 (2011) 436–444, https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.287-290.436.
[58] H. Chong, H. Jinxiang, L. Juntao, D. Cheng, L. Lin, Utilization of Waste Rubber
Powder in Semi-flexible Pavement 599 (2014) 361–367, https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.599.361.
[59] T.N. Tran, H.T.T. Nguyen, K.S. Nguyen, N.T.H. Nguyen, Semi-flexible Material:
The Sustainable Alternative for the Use of Conventional Road Materials in
Heavy-Duty Pavement, in: H.-.H. Tran-Nguyen, H. Wong, F. Ragueneau, C. Ha-
Minh (Eds.), Proc. 4th Congr{è}s Int. G{é}otechnique - Ouvrages -Structures,
Springer, Singapore, Singapore, 2018, pp. 552–559.
[60] N.-P. Pham, W. Lin, D.-G. Park, H. Kim, Y.-H. Cho, Evaluation Methodology for
Laying Pattern of Interlocking Concrete Block Pavements Using a
1195
Displacement-Moment Concept, J. Transp. Eng. 140 (2014) 4013008, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000623.
[61] T.-C. Ling, H.M. Nor, S.K. Lim, Using recycled waste tyres in concrete paving
blocks, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Waste Resour. Manag. 163 (2010) 37–45, https://
doi.org/10.1680/warm.2010.163.1.37.
[62] T.-C. Ling, Effects of compaction method and rubber content on the properties
of concrete paving blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (2012) 164–175, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.069.
[63] T.-C. Ling, Prediction of density and compressive strength for rubberized
concrete blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 4303–4306, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.074.
[64] T.-C. Ling, H.M. Nor, M.R. Hainin, A.A. Chik, Laboratory performance of crumb
rubber concrete block pavement, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 10 (2009) 361–374,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298430802342740.
[65] B.M. Rethinavelsamy, N. Chidambarathanu, Investigation on precast concrete
paver block with waste tyre crumb rubber, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 17
(2016) 719–736, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1119056.
[66] E. Sodupe-Ortega, E. Fraile-Garcia, J. Ferreiro-Cabello, A. Sanz-Garcia,
Evaluation of crumb rubber as aggregate for automated manufacturing of
rubberized long hollow blocks and bricks, Constr. Build. Mater. 106 (2016)
305–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.131.
[67] P. Sukontasukkul, C. Chaikaew, Properties of concrete pedestrian block mixed
with crumb rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006) 450–457, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.040.
[68] D. Li, Y. Zhuge, M. Rahman, X. Ma, Mix design and mechanical properties of
rubberized cement stabilized soil (RCSS) pavers, 25th Australas, Conf. Mech.
Struct, Mater, 2018.
[69] A. Turatsinze, H. Farhat, J.-L. Granju, Influence of autogenous cracking on the
durability of repairs by cement-based overlays reinforced with metal fibres,
Mater. Struct. 36 (2003) 673–677, https://doi.org/10.1617/13898.
[70] Y.K. Kim, S.W. Lee, Performance evaluation of bonded concrete overlay, Constr.
Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 464–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2013.08.066.
[71] American Concrete Pavement Association, Guide to concrete overlays:
sustainable solutions for resurfacing and rehabilitating existing pavements,
ACPA, A. 3rd Ed., ACPA Publ. TB021.02P, 2014.
[72] S.A.A. Gillani, A. Toumi, A. Turatsinze, Effect of Incorporating Rubber
Aggregates and Fiber Reinforcement on the Durability of Thin Bonded
Cement-Based Overlays, in: A. Chabot, W.G. Buttlar, E. V Dave, C. Petit, G.
Tebaldi (Eds.), 8th RILEM Int. Conf. Mech. Crack. Debonding Pavements,
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2016: pp. 619–625. doi:10.1007/978-94-
024-0867-6_87.
[73] A. Toumi, T.-H. Nguyen, A. Turatsinze, Modelling of the debonding of steel fibre
reinforced and rubberised cement-based overlays under fatigue loading, Eur. J.
Environ. Civ. Eng. 19 (2015) 672–686, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2014.965848.
[74] A.H. Farhan, A.R. Dawson, N.H. Thom, Characterization of rubberized cement
bound aggregate mixtures using indirect tensile testing and fractal analysis,
Constr. Build. Mater. 105 (2016) 94–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.12.018.
[75] A.H. Farhan, A.R. Dawson, N.H. Thom, S. Adam, M.J. Smith, Flexural
characteristics of rubberized cement-stabilized crushed aggregate for
pavement structure, Mater. Des. 88 (2015) 897–905, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2015.09.071.
[76] H.M. Guo, H. Zhu, Y. Zhou, The Applied Research of Waste Crumb Rubber in
Road Base, Appl. Mech. Mater. 253–255 (2012) 317–321, https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.253-255.317.
[77] J.S. Yadav, S.K. Tiwari, A study on the potential utilization of crumb rubber in
cement treated soft clay, J. Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 177–191, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2017.01.001.
[78] F.C. Wang, W. Song, Effects of Crumb Rubber on Compressive Strength of
Cement-Treated Soil, Arch. Civ. Eng. 61 (2015) 59–78, https://doi.org/10.1515/
ace-2015-0036.
[79] A. Srivastava, S. Pandey, J. Rana, Use of shredded tyre waste in improving the
geotechnical properties of expansive black cotton soil, Geomech. Geoengin. 9
(2014) 303–311, https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2014.902121.
[80] J.H. Seda, J.C. Lee, J.A.H. Carraro, Beneficial use of waste tire rubber for swelling
potential mitigation in expansive soils, Soil Improv. (2007) 1–9, https://doi.
org/10.1061/40916(235)5.
[81] M. Saberian, J. Li, B. Nguyen, G. Wang, Permanent deformation behaviour of
pavement base and subbase containing recycle concrete aggregate, coarse and
fine crumb rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 178 (2018) 51–58, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.107.
[82] K. Neocleous, H. Angelakopoulos, K. Pilakoutas, M. Guadagnini, Fibre-
reinforced roller-compacted concrete transport pavements, Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. - Transp. 164 (2011) 97–109, https://doi.org/10.1680/tran.9.00043.
[83] A.H. Farhan, A.R. Dawson, N.H. Thom, Recycled hybrid fiber-reinforced &
cement-stabilized pavement mixtures: tensile properties and cracking
characterization, Constr. Build. Mater. 179 (2018) 488–499, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2018.05.233.
[84] M.A. Aiello, F. Leuzzi, G. Centonze, A. Maffezzoli, Use of steel fibres recovered
from waste tyres as reinforcement in concrete: pull-out behaviour,
compressive and flexural strength, Waste Manag. 29 (2009) 1960–1970,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.002.