Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
DOI 10.1617/s11527-010-9701-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Compressive strength, abrasion resistance and energy
absorption capacity of rubberized concretes
with and without slag
Erdogan Ozbay • Mohamed Lachemi •
Umur Korkut Sevim
Received: 1 May 2010 / Accepted: 14 December 2010 / Published online: 24 December 2010
 RILEM 2010
Abstract It has been estimated that around one
billion tires are withdrawn from use in the world
every year. Therefore, the development of new
techniques for recycling waste tires is necessary. A
number of innovative solutions that meet the chal-
lenge of the tire disposal problem involve using waste
as an additive to cement-based materials. In this
study, an experimental program was carried out to
determine the compressive strength, abrasion resis-
tance, and energy absorption capacity of rubberized
concretes with and without ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBFS). For this purpose, a water–
binder ratio (0.4), four designated levels of crumb
rubber (CR) contents (0, 5, 15 and 25% by fine
aggregate volume), and three levels of GGBFS
content (0, 20, and 40%) were considered as exper-
imental parameters. In total, 12 concrete mixtures
were cast and tested for compressive strength,
abrasion resistance, and energy absorption capacity.
Test results indicate that using CR aggregate
decreases compressive strength and abrasion resis-
tance of the concretes, but increases energy absorp-
tion capacity significantly.
E. Ozbay
M. Lachemi (&)
Civil Engineering Department, Ryerson University,
Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: mlachemi@ryerson.ca
E. Ozbay
U. K. Sevim
Civil Engineering Department, Mustafa Kemal
University, Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey
Keywords Waste rubber
Blast furnace slag

Abrasion resistance
Energy absorption
1 Introduction
Cement-based concrete is a brittle material with high
rigidity. In certain applications—such as foundation
pads, traffic barriers and railway buffers—high tough-
ness, high energy absorption capacity and good
impact and abrasion resistance are desirable. How-
ever, although concrete is the most commonly used
construction material; it does not always fulfill these
requirements [1]. Previous research has shown that
concrete properties change when rubber aggregates
are added. Adding rubber aggregates to concrete not
only changes its properties, but also helps solve the
waste disposal problem. Used rubber tires have
become one of the most challenging components of
the waste stream to manage. In the USA alone,
approximately 273 million scrap tires are generated
annually, with approximately 3 billion used tires
currently stockpiled [2]. All over the world, govern-
ments are working to find solutions to the problem. As
a result, several studies have been carried out to find
alternate applications for rubber waste. Waste rubbers
have two main uses; the first is reuse of rubber tires
left over from the retreading process. Many research-
ers have investigated the use of recycled tires in
applications such as asphalt pavement, waterproofing
systems, and membrane liners [3, 4]. The second
1298
approach to waste tire disposal is incorporating it into
cement-based materials [5]. It has been suggested that
scrap tires can be recycled into three major sizes:
chipped tire rubber particles (size ranging between 13
and 76 mm) as coarse aggregate, crumb tire rubber
particles are analogous to fine aggregate (size ranging
between 0.075 and 4.75 mm), and finally, ground
rubber particles (size ranging between 0.15 and
19 mm) [6]. Experimental investigations have shown
that incorporating chipped and/or crumbed tire rubber
particles results in significant changes in mechanical
properties. Almost all investigators [7–14] reported a
significant reduction (10–80%) in compressive and
tensile strengths of rubber concrete with increasing
tire rubber content. The level of strength reduction
was related to the tire rubber content and the low bond
strength between the cement based matrix and the tire
rubber particles. Eldin and Senouci [8] reported an
approximately 85% reduction in compressive strength
and a 50% reduction in splitting tensile strength when
coarse aggregate was fully replaced by coarse crumb
rubber (CR) chips. On the other hand, a reduction of
approximately 65% in compressive strength and 50%
in splitting tensile strength was observed when fine
aggregate was entirely replaced by fine CR. However,
rubberized concrete mixtures have the ability to
absorb a large amount of energy under compressive
and tensile loads. These findings were independently
confirmed by Topcu [9], who remarked that the high
elastic energy capacities of normal concretes begin to
decrease with the addition of rubber, and low plastic
energy capacities begin to increase. The fact that a
material has high plastic energy implies that it could
show higher deformation at the time of fracture and
absorb more energy. Topcu and Avcular [15, 16]
reported that the impact resistance of concrete
increased when rubber aggregates were incorporated
into the concrete mixtures. They also stated that the
increase in impact resistance was derived from
rubberized concrete’s increased ability to absorb
energy, safety, and insulate sound during impact.
Ling et al. [17] investigated the performance of CR
concrete block pavement. They produced four differ-
ent types of pavement blocks, adding up to 30%
rubber content. They observed that the energy
absorbed by rubber-filled blocks is much greater than
that absorbed by the control block. Sukontasukkul and
Chaikaew [18] produced concrete pedestrian blocks
mixed with CR and measured the abrasion resistance
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
of those blocks in terms of mass loss percentage. They
found that the rubber crumb concrete block exhibited
less abrasion resistance than the control block, as
indicated by increasing weight loss corresponding
with increasing CR content.
To eliminate the negative effects of using rubber
aggregate on the fresh and mechanical properties of
the concretes, some researchers [8, 19–21] have
suggested the surface treatment of the rubber parti-
cles while some others [22–24] have suggested using
rubber aggregates with mineral admixtures such as
silica fume and fly ash. In the present study, ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) was used to
improve workability and the mechanical properties of
the rubberized concretes.
Blast furnace slag is a by-product of the manufac-
ture of pig iron from iron ore, limestone and coke. The
liquid slag is rapidly cooled by quenching to obtain an
almost completely amorphous material. Its chemical
composition mainly depends on that of the iron ore and
potentially contains 27–40% SiO2, 30–50% CaO,
5–15% Al2O3, and 1–10% MgO [25]. Blast furnace
slag has been used as a cementing material for more
than 100 years and knowledge regarding its applica-
tion is broad. It is most commonly used for the
production of blended cements and slag cements.
Currently, there is high interest in the application of
this alternative material because the production of
Portland cement clinker contributes about 5% to global
man-made CO2 emissions. There is an increasing
demand for slag cement to reduce the CO2 emissions
resulting from cement and concrete production [25].
Numerous studies have examined the fresh, mechan-
ical and transport properties of concretes produced
with blast furnace slag. Gesoglu and Ozbay [26]
investigated the effects of GGBFS on the fresh and
hardened properties of self-compacting concretes.
They concluded that use of GGBFS improved fresh
properties (slump flow diameter, slump flow time,
V-funnel flow time, and L-box height ratio), and that
those concretes had comparable compressive strength,
electrical resistivity, and ultrasonic pulse velocity
values to that of the control concrete, irrespective of
the GGBFS replacement level. Guneyisi and Gesoglu
[27] studied the durability properties of high-perfor-
mance concretes incorporating high replacement
levels of slag up to 80%. They concluded that slag-
blended concrete exhibited marginally lower water
sorptivity, chloride ion permeability and higher
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307 1299

corrosion resistance than the concrete without slag. Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of Portland cement
Yuksel et al. [28] investigated the abrasion resistance and blast furnace slag
of concretes incorporating non-ground blast furnace Portland cement GGBFS
slag and observed that replacement of non-ground
blast furnace slag with fine aggregate up to 50% did not Chemical analysis (%)
decrease abrasion resistance. CaO 62.58 34.12
Although numerous investigations have been con- SiO2 20.25 36.41
ducted on rubberized concretes with and without Al2O3 5.31 10.39
mineral admixtures, there is a limited number of Fe2O3 4.04 0.69
studies related to the abrasion resistance and energy MgO 2.82 10.26
absorption capacity of rubberized concretes. There- SO3 2.73 –
fore, there is a need to investigate the issue of K2O 0.92 0.97
abrasion resistance and energy absorption capacity of Na2O 0.22 0.35
concretes incorporating rubber aggregates. In this Loss of ignition 3.02 1.64
study, compressive strength, abrasion resistance (in Physical properties
terms of percentage of mass loss and wear depth), and Specific gravity 3.15 2.79
energy absorption capacity of rubberized concretes Blaine fineness (m2/kg) 3,260 418
with and without GGBFS were investigated. Twelve
different concrete mixtures were produced, with
varying rubber aggregate and GGBFS contents and crushed limestone with nominal maximum sizes of 11
a constant water–binder ratio. and 22 mm was used as a coarse aggregate. Crushed
limestone sand with a nominal maximum size of 4 mm
was used as fine aggregate. Coarse aggregates with
2 Experimental studies maximum sizes of 22 and 11 mm and fine aggregate
had fineness modulus of 6.37, 5.30, and 2.65, and
2.1 Materials and mixture proportions specific gravity of 2.70, 2.55 and 2.60, respectively.
The particle size gradations of aggregates obtained
The materials used in mixtures were ordinary Portland through the sieve analysis are given in Fig. 1. The CR,
cement (CEM I 42.5 R), CR, GGBFS, fine and coarse obtained by mechanical grinding of rubber from the
aggregates, and a superplasticizer (SP). The physical outer surface of regular scrap tires, was sieved and a
properties and chemical compositions of the Portland grain size of 0–3 mm (similar to fine aggregate size)
cement and GGBFS are listed in Table 1. A blend of was utilized in this study. The compacted density and

Fig. 1 Sieve analysis of 100

crumb rubber, fine and
Coarse Fine Crumb rubber
coarse aggregates
80
Percent passing

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve size [mm]
1300 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307

Fresh concrete
absorption values of tire chips were approximately
0.9 T/m3 and 2.43%, respectively. The principal

unit weight
chemical component of the CR used in this study is a

kg/m3

2,320
2,299
2,243
2,204
2,312
2,306
2,295
2,245
2,201
2,287
2,240
2,198
blend of natural and synthetic rubber with carbon
black, sulfur, polymers, and bead materials. The

unit weight
Theoretical
particle size distribution of the CR is presented in
Fig. 1. A polycarboxylic ether type SP with a specific

kg/m3

2,338
2,315
2,269
2,222
2,328
2,317
2,305
2,259
2,213
2,295
2,248
2,204
gravity of 1.08 was employed to achieve the desired
workability in all concrete mixtures.

Slump

mm

220
215
200
185
200
200
205
210
210
210
210
210
2.2 Mix proportions

kg/m3

6.743
6.743
6.743
6.743
6.000
4.571
6.000
6.429
6.743
5.143
4.857
6.857
Twelve different rubberized concrete mixtures with

SP
and without GGBFS were designed in consideration

Crumb rubber
of the parameters below. Details of the mixtures are

kg/m3

0.00

0.00
0.00
12.30
36.90
61.50

12.23
36.69
61.16
12.16
36.48
60.81
given in Table 2. The concretes were designed to
give a slump value of 20 ± 2 cm, which was
achieved by using varying amounts of SP.

0
5

0
0
5

5
15
25

15
25

15
25
%
The concrete mix proportioning parameters were:
• water–binder ratio (w/b): 0.4; Fine aggregate

0–4 mm
• CR as aggregate replacement: 0, 5, 15, and 25% (kg/m3)

710.7
675.2
604.1
533.0
706.7
702.7
671.4
600.7
530.0
667.5
597.3
527.0
rubber by volume of fine aggregates;
• mineral admixture as cement replacement: 0, 20,
4–11 mm

and 40% GGBFS by weight of total binder

481.3
481.3
481.3
481.3
478.6
475.8
478.6
478.6
478.6
475.8
475.8
475.8
materials.
aggregate (kg/m3)

A power-driven revolving pan mixer was used for

11–22 mm

mixing. The unit weight and slump of the fresh

Coarse

concrete of all 12 mixtures were examined. Six 150-

509.6
509.6
509.6
509.6
506.7
503.8
506.7
506.7
506.7
503.8
503.8
503.8
mm cubes, six 100-mm cubes and six 70 9 70 9
100 mm prism specimens were cast from each
Blast furnace

kg/m3

mixture and compacted using a vibrating table. Test

0
0
0
0
90

90
90
90
180

180
180
180
specimens were demoulded 24 h after casting and
slag (S)

then water cured for 28 days. All specimens were

0
0
0
0
20
40
20
20
20
40
40
40
%

tested at the age of 28 days.

Cement

kg/m3

2.3 Test methods

450
450
450
450
360
270
360
360
360
270
270
270
Table 2 Concrete mixture proportioning
Water

kg/m3

To evaluate the fresh concrete properties, slump and

180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180

fresh unit weight were measured according to ASTM

C143 [29] and ASTM C138 [30], respectively. The
binder ratio

compressive strength test was carried out on the 100-

Water–

mm cube specimens by a 3,000-kN capacity testing

w/b

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

machine according to ASTM C39 [31].

15R20S
25R20S

15R40S
25R40S
Control
Mix ID

15R0S
25R0S
0R20S
0R40S
5R20S

5R40S

2.3.1 Abrasion resistance

5R0S

The abrasion resistance test was performed at the age

M10
M11
M12
Mix

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
no.

of 28 days per TS 2824 EN 1338 [32]. Each specimen

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
Pouring face
(face 1)
4
70 mm
5 3 6 100 mm
2
70 mm
1 100 mm
Fig. 2 Abrasion resistance test sample and abraded faces
was dried at 50C for 24 h and then weighed
accurately on a digital balance. After initial drying
and weighing, the thickness of the specimens was
measured with a digital caliper. Corundum (crystal-
line Al2O3) was used as an abrasive dust. Although TS
2824 EN 1338 advises abrading only the one face of
the test specimen, in this study, four faces of the
70 9 70 9 100 mm prism specimen were abraded.
Abraded faces (2–4–5–6) are demonstrated in Fig. 2.
In order to find out the effect of the mix constituents
on abrasion resistance, test specimens were abraded
from the four side faces, but not from the pouring and
bottom faces of the specimen. The abrasion system
has a steel disc with a diameter of 200 mm, a width of
70 mm and a rotating speed of 75 cycles/min. The
abrasion system applied the 14 kg load on the test
specimen during the test, and was then put in motion
at a speed of 75 rpm, and the abrasive powder was
continuously fed back into the grinding path so that it
remained uniformly distributed in the track corre-
sponding to the width of the test specimen. Each
specimen was abraded on its 2, 4, 5, and 6 faces for
1 min or 75 cycles, totally 300 cycles. When the
abrasion test was over, specimens were cleaned using
a soft brush and weighed again to calculate the weight
loss percentage. The thicknesses of the specimens
were again measured for wear depth calculation.
2.3.2 Energy absorption
The energy absorption test was performed using a
0.5 kg steel ball. One 150-mm cube specimen and six
specimens of each mixture were used. The test was
performed by dropping the ball from a standard
height of 1 m onto the mid-point of the sample cube
faces. After dropping the ball onto the sample, its
1301
rebound height was recorded by a highly sensitive
camera, which then transferred the data to a com-
puter. With the help of commercial software, rebound
height was accurately determined.
The energy absorption capacity of the concrete
samples was computed in three stages. First, the
initial potential energy of the ball was computed. The
potential energy depends on the mass of object (m),
gravitational acceleration (g), and height (h) of the
specimen. The formula for potential energy is (mgh),
where, ‘‘m’’ (kg-kilogram), ‘‘g’’ (m/sn2-meter per
second square), and ‘‘h’’ (m-meter). At the beginning
stage of the test, the potential energy of the ball was
4.905 kgm2/sn2 (0.5 kg 9 9.81 m/sn2 9 1 m). Next,
because of the impact of the ball on the concrete
samples, some of initial potential energy was
absorbed by the concrete and ball did not reach its
initial position. The effect if air resistance on the ball
was ignored during energy calculations. Taking the
rebound height of the ball into account, a second
position of potential energy was computed. Finally,
the difference between the first and second potential
energy was calculated and defined as the energy
absorption capacity of the concrete sample.
3 Results and discussions
3.1 Slump and unit weight
Fresh concrete properties (slump and unit weight)
are presented in Table 2. As mentioned earlier, the
concretes were designed to give a slump value of
20 ± 2 cm, achieved by using a SP in varying
amounts. All of the concrete mixtures were produced
in the range of target slump values. As seen in
Table 2, SP content of the first four mixtures (M1–
M4) stayed constant, so the slump of the concretes
with CR aggregates decreased gradually with
increasing CR content. For example, slump values
of the concretes decreased from 220 to 185 mm,
increasing the CR content from 0 to 25%. However,
concretes with 20 and 40% GGBFS replacement had
200 mm slump values, and it was observed that
increasing the replacement ratio of GGBFS resulted
in a gradual decrease in the need for SP. In the
combined use of CR aggregate and GGBFS replace-
ment, GGBFS offset the negative effect of CR
aggregate on slump values. The fresh unit weight of
1302
the concretes ranged from 2,320 to 2,198 kg/m3
depending on the GGBFS and CR aggregate con-
tents. Inclusion of CR aggregate into the mixtures
had a marked effect on unit weight. Reduction in
unit weight was directly proportional to the CR
aggregate content. Replacement of fine aggregate by
CR might also have increased the air content of the
mixtures, which in turn reduced the unit weight of
the mixtures. Taha et al. [6] stated that the effect of
rubber aggregates on the unit weight of fresh
concrete can be attributed to two factors: first, the
ability of rubber particles to entrap air in their
jagged surface texture; and second, the low specific
gravity of the tire rubber particles compared to
conventional aggregate. Concretes produced with
GGBFS also had a lower unit weight than the
control concrete; using low specific gravity GGBFS
instead of Portland cement can be the reason for this
situation. Moreover, mixtures including CR aggre-
gates and GGBFS significantly decreased the unit
weight of concretes. Reduction of up to 7% of the
unit weight was recorded, depending mainly on the
amounts of CR aggregate and GGBFS content.
3.2 Compressive strength
The results presented in Fig. 3 show a systematic
reduction in compressive strength with the increase in
CR aggregate content for concretes without GGBFS.
Fig. 3 Compressive
strength variations of the
concretes
Compressive strength [MPa]
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
The reduced compressive strength of concrete incor-
porating rubber aggregates can be attributed to three
main reasons: first, the deformability of the rubber
particles compared with the surrounding cement paste,
which results in initiating cracks around the rubber
particles in a fashion similar to air voids in normal
concrete [7, 13, 33]; second, strength is reduced due to
the weak bond between rubber particles and cement
paste [33, 34]; and finally, it is due to the possible
increase in matrix porosity, which decreases the
density so, the compressive strength [6]. Concretes
with GGBFS had higher compressive strength values
than the control concrete. In the case of combined use
of CR aggregate and GGBFS, compressive strength
also gradually decreased depending on the replace-
ment ratio, but the rate of reduction was much lower
compared to the binary use of CR aggregate. Figure 4
illustrates the change in compressive strength of
concrete mixtures with respect to the control concrete.
As seen in Fig. 4, the concrete with 40% GGBFS had a
higher compressive strength of about 13%. The
highest reduction (26.6%), on the other hand,
belonged to the mixture containing 25% CR aggregate
without GGBFS. Mixtures with CR aggregates and
GGBFS had relatively lower compressive strength
than the concretes containing only GGBFS. The CR
aggregates’ negative effect on the compressive
strength of concretes is offset with the use of
GGBFS.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5R0S
15R0S
25R0S
0R20S
0R40S
5R20S
5R40S
15R20S
25R20S
15R40S
25R40S
Control
Mix ID
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307 1303

Fig. 4 Percentage variation 15.0

of the compressive strength

Change in compressive strength [%]

of the concretes with 10.0
respect to control concrete
5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

-30.0
Control

5R0S

15R0S

25R0S

0R20S

0R40S

5R20S

15R20S

25R20S

5R40S

15R40S

25R40S
Mix ID

3.3 Abrasion resistance mixtures, the higher the porosity in the concrete.
Yuksel et al. [28] stated that increased porosity
The variations of abrasion resistance for all mixtures decreases the contact area of the concrete with the
at 28 days in terms of mass loss and wear depth are abrasive rotating disc, which causes rapid abrasion.
shown in Fig. 5. As seen in figure, percentage Also, the presence of increasing amounts of GGBFS
variation of mass loss and wear depth showed the slag enhanced abrasion resistance in that wear depth,
same trends. The depth of wear and mass loss and mass loss decreased with the increase in GGBFS
increased with an increase in CR aggregate content. content. However, increasing the GGBFS content
Previous studies [28] indicate that abrasion resistance from 20 to 40% did not significantly alter abrasion
is related to porosity and the contact area of the test resistance. For example, the wear depths for mixtures
specimens with the abrasive rotating disc. Turki et al. containing 20 and 40% GGBFS were 1.378 and
[35] mentioned that the use of rubber aggregate in the 1.375%, respectively, whereas the wear depth for the
concrete mixtures increases porosity. They also stated control concrete was 1.384%. Rubberized concretes
that the higher the rubber aggregate content in the with 20% GGBFS had lower mass loss and wear
depth values than the rubberized concretes without
GGBFS. Moreover, increasing the GGBFS content
Change in abration properties (%)

2.00 from 20 to 40% slightly enhanced the abrasion

1.75
Mass loss Depth of wear resistance of rubberized concretes. For instance,
1.50
rubberized concretes with 20% GGBFS (M7–M9)
1.25
had mass loss percentages of 0.265, 0.270, and
0.300%; however, these values were 0.267, 0.294,
1.00
and 0.321% in the rubberized concretes (M2–M4)
0.75
without GGBFS, respectively.
0.50
0.25
3.4 Energy absorption capacity
0.00
5R0S
Control

15R0S

25R0S

0R20S

0R40S

5R20S

5R40S
15R20S

25R20S

15R40S

25R40S

The energy absorbed by concrete mixtures depends on

the CR aggregate and GGBFS contents, as illustrated in
Mix ID Fig. 6. As expected, energy absorption capacities
Fig. 5 Percentage change in abrasion properties of the increased with the increase of CR aggregate content.
mixtures The increase in energy absorption values was
1304
Fig. 6 Energy absorption
capacities of the concretes
Absorbed energy [kgm2/sn2]
prominent with high CR aggregate content. The more
CR aggregate, the higher the energy absorption
capacity of the rubberized concretes. For instance,
concretes containing 5, 15, and 25% rubber aggregates
had energy absorption values of 3.763, 4.083, and
4.586 kgm2/sn2. However, this value was 3.682 kgm2/
sn2 in the control concrete. Reda Taha et al. [6]
investigated the mechanical, fracture and microstruc-
tural properties of the rubberized concretes. In that
study, they explained why fracture toughness of the
concretes increases with the inclusion of tire rubber
aggregates. According to their research, the tire rubber
particles added several toughening mechanisms to
conventional concrete, including crack bridging by tire
particles and the tire particles’ ability to bend,
compress and twist. The tire rubber particles absorb
part of the energy to which the matrix is subjected, and
therefore the composite material can absorb more
energy than a bare concrete matrix. They also
explained that with the inclusion of rubber as aggre-
gate, the low stiffness of the rubber particles allowed
the rubber–cement composite to have a relatively high
flexibility and thus absorb a considerable amount of
energy higher than that absorbed by normal concrete.
Concretes produced with GGBFS also showed
increased energy absorption capacity; however, the
increments were very low compared with the rubber-
ized concretes. When GGBFS replacement content
was increased from 20 to 40%, energy absorption
capacity was slightly enhanced. Rubberized concretes
with GGBFS had higher energy absorption capacity
than rubberized concretes without GGBFS. However,
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Control
5R0S
15R0S
25R0S
0R20S
0R40S
5R20S
15R20S
25R20S
5R40S
15R40S
25R40S
Mix ID
increasing the GGBFS content from 20 to 40% in the
rubberized concretes did not significantly alter their
energy absorption capacity. For example, rubberized
concretes (5R20S, 15R20S, and 25R20S) produced
with 20% GGBFS showed absorbed energy values of
4.128, 4.219, and 4.620 kgm2/sn2, respectively,
but these values increased to 4.159, 4.250, and 4.70
kgm2/sn2 in the rubberized concretes (5R40S, 15R40S,
and 25R40S) produced with 40% GGBFS. Figure 7
presents the percentage increments in the energy
absorption capacity, depending on CR and GGBFS
contents. As seen in that figure, the difference in energy
absorption between the 0 and 25% CR cases was as
large as 24.5%, which is significant. This value
increased to 25.5 and 27.6% with 20 and 40% GGBFS
replacements, respectively.
3.5 Relationship between concrete properties
Then the relationship between the compressive
strength-mass loss and compressive strength-absorbed
energy was investigated. Figures 8 and 9 present the
above-mentioned correlation analysis. In each of the
figures, the equation and coefficient of determination
(R2) are shown. As seen on Fig. 8, the high value of
coefficient of determination (0.93) indicates that mass
loss has a strong relationship with compressive
strength properties of the rubberized concretes with
and without GGBFS. Sukontasukkul and Chaikaew
[18] also showed that the compressive strength of
concrete pedestrian blocks mixed with CR are closely
related to abrasion resistance. The lower the
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307 1305

Fig. 7 Percentage variation 30

of the absorbed energy of
the concretes with respect to

Percent change in absorbed energy

control concrete 25

20

15

10

0
Control

5R0S

15R0S

25R0S

0R20S

0R40S

5R20S

15R20S

25R20S

5R40S

15R40S

25R40S
Mix ID

0.36
Absorbed energy (kgm /sn )
2
5.0

y = 8E x - 0.0117x + 0.7013
-05 2 y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0712x + 7.3369
0.32 4.6
2

2 R2 = 0.48
Mass loss (%)

R = 0.93

4.2
0.28

3.8
0.24

3.4
0.20
50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 3.0
Compressive strength (MPa) 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0
Compressive strength (MPa)
Fig. 8 Relationship between compressive strength and mass
of abraded surfaces Fig. 9 Relationship between compressive strength and
absorbed energy
compressive strength, the lower the abrasion resistance
of the block. As seen in Fig. 9, there is no significant
4 Conclusions
correlation (0.48) between the compressive strength
and absorbed energy of the rubberized concretes with
This experimental study was carried out to find out
and without GGBFS. The main reason behind this
the how the inclusion of CR aggregates with and
situation can be that the low Young’s modulus of the
without GGBFS affects the compressive strength,
rubber aggregate compared with the cement paste and
abrasion resistance and energy absorption capacity of
normal aggregate will result in dissimilar deformation
concrete. The following conclusions may be drawn
in the rubber aggregate phase compared to the cement
from the results of this study:
paste and normal aggregate phases. This in its turn will
result in cracking in the less deformable phase (here the • Based on the fresh concrete properties, replace-
cement paste and normal aggregate). While this ment of CR aggregate with fine aggregate
mechanism represents an obvious limitation for devel- decreased the slump and unit weight of the
oping high strengths in rubber concrete, it represents a concrete mixtures. However, replacement of the
favorable mechanism as it enables rubber concrete to GGBFS with Portland cement decreased the SP
have high deformability, toughness, and energy requirements of the mixtures, enhancing workabil-
absorption characteristics [6]. ity. Combined use of CR and GGBFS decreased
1306
the unit weight of concrete mixtures remarkably
while improving the workability of the rubberized
concretes.
• The test results indicate a gradual reduction in
compressive strength with increased CR content
from 0 to 25%. However, the use of GGBFS
slightly enhanced compressive strength. Use of
GGBFS with CR aggregate partially offset the
diminishing effect of CR on compressive
strength. Moreover, test results imply that it is
possible to produce concrete with a compressive
strength of about 45 MPa with the addition of CR
at up to 25% of fine aggregate content.
• Replacement of CR aggregate with fine aggregate
decreased the abrasion resistance of the concrete,
and a higher CR aggregate content decreased
abrasion resistance in terms of mass loss and wear
depth. However, use of GGBFS improved abrasion
resistance somewhat. There were no significant
differences in abrasion resistance of the rubberized
concretes produced with the 20 and 40% GGBFS
contents.
• Use of CR aggregate increased the energy absorp-
tion capacity of the concretes considerably. When an
upper level of 25% CR was used, general increments
of up to 24.5% were observed in the energy
absorption capacity, a rate that increased to 25.5
and 27.6% with 20 and 40% GGBFS replacement.
References
1. Zheng L, Sharon Huo X, Yuan Y (2008) Strength, modulus
of elasticity, and brittleness index of rubberized concrete.
J Mater Civ Eng 20(11):692–699
2. Wong SF, Ting SK (2009) Use of recycled rubber tires in
normal and high-strength concretes. ACI Mater J 106(4):
325–332
3. Siddiquel R, Naik TR (2004) Properties of concrete con-
taining scrap tire rubber—an overview. Waste Manag 24(6):
563–569
4. Cao W (2007) Study on properties of recycled tire rubber
modified asphalt mixtures using dry process. Constr Build
Mater 21(5):1011–1015
5. Yilmaz A, Degirmenci N (2009) Possibility of using waste
tire rubber and fly ash with Portland cement as construction
materials. Waste Manag 29(5):1541–1546
6. Taha MMR, El-Dieb AS, Abd El-Wahab MA, Abdel-Hameed
ME (2008) Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural inves-
tigations of rubber concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 20(10):640–649
7. Eldin NN, Senouci AB (1993) Observations on rubberized
concrete behavior. Cem Concr Aggreg 15(1):74–84
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
8. Eldin NN, Senouci AB (1993) Rubber-tire particles as
concrete aggregate. J Mater Civil Eng 5(4):478–496
9. Topçu IB (1995) The properties of rubberized concretes.
Cem Concr Res 25(2):304–310
10. Fattuhi NI, Clarck LA (1996) Cement-based materials
containing shredded scrap truck tire rubber. Constr Build
Mater 10(4):229–236
11. Goulias DG, Ali AH (1996) Enhancement of Portland
cement concrete with tire rubber particles. In: Proceeding
of 12th international conference on solid waste technology
and management, Chester, Philadelphia
12. Li G, Zhao Y, Pang SS (1998) Three-layer built-in analytical
modeling of concrete. Cem Concr Res 28(7):1057–1070
13. Khatib ZK, Bayomy FM (1999) Rubberized Portland
cement concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 11(3):206–213
14. Nehdi M, Khan A, Sumner J (2005) Flexible crumb tire
rubber-filled cement mortars as a protective system for
buried infrastructure. J ASTM Int 2(1):1–14
15. Topcu IB, Avcular N (1997) Analysis of rubberized con-
crete as a composite material. Cem Concr Res 27(8):
1135–1139
16. Topcu IB, Avcular N (1997) Collision behaviours of rub-
berized concrete. Cem Concr Res 27(12):1893–1898
17. Ling TCh, Nor HM, Hainin MR, Chik AA (2009) Labo-
ratory performance of crumb rubber concrete block pave-
ment. Int J Pavement Eng 10(5):361–374
18. Sukontasukkul P, Chaikaew C (2006) Properties of con-
crete pedestrian block mixed with crumb rubber. Constr
Build Mater 20(7):450–457
19. Segre N, Joekes I (2000) Use of tire rubber particles and
addition of cement paste. Cem Concr Res 30(9):1421–1425
20. Raghavan D, Huynh H, Ferraris CF (1998) Workability,
mechanical properties, and chemical stability of a recycled
tyre rubber filled cementitious composite. J Mater Sci
33(7):1745–1752
21. Li Z, Li F, Li JSL (1998) Properties of concrete incorpo-
rating rubber tyre particles. Mag Concr Res 50(4):297–304
22. Gesoglu M, Guneyisi E (2007) Strength development and
chloride penetration in rubberized concretes with and
without silica fume. Mater Struct 40(9):953–964
23. Guneyisi M, Gesoglu M, Ozturan T (2004) Properties of
rubberized concretes containing silica fume. Cem Concr
Res 34(12):2309–2317
24. Guneyisi E (2010) Fresh properties of self-compacting
rubberized concrete incorporated with fly ash. Mater
Struct. doi:10.1617/s11527-009-9564-1
25. Bellmann F, Stark J (2009) Activation of blast furnace slag
by a new method. Cem Concr Res 39(8):644–650
26. Gesoglu M, Ozbay E (2007) Effects of mineral admixtures
on fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting con-
cretes: binary, ternary and quaternary systems. Mater Struct
40(9):923–937
27. Guneyisi E, Gesoglu M (2008) A study on durability prop-
erties of high-performance concretes incorporating high
replacement levels of slag. Mater Struct 41(3):479–493
28. Yuksel I, Bilir T, Ozkan O (2007) Durability of concrete
incorporating non-ground blast furnace slag and bottom
ash as fine aggregate. Build Environ 42(7):2651–2659
29. ASTM C143/C143M-08 (2008) Standard test method for
slump of hydraulic-cement concrete. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1297–1307
30. ASTM C138/C138M-09 (2009) Standard test method for
density (unit weight), yield, and air content (gravimetric)
of concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
31. ASTM C39/C39M-09a (2009) Standard test method for
compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken
32. TS 2824 EN 1338 (2009) Concrete paving blocks—
requirements and test methods. Turkish Standardization
Organization, Ankara (in Turkish)
1307
33. Lee HS, Lee H, Moon JS, Jung HW (1998) Development
of tire-added latex concrete. ACI Mater J 95(4):356–364
34. Chung KH, Hong YK (1999) Introductory behavior of
rubber concrete. J Appl Polym Sci 72(1):35–40
35. Turki M, Bretagne E, Rouis MJ, Quéneudec M (2009)
Microstructure, physical and mechanical properties of
mortar–rubber aggregates mixtures. Constr Build Mater
23(8):2715–2722