materials

Article
Effects of Rubber Size on the Cracking Resistance
of Rubberized Mortars
Yong Yu 1 and Han Zhu 2, *
1 School of Civil Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266033, China;
shourimojie@163.com
2 Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety, Tianjin University, Ministry of Education,
Tianjin 300350, China
* Correspondence: hanzhu2000@tju.edu.cn




Received: 16 August 2019; Accepted: 17 September 2019; Published: 25 September 2019


Abstract: This study investigated the cracking resistance of rubberized cement-based mortars.
Three rubber particle sizes were used: Rubber A (major particle size 2–4 mm), Rubber B (major particle
size 1–3 mm), and Rubber C (major particle size 0–2 mm). Traditional restrained ring shrinkage test
(RRST), new restrained squared eccentric ring shrinkage test (RSERST), mechanical test, and scanning
electron microscopy test were conducted. Results showed that the cracking inhibitory effect of Rubber
B was the highest among the three rubber particle sizes. SEM results revealed that the particle size
of the rubber does not have much effect on the ITZ (interfacial transition zone) position of rubber
and cement paste. For the strength differences of the three types of rubberized mortar, it is mainly
because the specific surface area increased as the rubber size decreased, which lead to more ITZ
positions and pore structures. Our study verified that RSERST can predict the cracking position
and shorten the test period. Compared with RRST, RSERST can also increase the restriction degree.
KR is defined as the intensification factor of RSERST restriction degree. The average intensification
factor is KR = 1.17.

Keywords: rubberized cement-based mortar; rubber particle size; strength; restrained ring shrinkage
test; restrained squared eccentric ring shrinkage test

1. Introduction
Cracking under restrained shrinkage is a common cause of distress in concrete walls, slabs,
and pavements [1]. Cracks in turn lead to leaks, corrosion of rebars, freeze-thaw damage, so as other
durability issues [2–4], while cement-based materials are brittle and sensitive to shrinkage cracking.
For cement-based composites, when the shrinkage of the material is restrained by steel bars or form
work, tensile stress develops in materials. The development of tensile stress can then result in an early
age cracking, if the tensile stress is higher than the tensile strength [5]. A major contribution of
incorporating rubber wastes to cement-based materials is the improvement of the flexibility, toughness
and fatigue resistance of the material [6–9], although the compressive strength of the cement-based
material is reduced [10,11]. The use of rubber aggregates is also a suitable solution to improve
the cracking resistance of cement-based composites [11–14]. Recent research [15] shows that rubberized
cement-based material is a promising pavement material for the excellent performance on cracking
resistance of the material.
However, rubber particles exist in different sizes that affect rubberized cement-based materials to
varying degrees. Sukontasukkul [16] investigated the sound and thermal properties of rubberized
concrete with two different size of particle. Sukontasukkul and Tiamlom [17] demonstrated that
various properties, such as expansion and shrinkage of rubberized concrete depend strongly on

Materials 2019, 12, 3132; doi:10.3390/ma12193132 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 3132 2 of 12

the size and particle shapes of crumb rubber. Su [18] examined the fresh density, strengths, and water
permeability of rubberized concrete with different sizes of rubber. Mehmet Gesog [19] analyzed
the abrasion and freezing–thawing resistance of concrete with rubbers of different sizes. Arin [20]
evaluated the rubber size effects on the water absorption of cement mixtures. Feng [21] determined
the effects of rubber size on the impact performance of concrete. If we want to promote rubber cement
base material as the pavement material, the kind of rubber size should be first determined. However,
knowledge regarding the influence of rubber size effects on the cracking resistance of cement-based
materials is still limited. Research is carried out based on this issue in this paper.
Restrained ring shrinkage test (RRST) [22–24] is widely used to quantify the cracking resistance of
cement-based materials. Its test apparatus is simple, and specimens are circular and axially symmetric.
Therefore, its theoretical computation is simple. However, this type of symmetry also produces
an uncertain cracking point because cracks due to shrinkage could appear at random in any point
within 360◦ along the ring circumference. A new restrained squared eccentric ring shrinkage test
(RSERST) is introduced to improve RRST [25]. In RSERST, stress is concentrated at a certain cracking
point and the test cycle is reduced. A test cycle is mostly reduced because of an increase in restriction
degree. Nevertheless, the restriction degree of RSERST has been disregarded in a previous study [25].
The present study aims to enhance our understanding on the shrinkage cracking properties of
cement rubber mortars derived from rubber of various sizes. RRST and RSERST were performed,
and the restriction degree of RSERST was investigated.

2. Experiments

2.1. Materials and Mix Proportions

The cement employed in this test was ordinary Portland cement of Chinese grade 42.5 and was
camel brand cement produced in Tianjin (China). Physical properties of used materials are listed in
Table 1. The chemical composition of the cement is listed in Table 2. The sand used was local river sand.
Tap water was utilized. All of the rubber aggregates were obtained from mechanically ground waste
tires. The chemical composition of the crumb rubber is listed in Table 3. Three types of rubber particles
were used in this work and were designated as Rubbers A, B, and C. The analyses of the aggregates’
sizes were carried out using the sieve method. The particle size distributions of the fine aggregates are
provided in Figure 1. The mix proportions of the rubberized mortars are presented in Table 4.

Table 1. Physical properties of used materials.

Properties Cement Sand Rubber

Specific density (kg/m3 ) 3100 2650 1050
Water absorption (%) – 1.3 0.35

Table 2. Chemical composition of P.O42.5 grade ordinary Portland cement.

Chemical Compound CaO SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 SO3 MgO Lgnition Loss
Percentage (%) 63.11 22.60 5.03 4.38 2.24 1.46 1.18

Table 3. Chemical ingredients of crumb rubber (mass fraction %).

Rubber Carbon Acetone Ash Fiber Metal

Isoprene Water Others
Hydrocarbon Black Extract Content Content Content
45.2 25.8 14.2 12.1 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.08 0.42
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 3 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

(%) (%)
100
Sand

by weight
100 Rubber A
80 Sand B
Rubber

by weight
Rubber A
Rubber C
80
60 Rubber B

percentage
Rubber C
60
40
percentage 40
20
Passing

20
0
Passing

0.01 0.1 1 10
0
Sieves (mm)
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieves (mm)
Figure 1. Particle size distribution of fine aggregates.

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of fine

Figure 1. fine aggregates.
aggregates.
Table 4. Mix proportions of mortars (values in mass proportion).
Table 4. Mix proportions of mortars (values in mass proportion).
Mixproportions
Table 4. Mix Rubber Cement
of mortars Water
(values in massSand
proportion).
M0
Mix 0
Rubber 2
Cement 1
Water 5
Sand
Mix Rubber Cement Water Sand
MRA100
M0 0.33
00 222 111 4.17
M0 55
MRA200
MRA100 0.67
0.33 22 11 3.33
4.17
MRA100 0.33 2 1 4.17
MRA200
MRB100 0.67
0.33 22 11 3.33
4.17
MRA200
MRB100 0.67
0.33 22 11 3.33
4.17
MRB200 0.67 2 1 3.33
MRB100
MRB200 0.33
0.67 22 11 4.17
3.33
MRC100
MRC100 0.33
0.33 222 111 4.17
4.17
MRB200 0.67 3.33
MRC200
MRC200 0.67
0.67 222 111 3.33
3.33
MRC100 0.33 4.17
MRC200 0.67 2 1 3.33
2.2. RSERST
2.2. RSERST
2.2. RSERST
Dimensions and
Dimensions specimens of
and specimens of RSERST
RSERST are are shown
shown inin Figure
Figures22andandFigure 3. Mortar
3. Mortar specimens
specimens were
were stripped
stripped from thefrom themolds
steel steel molds
afterof1after 1 day,
day, and theand the RSERST specimen
RSERST was covered on thesurface
upper
Dimensions and specimens RSERST are shown inspecimen
Figure 2was
andcovered onMortar
Figure 3. the upper
specimens
surface
by by waterproof
waterproof silicone silicone rubber. The specimens were then naturally cured. The temperature of
were stripped from therubber. The specimens
steel molds after 1 day,were
and then naturally
the RSERST cured. The
specimen wastemperature of curing
covered on the upper
curingisroom 2is◦20
C, ±and
2 °C, and relative humidity ±is5%.
50%The
± 5%. Thevalues
strain were
values were measured
every 15every
room
surface 20by ±waterproof relative
silicone humidity
rubber. The is 50%
specimens werestrain
then naturally measured
cured. The temperature min
of
15
by min by
threeroomthree
strain strain
gauges gauges
pastedpasted at
at point point A, as
A, as shown shown in Figure 2. A total of 21 RSERST specimens
curing is 20 ± 2 °C, and relative humidity is 50%in± Figure
5%. The2.strain
A total of 21were
values RSERST specimens
measured every
were tested.
were tested.
15 min by three strain gauges pasted at point A, as shown in Figure 2. A total of 21 RSERST specimens
were tested.

Figure 2. Test device of restrained squared eccentric ring

ring shrinkage
shrinkage test
test (RSERST).
(RSERST).

Figure 2. Test device of restrained squared eccentric ring shrinkage test (RSERST).
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 4 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Test specimen of RSERST. (a) RSERST molds; (b) RSERST specimen
Figure 3.(a) (b) specimen
Test specimen of RSERST. (a) RSERST molds; (b) RSERST
2.3. RRST
Figure 3.
Figure Test specimen
3. Test specimen of
of RSERST.
RSERST. (a)
(a) RSERST
RSERST molds;
molds; (b)
(b) RSERST
RSERST specimen.
specimen
2.3. RRST
To quantify the cracking resistance of each mortar mixture and to compare the RSERST results,
2.3. RRST
To quantify the cracking resistance
2.3. RRST
we applied the RRST in accordance withofASTM
each mortar mixture
C1581-04, and toincompare
as shown Figures the RSERST
4 and 5. Theresults,
strain
we applied
valuesTowere the
quantify RRST inevery
accordance
the cracking
measured min with
resistance
15 ofASTM
using each C1581-04,
four mortar
strain as shown
mixture
gauges and toincompare
bonded atFigures 4 and
the
the middle 5. Theresults,
RSERST
location strain
of the
To quantify the cracking resistance of each mortar mixture and to compare the RSERST results,
values
inner
we were
surface
applied measured
ofRRST
the the steel every 15 min
ring. A total
in accordance using
of 21
with four strain
specimens
ASTM gauges bonded
wereascasted,
C1581-04, shownand at the middle
average4strain
in Figures location
and 5.values of the
were
The strain
we applied the RRST in accordance with ASTM C1581-04, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The strain
inner surface
calculated.
values of the steel ring. A total of 21 specimens were casted, and average strain values
were measured every 15 min using four strain gauges bonded at the middle location of the inner were
values were measured every 15 min using four strain gauges bonded at the middle location of the
calculated.
surface of the steel ring. A total of 21 specimens were casted, and average strain values were calculated.
inner surface of the steel ring. A total of 21 specimens were casted, and average strain values were
calculated.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Test
Test device
device of
of restrained ring shrinkage
restrained ring shrinkage test
test (RRST).
(RRST).
Figure 4. Test device of restrained ring shrinkage test (RRST).

Figure 4. Test device of restrained ring shrinkage test (RRST).

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Test specimen of RRST. (a) RRST molds; (b) RRST specimen
(a) (b)

(a) (b)
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 5 of 12

The development of strain within the inner surface of the steel ring can be transformed to
the maximum circumferential tensile stress of mortar, which occurs at the interface of the mortar
and steel through the calculation diagram, as shown in Figure 6 and the following equations:

R2OS − R2IS
Pint (t) = −εST (t) × ESteel (1)
2R2OS

R2IM R2OM 
 

σ(r) = Pint 2 1 + r2 
  (2)
ROM − R2IM
 2
 RIM + R2OM  R2IM − R2IS 
 
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12
σmax = −εST (t)ESteel  2
    (3)
ROM − R2IM 2R2IM
 
Figure 5. Test specimen of RRST. (a) RRST molds; (b) RRST specimen
where Pint is the fictitious interface pressure, σr is the tensile stress in the mortar ring at any point along
the radius, RIM is the inner
The development diameter
of strain withinof the mortar ring, isofthe
inner surface theouter
steeldiameter
ring can of
bethe mortar ring,
transformed to Rthe
IS
is the innercircumferential
maximum diameter of thetensile
steel ring, ROS
stress of ismortar,
the outer diameter
which occursofatthe
thesteel ring, εofSTthe
interface is the strainand
mortar in
the
steelsteel ring, the
through ESteel is thediagram,
andcalculation modulus as of shown
elasticity
in of the steel.
Figure 6 and the following equations:

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Illustration for computing
Illustration for computing stress.
stress.

2.4. Mechanical Test

𝑅 −𝑅
𝑃 × t70.7=×−𝜀
Mortar specimens with 70.7 𝑡 ×dimension
70.7 mm 𝐸 were casted for compressive strength (1)
2𝑅
testing in accordance with JGJ/T70-2009 [26]. For the compressive strength test, a total of 84 specimens
were prepared. The compressive strengths of the 𝑅 specimens were
𝑅 measured on day 28. Statistical
analysis was conducted on the σ r =
basis of 𝑃 1 +for quality test. For flexural strength
compressive strength 𝑟
(2)
𝑅 −𝑅
testing, specimens with dimensions of 40 × 40 × 160 mm were casted according to GB/T 17671-1999 [27],
and the specimens were examined on days 1, 3, 7, and 28. A total of 84 specimens were casted for
𝑅 +◦𝑅 ◦ 𝑅 −𝑅
𝜎 specimens
flexural strength test. The = −𝜀 were 𝑡 𝐸 cured at 20 C ± 2 C and 40% ± 5% relative humidity, (3)
and these conditions were the same as those in RRST𝑅 and −𝑅RSERST. 2𝑅

2.5.
whereSEM 𝑃 Testis the fictitious interface pressure, 𝜎 is the tensile stress in the mortar ring at any point
alongThe radius, 𝑅transition
theinterfacial is the zones
inner (ITZs)
diameter of the samples
of rubber mortar ring, 𝑅
and cement ispaste
the outer
were diameter of the
observed under
amortar ring, 𝑅 SEM
field emission is the inner diameter
1530VP of of
at Institute steel ring, 𝑅
theoceanology, is theacademy
Chinese outer diameter of the
of sciences, steel ring,
Qingdao 𝜀
China.
is the strain in the steel ring, and 𝐸 is the modulus of elasticity of the steel.
The mortar samples of 10 × 10 × 10 mm dimensions were polished, cleaned, coated with gold,
and evacuated prior to observation.
2.4. Mechanical Test
3. Results and Discussions
Mortar specimens with 70.7 × 70.7 × 70.7 mm dimension were casted for compressive strength
testing
3.1. in accordance
RSERST Results with JGJ/T70-2009 [26]. For the compressive strength test, a total of 84 specimens
were prepared. The compressive strengths of the specimens were measured on day 28. Statistical
The was
analysis cracks occurredonatthe
conducted thebasis
thinnest portion of the
of compressive RSERST
strength specimen,
for quality test.asFor
shown in Figure
flexural 7,
strength
which verified that RSERST could predict the cracking position. With the predicted
testing, specimens with dimensions of 40 × 40 × 160 mm were casted according to GB/T 17671-1999 cracking position,
the
[27],observation of the cracks
and the specimens werewas more convenient.
examined on days 1,The
3, 7,strains
and 28.obtained
A total from
of 84the steel ringwere
specimens of RSERST
casted
are shown in Figure 8. The release of strain on the curves marks the cracking time of the mortar.
for flexural strength test. The specimens were cured at 20 °C ± 2 °C and 40% ± 5% relative humidity, In terms
of size, the effects of Rubber B in preventing cracking are
and these conditions were the same as those in RRST and RSERST. better than that of Rubber A and Rubber C.
As for rubber content, the time of cracking increases as rubber content increases.
2.5. SEM Test
The interfacial transition zones (ITZs) of rubber samples and cement paste were observed under
a field emission SEM 1530VP at Institute of oceanology, Chinese academy of sciences, Qingdao China
The mortar samples of 10× 10 × 10 mm dimensions were polished, cleaned, coated with gold, and
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12

terms of size, the effects of Rubber B in preventing cracking are better than that of Rubber A and
terms
Materialsof2019,
Rubber C.size,
12,the
As 3132effects of Rubber B in preventing cracking are better than that of Rubber A6 and
for rubber content, the time of cracking increases as rubber content increases. of 12
Rubber C. As for rubber content, the time of cracking increases as rubber content increases.

Figure 7. Cracking location of RSERST specimen.

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Cracking
Cracking location
location of
of RSERST
RSERST specimen.
specimen.

0 0
0 0
-20 -20
-20 -20
(με)
(με)

-40 -40
(με)
(με)

-40 -40
strain
strain

strain

-60
strain

-60
-60 -60
ring
ring

ring

-80
ring

-80
Steel
Steel

-80 -80
Steel
Steel

-100 M0 -100 M0
-100 M0
MRA100 -100 M0
MRA200
-120 MRA100
MRB100 -120 MRA200
MRB200
-120 MRB100
MRC100 -120 MRB200
MRC200
MRC100 -140 MRC200
-140
-140 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 -140 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
0 24 48 72 Time 96
(h) 120 144 168 0 24 48 72Time96 (h) 120 144 168
Time (h)
(a) Rubber content 100 kg/m3 Time (h)
(b) Rubber content 200 kg/m3
(a) Rubber content 100 kg/m3 (b) Rubber content 200 kg/m3
Strain obtained
Figure 8. Strain obtained from kg/m33; (b) Rubber content 200
from the RSERST. (a) Rubber content 100 kg/m
Figure
33 . 8. Strain obtained from the RSERST. (a) Rubber content 100 kg/m3; (b) Rubber content 200
kg/m .
kg/m3.
3.2. RRST Results
3.2. RRST Results
3.2. RRST Results
Figure 9 shows the plots of the strain obtained from the steel ring by RRST as a function of
Figure 9 shows the plots of the strain obtained from the steel ring by RRST as a function of time
time Figure
attained using athe
9 shows data acquisition
plots of the system.
strain The releasethe
obtained of strainring
on the curvesasmarks the cracking
attained using a data acquisition system. The releasefrom
of strainsteel by RRST
on the curves marksathefunction
crackingof time
time
time of the
attained mortar [28,29]. The system.
results clearly demonstrate thatthe
the rubber aggregates benefitted
of the mortar [28,29]. The results clearly demonstrate that the rubber aggregates benefitted fromtime
using a data acquisition The release of strain on curves marks the cracking the
from
of the the delayed
mortar restrained
[28,29]. shrinkage
The results clearly cracking, a finding thesimilar to that of a previous study
from[12].
delayed restrained shrinkage cracking, ademonstrate that to
finding similar rubber
that of aaggregates benefitted
previous study [12]. With the
the
With the restrained
delayed same rubber contents,cracking,
shrinkage the cracking inhibition
a finding effect
similar toofthat
Rubber B
of a thewas the study
previous highest[12].
amongWiththose
same rubber contents, the cracking inhibition effect of Rubber B was highest among those of the
the
of the three rubber
same samples tested. The resultseffect
of RRSTRubber
are consistent with those of RSERST.
three rubber
rubber contents, the cracking
samples tested. inhibition
The results of RRST areofconsistent Bwith
was those
the highest among
of RSERST. those of the
three rubber samples tested. The results of RRST are consistent with those of RSERST.
3.3. Mechanical Strengths
Table 5 shows the compressive strengths of the seven mixed mortars. The compressive strength
decreases as rubber size decreases or rubber content increases. The coefficient value of the compressive
strength variation is often used as a control of quality. Day [30] suggested that generally, for a reasonable
quality control, a coefficient of variation should between 5% and 10%. Swamy [31] proposed that
the limit for fine quality control is 15%. The largest coefficient of variation for the seven mixes is 10.9
for MRC200, which is slightly larger than 10% but much lower than 15%. Therefore, the mortars can be
regarded to have good quality.
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 7 of 12
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
Steel ring strain (με)

Steel ring strain (με)

-30 -30

-40 -40

-50 -50

-60 M0 -60 M0
MRA100 MRA200
-70 MRB100 -70 MRB200
MRC100 MRC200
-80 -80
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
Time (h) Time (h)
(a) Rubber content 100 kg/m3 (b) Rubber content 200 kg/m3

Figure 9. Strain obtained from the the

RRST. (a) Rubber content 100 kg/m 3 ; (b) Rubber content 200 kg/m3 .
Figure 9. Strain obtained from RRST. (a) Rubber content 100 kg/m 3; (b) Rubber content 200

Table 5. Compressivekg/m . of mortars (MPa).

3
strength

NO. Strengths
3.3. Mechanical M0 MRA100 MRA200 MRB100 MRB200 MRC100 MRC200

Table 51shows the43.5compressive30.5

strengths17.5 30.0
of the seven mixed 16.5
mortars. The22.7 12.1
compressive strength
2 43.3 29.7 19.6 26.4 17.7 20.1 12.0
decreases as 3 rubber size
43.2 decreases
29.3 or rubber
19.5 content
28.9 increases.
17.1 The coefficient
21.4 value
13.5 of the
compressive4 strength variation
42.9 is28.8
often used19.0
as a control29.4
of quality.17.1
Day [30] suggested
20.4 that
12.7generally,
for a reasonable
5 quality control, 28.5
42.7 a coefficient of variation
20.3 29.5should 16.3
between 5% and 10%.13.2
19.1 Swamy [31]
proposed that6 the limit42.3 28.5 control
for fine quality 18.2 27.0largest coefficient
is 15%. The 16.9 21.8
of 12.9the seven
variation for
mixes is 10.97 for MRC200,
41.3
which 28.1 21.0
is slightly larger than 30.3
10% but much19.0 20.5
lower than 10.7
15%. Therefore, the
8 42.7 27.6 17.7 26.5 20.8 20.8 11.3
mortars can9be regarded to
41.0 have good
27.3 quality.
20.7 24.2 17.2 19.6 11.0
10 40.5 26.9 22.7 29.5 16.5 19.9 13.7
11 39.8 Table26.1
5. Compressive
19.8 strength of mortars18.4
27.3 (MPa). 17.8 11.9
12 36.1 25.7 15.9 29.7 17.5 18.8 9.2
NO.(x)
Mean M0
41.6 MRA100
28.1 MRA200
19.3 MRB100
28.2 MRB200
17.6 MRC100
20.2 MRC200
12.0
SD 1(σ) 43.5
2.09 30.5
1.40 17.5
1.81 30.0
1.90 16.5
1.29 22.7
1.36 12.1
1.31
COV (σ/x)
2 % 5.03
43.3 5.12
29.7 9.39
19.6 6.74
26.4 7.31
17.7 6.72
20.1 10.90
12.0
3 43.2 29.3 19.5 28.9 17.1 21.4 13.5
4 42.9 28.8 19.0 29.4 17.1 20.4 12.7 [4,26],
Table 6 shows the development of flexural strengths of the mixed mortars. In previous studies
5 42.7 28.5 20.3 29.5 16.3
both properties decreased when crumb rubber was incorporated into the mixes. The 19.1 13.2
decline in
6 42.3 28.5 18.2 27.0 16.9 21.8
compressive and flexural strengths was significant when the crumb rubber with small particle sizes12.9
was used. The 7 strength41.3 28.1 may be
reductions 21.0
attributed30.3 19.0
to the combination of20.5 10.7
two effects: (1) Lower
8 rubber than
stiffness in the 42.7 in the27.6
sand and (2)17.7
an increase26.5 20.8 of ITZs20.8
in the amount 11.3
generated in the mortar
9
with an increase 41.0 content
in rubber 27.3 or reduction
20.7 in rubber
24.2 size. The
17.2 specific19.6 11.0
surface area increased
10 40.5 26.9 22.7 29.5 16.5 19.9 13.7
as the rubber size decreased and eventually resulted in the reduction in strength when the small crumb
11 were utilized.
rubber particles 39.8 26.1 19.8 27.3 18.4 17.8 11.9
12 36.1 25.7 15.9 29.7 17.5 18.8 9.2
Mean (x) 41.6 28.1 19.3 28.2 17.6
Table 6. Flexural strength of mortars (MPa). 20.2 12.0
SD (σ) 2.09 1.40 1.81 1.90 1.29 1.36 1.31
NO. M0 MRA100 MRA200 MRB100 MRB200 MRC100 MRC200
COV (𝜎⁄𝑥) % 5.03 5.12 9.39 6.74 7.31 6.72 10.90
1d 2.2 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.6 2.1 1.6
3d 4.3 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.2 2.9
Table 6 shows the development of flexural strengths of the mixed mortars. In previous studies
7d 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.7 3.7 4.2 3.4
[4,26], both28d
properties
7.2 decreased
5.9 when crumb
4.9 rubber
5.6 was incorporated
4.7 into
5.1 the mixes.
4.0 The decline
in compressive and flexural strengths was significant when the crumb rubber with small particle
sizes was used. The strength reductions may be attributed to the combination of two effects: (1) Lower
stiffness in the rubber than in the sand and (2) an increase in the amount of ITZs generated in the
 The SEM images of the fine aggregates and cement matrix interfaces are shown in Figure 10.
Only in the ITZ of the sand and cement paste, as shown in Figure a, was the main gap not obvious.
In the ITZ of Rubber A, B, C and cement paste, minor cracks grew wider and enlarged to a main gap
with large number of pore structures. The it can be concluded that the bonding interface between
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 8 of 12
sand and cement is better than that between rubber and cement. The addition of rubber could reduce
the strength of mortar mainly in two aspects: (1) Rubber particles are softer than sand, (2) Rubber
particles
3.4. SEMcould
Results introduce pores into the mortar, whereas leading to the reduction of the cement-based
for the ITZ
materials strength.
The SEM images of the fine aggregates and cement matrix interfaces are shown in Figure 10.
From Figure 10b–d, it can be concluded that the particle size of the rubber does not affect the
Only in the ITZ of the sand and cement paste, as shown in Figure a, was the main gap not obvious.
thickness of ITZ position very much, for rubber particles of different particle sizes are all made by
In the ITZ of Rubber A, B, C and cement paste, minor cracks grew wider and enlarged to a main gap
mechanical grinding, and the production process is the same. If the rubber is of equal volume, the
with large number of pore structures. The it can be concluded that the bonding interface between
surface area of small size rubber particles is larger than that of rubber with large particle size. So, it
sand and cement is better than that between rubber and cement. The addition of rubber could reduce
can be concluded that, for the strength differences of the three types of rubberized mortar, it is mainly
the strength of mortar mainly in two aspects: (1) Rubber particles are softer than sand, (2) Rubber
because the specific surface area increased as the size of rubber decreased, which lead to more ITZ
particles could introduce pores into the mortar, whereas leading to the reduction of the cement-based
positions and pore structures. So, the basic mechanical properties of MRC200 group with the smallest
materials strength.
rubber particles and the largest rubber content are the worst.

ITZ

GAP

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER

(a)REVIEW (b) 9 of 12

GAP
GAP

(c) (d)
Figure 10. SEM images of rubberized mortar interfacial transition zones (ITZ). (a) ITZ of the sand
Figure 10. SEM images of rubberized mortar interfacial transition zones (ITZ). (a) ITZ of the sand
and cement paste; (b) ITZ of Rubber A and cement paste; (c) ITZ of Rubber B and cement paste; (d) ITZ
and cement paste; (b) ITZ of Rubber A and cement paste; (c) ITZ of Rubber B and cement paste; (d)
of Rubber C and cement paste.
ITZ of Rubber C and cement paste.
From Figure 10b–d, it can be concluded that the particle size of the rubber does not affect
3.5. Discussions
the thickness of ITZ position very much, for rubber particles of different particle sizes are all made
by mechanical grinding, and the production process is the same. If the rubber is of equal volume,
3.5.1. Comparison of RSERST and RRST
the surface area of small size rubber particles is larger than that of rubber with large particle size.
So, itThe
cancracking time ofthat,
be concluded RRSTforand
theRSERST
strengthspecimens
differencesare ofshown in Table
the three types 7.
ofResults of RSERST
rubberized mortar,areit
in agreement
is mainly with the
because those of RRST.
specific The order
surface of cracking
area increased as in RSERST
the size of consistently matches
rubber decreased, with lead
which that in
to
RRST.
more ITZ Both resultsand
positions show
porethat 0.5M0 So,
structures. cracked first,mechanical
the basic followed properties
by the cracking of 0.5MRA100,
of MRC200 group with
0.5MRC100,
the smallest 0.5MRB100, 0.5MRA200,
rubber particles 0.5MRC200;
and the largest rubber0.5MRB200
content arecracked the last. Compared with RRST,
the worst.
RSERST can shorten the test period, and the longer period of cracking results in more time that is
saved by REERST. Figures 8 and 9 also demonstrate that the strains of the seven mixes obtained from
RSERST were larger than those obtained from RRST, which possibly resulted from the stress
concentration of RSERST.

Table 7 Cracking time of RSERST and RRST specimen (h).

Materials 2019, 12, 3132 9 of 12

3.5. Discussions

3.5.1. Comparison of RSERST and RRST

The cracking time of RRST and RSERST specimens are shown in Table 7. Results of RSERST are in
agreement with those of RRST. The order of cracking in RSERST consistently matches with that in
RRST. Both results show that 0.5M0 cracked first, followed by the cracking of 0.5MRA100, 0.5MRC100,
0.5MRB100, 0.5MRA200, 0.5MRC200; 0.5MRB200 cracked the last. Compared with RRST, RSERST can
shorten the test period, and the longer period of cracking results in more time that is saved by REERST.
Figures 8 and 9 also demonstrate that the strains of the seven mixes obtained from RSERST were larger
than those obtained from RRST, which possibly resulted from the stress concentration of RSERST.

Table 7. Cracking time of RSERST and RRST specimen (h).

M0 MRA100 MRA200 MRB100 MRB200 MRC100 MRC200

RSERST 82.25 116.25 143.50 139.25 157.00 128.25 147.00
RRST 94.50 147.25 194.50 176.50 227.75 160.00 210.50
Time
12.25 31.00 51.00 37.25 70.75 31.75 63.50
saved

3.5.2. Comparison of Restraint Circumferential Stress and Flexural Tensile Strength

Figure 11 shows the development comparison of restraint circumferential stress and flexural
tensile strength. The mortar cracks when the corresponding hoop constraint stress is greater than
the tensile strength. Rubber can delay mortar cracking because the strength development speed of
mortars containing rubber is quicker than the hoop constraint stress development speed of the same
sample. With the same rubber contents, the cracking inhibition function of Rubber B was better than
Materials
those of2019, 12, x FOR
Rubbers PEERC.REVIEW
A and 10 of 12

8 8 8 8
(a) M0 (b) MRA100 (c) MRA200 (d) MRB100
6 6 6 6
σ (MPa)

σ (MPa)

σ (MPa)

σ (MPa)

4 4 4 4

2 2 2 2

0 0 0 0
0 7 14 21 28 0 7 14 21 28 0 7 14 21 28 0 7 14 21 28
Days Days Days Days
8 8 8
(e) MRB200 (f) MRC100 (g) MRC200
6 6 6
σ (MPa)

σ (MPa)
σ (MPa)

4 4 4

2 2 2

0 0 0
0 7 14 21 28 0 7 14 21 28 0 14 21 7 28
Days Days Days
Restraint circumferential stress Flexural tensile strength

Figure 11. Comparison of restraint circumferential stress and flexural tensile strength.
Figure 11 Comparison of restraint circumferential stress and flexural tensile strength.

3.5.3. Intensification Factor of RSERST Restriction Degree K

We define 𝐾 as the intensification factor of RSERST restriction degree, which shows the
maximum constraint stress ratio of RSERST and RRST with the same materials and test conditions,
as shown in Equation (4).
𝜎
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 10 of 12

3.5.3. Intensification Factor of RSERST Restriction Degree KR

We define KR as the intensification factor of RSERST restriction degree, which shows the maximum
constraint stress ratio of RSERST and RRST with the same materials and test conditions, as shown in
Equation (4).
σ
KR = RSERST (4)
σRRST
where σRSERST is the maximum constraint stress of RSERST specimen, and σRRST is the maximum
constraint stress of RRST specimen.
When the RSERST specimen cracks, the σRSERST equals the tensile strength of the mortar.
For the σRRST taken at the same time, the variable can be calculated through Equation (3), as shown
in Table 8. Then, KR can be calculated by using Equation (4). KR of the mortars at the cracking
time of the RSERST specimen are shown in Table 8. We can conclude that KR of the mortars is >1,
and the average KR is 1.17, which indicates that the eccentricity of the RSERST increases the restriction
degree of the mortars compared with that of RRST.

Table 8. KR of the mortars at the cracking time of the RSERST specimen.

Sample σRSERST (MPa) σRRST (MPa) KR

M0 4.69 4.36 1.08
MRA100 4.33 4.00 1.08
MRA200 4.21 3.36 1.25
MRB100 4.47 4.03 1.11
MRB200 3.76 3.30 1.14
MRC100 3.92 3.16 1.24
MRC200 3.50 2.74 1.28
Mean (KR ) 1.17
SD (σ) 0.09
COV (σ/KR ) 0.07

4. Conclusions
The cracking properties of rubberized mortars with rubber of different sizes and contents were
systematically investigated, and the restriction degree of RSERST was calculated. Based on our results,
the conclusions can be drawn as follows:

1. RSERST can predict the cracking position and shorten the test period, and the restriction degree
is higher in RSERST than in RRST. The average intensification factor is KR = 1.17.
2. Both RRST and RSERST revealed that the addition of rubber can delay cracking. The content
and size of rubber can both contribute to the cracking resistance of rubberized mortars. With rubber
of equal content, the cracking inhibitory effect of Rubber B is higher than that of Rubbers A and C.
3. The bonding interface between sand and cement is better than that between rubber and cement.
The particle size of the rubber does not affect much on the ITZ position of rubber and cement
paste. For the strength differences of the three types of rubberized mortar, it is mainly because
the specific surface area increased as the rubber size decreased, which lead to more ITZ positions
and pore structures.
4. The addition of rubber will inhibit the development of mortar tensile strength. With rubber
particles of a smaller size, more additional pores are introduced, leading to more obvious reduction
effects. While, as the rubber is a soft filling, with a smaller particle size, the rubber distribution is
more uniform, leading to better cracking inhibition effect. The effect of rubber particle size is
opposite in two aspects. Therefore, rubber particle B, which is of medium size, performed best in
the cracking inhibition.
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 11 of 12

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.Z.; methodology, H.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Y.;
writing—review and editing, Y.Y.; funding acquisition, H.Z. and Y.Y.
Funding: This research was funded by Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), NO. 51708314, and Key
Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety, NO. 2017-KF02.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bravo, M.; de Brito, J. Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: Durability-related performance. J. Clean. Prod.
2012, 25, 42–50. [CrossRef]
2. Zhou, Z.; Qiao, P. Prediction of Restrained Shrinkage Cracking of Shotcrete Rings Using Fracture
Mechanics–Based Approach. J. Mater.Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019214. [CrossRef]
3. Cao, Q. Effect of Fibers and Expansive Agent on Shrinkage of Self-Consolidating Concrete under Two Curing
Schemes. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019204. [CrossRef]
4. Chang, H. A novel method for assessing C-S-H chloride adsorption in cement pastes. Constr. Build. Mater.
2019, 225, 324–331. [CrossRef]
5. Toledo Filho, R.D. Free, restrained and drying shrinkage of cement mortar composites reinforced with
vegetable fibres. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 537–546. [CrossRef]
6. Yung, W.H.; Yung, L.C.; Hua, L.H. A study of the durability properties of waste tire rubber applied to
self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 41, 665–672. [CrossRef]
7. Hao, R.X.; Dong, S.F.; Guo, X.Y. The Research of Scrap Tire Rubber Powder Effect on the Performance of
Cracking Mortar. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 472–475, 1777–1781. [CrossRef]
8. Alsaif, A. Fatigue performance of flexible steel fibre reinforced rubberised concrete pavements. Eng. Struct.
2019, 193, 170–183. [CrossRef]
9. Alsaif, A. Mechanical performance of steel fibre reinforced rubberised concrete for flexible concrete pavements.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 533–543. [CrossRef]
10. Lv, J. Effects of rubber particles on mechanical properties of lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015, 91, 145–149. [CrossRef]
11. Siddique, R.; Naik, T.R. Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber–an overview. Waste Manag. 2004,
24, 563–569. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Huang, X. On the use of recycled tire rubber to develop low E-modulus ECC for durable concrete repairs.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 46, 134–141. [CrossRef]
13. Turatsinze, A.; Garros, M. On the modulus of elasticity and strain capacity of Self-Compacting Concrete
incorporating rubber aggregates. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 1209–1215. [CrossRef]
14. Ho, A.C. Effects of rubber aggregates from grinded used tyres on the concrete resistance to cracking. J. Clean. Prod.
2012, 23, 209–215. [CrossRef]
15. Turatsinze, A.; Measson, M.; Faure, J.P. Rubberised concrete: From laboratory findings to field experiment
validation. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2016, 19, 883–892. [CrossRef]
16. Sukontasukkul, P. Use of crumb rubber to improve thermal and sound properties of pre-cast concrete panel.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1084–1092. [CrossRef]
17. Sukontasukkul, P.; Tiamlom, K. Expansion under water and drying shrinkage of rubberized concrete mixed
with crumb rubber with different size. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 520–526. [CrossRef]
18. Su, H. Properties of concrete prepared with waste tyre rubber particles of uniform and varying sizes. J. Clean. Prod.
2015, 91, 288–296. [CrossRef]
19. Gesoğlu, M. Abrasion and freezing–thawing resistance of pervious concretes containing waste rubbers.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 19–24. [CrossRef]
20. Yilmaz, A.; Degirmenci, N. Possibility of using waste tire rubber and fly ash with Portland cement
as construction materials. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1541–1546. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, F. Study of impact performance of rubber reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 604–616.
[CrossRef]
22. Hossain, A.B.; Weiss, J. Assessing residual stress development and stress relaxation in restrained concrete
ring specimens. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2004, 26, 531–540. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 3132 12 of 12

23. Yoo, D.Y. Influence of ring size on the restrained shrinkage behavior of ultra high performance fiber reinforced
concrete. Mater. Struct. 2013, 47, 1161–1174. [CrossRef]
24. Gao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Han, P. Determination of stress relaxation parameters of concrete in tension at early-age by
ring test. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 41, 152–164. [CrossRef]
25. Zhu, H.; Li, H.R.; Zhu, X.C. On concrete restrained eccentric ring and squared eccentric ring shrinkage test
methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 239–244. [CrossRef]
26. JGJ/T70-2009, Standard for Test Method of Performance on Building Mortar; Construction Ministry of China:
Beijing, China, 2009.
27. GB/T17671-1999, Method of Testing Cements-Determination of Strength; State Bureau of Quality and Technical
Supervision: Beijing, China, 1999.
28. Kawashima, S.; Shah, S.P. Early-age autogenous and drying shrinkage behavior of cellulose fiber-reinforced
cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 201–208. [CrossRef]
29. Hossain, A.B.; Weiss, J. The role of specimen geometry and boundary conditions on stress development
and cracking in the restrained ring test. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 189–199. [CrossRef]
30. Day, K.W. Concrete Mix Design, Quality Control and Specification, 2nd ed.; E&FN Spon: London, UK, 1999.
31. Swamy, R.N.; Stavrides, H. Some statistical considerations of steel fiber composites. Cem. Concr. Res. 1976,
6, 201–216. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).