ORI GI NAL ARTI CLE

Effect of the surface treatment of recycled rubber

on the mechanical strength of composite concrete/rubber
L. P. Rivas-Vazquez

R. Suarez-Ordun a

J. Hernandez-Torres

E. Aquino-Bolan os
Received: 9 June 2013 / Accepted: 31 May 2014
RILEM 2014
Abstract In this study, the inuence of the addition
of tire rubber in concrete was evaluated, to partially
replace the ne aggregate of sand particles. The rubber
bers were also surface treated with different solvents
to improve adhesion of the bers to the concrete
matrix. Compressive strength, slump test, Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy of concrete samples
were performed at time intervals of up to 28 days. The
results showed a decrease on mechanical property
values after the addition of tire rubber without
treatment as well as a decrease of workability. It was
also observed that the tire rubber treatment with
acetone caused an increase of the mechanical strength
of the samples.
Keywords Concrete Mechanical properties
Composite concrete/rubber
1 Introduction
The use of rubber in the construction industry is not
new, various construction industries have used
rubber elements as a fundamental part of structure.
This material has been used in the construction of
concert halls (as an acoustic absorber), in the
construction of bridges (buffer), as waterproong,
lling in roads, among others [11]. The addition of
rubber is used as a replacement of ne aggregate, to
modify basic properties of concrete, such as the
increase of exural strength as well as shear
strength, these additions also promote the decrease
of concrete density, by doing so, the thermal
conductivity of the concrete decreases [4].
Some studies have indicated that the addition of
rubber to mortar decreases mechanical properties,
compared to the resistance of mortar without rubber.
The decrease in mechanical properties is caused by
weak chemical interaction between rubber and Port-
land cement [10]. Snelson et al. [10] reported that
small additions of up to 10 % recycled rubber,
combined with mortar, causes the decrease in mechan-
ical strength due to poor interaction of rubber in ber
form with mortar. At the same time, Ganjian et al. [3]
reported mechanical studies have shown that just over
5 % of added rubber material can generate signicant
changes in the properties of the composite. From
another point of view, Toutanji [13] evaluated the
incorporation of rubber chips as a replacement of sand.
The incorporation of these rubber tire chips in concrete
L. P. Rivas-Vazquez R. Suarez-Orduna (&)
E. Aquino-Bolanos
Universidad del Papaloapan, Ferrocarril s/n,
C.P. 68400 Loma Bonita, Oaxaca, Mexico
e-mail: rsuarez@unpa.edu.mx
L. P. Rivas-Vazquez
e-mail: privas@unpa.edu.mx
J. Hernandez-Torres
Centro de Investigaciones en Micro y Nanotecnolog a
Veracruz, Calzada Ruiz Cort nes No. 455, Col. Costa
Verde, C.P. 94294 Boca del R o, Veracruz, Mexico
Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-014-0355-y
exhibited a reduction in compressive and exural
strengths.
Attempts have been made to improve the mechan-
ical strength of the concrete/rubber composite, by the
implementation of different additions or modications
in the composition of the material. Tangudom et al.
[12] state that the addition of bagasse ash silica to the
concrete composite with partial replacement of ne
aggregate of rubber tires, result in an improvement in
the dispersive and distributive properties of rubber/
concrete aggregate in the rubber matrix, as indicated by
an increase in tensile strength and elongation at break.
Another approach is to increase the use of rubber
modied cement concrete by developing a cementi-
tious coating layer around rubber particles with a silane
coupling agent. In this case, the result shows that the
compressive and split tensile strength of the concrete
incorporating coated rubber improved by 1020 %, in
comparison to concrete with uncoated rubber [2].
Other studies indicate that it is possible to increase
the resistance of rubber/cement composite material
through the treatment of rubber in NaOH solutions,
however in this respect there is no consensus as to
whether or not this method helps to improve the
interfacial adhesion of rubber with mortar [5]. Then
again, it has been reported the use of magnesium
oxychloride as a binder in cement mixes with rubber
[9], produces the surface modication of rubber, with
the intention of increasing the adhesion with cement,
as it has been reported by Segre and Joekes [7].
Another report by Segre et al. [8] mentions that
existing additives commonly found in tires, are those
that during the mixing with cement can migrate and
cause the disintegration of phases. Generation
increases the mechanical strength of the material [6].
This study raises the possibility of increasing the
mechanical strength of the concrete/rubber samples,
using different solvents which may promote adhesion
of the concrete/rubber interface.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Materials
2.1.1 Cement
The cement used in this study was ordinary Portland
cement (OPC) ASTM type I. The specic gravity of
cement used is 3.16. The chemical composition of
OPC was determined by the testing method X-ray
uorescence spectrometry (XRF). The chemical com-
position of cement used in this experimental study is
shown in Table 1.
2.1.2 Water
Clean drinking water was used for concreting; the
water aided in the hydration of the cement, which
resulted in the setting, and hardening of the concrete.
2.1.3 Aggregates
Fine aggregate was natural sand obtained in Loma
Bonita, Oaxaca, Mexico, with specic gravity and
neness modulus of 1.39 and 1.47, in particular. The
coarse aggregate used had a maximum size of 25 mm.
Grain size distributions for aggregates are given in
Table 2 and shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Both the ne and
coarse aggregates were air dried to obtain saturated
surface dry condition to ensure that the water/cement
ratio is not affected.
2.1.4 Rubber
The material used was provided by the Genbruger
company, and consists of rubber obtained from the
shredding of automobile tires. Powdered rubber used
has a particle size of less than 1.18 mm. Grain size
distributions for tire rubber are given in Table 2, and a
photograph of the tire rubber used in this work is
shown in Fig. 3.
2.2 Methods
The preparation of concrete samples was conducted by
the initial mixing of the components of concrete
cement, gravel, sand and as a replacement of part of
the ne aggregate, waste rubber was used. The mixing
was performed in an electric mixer. After preparing
the mixture of components was completed, the process
to perform the casting in cylindrical molds with
dimensions set by the ASTM C873/C873M-10a [1]
was carried out. These samples were kept in the molds
until they reached a certain consistency, suitable for
stripping without breaking (setting: 1 day). The sam-
ples were stored in a humid chamber (samples were
Materials and Structures
collected at continual time intervals for a period of
28 days, which is the time needed for the concrete to
reach its maximum resistance).
The resistance of the obtained samples was char-
acterized by a compressive strength test. This testing
was performed with the samples processed by inter-
vals of 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. The rubber particles
were surface treated with different solvents (ethanol,
acetone, and methanol prepared in a 50 % by volume
of a solvent/water ratio). The treatment effect was
evaluated by infrared spectroscopy, and the change in
compressive strength of the different samples was
studied.
3 Results and discussion
Figure 4 shows the slump of concrete samples
obtained with different rubber/sand ratio and a
water/cement ratio of 0.5, likewise, different solvents
were used for the surface of the rubber that was
treated. The results clearly indicated a decrease slump,
associated with a decrease in workability of the
mixture. Furthermore, it was observed that the sam-
ples containing surface treated rubber with a solvent,
decreased workability with respect to samples that
were not treated (under the same conditions of the
rubber content). This result indicates that the surface
treatment caused some interaction with the water
added, increasing the viscosity of the mixture and
decreasing the workability. The use of acetone caused
a slump in samples containing 10 % rubber by about
4 cm, compared to 12 cm obtained with the untreated
samples. The sample under these conditions was
Table 1 Chemical composition of OPC (% by mass)
CaO SiO
2
Al
2
O
3
Fe
2
O
3
MgO K
2
O Na
2
O SO
3
MnO LOI
62.3 21.4 6.1 2.52 2.6 0.6 0.3 2.0 0.004 2.1
Table 2 Sieve analysis of aggregate types
Sieve size (mm) Passing (%)
Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Rubber
25.4 100 100 100
19 100 99.41 100
12.7 100 66.77 100
9.5 100 39.17 100
4.75 97.96 15.94 100
2.38 94.24 0.00 100
1.18 85.7 99.76
0.595 62.14 98.77
0.287 13.35 55.96
0.149 3.5 28.97
0.074 0.66 1.72
\0.074 0.00 0.00
1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Particle Size (m)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

(
%
)
Lower bound
Upper bound
Fine aggregate
Fig. 1 Particle size distribution of the ne aggregate
25 0 4 8 12 16 20
110
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Particle Size ( m)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

(
%
)
Upper bound
Lower bound
Coarse Aggregate
Fig. 2 Particle size distribution of the coarse aggregate
Materials and Structures
unworkable, for this reason, the use of a uidising to
improve workability of the mixture without changing
the water/cement ratio was suggested..
Figure 5 shows the test results in compression of
concrete samples with additions of rubber which were
added as a replacement for ne aggregate. In these
samples, the rubber is added without any pretreatment.
As it is observed, samples which have rubber additions
decrease in mechanical strength, which coincides with
previous reports by Snelson et al. [10] and Ganjian
et al. [3]. The decrease in the mechanical strength of
concrete is thought to be caused due to poor chemical
interaction between the different phases of the
concrete and rubber, causing little or no adhesion at
the interface of the concrete/rubber.
Furthermore, Fig. 6 shows the results of concrete
samples with an addition of 10 % surface treated
rubber. The different solvents used, increased
Fig. 3 Micrograph rubber
particles and agglomerates
obtained from the
automobile tire shredding
16.5 0 4 8 12
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Rubber Aggregate (%)
S
l
u
m
p

(
c
m
)
Rubber treated w/ 50% vol. Acetone
Rubber treated w/ 50% vol. Methanol
Untreated Rubber
Fig. 4 Slump tests of concrete samples prepared under different
rubber surface chemical treatments
30 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
200
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Setting time (Days)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
0 % Rubber
10 % Rubber
20 % Rubber
Fig. 5 Graph of compression tests with different concrete
addition of rubber without chemical treatment
30 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
240
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Setting time (Days)
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Rubber treated w/ Acetone
Rubber w/ Methanol
Rubber w/ Ethanol
Untreated Rubber
Fig. 6 Graph of compression tests with different concrete
addition of rubber treated with different solvents
Materials and Structures
mechanical resistance of compression in the concrete
samples with the same amount of aggregate as that of
the untreated samples. The greatest increase was in
mechanical strength presented in samples treated with
acetone, and up to 28 % of the samples with and
without surface treatment rubber. These results con-
rm what had been determined through testing slump,
in the sense that the surface treatment of the rubber
modied, favored the adhesion of the rubber/cement
interface.
To determine the effect of surface treatment of
rubber, we proceeded to perform an analysis by
Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), which is shown in
Fig. 7. The gure shows the different rubber samples
with and without surface treatment. The treatments
were performed with ethanol, methanol and acetone.
In all cases there were important changes in the
structure, compared to untreated rubber. The gure
shows an increase in the intensity of the peaks between
2,850 and 2,950 cm
-1
, which are associated with the
presence of stretching CH bonds. The change in the
intensity of the peaks may be caused by the incorpo-
ration of additional functional groups. The intensity is
also seen in the FTIR patterns of the samples treated
with solvents, a small peak at a wavelength of
3,500 cm
-1
also appears. This peak is associated with
the incorporation of stretching OH bonds. With the
results obtained by FTIR, it is estimated that there is a
surface modication in the structure of rubber, which
fosters better adhesion of the rubber/ concrete
interface.
Consequently, it was observed in this study that
although the use of the rubber with a surface treatment,
showed no improvement on the mechanical properties
of concrete without the addition of rubber (about
250 kg cm
-2
), a signicant increase was achieved in
mechanical strength. Figure 8 shows the micrograph
of the fracture surface of a sample with 10 % acetone
treated rubber. The micrograph shows the region
where the rubber after the compression test, signies a
low interfacial adhesion between the phases of con-
crete and rubber. Moreover, there is no modication to
the formation of hydrated calcium silicate gel (CSH
gel).
4 Conclusions
This study evaluated the effect of the pretreatment of
recycled rubber from used tires. Different solvents
were used to generate surface changes in the structure
of the rubber, creating a more hydrophilic surface,
which adheres to the different phases of the concrete.
Of the compounds used, which present greater possi-
bilities to support the increase in mechanical strength,
rubber is pretreated with a 50 % by volume solution of
Fig. 7 Infrared spectra rubber treated with different solvents.
a Rubber untreated, b treated with 1 MNaOH solution, c treated
with a solution of 50 % by volume of ethanol, d treated with a
solution of 50 % by volume of methanol and e treated with a
solution of 50 % by volume of acetone
Fig. 8 Micrograph obtained by scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) of concrete sample with 10 %rubber surface treated with
acetone, as a replacement of the ne aggregate
Materials and Structures
acetone, which favored the properties of concrete,
obtaining a material with a strength of 175 MPa
compared to composite concrete/untreated rubber,
which have a maximum strength of 250 MPa.
Although the resistance of the composite material is
still lower, it is estimated that with changes in other
parameters such as morphology and particle size, it
would be possible to increase mechanical resistance.
Acknowledgments The authors thank CONACYT
CONAFOVI fund and the National Council on Science and
Technology for funding for the project 102139 allowed the
realization of this work. Special thanks to the Head of Foreign
Language Department of the Papaloapan University, Cheryl
Lynn Gad, for their support in the review of this paper.
References
1. ASTM C873/C873M-10a (2012) Standard Test Method for
compressive strength of concrete cylinders cast in place in
cylindrical molds
2. Dong Q, Huang B, Shu X (2013) Rubber modied concrete
improved by chemically active coating and silane coupling
agent. Constr Build Mater 48:116123
3. Ganjian E, Khorami M, Maghsoudi AA (2009) Scrap-tyre-
rubber replacement for aggregate and ller in concrete.
Constr Build Mater 23:18281836
4. Hall MR, Najim KB, Hopfe CJ (2012) Transient ther-
mal behaviour of crumb rubber-modied concrete and
implications for thermal response and energy efciency in
buildings. Appl Therm Eng 33:7785
5. Huynh H, Raghavan D, Ferraris CF (1996) Rubber particles
from Recycled tires in cementitious composite materials.
In: NISTIR 5850 R. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, pp 119
6. Marques AC, Akasaki JL, Trigo APM, Marques ML (2008)
Inuence of the surface treatment of tire rubber residues
added in mortar. Struct Mater J 1(2):113120
7. Segre N, Joekes I (2000) Use of tire rubber particles as
addition to cement paste. Cem Concr Res 30:14211425
8. Segre N, Monteiro PJM, Sposito G (2002) Surface charac-
terization of recycled tire rubber to be used in cement paste
matrix. J Colloid Interface Sci 248:521523
9. Siddique R, Naik TR (2004) Properties of concrete con-
taining scrap-tire rubberan overview. Waste Manag
24:563569
10. Snelson DG, Kinuthia JM, Davies PA, Chang SR (2009)
Sustainable construction: composite use tyres and ash in
concrete. Waste Manag 29:360367
11. Stankevicius V, Skripkiunas G, Grinys A, Miskinis K
(2007) Acoustical characteristics and physicalmechanical
properties of plaster with rubber waste additives. Mater Sci
13(4):204309
12. Tangudom P, Thongsang S, Sombatsompop N (2014) Cure
and mechanical properties and abrasive wear behavior of
natural rubber, styrene butadiene rubber and their blends
reinforced with silica hybrid llers. Mater Des 53:856864
13. Toutanji HA (1996) The use of rubber tire particles in
concrete to replace mineral aggregates. Cem Concr Res
18(2):135139
Materials and Structures