Global NEST Journal, Vol X, No X, pp XX-XX, 2010

Copyright© 2010 Global NEST

Printed in Greece. All rights reserved

DISCARDED TYRE RUBBER AS CONCRETE AGGREGATE:

A POSSIBLE OUTLET FOR USED TYRES

M. MAVROULIDOU * Department of Urban Engineering,

J. FIGUEIREDO London South Bank University,
103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA, UK

Received: XX/XX/XX *to whom all correspondence should be addressed:

Accepted: XX/XX/XX e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Discarded vehicle tyres constitute one important part of solid waste which had historically been disposed of
into landfills. Recent EU policies on the Landfilling of Waste (Council Directive 1999/31/EC) have however
put a ban on the landfilling of whole or shredded tyres, creating an imminent need to investigate any
possible viable uses of this waste product. An emerging use is the production of concrete, in which tyre
rubber particles partially replace natural aggregates. This has the additional advantage of saving in natural
aggregates used in the production of concrete which are becoming increasingly scarce. This research
investigated a wide range of physical and mechanical properties of concrete containing recycled tyre
aggregates, to assess its suitability as a construction material. The influence of factors such as rubber
aggregate content and size, as well as curing time was also considered. The results showed that despite a
great loss in strength, this type of concrete was acceptable for various applications requiring medium to low
compressive strength. The quantities of concrete produced worldwide for such applications could ensure
the viability of this product. Therefore, this type of concrete shows promise for becoming an additional
sustainable solution for tyre rubber waste management.

KEYWORDS: solid waste management, used vehicle tyres, rubberised concrete properties.

1. INTRODUCTION
Municipal solid waste management practices in the UK are currently going through a period of rapid
evolution, due to the EU Directive on the Landfilling of Waste (Council Directive 1999/31/EC), which has
been transposed to the UK through the Landfill Regulation. It is based on the policy objective to manage
resources in a more sustainable manner, and adopt strategies for reducing waste at the source by
recycling. Discarded vehicle tyres constitute one important part of solid waste which has historically been
disposed of into landfills. It is estimated that in the UK about 40 million tyres per year (i.e. more than
100,000 tyres per day) have been ending up as waste. This number is expected to increase by a further
63% by 2021, due to the forecasted growth in road traffic (Cairns et al., 2004). This has become a major
solid waste disposal problem in the UK. Tyre disposal to landfills is problematic, as waste rubber is not
easily biodegradable. Stockpiled tyres also present many health, environmental and economic risks
through air, water and soil pollution, littering the landscape, and providing a breeding habitat for various
pests. Moreover, tyres present serious fire hazards: once set alight they burn fiercely, producing a number
of chemicals harmful to the environment. This can cause considerable air, water as well as soil pollution. A
number of such major tyre fires have already occurred in the UK with severe adverse environmental
impacts. A well-known example is that of Heyope in Powys, Wales, where the largest landfill site in Britain
for such scrap tyres was located (this held over 9,000,000 tyres). In 1989 an intense fire took hold deep
inside the mass of scrap tyres and had subsequently been burning for eleven years. This caused extensive
pollution to the atmosphere and the local water system (Bateman, 2002). It is therefore clear that better
ways of managing tyres and waste in general are required. Recent EU policies on the Landfilling of Waste
(Council Directive 1999/31/EC) have therefore put a ban on the landfilling of whole or shredded tyres,
creating an imminent need to investigate any possible viable uses of this waste product. There are various
potential ways to reduce the need for tyre disposal. These include amongst other: a) retreading and reuse
2 MAVROULIDOY and FIGUEIREDO

of old tyres; b) use as a fuel in addition or as a replacement to more conventional fuels (coal and petroleum
coke) and c) shredding or grinding tyres for use in rubberised playground and sports field surfaces,
roadways and drainage schemes etc. An emerging field for the reuse of scrap tyres is in the production of
concrete, where tyre rubber can be used as a partial replacement to natural aggregates. This has the
additional advantage of saving in natural resources. Shredded or ground tyres are different to other waste
materials with a potential for re-use, because their production method is now well developed. Hence, the re-
use of this material in concrete could have both environmental advantages and at the same time ensure
economic viability. However, for concrete with scrap tyre aggregate to be considered as a construction
material, the minimum requirements of strength and durability should be met. This has recently been the
subject of a number of studies but the area is still relatively less researched than the use of tyres in the
other applications mentioned above. A literature review into this area which showed that at the time of this
research, there was still a relatively limited amount of information for some properties of this type of material
and some contradictory or inconclusive results across the existing literature. For instance, some
researchers found that mixing rubber aggregate of coarse grading resulted in higher compressive strength
losses than aggregate of finer grading (Eldin and Senouci, 1993; Topçu, 1995). Conversely others (e.g.
Fattuhi and Clark, 1996 or Ali et al., 2000) found the opposite trend. Moreover, sizes and types of rubber
aggregate used varied across researchers. It is therefore difficult to reach consistent conclusions about
various properties at various curing times coming from different literature sources. This research therefore
aimed at performing a set of consistent tests for a wide range of physical and mechanical properties and
behaviour of concrete containing rubber aggregate. These are presented in detail in the following sections.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE, MATERIAL AND MIXES

For this experiment scrap tyre aggregates ranging from 20-1 mm were obtained from McGrath Bros. These
are meant to be used in particular for equestrian circuits. According to information obtained from the
supplier, these contain mostly textile fibre rather than steel fibre however the latter could amount to 5% of
the total rubber tyre aggregate. The material was sieved and split into two groups of tyre aggregate: coarse
rubber aggregate (19-10mm) and fine rubber aggregate material (10-4.75 mm). These groups will be
referred to as CRA (Coarse Rubber Aggregates) and FRA (Fine Rubber Aggregates). The shape of the
rubber aggregate was observed to be sub-angular. Figure 1 shows the particle size distribution curves for
the two groups of rubber aggregates (coarse and fine aggregate groups) together with those of the mineral
aggregates which were used in the test and were partly replaced by the rubber aggregates. The mineral
aggregates are referred to as CMA (Coarse Mineral Aggregates) and FMA (Fine Mineral Aggregates). It is
noticeable that the particle size distribution of the rubber aggregates is very close to that of the respective
mineral aggregates (coarse or fine) conforming to BS 882 (BSI, 1992) and satisfying the aggregate grading
requirements.

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of rubber and mineral aggregates used in the mixes

Ordinary Portland cement mix was used as the control mix (referred to as CM) for the purposes of
comparison. This consisted of 1 part cement; 1.5 parts sand and 3 parts coarse aggregate (1:1.5:3). The
DISCARDED TYRE RUBBER AS CONCRETE AGGREGATE 3

mix design was according to BS 5328: Part 1 guidelines for RC40 (BSI, 1997). Two sets of mixes including
rubber aggregate were then prepared for each test. In the first set of mixes, the coarse rubber aggregate
(CRA) replaced part of the coarse mineral aggregate (CMA) of the control mix. In the second, fine rubber
aggregate (FRA) replaced partly fine mineral (stone) aggregate (FMA) of the control mix. Four different
contents of rubber aggregate (by mass) were used to replace the mineral aggregate (10%, 20%, 30% and
40% respectively). The dry material comprising cement, sand, aggregate and rubber was well mixed before
the water was gradually included. The water/cement ratio was kept constant (i.e. w/c =0.55) for all samples
for consistency in the comparisons. The workability of all fresh mixes was then assessed using the slump
test. The specimens were then placed in moulds and compacted. It should be noted that some difficulties
were experienced during hand compaction of the samples (using a standard rammer) due to the tyre
aggregates generating some spring action. Moreover, when using mechanical compaction (vibrating table),
the finishing on the higher percentage samples (30% and 40%) containing coarse rubber aggregate was
very poor with the top surface of the sample becoming irregular as the lighter material (rubber) was
surfacing during compaction. The compacted specimens were demoulded 24 hours after casting and
placed in a steel tub of water, to cure at a minimum temperature of 20oC for 7 and 28 days respectively. A
number of tests on the hardened mixes were then performed, including cube compressive strength
(100mm and 70mm cubes), split-cylinder tensile strength, static modulus of elasticity of beams in
compression and flexural strength test. The stress-strain behaviour of the cube samples was also
continuously monitored during the compression tests, using a load cell and a displacement transducer
connected to the ram. To assess repeatability, three specimens were tested for each mix. These gave
repeatable results. The following sections show average values for each rubber percentage and test
results.

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
3.1. Workability of fresh concrete (Slump test)
Figure 2 shows average results for each rubber percentage from the slump test. These showed that most
mixes for the rubber sizes and percentages used in this study, with the exception of the 40% mixes for
either fine or coarse aggregates and the 30% mix for fine aggregates, had slump values corresponding to
high to normal workability levels. In fact, for small percentages of rubber (10%) the workability based on
slump results comparable with those of the control mixes (0%). This is consistent with results reported by
Raghavan et al., (1998) for mortars containing rubber particles. With further increase in rubber content, for
both the fine and coarse rubber specimens, the mix became stiffer and less workable, which was reflected
in the significant decrease in slump values. The 40% coarse rubber tire mix in particular had too low slump
values and was manually unworkable. The addition of fine aggregate rubber from 10% up to 40% rubber
content maintained a linear decrease in slump values. This was not the case for the coarse aggregate
rubber content which experienced a decrease of about 50% from a 10% rubber content to a 20% rubber
content, a very small decrease in slump between 20% and 30% of rubber aggregate and then again a large
decrease of about 33% between 30% and 40% of rubber aggregate. No particular trend was obvious as to
whether the CRA or FRA mixes were more workable.

Figure 2. Average slump test results for each rubber percentage

4 MAVROULIDOY and FIGUEIREDO

3.2. Density
Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show respectively the average densities for the 7 and 28 day-cured specimens
prepared for cube compressive strength testing. From the figures it can be seen that density reduces by the
addition of rubber aggregates whether these are fine or coarse. In most cases, for the same rubber content
the fine rubber aggregate mixes had lower densities than those containing coarse rubber aggregate. The
general density reduction was to be expected due to the low specific gravity of the rubber aggregates with
respect to that of the mineral aggregates. The reduction in density can be a desirable feature in a number of
applications, including architectural applications such as nailing concrete, false facades, stone backing and
interior construction (Siddique and Naik, 2004) as well as precast concrete blocks and slabs.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Density variation with rubber content (a) 7-day curing; (b) 28-day curing

3.3. Cube compressive strength tests

These were performed in a Losenhausen (3MN) compression machine according to BS EN 12390-3:2002
(BSI, 2002). Figure 4(a) represents the relationship between average cube compressive strengths and the
percentage of rubber aggregate for 7 and 28 days of curing respectively. It can be seen that there is a very
considerable loss in strength with respect to the average results of the control mixes. The loss was greater
with increasing tyre aggregate percentage, amounting to 94% of the control mix strength for the 40%
rubber content. The strength losses with respect to the average control mix strengths are represented in
Table 1.

Table 1. Average compressive strength loss for mixes containing rubber aggregate
Curing Compressive strength loss
time CRA FRA
(days) 10% 20% 30% 40% 10% 20% 30% 40%

7 53% 76.6% 87.5% 94.3% 32% 60% 82.1% 89%

28 60.8% 77.9% 89.6% 92.6% 40.9% 68.3% 81.8% 88.3%

In this study it was found that for the same percentage of tyre rubber aggregate, coarse rubber aggregate
had a higher compressive strength, than concrete containing finer rubber aggregate, which is consistent
with Fattuhi and Clark (1996) but contradicts Eldin and Senouci (1993) and Topçu (1995). The relationship
between the reduction in compressive strength and the rubber aggregate percentage was found to be non-
linear. It is noticeable that as opposed to the average values of the control mixes, the mixes with rubber
aggregate showed very little increase in the compressive strengths between the 7th and the 28th day of
curing (with the only exception of the 10% coarse rubber aggregate mix), which is consistent with results
from other researchers (Eldin and Senouci, 1993). This is particularly true for the fine rubber aggregate
DISCARDED TYRE RUBBER AS CONCRETE AGGREGATE 5

mixes. The plot of compressive strength versus density (Figure 4(b)) indicates an exponential drop of
strength with density in the concrete with rubber mixes. The large losses in compressive strength imply that
rubber percentages above 10%-20% would not be suitable for most structural applications, where high
compressive strengths are required. However this type of concrete could be used in low-strength-concrete
applications e.g. sidewalks, driveways and selected road construction applications (Eldin and Senouci,
1993).

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Compressive strength variation: (a) with rubber content; (b) with density

Direct comparisons of % losses with other researchers’ results are not possible as cubes (and/or cylinders)
of various sizes were used in other investigations. It is known that different shape and size of specimens
influence the compressive strength of concrete. Moreover, rubber aggregate of different type, origin,
shapes, sizes and grading was used across investigations. However the reduction in compressive strength
due to rubber aggregate is consistent across the literature. A number of possible explanations have been
suggested in the literature for this loss of strength. This has usually been attributed to the fact that the
rubber particles act as voids in the cement matrix due to the lack of adhesion between the rubber and the
cement matrix. It was also suggested that the lower specific gravity of the rubber particles compared to the
cement paste causes cracks around the rubber particles to appear quickly upon loading which accelerates
the failure of the specimens (Khatib and Bayomy, 1999). Conversely, Chou et al., (2007) attributed the loss
of strength to the heterogeneous, hydrophobic rubber particles, leading to local imperfections in the
hydration of cement and hence locally weaker concrete. This suggestion was supported by microscopic
studies showing that the rubber particles distributed the water transfer to create channels prone to cracking,
thus causing a loss in compressive strength.Due to the low compressive strengths of the mixes containing
rubber aggregates which would not be acceptable in most cases, the following sections will present results
for the rest of the tests for the mixes containing 10% of rubber aggregate only, as these showed the best
compressive strength values of all mixes containing rubber aggregate.

3.4. Split cylinder tensile strength

Similar trends were found for the split tensile strength of the mixes which was also reduced with rubber
aggregate content (see Figure 5). The FRA mixes showed slightly better tensile properties than the CRA
mixes, which is consistent with findings by Eldin and Senouci (1993). The losses in tensile strength upon
the addition of rubber were however less pronounced than the losses in compressive strength, which is
also consistent with Eldin and Senouci (1993). These amounted to a) 23.8% for the CRA and 20.6% for the
FRA and b) 32.5% loss for the CRA and 29.9% for the FRA (with respect to the average values of the
control mixes) for the 7 and 28 days of curing respectively. It was observed that upon splitting, the rubber
6 MAVROULIDOY and FIGUEIREDO

particles seemed to hold the two parts of the concrete specimen together although the specimen had
technically failed (this is consistent with observations of the cube compression specimen failure).

Figure 5. Average split cylinder tensile strengths

3.5. Static Modulus of Elasticity Ec (beam tests)

This was calculated from beams of 500mm length and a section of 100mm x 100mm according to BS
1881-121:1983 (BSI, 1983). Figure 6 shows indicative average Ec values of beams made of CM and
beams with 10% CRA and 10% FRA respectively (cured for 28 days). It is noted that the modulus of
elasticity is reduced upon the addition of rubber aggregate, especially for FRA, implying a loss in stiffness,
which would result in increased deflections of elements built with concrete containing rubber aggregate.

Figure 6. Average static modulus of elasticity Ec values from 28-day cured beams

3.6 Flexural strength (Modulus of rupture)

After testing for the static modulus of elasticity the same beams were used to determine the modulus of
rupture. This consisted in two-point flexural strength tests according to BS EN 12390-5:2000 (BSI, 2000c).
This test concerns strength in tension of a beam or slab and shows when cracking will develop upon
bending. It is therefore relevant for structures such as highway and airfield pavements which are designed
on the basis of flexural strength of concrete, as in this application concrete elements are loaded in bending
rather than axial tension. A slight reduction in the modulus of rupture (MoR) for both CRA and FRA
samples, was observed in comparison to the control mixes (see Figure 7). FRA beams showed higher
MoR than CRA beams. However the reduction is much smaller compared to other properties.
DISCARDED TYRE RUBBER AS CONCRETE AGGREGATE 7

Figure 7. Average modulus of rupture values from 28-day cured beams

3.7 Stress-strain behaviour upon uniaxial compression

Figure 8 shows indicative results of stress-strain behaviour upon uniaxial compression. These represent
results from 70mm3 cube specimens containing fine rubber aggregates at various percentages. From the
figure it can be seen that the control mix achieved generally higher strains at the peak stresses but the
curve shows a much steeper descending branch in comparison to those of the stress-strain curves of
mixes with rubber. The 20% and especially 30% rubber mixes do not exhibit a real peak, with the 30% FRA
curve showing a prolonged plateau throughout the straining of the material. This shows evidence of a
ductile fracture behaviour as well as an ability to support loads after cracks were generated. This behaviour,
consistent with the ability of the rubber to flex under compression, was also reported by other researchers
using different types of rubber and sizes of specimens (the exact stress-strain curves are specimen size
dependent). The elastic modulus of rubber aggregate mixes is shown to be reduced, which is consistent
with the reduction of Ec from beam tests.

Figure 8. Indicative stress-strain results upon uniaxial compression

4. DISCUSSION
The results showed that concrete with rubber aggregate contents higher than 10% by mass would be
unacceptable for primary structural elements. However there is a number of structural applications of
medium to low strength requirements for which this material would be acceptable in terms of strength. For
instance, a number of recent studies pointed out that concrete rubber aggregate could be used in the
production of concrete blocks or other precast concrete units and have the advantage of a lower unit weight
8 MAVROULIDOY and FIGUEIREDO

over usual concrete mixes. Concrete blocks are available in compressive strengths usually ranging from
2.8MPa to 35MPa (solid) and 2.8MPa to 20MPa (cellular and hollow), i.e. strengths which were shown to
be achievable by concrete including rubber aggregates. Precast concrete units are produced under factory
conditions enabling better quality control, hence making the large scale industrial production of the concrete
with rubber aggregate feasible. These units are one of the main outlets of the concrete construction
industry. For example, recent market surveys indicated that out of the £1.8bn per annum spent in the UK
on concrete products, £600m is building blocks and bricks and £400m is prefabricated structural
components, including non-primary structural applications (Cairns et al., 2004). Therefore, considering the
rates of production of these units, it appears that even if small percentages of rubber aggregate were
included in these concrete products, this could lead to important reductions in the amount of waste tyre
rubber. Possible applications of precast concrete units with rubber aggregate include amongst other
partition walls, concrete blocks for architectural applications, some cases of slabs on soil, culverts,
sidewalks, driveways and some road construction applications. A number of feasible non-structural
concrete products including rubber aggregates can also be identified, for instance concrete fences and
poles, foundation pads for machinery etc. It also seems possible to increase the strength of concrete with
rubber aggregates using various methods suggested in the literature. These include soaking and washing
rubber particles with water to remove impurities which could affect the strength of concrete (Eldin and
Senouci, 1993), pretreatment in an alkaline solution, usually (NaOH), and chemical modification of the
rubber particles by mild oxidisation carried out with hot air/steam in a fluidised bed reactor. Both latter
treatments make the surface more hydrophilic, and enhance adhesion with concrete matrix while
increasing water transfer rate and hydration at the interface of rubber with cement (Chou et al., 2007).
Optimisation of mix design, use of different type of cement (other than Ordinary Portland Cement) and the
incorporation of chemical and mineral admixtures can also be used to increase strength (Siddique and
Naik, 2004). Any methods of strength improvement should consider costs, as well as whether the method
is practical for a larger scale concrete production as opposed to laboratory trials. The suggested
pretreatment processes mentioned earlier are however simple and likely to be economically viable and
practicable, especially if applied for precast concrete units which are produced under factory conditions.
Other than compressive strength, durability of concrete is also an important factor to consider. Rubber
exposed in highly alkaline media for four months was found to deteriorate only slightly, suggesting that the
durability of concrete would not be greatly affected upon rubber inclusion (Huynh and Raghavan, 1997).

An important factor when dealing with the acceptability of recycled materials is the cost versus the gained
benefits. An investigation to the cost consideration of rubberised concrete was carried out by Cairns et al.,
(2004). This showed that at the time of the investigation, recycled rubber aggregates for concrete were
more expensive than the mineral aggregates to be replaced (even when including the added UK Aggregate
Levy tax in the costs of the natural aggregate materials). This could present a difficulty for the acceptance of
rubberised concrete based on cost issues. The authors claimed however that the economics of using
recycling rubber in concrete (including the production costs) would be expected to change as the market
potential of this product develops and the demand of recycled rubber increases. The authors also pointed
out that the processing requirements for rubber aggregate used in concrete are less stringent than for other
applications, which would further reduce the cost for rubberised concrete block production and hence giving
good prospects for this application (Cairns et al., 2004). This shows promise for the future commercial
application of rubber in a large range of concrete products.

5. CONCLUSIONS
From the present experimental study and literature review it can be concluded that despite the observed
lower values of the mechanical properties of concrete there is a potential large market for concrete products
in which inclusion of rubber aggregate would be feasible. These can also include non primary structural
applications of medium to low strength requirements, benefiting from other features of this type of concrete.
Even if rubber tyre aggregate was used at relatively low percentages in concrete, the amount of waste tyre
rubber could be greatly reduced due to the very large market for concrete products worldwide. Therefore
the use of discarded tyre rubber aggregates in concrete shows promise for developing an additional route
for used tyres.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is an extended and modified version of a paper presented in CEST10 conference (September 2007).
All tests described in the paper were carried out at the Concrete Laboratory of London South Bank University
DISCARDED TYRE RUBBER AS CONCRETE AGGREGATE 9

during 2006-2007. Assistance with the laboratory work, provided by David Metcalfe and Paul Elsdon (London
South Bank University) is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
• Ali N.A., Amos A.D. & Roberts M. (2000) Use of ground rubber tires in Portland cement concrete. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference:Concrete 2000 University of Dundee, Scotland,UK.Vol.2, pp.
379–390.
• Bateman J. (2002), Heyope Tyre Tip, Powys (online) Environment Agency Wales, Available from:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/regions/wales/issueswales/ Accessed 20/3/07.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (1983), BS 1881-121:1983: Testing concrete -Part 121: Method for
determination of static modulus of elasticity in compression, BSI, London.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (1992), BS 882:1992: Specification for aggregates from natural sources for
concrete, BSI, London.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (1997), BS 5238-1:1997: Concrete-Part 1: Guide to specifying concrete,
BSI, London.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (2000a), BS EN 12350-2:2000: Testing fresh concrete. Part 2: Slump test,
BSI, London.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (2000b), BS EN 12390-6:2000: Testing hardened concrete —Part 6:
Tensile splitting strength of test specimens, BSI, London.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (2000c), BS EN 12390-5:2000: Testing hardened concrete —Part 5:
Flexural strength of test specimens, BSI, London.
• British Standards Institution (BSI) (2002), BS EN 12390-3:2002: Testing hardened concrete —Part 3:
Compressive strength of test specimens, BSI, London.
• Cairns R., Kew H.Y., Kenny M.J. (2004), The Use of Recycled Rubber Tyres in Concrete Construction, Final
Report, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (online) Available from:
http://www.veoliatrust.org/docs/The_use_of_recovered_tyres.pdf, Last accessed: 3/09/08.
• Chou L.H., Chun-Ku L., Chang J-R., Lee M.T. (2007) Use of waste rubber as concrete additive, Waste
Management Research, 25(1), 68-76.
• Eldin N.N. and Senouci A.B. (1993), Rubber-tire particles as concrete aggregates, ASCE Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering , 5(4), 478-496.
• Fattuhi N.I. and Clark L.A. (1996), Cement-based materials containing shredded scrap truck tyre rubber,
Construction and Building Materials, 10(4), 229-236.
• Huynh H. and Raghavan D. (1997), Durability of simulated shredded rubber tire in highly alkaline
environments, Advanced cement based materials, 6(3-4),138-143.
• Khatib Z.K. and Bayomy F.M. (1999) Rubberized Portland cement concrete, ASCE Journal of materials in
civil engineering, 11(3), 206-213.
• Raghavan D., Huynh H. and Ferraris C.F. (1998), Workability, mechanical properties and chemical stability
of a recycled tire rubber-filled cementitious composite, Journal of Materials Science 33(7), 1745–1752.
• Siddique R. and Naik T.R. (2004), Properties of concrete containing scrap-tyre rubber - an overview, Waste
Management, 24(6), 563-569.
• Topçu I.B. (1995) The properties of rubberised concretes, Cement and Concrete Research, 25(2), 304-310.