LEBANESE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY

Master 2 Research Project Report

Civil Engineering – Geotechnical Option

2018-2019

Concrete with Rubber Scraps and Steel Fibers from Old Car Tires
Nagham Riad El-Ahmad

Presented on 03/10/2019 in front of the Jury:

Dr. Firas TOUT Supervisor

Dr. Yehia DAOU Reviewer
Dr. Fadi HAGE CHEHADE Examiner

Work performed at the Laboratory 3MIX sarl and supervised by:

Dr. Firas TOUT

Dr. Fadi HAGE CHEHADE
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ vi
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Materials....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Cement ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Aggregates ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Rubber scraps from waste tires ................................................................................................................ 7
Steel fibers from waste tires ..................................................................................................................... 7
Hooked end commercial steel fibers ........................................................................................................ 8
Admixture ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Concrete Mixes ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Witness mix ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Concrete with rubber scraps ................................................................................................................... 12
Concrete with hooked end fibers ........................................................................................................... 12
Concrete with steel fibers from waste tires............................................................................................ 12
Concrete with rubber scraps and steel fibers from waste tires.............................................................. 13
Mixing and Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................. 13
Testing Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Results......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Fresh Concrete ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Visual inspection ................................................................................................................................. 16
Slump .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Density ................................................................................................................................................ 17
Air content .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Hardened Concrete ................................................................................................................................. 18
Compressive strength ......................................................................................................................... 18
Modulus of elasticity........................................................................................................................... 20
Flexural strength ................................................................................................................................. 21
Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 22

i
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................................
Appendix 1: Cement TDS ........................................................................................................................ 25
Appendix 2: Coarse Aggregate Testing ................................................................................................... 26
Appendix 3: Medium Aggregate Testing................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 4: Crushed Sand Testing.......................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 5: Natural Sand Testing ........................................................................................................... 29
Appendix 6: Crumb Rubber Sieve Analysis ............................................................................................. 30
Appendix 7: Powder Rubber Sieve Analysis ........................................................................................... 31
Appendix 8: Rubber mixture Sieve Analysis ........................................................................................... 32
Appendix 9: ARACO SP10 TDS ................................................................................................................ 33
Appendix 10: Combined grading analysis of Mix 1 ................................................................................. 34

Appendix 11: Combined grading analysis of Mix 2 ................................................................................. 35

Appendix 12: Test Results from 3MIX sarl .............................................................................................. 36

Appendix 13: Test Results from Balamand University ............................................................................ 38

References .................................................................................................................................................. 55

ii
Acknowledgment
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors Dr. Firas Tout and Dr. Fadi
Hage Chehade for their continuous support of my research, for their patience, motivation,
enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. Their guidance helped me in all the time of research and
writing of this thesis. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee
for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions.
I would like to express my profound gratitude to 3MIX family. I am especially indebted to the
owner for his spiritual and financial support of this thesis, he provided me with professional
guidance and the tools needed throughout this research. I am also grateful to have the operation
team and laboratory technicians by my side, this project would have not been possible without
your hard work and enthusiasm during the preparation of the concrete mixes and sampling
procedure.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents and to my husband for providing me with unfailing
support and continuous encouragement throughout this year and through the process of
researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without
them. Thank you.

iii
Abstract
With the growth in the tire market and the increase in dumped old tires all at the same time with
the continuous demand to decrease the use of natural resources in the construction domain and
the claim to find sustainable recycled replacement, the idea of using tire scraps in concrete was
ignited.
The main purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of using both rubber scraps and steel
fibers collected from the shredding process of old tires in the concrete. Although the mechanical
properties of the tested concrete mixes was not that promising, more studies should be
conducted to find the optimum dosage of rubber and steel to be incorporated in concrete in
order to possibly create an eco-friendly structural concrete.
At the same time studies should focus on the usage of concrete containing rubber scraps in areas
where the thermal and acoustic isolation is the judging criteria over the effectiveness of a certain
type of concrete.

iv
List of Figures

Fig 1. Cement Type 1 .................................................................................................................................... 2

Fig 2. Aggregates Used in Concrete ............................................................................................................. 2
Fig 3. Aggregates soaked overnight in water for water absorption test ................................................... 3
Fig 4. Specific gravity test of coarse and medium aggregates .................................................................... 4
Fig 5. Material finer than 0.075mm test for crushed sand ......................................................................... 4
Fig 6. Saturated surface dry state of natural sand ...................................................................................... 5
Fig 7. Specific gravity test of natural sand ................................................................................................... 5
Fig 8. Sand Equivalent test of natural sand ................................................................................................. 5
Fig 9. Sieve Analysis test .............................................................................................................................. 5
Fig 10. Coarse aggregates after passing through the sieves during sieve analysis test ............................. 6
Fig 11. Bulk density test of coarse aggregates ............................................................................................ 6
Fig 12. Crumb rubber.................................................................................................................................... 7
Fig 13. Powder rubber .................................................................................................................................. 7
Fig 14. Steel fibers from waste tires ............................................................................................................ 8
Fig 15. Commercial hooked end steel fibers ............................................................................................... 8
Fig 16. High range water reducing admixture ............................................................................................. 9
Fig 17. Sampling of witness mix ................................................................................................................. 10
Fig 18. Samples cured in a curing tank ...................................................................................................... 14
Fig 19. Slump test of concrete with rubber mixture ................................................................................. 16
Fig 20. Slump test of concrete with steel fibers from waste tires ............................................................ 16
Fig 21. Determining the real density of fresh concrete ............................................................................ 17
Fig 22. Air content test of concrete with rubber mixture and steel fibers from waste tires .................. 18
Fig 23. Compressive strength test of cylindrical specimen ....................................................................... 19
Fig 24. Compressive strength results ......................................................................................................... 19
Fig 25. Compressive strength growth ........................................................................................................ 20
Fig 26. Flexural strength results ................................................................................................................. 21
Fig 27. Fractured beams following flexural strength tests ....................................................................... 21

v
List of Tables

Table 1. Witness mix proportioning .......................................................................................................... 11

Table 2. Mix with rubber scraps proportioning ........................................................................................ 12
Table 3. Performed mixes proportions...................................................................................................... 13
Table 4. Testing Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5. Fresh Concrete Testing Results .................................................................................................... 18
Table 6. Modulus of Elasticity Results ....................................................................................................... 20
Table 7. Cost Analysis Report..................................................................................................................... 23

vi
Introduction
The growth in demand of vehicles has induced an increase in the demand of tires, in fact the
global demand for car and light commercial vehicle tires has increase from 1.3 billion units in
2012 and reached 1.7 billion units in 2018 with an expected growth of 4.1% during 2019.
On the second hand, 1 billion end-of-life tires are disposed annually knowing that these tires are
made out of synthetic rubber and steel wires, they became more difficult to recycle and hence
they are dumped in landfills or burned in open air.
Based on the above, the necessity of recycling these tires became urgent more than ever, and
studies have been launched to find new ways to reuse the discarded tires one of which is using
the shredded parts of waste tires in concrete.
Barbuta et al. in 2016 tried replacing the cement with powder rubber but this affected greatly
the mechanical properties of the concrete which can actually be obviously foreseen since the
rubber cannot contribute in strength growth of the concrete. At the same time, A. Sofi in 2017
tried replacing either the natural sand or the coarse aggregates by different grades of rubber, it
turned out that replacing a portion less than 10% of the aggregates with rubber will not greatly
affect the mechanical properties of the concrete. Also Ganjian et al. in 2008 had already reached
to the above mentioned conclusions when they tried to replace cement with powder rubber and
replace the coarse aggregates with chipped rubber. On the other hand, Onuaguluchi and Banthia
in 2018 tried substituting the commercial hooked end fibers in concrete with steel fibers from
the waste tires and the results were very promising as they remarked that when creating a
mixture between these 2 types the mechanical properties of the concrete are almost intact. This
same result was also verified by Ozkan Sengul in 2016 when he showed that using steel fibers
from waste tires did not affect neither the compressive nor the flexural strength of concrete.
But it can be clearly seen that none of the above studies focused on trying to create a new
concrete mixture incorporating both the rubber scraps and the steel fibers recuperated from the
process of shredding old car tires. This topic will be the scope of our study where we will be
mixing 5 concrete mixes: a witness mix, a concrete mix with rubber scraps, a concrete mix with
commercial hooked end fibers, a concrete mix with steel fibers from tire waste and a concrete
mix with both rubber scraps and steel fibers from tire waste.
These concrete mixes will be tested to assess their compressive strength, modulus of elasticity
and flexural strength in addition to a cost analysis to determine the feasibility of this proposed
new concrete mixture.

1
Materials
a. Cement
The cement used is PA-L Vrac 42.5 which equivalent to cement Type I. The cement is in
accordance with the Lebanese norm LIBNOR (NL 53:1999) and was provided by Holcim.
The cement has a specific gravity of 3.15, a fineness of 4130 cm2/g and an expected 28
days compressive strength of 51.3 MPa as stated by the technical data sheet provided by
Holcim (see Appendix 1).

Figure 1. Cement Type 1 Figure 2. Aggregates used in concrete

b. Aggregates
All the aggregate testing took place at 3MIX laboratory. Tests were done in accordance
with ASTM codes and the aggregates verified to be conforming to ASTM C33
specifications.

i. Coarse aggregate
The maximum nominal size is 25mm with 0.2% of material finer than 0.075mm
and a fineness modulus of 7.07. The bulk density using rodding method is 1511
Kg/m3 while the SSD specific gravity is 2.66 with an absorption value equal to 0.6%
(see Appendix 2).

2
 Figure 3. Aggregates soaked overnight in water for water absorption test

ii. Medium aggregate

The maximum nominal size is 12.5mm with 0.35% of material finer than 0.075mm
and a fineness modulus of 5.90. The bulk density using rodding method is 1493
Kg/m3 while the SSD specific gravity is 2.66 with an absorption value equal to
1.42% (see Appendix 3).

3
Figure 4. Specific gravity test of coarse and medium aggregates Figure 5. Material finer than 0.075mm test for crushed sand

iii. Crushed sand

The maximum nominal size is 4.75mm with 7.32% of material finer than 0.075mm
and a fineness modulus of 3.51. The bulk density using rodding method is 1621
Kg/m3 while the SSD specific gravity is 2.61 with an absorption value equal to
2.97% (see Appendix 4).

iv. Natural sand

The sand equivalent is 61% with 4.85% of material finer than 0.075mm and a
fineness modulus of 1.43. The bulk density using rodding method is 1732 Kg/m3
while the SSD specific gravity is 2.59 with an absorption value equal to 3.67% (see
Appendix 5).

4
Figure 6. Saturated surface dry state of natural sand Figure 7. Specific gravity test of natural sand

Figure 8. Sand Equivalent test of natural sand Figure 9. Sieve Analysis test

5
Figure 10. Coarse aggregates after passing through the sieves during sieve analysis test

Figure 11. Bulk density test of coarse aggregates

6
c. Rubber scraps from waste tires
Rubber is provided by Modern Advanced Polymers International (MAPI) (see Appendix 6).
It is collected after grinding old tires and divided into different ranges based on their
grading.
In this research I was interested in used crumb and powder rubber.

i. Crumb rubber
The size of the crumbs ranges from 0.1 to 0.08 mm (see Appendix 7).

ii. Powder rubber

The size of the powder ranges between 0.04 to 0.06 mm (see Appendix 8)

Figure 12. Crumb rubber Figure 13. Powder rubber

After performing a sieve analysis for each grade of the rubber, different mixture
proportions of crumb and powder rubber were prepared until getting the desired
combined grading which was obtained by mixing 80% of powder rubber and 20% or
crumb rubber (see Appendix 9).
d. Steel fibers from waste tires
The steel fibers collected from the waste tires were also supplied by MAPI. After
shredding the waste tires, all the generated waste is sent over a magnetic conveyor where
only metal waste recuperated thus separating the rubber waste from the steel fibers.
After that, the steel fibers are passed through a screen circulated by a magnetic field to
reduce quantity of rubber waste that might have passed over the magnetic conveyor.

7
 The collected steel fibers have irregular and different lengths, they were either twisted or
shredded due to the process of tires shredding. The fibers, though having passed through
multiple magnetic field, they still have rubber residue over their surface.

Figure 14. Steel fibers from waste tires

e. Hooked end commercial steel fibers

This type of manufactured fibers is made out of steel wires with a regular length ranging
from 30mm to 70mm. the extremities of the fibers and bent to insure the good binding
with the concrete. These fibers comes in different ranges, diameters, lengths and forms.

Figure 15. Commercial hooked end steel fibers

8
f. Admixture
The used admixture is a high range water reducing admixture with a specific gravity of
1.19. The admixture conforms to admixtures types A and F stated in ASTM C494 and was
supplied by ARACO (see Appendix 10).

Figure 16. High range water reducing admixture

9
Mix Designs
a. Witness mix
Concrete mix proportioning was done using the volumetric method in accordance with
ACI 211.1.
First the quantity of cement is assumed to be 320 Kg/m3 and the water to cement ratio is
taken to be 0.53 thus the quantity of free water is assumed to be 170L/m3 with an
entrapped air content of 2% and 1% dosage of high range water reducer from the total
mass of cementitious materials.

Fig 17. Sampling of witness mix

10
Table 1. Witness mix proportioning

Material Specific Gravity Mass Kg/m3 Volume L/m3

Cement 3.15 320 102
Water 1 170 170
Air 1.22 24.4 20
High range water reducer 1.21 3.2 2.64
Total Volume of aggregates 707
55% of the volume: Coarse aggregates
Of which 60% as 25mm coarse aggregates and 40% as 12.5mm 389
medium aggregates
25mm coarse aggregates 2.66 622 234
12.5mm medium aggregates 2.66 414 156
45% of the volume: Fine aggregates
318
Of which 52% as crushed sand stone and 48% as natural sand
Crushed sand stone 2.61 433 166
Natural sand 2.59 396 153
Total 2383 1003

The aggregates are to be considered in saturated surface dry condition and the quantity
of water mentioned in the table is considered as the quantity of free water to be involved
in the hydration process of the cement.
See Appendix 11 for the combined grading analysis of the witness mix (Mix 1).

11
 b. Concrete with rubber scraps
For this mix, 7.5% of the total volume of fine aggregates is replaced with the rubber
mixture.
Table 2. Mix with rubber scraps proportioning

Material Specific Gravity Mass Kg/m3 Volume L/m3

Cement 3.15 320 102
Water 1.00 170 170
Air 1.22 24.4 20
High range water reducer 1.21 3.2 2.64
Total Volume of aggregates 707
55% of the volume: Coarse aggregates
Of which 60% as 25mm coarse aggregates and 40% as 12.5mm 389
medium aggregates
25mm coarse aggregates 2.66 622 234
12.5mm medium aggregates 2.66 414 156
45% of the volume: Fine aggregates
Of which 7.5% as rubber mixture and 48.1% as crushed sand stone 318
and 44.4% as natural sand
Rubber Mixture 2.70 65 24
Crushed sand stone 2.61 400 153
Natural sand 2.59 365 141
Total 2383 1002
See Appendix 12 for the combined grading analysis of the concrete with rubber scraps
(Mix 2).
c. Concrete with hooked end fibers
According to manufacturer’s recommendation, hooked end steel fibers are added as 0.5%
of the total concrete mix volume. Having a specific gravity equal to 2.68, around 14Kg of
commercial steel fibers are to be added to the concrete mix. Unfortunately, I was unable
to find commercial hooked end steel fibers in Lebanon and couldn’t prepare the desired
concrete mix.

d. Concrete with steel fibers from waste tires

Steel fibers collected from waste tires are added based on the same volume percentage
as the commercial hooked end fibers (0.5% of the total volume of the mix), and having a
specific gravity around 2, 10 Kg of recycled steel fibers are to be added to the witness mix.

12
 e. Concrete with rubber scraps and steel fibers from waste tires
Both the rubber mixture and the recycled fibers are to be added to the witness mix with
the same proportions are the aforementioned concrete mixes.
See Appendix 13 for the combined grading analysis of the concrete with rubber scraps
(Mix 3).

f. Mixing and sampling procedure

As a result, four 300L concrete mixes were prepared based on the following proportions:

Table 3. Performed mixes proportions

Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4

Cement 96 Kg 96 Kg 96 Kg 96 Kg
Water 51 L 51 L 51 L 51 L
Admixture 960 g 960 g 960 g 960 g
25mm 186.6 Kg 186.6 Kg 186.6 Kg 186.6 Kg
12.5mm 124.2 Kg 124.2 Kg 124.2 Kg 124.2 Kg
Crushed sand 129.9 Kg 120 Kg 129.9 Kg 120 Kg
Natural Sand 118.8 Kg 109.5 Kg 118.8 Kg 109.5 Kg
Rubber 0 19.5 Kg 0 19.5 Kg
Recycled Fibers 0 0 3 Kg 3 Kg

Before starting the mixing process, the moisture content of the aggregates is measured,
and the corresponding adjustment to the quantities of aggregates and water were made.
For each mix, the proportions of each ingredient were measured using a 100 Kg scale,
then were dumped in batching plant pan mixer to insure the adequate mixing of the
concrete mix. Slump, density and air content of each fresh concrete mix were recorded
and a visual inspection checkup was performed. Then, eighteen 150x300mm cylinders
and six 15x15x50cm prisms were cast from each mix. The concrete samples were
unmolded the next day, labeled and then disposed in a curing tank. The cylindrical
samples are to be taken from the tank 24hours prior to the testing while the prisms are
to be taken from the tank just before the tests.

13
Fig 18. Slump test of concrete with rubber mixture

14
 g. Testing Schedule
To facilitate the tracking of the upcoming tests, a schedule was prepared to be followed for the next couple of months to
insure the testing of the sample on time.

Table 4. Testing schedule

3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days

Compressive Compressive
Strength + Strength +
Date of Modulus of Modulus of
Mix Type of Mix Unmolding Compressive Elasticity + Compressive Elasticity + Compressive
pour
Strength Flexural Strength Flexural Strength
Strength + Strength +
Modulus of Modulus of
Rupture Rupture + RCP
Mix 1 Witness 17-Sep-19 18-Sep-19 20-Sep-19 24-Sep-19 01-Oct-19 15-Oct-19 12-Nov-19
Mix 2 Rubber 20-Sep-19 21-Sep-19 23-Sep-19 27-Sep-19 04-Oct-19 18-Oct-19 15-Nov-19
Mix 3 Fibers 28-Sep-19 29-Sep-19 01-Oct-19 05-Oct-19 12-Oct-19 26-Oct-19 23-Nov-19
Mix 4 Rubber + Fibers 30-Sep-19 01-Oct-19 03-Oct-19 07-Oct-19 14-Oct-19 28-Oct-19 25-Nov-19

15
 Results
a. Fresh Concrete
i. Visual inspection
The witness mix was a little bit coarse but still it has the perfect consistency to be
poured and finished easily. While the Mix 2 containing only rubber mixture had a
very fine texture which can be resolved by either using a coarser rubber mixture
or a lower w/c ratio. On the other hand, the texture of both Mix 3 and Mix 4 was
very coarse since these 2 mixes incorporates steel fibers making the concrete less
workable and harder to finish.

ii. Slump
The slump test was directly performed after the mixing of the ingredients. The
slump of the witness mix was 18 cm while the slump of mix containing the rubber
mixture was 16 cm and that of the mix containing the recycled fibers was 12 cm
while the slump of the mix containing both rubber and fibers was only 8cm.
Based on the above mentioned result we can see that the rubber does not have a
major effect on the consistency of the concrete and this is mainly because the
rubber does not absorb the mixing water, while the recycled steel fibers decrease
the slump drastically due to their robust structure but this issue can be easily
solved by increasing the dosage of the water reducing and plasticizing admixtures.

Fig 19. Slump test of concrete with rubber mixture Fig 20. Slump test of concrete with steel fibers from waste tire

16
iii. Density
A density check was run for each mix to check the validity of the mix design
proportions. It can be seen from the resulting values that the concrete mixes 2
and 4 containing rubber mixture has lightly lower density than the mixes 1 and 3
respectively which implies that rubber when used in concrete reduces the density
of the concrete.

Fig 21. Determining the real density of fresh concrete

iv. Air Content

The air content in the witness mix was 2.4% while the air content in the other
three mixes were 1.4%, 3% and 2.8% respectively. We can see clearly that the fine
grading of the rubber mixture has helped decreasing the voids in the concrete
matrix of Mix 2 while the use of steel fibers in Mix 3 increases the voids creating
more space for air to be entrapped in the mixture. So in order to decrease the air
content in Mix 4 a finer rubber mixture could be used to solve this issue. But it is
important the mention that even the higher air content percentage present in Mix
3 is still within the acceptable range.

17
 Fig 22. Determining the air content in concrete

Table 5. Fresh Concrete Testing Results

Mix Slump at t=0min Density Air Content

Mix 1 18 cm 2427 Kg/m3 2.4%
Mix 2 16 cm 2389 Kg/m3 1.4%
Mix 3 12 cm 2464 Kg/m3 3%
Mix 4 8 cm 2447 Kg/m3 2.8%

b. Hardened Concrete
i. Compressive Strength
At each date, 2 cylinders were tested for compressive strength. The results are
shown below.
Interpreting the results, we can clearly state that the witness mix has a very high
compressive strength and this strength decreases drastically after the
introduction of rubber to mixes 2 and 4. And even the use of waste steel fibers did
not enhance the compressive strength in mixes 3 and 4 but still it presented higher
values than that of mix 2.

18
 Fig 23. Compressive strength test of cylindrical specimen

Fig 24. Compressive Strength Results

45 42.629

40
Compressive Strength (MPa)

34.937
35 32.911

30 28.073

25
19.748
19.513 17.451
20 18.122 16.801 17.566
16.161 15.719
14.764
15
12.517 12.211 12.109
9.496 8.940
10 7.838
7.045

0
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4

3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days

19
 Fig 25. Compressive Strength Growth
45

40
Compressive Strength (MPa)

35

30

25

20

15
Mix 1
10 Mix 2
Mix 3
5
Mix 4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Age (Days)

ii. Modulus of Elasticity

At 7 days age and 28 days age, modulus of elasticity testing were performed.
The results are shown in the below table. It can be seen that the witness mix
presents very high modulus of elasticity while the other 3 mixes presents lower
moduli but relatively in the same range. This indicates that the 3 mixes subject of
our study are susceptible to be deformed under load, in particular mixes 2 and 4
which contains rubber powder.
Table 6. Modulus of Elasticity Results

Mix Ec at 7 Days (GPa) Ec at 28 days (GPa)

Mix 1 31.382 34.118
Mix 2 14.576 19.807
Mix 3 21.421 22.766
Mix 4 19.142 21.617

20
 iii. Flexural Strength
At 7 days age and 28 days age, flexural strength tests using simple beam with third-
point loading were performed. The results for each mix are shown in the below
chart.

Fig 26. Flexural Strength Results

3.50
3.26
3.10
3.00
Flexural Strength (MPa)

2.46 2.44 2.46

2.50
2.21
2.13

2.00
1.77

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4

7 Days 28 Days

21
 Fig 27. Fractured Beams Following Flexural Strength Test

c. Cost Analysis
A comparison between the costs of each of the 4 mixes has been made.
It can be seen that the new proposed mixes are much expensive than the witness mix;
while the witness mix costs a little bit over 54.5$, the mix incorporating rubber costs
66.76$, the mix incorporating steel fibers costs 61.4$ and the mix containing both
materials can go over 73.5$

22
 Table 7. Cost Analysis Report

Unit Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4

Material
Price ($) Quantity/m3 Price Quantity/m3 Price Quantity/m3 Price Quantity/m3 Price
Cement 99$/Ton 0.32 31.68 0.32 31.68 0.32 31.68 0.32 31.68
Admixture 0.5$/L 2.64 1.32 2.64 1.32 2.64 1.32 2.64 1.32
25mm 18$/m3 0.41 7.38 0.41 7.38 0.41 7.38 0.41 7.38
12.5mm 18$/m3 0.27 4.86 0.27 4.86 0.27 4.86 0.27 4.86
Crushed stone 18$/m3 0.26 4.68 0.24 4.32 0.26 4.68 0.24 4.32
Natural sand 21$/m3 0.22 4.62 0.2 4.2 0.22 4.62 0.2 4.2
Rubber 200$/ton 0 0 0.065 13 0 0 0.065 13
Recycled
685$/ton 0 0 0 0 0.01 6.85 0.01 6.85
Steel Fibers
Total Price 54.54$ 66.76$ 61.39$ 73.61$

23
Conclusion
Based on the above, even though the environmental effects induced by decreasing the need to
use the natural resources and replacing it by waste recycled materials, the results are not that
much encouraging.
In terms of concrete performance, the compressive and flexural strength of concrete
incorporating recycled materials can be improved by using a lower water to cement ratio but
before all the results are out, we cannot presume if this concrete can be used as a structural
concrete or no.
On the other hand, the performance of concrete mixes 2 and 4 (mixes containing rubber) should
be studied thoroughly in terms of thermal and acoustic isolation and in that case these type for
concrete could be used for specific purposes where the strength and cost are not the major
criteria to judge the effectiveness and usefulness of the concrete.

24
 Quality Department
Coarse Aggregates Test Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: 25mm Coarse Aggregate
Material Finer Than 0.75mm (Procedure A) ASTM C117
Pan Weight (g) Dry Unwashed Weight (g) Dry Washed Weight (g) Result (%)
275.00 1000.00 998.00 0.2
Bulk Density Volume of Mold (m3) 0.005 Mass of Empty Mold (Kg) 4.549 ASTM C29
Method Rodding Jigging Jigging
Mass of Filled Mold (Kg) 12.104 12 11.36
Density (Kg/m3) 1511 1490 1362
Specific Gravity & Water Absorption for Coarse Aggregates ASTM C127
Weight of Pan (g) 165 Oven Dry Specific Gravity 2.67
Weight of moist test sample 4000 SSD Specific Gravity 2.66

Weight of oven dry sample (g) 3988 Apparent Specific Gravity 2.72

Weight of sample at SSD state

2000 Oven Dry Density 2659.11
(g)

Weight of displaced water (g) 1255 SSD Density 2653.35

Weight of dried sample (g) 1986 Apparent Density 2710.03

Absorption 0.6
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 3000 Fineness Modulus 7.07 ASTM C136
Sieve Size (mm) Pan 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19 25
Mass Retained 11 2 1 1 173 1263 1532 17 0
Percentage
0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 42% 51% 1% 0%
Retained (%)
Cumulative
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 52% 1% 0%
Retained (%)
Percentage
0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 48% 99% 100%
Passing (%)

26
 Quality Department
Coarse Aggregates Test Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: 12.5mm Medium Agg.
Material Finer Than 0.75mm (Procedure A) ASTM C117
Pan Weight (g) Dry Unwashed Weight (g) Dry Washed Weight (g) Result (%)
274 1000 996.50 0.35
Bulk Density Volume of Mold (m3) 0.005 Mass of Empty Mold (Kg) 4.549 ASTM C29
Method Rodding Jigging Jigging
Mass of Filled Mold (Kg) 12.014 12.158 11.381
Density (Kg/m3) 1493 1521 1366
Specific Gravity & Water Absorption for Coarse Aggregates ASTM C127
Weight of Pan (g) 274 Oven Dry Specific Gravity 2.66
Weight of moist test sample 2500 SSD Specific Gravity 2.66

Weight of oven dry sample (g) 2485 Apparent Specific Gravity 2.72

Weight of sample at SSD state

2000 Oven Dry Density 2656.43
(g)

Weight of displaced water (g) 1255 SSD Density 2653.35

Weight of dried sample (g) 1984 Apparent Density 2714.73

Absorption 1.42
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 3000 Fineness Modulus 5.90 ASTM C136
Sieve Size (mm) Pan 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19 25
Mass Retained
55 0 0 275 2376 294 0 0 0
(g)
Percentage
2% 0% 0% 9% 79% 10% 0% 0% 0%
Retained (%)
Cumulative
100% 98% 98% 98% 89% 10% 0% 0% 0%
Retained (%)
Percentage
0% 2% 2% 2% 11% 90% 100% 100% 100%
Passing (%)
27
 Quality Department
Fine Aggregates Test Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: Crushed Sand
Material Finer Than 0.75mm (Procedure A) ASTM C117
Pan Weight (g) Dry Unwashed Weight (g) Dry Washed Weight (g) Result (%)
271.00 1000.00 927.80 7.32
Bulk Density Volume of Mold (m3) 0.005 Mass of Empty Mold (Kg) 4.549 ASTM C29
Method Rodding Jigging Jigging
Mass of Filled Mold (Kg) 12.656 12.85 12.216
Density (Kg/m3) 1621 1660 1533
Specific Gravity & Water Absorption for Fine Aggregates ASTM C128
Weight of Pan (g) 212 Oven Dry Specific Gravity 2.67
Weight of oven dry specimen (g) 2000 SSD Specific Gravity 2.61
Weight pycnometer filled with water
1438 Apparent Specific Gravity 2.70
to calibration mark (g)
Weight pyknometer filled with
specimen and water to calibration 1750 Oven Dry Density 2663.33
mark (g)
Mass of saturated surface-dry
500 SSD Density 2603.48
specimen (g)
Absorption (%) 2.97
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 2000 Fineness Modulus 3.51 ASTM C136
Sieve Size (mm) Pan 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5
Mass Retained
54 92 131 222 358 501 510 114 18
(g)
Percentage
3% 5% 7% 11% 18% 25% 26% 6% 1%
Retained (%)
Cumulative
100% 97% 93% 86% 75% 57% 32% 7% 1%
Retained (%)
Percentage
0% 3% 7% 14% 25% 43% 68% 93% 99%
Passing (%)
28
 Quality Department
Fine Aggregates Test Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: Natural Sand
Material Finer Than 0.75mm (Procedure A) ASTM C117
Pan Weight (g) Dry Unwashed Weight (g) Dry Washed Weight (g) Result (%)
278.00 1000.00 952.50 4.85
Sand Equivalent Value of Fine Aggregates ASTM D2419
Tube 1 Tube 2 Result (%)
h sand (cm) 99 103
h total (cm) 162 164 61.96
S.E. (%) 61.11 62.80
Bulk Density Volume of Mold (m3) 0.005 Mass of Empty Mold (Kg) 4.549 ASTM C29
Method Rodding Jigging Jigging
Mass of Filled Mold (Kg) 9.908 10.091 9.085
Density (Kg/m3) 1732 1765 1584
Specific Gravity & Water Absorption for Fine Aggregates ASTM C128
Weight of Pan (g) 212 Oven Dry Specific Gravity 2.54
Weight of oven dry specimen (g) 497 SSD Specific Gravity 2.59
Weight pycnometer filled with water
1436 Apparent Specific Gravity 2.62
to calibration mark (g)
Weight pyknometer filled with
specimen and water to calibration 1745 Oven Dry Density 2533.65
mark (g)
Mass of saturated surface-dry
500 SSD Density 2583.53
specimen (g)
Absorption (%) 3.67
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 2000 Fineness Modulus 1.43 ASTM C136
Sieve Size Pan 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5
Mass Retained
51 292 892 560 114 27 17 7 40
(g)
Percentage
3% 15% 45% 28% 6% 1% 1% 0% 2%
Retained (%)
Cumulative
100% 97% 83% 38% 10% 5% 3% 2% 2%
Retained (%)
Percentage
0% 3% 17% 62% 90% 95% 97% 98% 98%
Passing (%)
29
 Quality Department
Sieve Analysis Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: Crumb Rubber
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 1200 ASTM C136

Sieve Size Mass Percentage Cumulative Percentage Crumb Rubber

(mm) Retained (g) Retained (%) Retained (%) Passing (%)
120.00%
37.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
12.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 80.00%
9.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
4.75 49 4.08% 4.08% 95.92% 60.00%
2.36 178 14.83% 18.92% 81.08%
1.18 201 16.75% 35.67% 64.33% 40.00%
0.6 343 28.58% 64.25% 35.75%
0.3 273 22.75% 87.00% 13.00% 20.00%

0.15 133 11.08% 98.08% 1.92%

0.075 22 1.83% 99.92% 0.08% 0.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pan 1 0.08% 100.00% 0.00%

30
 Quality Department
Sieve Analysis Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: Powder Rubber
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 1200 ASTM C136

Sieve Size Mass Percentage Cumulative Percentage Powder Rubber

(mm) Retained (g) Retained (%) Retained (%) Passing (%)
120.00%
37.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
12.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 80.00%
9.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
4.75 49 4.08% 4.08% 95.92% 60.00%
2.36 178 14.83% 18.92% 81.08%
1.18 201 16.75% 35.67% 64.33% 40.00%
0.6 343 28.58% 64.25% 35.75%
0.3 273 22.75% 87.00% 13.00% 20.00%

0.15 133 11.08% 98.08% 1.92%

0.075 22 1.83% 99.92% 0.08% 0.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pan 1 0.08% 100.00% 0.00%

31
 Quality Department
Sieve Analysis Report
Sampling Date: 20 September 2019 Testing Date: Material Type: Rubber Mixture (80% Powder)
Sieve Analysis Weight of dry sample (g) 2000 ASTM C136

Sieve Size Mass Percentage Cumulative Percentage Rubber Mixture

(mm) Retained (g) Retained (%) Retained (%) Passing (%)
120.00%
37.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
25 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
19 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
12.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 80.00%
9.5 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
4.75 35 1.75% 1.75% 98.25% 60.00%
2.36 229 11.45% 13.20% 86.80%
1.18 168 8.40% 21.60% 78.40% 40.00%
0.6 826 41.30% 62.90% 37.10%
0.3 455 22.75% 85.65% 14.35% 20.00%

0.15 234 11.70% 97.35% 2.65%

0.075 43 2.15% 99.50% 0.50% 0.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pan 10 0.50% 100.00% 0.00%

32
 ARACO SP10
Ultra High Range Water-Reducer Admixture

RELEASE
SP10
ProductDescription
ARACO SP10is a highly effective dual action liquid
super plasticizer for the production of free flowing
concrete or as a substantial water-reducing agent

ARACO
for promoting high quality strength concrete.

Standard Compliance

ARACO MOLD
• ASTM C-494 Types A and F

Applications
ARACO SP10is used as a super plasticizer and
water reducer with the following advantages:
• Slabs and foundations
• Paving and industrial floor
• Walls, columns and piers
• Slender components with densely
packed reinforcement
• Piles
• Pre-casted concrete
ARACO SP10
• Pre-stressed concrete
• Bridges and cantilever structures
PACKAGE 1000 lt. flow bins Bulk
ProductAdvantages DOSAGE 0.5 to 3% by weight
• Up to 35% water reduction.
• Final strength improved up to 40%.
• Workability is greatly improved. Carry on the trial mixes to obtain the correct dosage
• Concrete requires less vibration.
• Improved cohesion of the concrete mix
reduces significantly the risk of Safetyinstructions
segregation and allows greater time for Product may cause skin irritation. Wear gloves and
placement. goggles and apply barrier cream to hands. In contact
with eyes or mucous membrane, flush immediately
ProductData with plenty of warm water and seek medical attention
without delay.
Characteristics
Composition Sulphonated naphthalene Legalnotes
based polymer The information, recommendations and application -
Appearance Brown liquid based on ARACO current knowledge and experience
of the products when properly stored, handled and
Specific Gravity 1.19±0.015 applied under normal conditions. ARACO products are
Chloride Content Nil guaranteed against defective materials and
manufacture and are sold subject to its standard
Storage Condition Store In a dry shaded
conditions. Users should always refer to the most
condition, at temperature recent Technical Data Sheet for the product
between 5°C and 35°C concerned, copies of which will be supplied on request.
Shelf Life Original sealed package has
a shelf like of 12 months if
stored properly.

ARACOFORBUILDINGMATERIALSANDCONTRACTING

Version 2018
Lebanon, Beirut: Fax: +961 8 512413/ Tel:+961 1 562510
Email:[email protected] / MOB:+961 3 104539
 Quality Department
Concrete Mix Combined Grading
Mix 1 Combined Grading
Coarse 622 Sieve Size 0.15mm 0.30mm 0.60mm 1.18mm 2.36mm 4.75mm 9.5mm 12.5mm 19mm Proportion
Medium 414 Coarse Passing 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 48 99
33.35
Crushed 433 Com. grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 2.00 16.01 33.02
N. Sand 396 Med. Passing 0 0 0 0 0.77 11.77 90.6 99.47 100
22.20
Cement 320 Com. grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 2.61 20.11 22.08 22.20
Water 170 Crush. Passing 7 14 25 43 68 93 99 100 100
23.22
Admix 3.2 Com. grading 1.63 3.25 5.80 9.98 15.79 21.59 22.98 23.22 23.22
Sand Passing 17 62 90 95 97 98 98 100 100
21.23
Density 2358.2 Com. grading 3.61 13.16 19.11 20.17 20.60 20.81 20.81 21.23 21.23
Overall Grading 5.23 16.42 24.91 30.15 36.55 45.35 65.91 82.54 99.67
Combined Aggregates
1865 Combined Grading Combined Grading
Limits max
Propotions (%)
Limits min
Coarse 33.35
Medium 22.20 100
Crushed 23.22 90
N. Sand 21.23
80

% Checking 100.00 70
Passing %

60
Combined FM
50
FM Crushed 3.51
FM N. Sand 1.43 40
C. FM 2.52 30

20
Combined Material Finer
Aggregate MF Result ProportionsGrading % 10
Coarse 0.20% 33.35% 0.07% 0
Medium 0.35% 22.20% 0.08% Sieve
Crushed 7.32% 23.22% 1.70%
N. Sand 4.85% 21.23% 1.03%
Combined MF % 2.87%

34
 Quality Department
Concrete Mix Combined Grading
Mix 2 Combined Grading
Coarse 622 Sieve Size 0.15mm 0.30mm 0.60mm 1.18mm 2.36mm 4.75mm 9.5mm 12.5mm 19mm Proportion
Medium 414 Coarse Passing 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 48 99
33.33
Crushed 400 Com. grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 2.00 16.00 33.00
N. Sand 365 Med. Passing 0 0 0 0 0.77 11.77 90.6 99.47 100
22.19
Rubber 65 Com. grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 2.61 20.10 22.07 22.19
Cement 320 Crush. Passing 7 14 25 43 68 93 99 100 100
21.44
Water 170 Com. grading 1.50 3.00 5.36 9.22 14.58 19.94 21.22 21.44 21.44
Admix 3.2 Sand Passing 17 62 90 95 97 98 98 100 100
19.56
Com. grading 3.33 12.13 17.60 18.58 18.97 19.17 19.17 19.56 19.56
Density 2359.2 Rubber Passing 2.65 14.35 37.1 78.4 86.8 98.25 100 100 100
3.48
Com. grading 0.09 0.50 1.29 2.73 3.02 3.42 3.48 3.48 3.48
Combined Aggregates Overall Grading 4.92 15.63 24.26 30.53 36.74 45.47 65.98 82.55 99.67
1866
Combined Grading
Combined Grading
Propotions (%)
Limits max
Coarse 33.33
Medium 22.19 Limits min
Crushed 21.44 100
N. Sand 19.56
90
Rubber 3.48
80
% Checking 100.00
70
Passing %

Combined FM 60
FM Crushed 3.51
50
FM N. Sand 1.43
C. FM 2.52 40

30
Combined Material Finer
Aggregate MF Result ProportionsGrading % 20
Coarse 0.20% 33.33% 0.07% 10
Medium 0.35% 22.19% 0.08%
Crushed 7.32% 21.44% 1.57% 0
N. Sand 4.85% 19.56% 0.95% Sieve
Combined MF % 2.66%

35
 Compressive Strength Results of Concrete Specimen
3M-QD-F-13; ASTM C39/C39-M
Calibration Date of Crushing Machine: 11/02/2019

Cross Dry Moist Compressive

Concrete Diameter Height Density Casting Age Maximum Type Of
Sample ID Section Weight Weight Testing Date Strength
Grade (mm) (mm) (Kg/m3) Date (Days) Load (KN) Fracture
(mm2) (Kg) (Kg) (Mpa)
3ML190935 Mix1 154.93 295 18852.15 12.982 7.533 2382.46 9/17/2019 9/20/2019 3 341.640 18.122 5
3ML190936 Mix2 153.18 300 18428.67 11.953 6.450 2172.09 9/20/2019 9/23/2019 3 134.217 7.215 5
3ML190939 Mix2 153.90 295 18602.32 11.877 6.381 2161.03 9/20/2019 9/23/2019 3 126.692 6.875 5
3ML190948 Mix1 146.24 304 16796.63 12.478 7.305 2412.14 9/17/2019 9/24/2019 7 486.504 28.964 3
3ML190949 Mix1 149.32 301 17511.60 12.696 7.442 2416.44 9/17/2019 9/24/2019 7 475.976 27.181 2
3ML190950 Mix2 147.21 306 17020.19 11.695 6.539 2268.23 9/20/2019 9/27/2019 7 182.821 10.741 5
3ML190951 Mix2 148.49 303 17317.46 11.447 6.200 2181.63 9/20/2019 9/27/2019 7 142.877 8.250 5
3ML191005 Mix1 149.71 299 17603.20 12.707 7.414 2400.72 9/17/2019 10/1/2019 14 573.344 32.570 2
3ML191006 Mix1 152.12 297 18174.50 13.192 7.272 2228.38 9/17/2019 10/1/2019 14 604.322 33.151 5
3ML191007 Mix3 152.48 300 18260.63 13.058 7.486 2343.50 9/28/2019 10/1/2019 3 153.573 8.410 5
3ML191008 Mix3 152.71 295 18315.76 12.701 7.314 2357.71 9/28/2019 10/1/2019 3 173.450 9.470 5
3ML191011 Mix4 151.51 299 18029.03 12.142 7.066 2392.04 9/30/2019 10/3/2019 3 124.231 6.891 5
3ML191012 Mix4 153.34 300 18467.19 12.296 7.182 2404.38 9/30/2019 10/3/2019 3 162.991 8.784 5
3ML191014 Mix2 151.67 295 18067.13 11.869 6.722 2306.00 9/20/2019 10/4/2019 14 238.166 13.182 5
3ML191015 Mix2 147.12 300 16999.39 11.150 6.474 2384.52 9/20/2019 10/4/2019 14 201.470 11.852 5
3ML191019 Mix3 151.79 299 18095.73 13.078 7.592 2383.89 9/28/2019 10/5/2019 7 259.342 14.632 5
3ML191020 Mix3 153.80 300 18578.15 12.320 7.363 2485.37 9/28/2019 10/5/2019 7 187.459 10.090 5
3ML191023 Mix4 153.11 297 18411.83 12.333 7.124 2367.63 9/30/2019 10/7/2019 7 206.183 11.198 5
3ML191024 Mix4 151.62 300 18055.22 12.556 7.026 2270.52 9/30/2019 10/7/2019 7 235.074 13.020 5
3ML191030 Mix3 152.42 298 18246.26 12.649 7.123 2289.00 9/28/2019 10/12/2019 14 325.646 17.847 5

36
 Compressive Strength Results of Concrete Specimen
3M-QD-F-13; ASTM C39/C39-M
Calibration Date of Crushing Machine: 11/02/2019

Cross Dry Moist Compressive

Concrete Diameter Height Density Casting Age Maximum Type Of
Sample ID Section Weight Weight Testing Date Strength
Grade (mm) (mm) (Kg/m3) Date (Days) Load (KN) Fracture
(mm2) (Kg) (Kg) (Mpa)
3ML191031 Mix3 153.52 297 18510.57 12.601 7.152 2312.53 9/28/2019 10/12/2019 14 319.935 17.284 5
3ML191032 Mix4 152.93 299 18368.57 12.655 7.101 2278.54 9/30/2019 10/14/2019 14 280.810 15.288 5
3ML191033 Mix4 153.13 300 18416.64 12.421 6.746 2188.72 9/30/2019 10/14/2019 14 262.248 14.240 5
3ML191036 Mix1 149.91 303 17650.26 12.709 7.433 2408.83 9/17/2019 10/15/2019 28 670..652 37.997 2
3ML191037 Mix1 152.66 300 18303.76 13.929 7.393 2131.12 9/17/2019 10/15/2019 28 583.446 31.876 5
3ML191042 Mix2 152.41 296 18243.86 12.161 6.984 2349.04 9/20/2019 10/18/2019 28 275.627 15.108 3
3ML191043 Mix2 147.37 300 17057.21 11.431 6.743 2438.35 9/20/2019 10/18/2019 28 293.619 17.214 5
3ML191057 Mix3 151.71 297 18076.66 13.139 7.564 2356.77 9/28/2019 10/26/2019 28 359.921 19.911 5
3ML191058 Mix3 153.48 295 18500.93 13.016 7.498 2358.83 9/28/2019 10/26/2019 28 353.639 19.115 2
3ML191059 Mix4 153.64 298 18539.52 12.720 7.561 2465.59 9/30/2019 10/28/2019 28 332.316 17.932 3
3ML191060 Mix4 152.84 296 18346.95 12.239 7.248 2452.21 9/30/2019 10/28/2019 28 247.784 13.505 5
3ML191110 Mix1 153.57 297 18522.63 13.221 7.705 2396.85 9/17/2019 11/12/2019 56 758.773 40.965 3
3ML191111 Mix1 153.38 295 18476.83 13.105 7.645 2400.18 9/17/2019 11/12/2019 56 818.384 44.292 3
3ML191117 Mix2 148.76 302 17380.50 11.930 6.452 2177.80 9/20/2019 11/15/2019 56 298.760 17.189 2
3ML191118 Mix2 152.68 295 18308.56 11.916 6.291 2118.40 9/20/2019 11/15/2019 56 300.474 16.412 3
3ML191125 Mix3 153.38 297 18476.83 12.878 7.361 2334.24 9/28/2019 11/23/2019 56 382.222 17.764 2
3ML191126 Mix3 153.89 295 18599.90 12.879 7.378 2341.21 9/28/2019 11/23/2019 56 398.950 21.731 3
3ML191138 Mix4 153.32 300 18462.37 12.475 6.939 2253.43 9/30/2019 11/25/2019 56 330.698 17.912 2
3ML191139 Mix4 153.18 296 18428.67 12.566 7.036 2272.33 9/30/2019 11/25/2019 56 313.087 16.989 5

37
References
1. Brandon Gaille, Small business & marketing advice, brandongaille.com
2. The Importance of tire recycling by Rick Leblanc, The balance small business, 2018
3. Tire derived products, Jeniffer Caldwell, 2018
4. Effects of tire wastes replacing cement on the mechanical properties of concrete (2017),
Marinella Barbuta et al., “Gheorghe Asachi” technical university of Iasi, Faculty of civil
engineering and building services, Romania
5. Effect of waste tire rubber on mechanical and durability properties of concrete (2017), A.
Sofi, Department of structural and geotechnical engineering, School of civil and chemical
engineering, VIT university, India
6. Scrap tire steel fiber as a substitute for commercial steel fiber in cement mortar:
Engineering properties and cost-benefit analyses (2018), Obinna Onuaguluchi and
Nemkumar Banthia, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Canada
7. Scrap-tire-rubber replacement for aggregate and filler in concrete (2008), Eshmaiel
Ganjian, Morteza Khorami, Ali Akbar Maghsoudi, Coventry University, Faculty of
Engineering and Computing, Department of Built Environment, United Kingdom
8. Mechanical behavior of concretes containing waste steel fibers recovered from scrap tires
(2016), Ozkan Sengul, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul,
Turkey
1. DRAMIX ® steel fibers, Belgium
2. ACI 211.1-91, Standard practice for selecting proportions for normal, heavyweight and
mass concrete
3. ASTM C566, Standard Test Method for Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate
by Drying
4. ASTM C127, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption
of Coarse Aggregate
5. ASTM C128, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption
of Fine Aggregate
6. ASTM C136, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates
7. ASTM C29, Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate
8. ASTM C117, Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in
Mineral Aggregates by Washing
9. ASTM D2419, Standard Test Method for Sand Equivalent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate
10. ASTM C143, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete
11. ASTM C138, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete
12. ASTM C231, Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Pressure Method

55
13. ASTM C39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens
14. ASTM C469, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of
Concrete in Compression
15. ASTM C293, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam
With Center-Point Loading)
16. ASTM C33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates
17. ASTM C78, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam
with Third-Point Loading)
18. ASTM C172, Standard Practice for Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete
19. ASTM C31, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field
20. ASTM C192, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory

56