Materials: Mechanical Properties of Rubberised Geopolymer Concrete

materials
Article
Mechanical Properties of Rubberised Geopolymer Concrete
Md Kamrul Hassan, Mohammed Irfan Ibrahim *, Sukanta Kumer Shill and Safat Al-Deen
School of Engineering and Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia;
z5182900@zmail.unsw.edu.au (M.K.H.); s.shill@unsw.edu.au (S.K.S.); s.al-deen@unsw.edu.au (S.A.-D.)
* Correspondence: mohammed_irfan.ibrahim@unsw.edu.au
Abstract: The environmental impact of non-biodegradable rubber waste can be severe if they are
buried in moist landfill soils or remain unused forever. This study deals with a sustainable approach
for reusing discarded tires in construction materials. Replacing ordinary Portland cement (OPC) with
an environmentally friendly geopolymer binder and integrating crumb rubber into pre-treated or
non-treated geopolymer concrete as a partial replacement of natural aggregate is a great alternative
to utilise tire waste and reduce CO2 emissions. Considering this, two sets of geopolymer concrete
(GPC) mixes were manufactured, referred to as core mixes. Fine aggregates of the core geopolymer
mixes were partially replaced with pre-treated and non-treated rubber crumbs to produce crumb
rubber geopolymer concrete (CRGPC). The mechanical properties, such as compressive strength,
stress–strain relationship, and elastic modulus of a rubberised geopolymer concrete of the reference
GPC mix and the CRGPC were examined thoroughly to determine the performance of the products.
Also, the mechanical properties of the CRGPC were compared with the existing material models.
The result shows that the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of CRGPC decrease with
the increase of rubber content; for instance, a 33% reduction of the compressive strength is observed
when 25% natural fine aggregate is replaced with crumb rubber. However, the strength and elasticity
reduction can be minimised using pre-treated rubber particles. Based on the experimental results,
stress–strain models for GPC and CRGPC are developed and proposed. The proposed models can
accurately predict the properties of GPC and CRGPC.
Keywords: crumb rubber; geopolymer concrete; rubber treatment; stress–strain curve; modulus of
elasticity; rubberised concrete
Citation: Hassan, M.K.; Ibrahim, M.I.;
Shill, S.K.; Al-Deen, S. Mechanical
Properties of Rubberised Geopolymer
Concrete. Materials 2024, 17, 1031. 1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17051031 Due to a growing demand, the production of automobile tires is continually increasing
Academic Editor: Dolores Eliche globally. However, it creates the widespread issue of disposing of worn tires in landfills [1].
Quesada The yearly buildup of discarded tires is currently estimated at 1000 million and will
potentially be increased to 1200 million by 2030 [2]. The environmental risks caused
Received: 29 December 2023 by heavy metals and contaminants in tires when they are buried in moist landfill soils,
Revised: 12 February 2024
leading to the release of poisons into groundwater, further aggravate this problem [3]. In
Accepted: 16 February 2024
response to the growing environmental risk, rubberised concrete is gaining popularity as
Published: 23 February 2024
a choice for structural applications [4,5]. This involves integrating crumb rubber, which
is obtained from discarded tires of trucks and automobiles, into concrete mixes. In recent
years, there has been a visible trend in exploring the use of waste rubber, particularly
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
after undergoing crushing treatment, as a substitute for natural aggregates like river sand
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. in concrete preparation [6]. River sand is one of the key ingredients of concrete and a
This article is an open access article non-renewable natural resource. Therefore, using crumb rubber in concrete offers an eco-
distributed under the terms and friendly solution to reduce the environmental impact associated with tire disposal along
conditions of the Creative Commons with minimising the depletion of natural resources [7].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Some studies have extensively investigated the incorporation of crumb rubber in
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ concrete, focusing primarily on the mechanical behaviours [2,8–13]. The quantity, dimen-
4.0/). sions, and form of rubber aggregate used in concrete have an impact on its mechanical
Materials 2024, 17, 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17051031 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2024, 17, 1031 2 of 25
properties. Based on an experimental study, Osama et al. [14] reported that the compressive
strength can drop 9% to 20% when 20% of sand is replaced with the rubber particles.
Khaloo et al. [15] stated that rubberised concrete with fine rubber particles has accept-
able workability, and the replacement of up to 25% mineral aggregates can maintain the
acceptable compressive strength of the concrete.
Additionally, the modulus of elasticity (MoE) of rubber-modified concrete is still
evolving as a great research interest among researchers. MoE of crumb rubber concrete
is observed to be decreased with the increase of rubber content [15–22]. In the past,
Zheng et al. [18] stated that a decrease of 5.7% to 28.6% in MoE of ground rubber concrete
occurred for a 15% to 45% replacement of coarse aggregates with rubber crumbs. For the
crushed rubberised concrete, a decrease in MoE was found at 16.5% to 25.0% compared
to the plain concrete. Li et al. [21] reported that a 41.9% decrease in the MoE value was
observed with 10% rubber crumb content. Another study by Xie et al. [20] highlighted
a 56.3% decrease in MoE when 16% of fine aggregates were replaced with rubber, using
recycled concrete aggregates as coarse aggregate. Given the variation in research outcomes,
establishing an accurate relationship between MoE and rubber content in the concrete is
challenging.
To reduce the strength loss of crumb rubber concrete (CRC), pre-treatment of rubber
particles has emerged as an effective approach, and researchers have explored various
methods to enhance the compressive strength of rubber concrete [10,23–25]. The chemical
pre-treatment of rubber, as reported in an experimental study [16], has shown improved
adherence and mechanical resistance compared to rubber concrete without pre-treatment.
Pham et al. [26] identified that pre-treatment of rubber with NaOH was a key factor
contributing to improved adhesion of rubber particles to other ingredients in the concrete
mix. Hence, pre-treatment is an essential phase in producing CRGPC, as it significantly
affects the bonding of rubber particles with cement paste [26–33]. Khalid Battal Najim [34]
experimentally studied the effect of different CR pre-treatment methods, such as water
washing, NaOH pre-treatment, cement paste and mortar pre-coating, etc. Raghavan [35]
produced high-strength concrete using NaOH solution with favourable results.
Geopolymer binder is considered an environmentally friendly alternative to OPC, as
it generates 70% less greenhouse gas [36,37]. Even though geopolymer concrete is a viable
building material, research on rubberised geopolymer concrete is still limited compared to
that on rubberised OPC concrete. Like plain concrete, the compressive strength of GPC is an
important design parameter. Studies shows that the increase in the concentration of sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) in terms of molarity increases the compressive strength of GPC [38,39].
Therefore, employing NaOH in the pre-treatment of crumb rubber to CRGPC not only
increases strength, but also holds the potential for minimising chemical waste. Recent
research by Giri et al. [39] shows that the compressive strength of CRGPC can be increased
by 49% after increasing the NaOH concentration from 10 M to 14 M. Luhar et al. [40]
reported that only an 11.66% reduction in compressive strength is observed when 10% of
fine aggregate is replaced with crumb rubber treated with NaOH. Moghaddam et al. [41]
studied CRGPC by partially replacing fly ash with ordinary Portland cement. The study
reported an 8% compressive strength gain for 20% fly ash replacement with OPC and 10%
rubber content as a partial replacement of fine aggregate. The modulus of elasticity of
CRGPC is rarely studied; Luhar et al. [40] reported that the modulus of elasticity decreased
with the increase of rubber content in CRGPC. A similar finding was also reported by
Dong et al. [30]. Moreover, the stress–strain behaviour model of GPC focusing on the effect
of rubber content is not revealed yet.
Based on the literature review, the compressive strength of concrete generally reduces
with the increase of rubber content. However, pre-treating crumb rubber can significantly
reduce the amount of strength loss. To characterise the behaviour of any concrete type,
compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, and stress–strain properties are important.
Often, the compressive strength of standard concrete is used to calculate most of the other
parameters of concrete. However, the current experimental results have not sufficiently
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 3 of 25
validated the method of obtaining the material parameters of crumb rubber concrete,
geopolymer concrete, and geopolymer rubber concrete. Hence, an extensive experimental
investigation is required. Moreover, there is an insignificant amount of research available
on the CRGPC, which is not enough to apply CRGPC in real-life. To date, no material
model has yet been able to accurately anticipate the behaviour of CRGPC while being
loaded under axial compression.
To achieve the objective of this study, mechanical characteristics, such as compressive
strength, stress–strain correlations, and the elastic modulus of rubberised geopolymer
concrete were investigated extensively. Results were compared with the existing material
models to investigate the models’ suitability in predicting the mechanical properties of
CRGPC. Finally, some material models are proposed to predict the properties of CRGPC
accurately.
2. Materials and Methods

Due to a lack of GPC mix design in existing codes, two GPC mixes were produced
using the trial-and-error method. Mix 1 and Mix 2 had an ultimate compressive strength
of 44 ± 2 MPa and 26 ± 2 MPa, respectively. These two strength groups of concrete
are commonly known as N40 and N25 [42]. For each GPC mix, at least three batches of
geopolymer concrete were produced. Each batch contained at least three specimens. After
the casting, GPC specimens were kept at room temperature for 24 h before moving into
the heat curing phase in an oven at 80 ◦ C for 48 h. After heat curing, specimens were
unmoulded and kept at room temperature until the test. In addition to the core mixes
(control), geopolymer samples were prepared by replacing 5%, 15%, and 25% of natural
fine aggregates with crumb rubber. Specimens were prepared with treated crumb rubber
(denoted as TC) and non-treated crumb rubber (denoted as C) to understand the effect of
rubber pre-treatment on the mechanical properties. Details of the specimens are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Specimen details of GPC and CRGPC mixes.
Number of Number of
Mix ID Mix ID
Specimens Specimens
Mix 1 9 Mix 2 9
M1 TC25 9 M2 TC25 9
M1 TC15 9 M2 TC15 9
M1 TC05 9 M2 TC05 9
M1 C25 9 M2 C25 9
M1 C15 9 M2 C15 9
M1 C05 9 M2 C05 9
TC = Treated Crumb Rubber; C = Crumb Rubber.
Standard compression tests and deformation-controlled compression tests were car-

ried out to investigate compressive strength, stress–strain relationship, and the modu-
lus of elasticity of CRGPC specimens. Two specimens from each batch went through a
deformation-controlled compression test, and one of them was subjected to a standard com-
pression test. The failure (cracking pattern) of the cylinder specimens was also observed to
have a better understanding of mode of failure of CRGPC.
2.1. Raw Materials and Treatment

2.1.1. Materials
In this study, fly ash and alkaline solutions, such as sodium hydroxide and sodium
silicate, riverbed sand as fine aggregate, crushed stone as coarse aggregate, crumb rubber,
ground granulate blast furnace slag (GGBFS), super plasticising admixture (ADVA 650),
and tape water were used to prepare GPC and CRGPC.
ADVA 650 is a poly carboxylic ether polymer that is widely used in premix and pre-
cast industries for maximising concrete strength at an early age. ADVA 650 used in this
Table 2. Chemical composition of fly ash.
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 Element 4 ofContent

25
Al2O3 24.00
experiment complies with AS CaO 1478.1 [43] and is compatible with fly ash and blast furnace 1.59
slag. Admixtures were first mixed
Fe2Owith3 water and then poured into the mixture to ensure 2.87
uniformity in the mix.
Fly ash used in this study Khad
2O a fineness of 87% and complied with AS 3582.1 [44]. 1.44
The chemical composition of theMgO FA is presented in Table 2. 0.42
Table 2. Chemical composition ofMnO
fly ash. 0.06
Element Na2O Content (%) 0.49
Al2 O3 P2O5 24.00 0.19
CaO 1.59
Fe2 O3 SiO2 2.87 65.9
K2 O TiO2 1.44 0.915
MgO 0.42
MnO LOI 0.06 1.53
Na2 O 0.49
P2 O 5 0.19
SiO2
Commercially 65.9
available mechanically shredded waste tire particl
TiO2 0.915
3 mm, and 2–4LOI
mm) were used in this study. A volumetric replaceme
1.53
plied to replace natural sand with crumb rubber. Three different partic
Commercially available mechanically shredded waste tire particles (sizes < 1 mm,
mixed to obtain a well-graded blending of fine aggregate. The mix r
1–3 mm, and 2–4 mm) were used in this study. A volumetric replacement method was
mm, and
applied 2–4natural
to replace mm CR sand particles was 8:7:5
with crumb rubber. (by volume).
Three different Figure
particle sizes 1 represe
of CR were
mixed to obtain a well-graded blending of fine aggregate. The mix
used in this experimental research. Sieve analysis was carried out as ratio of < 1 mm, 1–3 mm,
and 2–4 mm CR particles was 8:7:5 (by volume). Figure 1 represents the CR particles used in
1974
this [45]. Theresearch.
experimental produced particle
Sieve analysis wassize distribution
carried curve is presented
out as per AS 1141.0-1999, 1974 [45]. in
also demonstrates the particle size distribution curve of riverbed sand
The produced particle size distribution curve is presented in Figure 2. The figure also
demonstrates the particle size distribution curve of riverbed sand while showing the upper
upper
and lowerandlimitslower limitsfine
of well-graded ofaggregates.
well-graded Upper fine aggregates.
and lower limits for theUpper
particle and l
particlerequirements
gradation gradationwere requirements
set by AS 2758.1were
[46]. set by AS 2758.1 [46].
<1 mm 1~3 mm 2~4 mm
Figure
Figure 1. Particle
1. Particle sizes ofsizes
crumb of crumb
rubber. rubber.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 5 of 25
100
75
% finer than
50
25
0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Grain size, mm (log scale)
Upper Limits Lower Limits Crumb Rubber Sand

Figure
Figure 2. Particle
2. Particle sizesize distribution
distribution curve
curve of CR,
of CR, sand,
sand, andand allowable
allowable limits.
limits.
2.1.2. Crumb Rubber Pre-Treatment

2.1.2. Crumb Rubber Pre-Treatment
Mechanically shredded rubber particles usually have a smooth surface, which is not
Mechanically shredded rubber particles usually have a smooth surface, which is not
ideal for a good interfacial bond between aggregate and cement paste in concrete. NaOH
ideal for a good interfacial bond between aggregate and cement paste in concrete. NaOH
pre-treatment was adopted in the study as the method of crumb rubber pre-treatment.
pre-treatment was adopted in the study as the method of crumb rubber pre-treatment.
The molarity effect of sodium hydroxide on gaining compressive strength of geopolymer
The molarity effect of sodium hydroxide on gaining compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete was experimentally studied by Hardjito and Rangan [47]. In this study, 16M
concrete was experimentally studied by Hardjito and Rangan [47]. In this study, 16M so-
sodium hydroxide solution was used for the pre-treatment of crumb rubber. A 16M NaOH
dium hydroxide solution was used for the pre-treatment of crumb rubber. A 16M NaOH
solution was prepared by adding NaOH flakes to water, as shown in Table 3 [48,49].
solution was prepared by adding NaOH flakes to water, as shown in Table 3 [48,49].
Table 3. Mix design of molarity for NaOH [49].
Table 3. Mix design of molarity for NaOH [49].
NaOH Solution Molarity Weight of NaOH Flakes (g/kg)
NaOH Solution Molarity Weight of NaOH Flakes (g/kg)
8 8 262 262
10 314
10 12 314 361
12 16 361 444
16 444
CR was soaked into the sodium hydroxide solution for 24 h and air-dried before
CR was soaked into the sodium hydroxide solution for 24 h and air-dried before be-
being used in the concrete mix. Pre-treatment allowed adequate surface roughness, which
ing used in the concrete mix. Pre-treatment allowed adequate surface roughness, which is
is essential for better bonding in concrete. As crumb rubber tends to float on a sodium
essential for better bonding in concrete. As crumb rubber tends to float on a sodium hy-
hydroxide solution, a stainless-steel gauze was used all the time to keep the crumb rubbers
droxide solution,
submerged a stainless-steel
in the gauzein
solution, as shown was used3.all the time to keep the crumb rubbers
Figure
submerged in the solution, as shown in Figure 3.
The importance of rubber surface pre-treatment can be more understandable from
the microscopic analysis, shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4a,b clearly shows that the
surface of non-treated rubber particles is not rough enough to produce a better bond with
cement paste in concrete. However, Figure 5a,b shows that the pre-treated CR particles
are well bonded with the cement paste of rubberised concrete. A NaOH treatment process
cleans the surface of rubber particles and removes other foreign chemicals from the rubber
particles. Therefore, to improve the bond between cement paste and crumb rubber, the
pre-treatment of rubber particles is imperative.
Materials 2024,
Materials 17, x17,
2024, FOR PEER REVIEW
1031 6 of 627of 25
Figure 3. Crumb rubber pre-treatment with sodium hydroxide using a stainless-steel gauze.
Figure 3. Crumb rubber pre-treatment with sodium hydroxide using a stainless-steel gauze.
Figure 3. Crumb
Figure rubber
3. Crumb pre-treatment
rubber with
pre-treatment sodium
with hydroxide
sodium using
hydroxide a stainless-steel
using gauze.
a stainless-steel gauze.

Smooth Surface Smooth Surface
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Microscopic analysis of non-treated CR in concrete. (a) Example 1 (b) Example 2.
Figure 4. Figure
Microscopic analysis of
4. Microscopic non-treated
analysis CR in concrete.
of non-treated (a) Example
CR in concrete. 1 (b) Example
(a) Example 2.
1 (b) Example 2.
Rough Surface (a) (b)

Rough Surface Rough Surface
Rough
Figure 4. Microscopic analysis of non-treated CR in Surface
concrete. (a) Example 1 (b) Example 2.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Microscopic analysis of pre-treated CR in concrete. (a) Example 1; (b) Example 2.
Figure 5. Figure 5. Microscopic
Microscopic analysis
analysis of of pre-treated
pre-treated CR in concrete.
CR in concrete. (a) Example
(a) Example 1; (b) Example
1; (b) Example 2. 2.
2.2. GPC and CRGPC Mixing

Rough Surface Based on the trials, the final mix designs used in this study are shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Rough Surface
GPC Mix 1 and GPC Mix 2 are considered core mixes in this study. Based on the core mixes,
further samples were prepared by replacing 25%, 15%, and 5% of sand with non-treated
rubber crumb, while other materials remained the same as the developed core mixes.
Pre-treated crumb rubber specimens were prepared, maintaining the same fine aggregate
replacement percentages as their non-treated counterparts. When calculating the weight
of rubber(a)that is required to replace the fine aggregates in concrete,
(b) the specific gravity of
both
Figure 5. materials
Microscopicwas takenof
analysis into consideration.
pre-treated The specific
CR in concrete. gravity1;of
(a) Example (b)crumb rubber
Example 2. and fine
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 7 of 25
aggregate used in this research was 1.15 and 2.6, respectively. Figure 6 shows prepared
specimens with different rubber content. Cylinders from left to right contain 25%, 15%, and
5% crumb rubber, respectively.
Table 4. Mix design of GPC Mix 1.
Mix Design of Mix 1 (kg/m3 )

Materials Detail M1 M1-R25 M1-R15 M1-R05
Fly Ash 365.00 365.00 365.00 365.00
Sodium Hydroxide 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00
Sodium Silicate 122.50 122.50 122.50 122.50
Water 50.38 50.38 50.38 50.38
Fine aggregate Sand 535.00 401.25 454.75 508.25
Rubber 0.00 59.16 35.50 11.83
Coarse aggregate 7 mm 245.00 245.00 245.00 245.00
10 mm 430.00 430.00 430.00 430.00
14 mm 555.00 555.00 555.00 555.00
GGBFS 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
Super Plasticiser 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80
Table 5. Mix design of GPC Mix 2.
Mix Design of Mix 2 (kg/m3 )

Materials Detail M2 M2-R25 M2-R15 M2-R05
Fly Ash 445.76 445.76 445.76 445.76
Sodium Hydroxide 63.68 63.68 63.68 63.68
Sodium Silicate 159.20 159.20 159.20 159.20
Water 48.28 48.28 48.28 48.28
Fine aggregate Sand 571.18 428.39 485.50 542.62
Rubber 0.00 63.16 37.90 12.63
Coarse Aggregate 10 mm 1243.10 1243.10 1243.10 1243.10
Super Plasticiser 6.73 6.73 6.73 6.73
25% 15% 5%
Differentrubber
Figure6.6.Different
Figure rubbercontent
contentinincylinder
cylinderspecimens.
specimens.
2.3. Curing
Curing methods significantly affect the compressive strength of GPCs even though
they are made from the same mix proportions [50]. In this study, all the samples were
cured at 80 °C in an oven for 48 h. After casting, all specimens were kept at ambient/room
temperature for 24 h before transferring them to the curing oven. After heat curing, the
specimens were transferred to a chamber at room temperature.
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 8 of 25
Figure 6. Different rubber content in cylinder specimens.
2.3. 2.3.
Curing
Curing
Curing methods
Curing methodssignificantly affect
significantly the the
affect compressive
compressive strength of GPCs
strength even
of GPCs though
even though
theythey
are are
made from the same mix proportions [50]. In this study, all
made from the same mix proportions [50]. In this study, all the samplesthe samples were were
cured at 80
cured at°C
80 in
◦ Can
inoven for 48
an oven forh.
48After casting,
h. After all specimens
casting, were
all specimens kept
were at ambient/room
kept at ambient/room
temperature
temperaturefor 24forh24before transferring
h before them
transferring to the
them curing
to the oven.
curing After
oven. heatheat
After curing, the the
curing,
2.4. 2.4.
Experimental Setup
Experimental Setup
All All
the the
tests were
tests conducted
were conducted at the main
at the main civil engineering
civil engineeringlab
lablocated
locatedatatthe theUniver-
University
sityof
ofNew
NewSouth
South Wales
Wales at at the
the Australian
Australian Defence Force Academy. A standard standard compres-
compressive
sivestrength
strengthtest
testwas
wascarried
carried outout following
following the Australian standard AS
Australian standard AS1012.9
1012.9[51].
[51].Stand-
Standard
ard cylinders 200 mm
cylinders of 200 mmheight
heightand and100 100mmmmdiameter
diameter were
were used
used forfor
all all tests.
tests. Stress–strain
Stress–strain
behaviour
behaviour of the
of the test test specimens
specimens waswas recorded
recorded withwith a careful
a careful setup
setup of two
of two Linear
Linear Variable
Variable
Displacement Transducers (LVDT) on both sides of the specimen. An average strain of of
Displacement Transducers (LVDT) on both sides of the specimen. An average strain
these
these twotwo LVDTs
LVDTs was was used
used asas thestrain
the strainofofthe
thespecimen,
specimen, and
and the gauge
gauge length
lengthwaswas100100mm.
mm.LVDTs
LVDTsused
usedininthese
theseexperiments
experiments were
wereable
abletoto
record
recorda movement
a movement of of0.001 mm.
0.001 mm. AA third
LVDT
third LVDTwaswasused
usedto to
control
control thethe
movement
movement of the loading
of the plate.
loading TheThe
plate. experimental
experimental setup
unconfined
setup unconfinedspecimen
specimen is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure7. 7.
Fixed Plate
LVDT
100
LVDT
Moving Upward
Load
Figure 7. Experimental
Figure setup
7. Experimental of the
setup of stress–strain measurement.
the stress–strain measurement.
3. Experimental Results and Discussion

3.1. Compressive Strength
The compressive strengths of all mixes are presented in Table 6. The average of three-
cylinder strength results was used to define the compressive strength of a mix. Test results
of Mix 1 are graphically presented in Figure 8, and Figure 9 presents the compressive
strengths of Mix 2. Here, f cm denotes the mean compressive strength of the samples.
The figures show that the compressive strength of both mixes reduces with the increase
of rubber content in the mixes. As rubber particles have a lower compressive strength
compared to that of natural sand, they reduced the compressive strength of the product.
Additionally, the higher the percentage of replacement of natural sand with the rubber
particles, the higher the strength loss. It is also observed that the reduction of strength in
the pre-treated rubber mixes is lower compared to the counterpart (without treatment). The
GPCRC with the treated rubber particles showed better compressive strength compared
to that with the untreated rubber particles because of the better bond between the treated
rubber and geopolymer paste.
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 9 of 25
Table 6. Compressive strengths of GPC and CRGPC mixes.
Strength Batch Strength Strength Batch Strength

Mix ID Mix ID
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
41.53 25.06
Mix 1 41.51 41.91 Mix 2 23.47 24.18
42.69 24.01
36.05 20.95
M1 TC05 34.07 35.09 M2 TC05 20.97 20.41
35.15 19.31
32.92 19.73
M1 TC15 31.51 33.2 M2 TC15 19.16 19.15
32.17 18.56
31.49 18.66
M1 TC25 30.9 31.08 M2 TC25 17.58 18.72
30.85 19.92
33.42 20.01
M1 C05 33.66 33.53 M2 C05 18.28 19.1
33.51 19.02
28.98 16.53
M1 C15 29.77 29.78 M2 C15 17.91 17.19
30.58 17.12
26.67 16.57
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW M1 C25 28.93 27.72 M2 C25 16.51 10 of 27
16.55
27.56 16.58
45
45 Pre-Treated
40 Non-Treated
Pre-Treated
40 Non-Treated
35
35
30
30
25
25 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure
Figure8.8.Compressive
Compressivestrengths
strengthsofofGeopolymer
Geopolymerconcrete
concreteMix
Mix1.1.
Figure 8. Compressive strengths of Geopolymer concrete Mix 1.
25
25 Pre-Treated
Pre-Treated
Non-Treated
20 Non-Treated
20
15
15 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
In Figure 10, it is evident that CRGPC with treated rubber provides 4% to 9% higher
compressive
In Figurestrength than that
10, it is evident of CRGPC
that CRGPC withwith non-treated rubber.
treated rubber An approximately
provides 20%
4% to 9% higher
and 16% drop
compressive in compressive
In Figurestrength than that
10, it is evident strength
thatofCRGPC is noticed
CRGPCwith when
withtreated 5% non-treated
non-treated
rubberrubber. and
An4%
provides treated crumb
approximately
to 9% higher
rubber
20% andare
16%
compressive added
droptointhe
strength mixes,
than that respectively.
compressive strengthwith
of CRGPC is noticed when 5%
non-treated non-treated
rubber. and treated
An approximately
crumb rubber are added to the mixes, respectively.
20% and 16% drop in compressive strength is noticed when 5% non-treated and treated
90
,%
90
,%
In Figure 10, it is evident that CRGPC with treated rubber provides 4% to 9% higher
compressive strength than that of CRGPC with non-treated rubber. An approximately
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 20% and 16% drop in compressive strength is noticed when 5% non-treated and treated
10 of 25
90
,%
75
60
5 10 15 20 25
TCR Mix 1 CR Mix 1 TCR Mix 2 CR Mix 2
Figure 10. Compressive strength reduction of GPC Mix 1 and CRGPC mixes.
Figure 10. Compressive strength reduction of GPC Mix 1 and CRGPC mixes.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW

The reduction in the compressive strength is not observed to be linear. For a 25%
11 of 27
The reduction
replacement in the compressive
of aggregate with non-treatedstrength is not
rubber, 34%observed
and 32%tostrength
be linear. For a 25%
reductions are
replacement of aggregate
observed, whereas with21%
a 20% and non-treated rubber, 34%
strength reduction wereand 32% strength
noticed reductions
for only 5% are
replacement
observed,
of aggregateswhereas
in Mix a 20%
1 andand 21%
Mix strength reduction were noticed for only 5% replace-
2, respectively.
mentThis
of indicates
aggregates that
in 5%
Mix 1replacement
and
This indicates that 5% replacement Mix ofoffine
fineaggregates
aggregateswith
2, respectively. withrubber
rubberhas
hasa asignificant
significant
impact
impact on the compressive strength reduction of GPC. However, the rateofofreduction
on the compressive strength reduction of GPC. However, the rate reductionofof
the
thecompressive
compressivestrength
strengthisisnot
notthe
thesame
sameforforhigher
higherdoses
dosesofofthe
thecrumb
crumbrubber.
rubber.
Figure
Figure 11 shows that pre-treatment of rubber has a relativelyconsistent
11 shows that pre-treatment of rubber has a relatively consistenteffect
effectononthe
the
strength
strengthreduction
reductionofofbothbothGPCGPCMix Mix1 1and
andMix Mix2.2.All
AllCRGPC
CRGPCmixesmixesshow
showa aconsistent
consistent
difference
differenceininthe
thereduction
reductionofoftheir
theircompressive
compressivestrength
strengthfor
forpre-treated
pre-treatedandandnon-treated
non-treated
rubber. Here,𝑓 f nTdenotes
rubber.Here, denotesthe thecompressive
compressivestrength
strengthofofnon-treated
non-treatedrubber
rubberGPC,
GPC,andand𝑓 f pT
denotes the compressive strength of pre-treated
denotes the compressive strength of pre-treated rubber GPC. rubber GPC.
100 ,%
GPC Mix 1
GPC Mix 2
90
80
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure
Figure11. Strengthreduction
11.Strength reductionratio
ratiocomparison
comparisonbetween
betweenGPC
GPCmixes
mixesfor
forrubber
rubbertreatment.
treatment.
3.2.Density
3.2. DensityofofConcrete
Concrete
AAsummary
summaryofofthe thedensity
densityofofvarious
variousGPC
GPCand
andCRGPC
CRGPCmixes
mixesused
usedininthis
thisresearch
researchisis
presented in Table 7 and Figure 12. The test was conducted following AS 1012.5
presented in Table 7 and Figure 12. The test was conducted following AS 1012.5 [52]. [52].ItItisis
observed that with the increase of rubber content in the mix, the density of the concrete
observed that with the increase of rubber content in the mix, the density of the concrete
decreases. As rubber particles possess a lower unit weight compared to that of the natural
decreases. As rubber particles possess a lower unit weight compared to that of the natural
sand, CRGPC exhibits a decreasing trend in density with the increase of the percentage of
rubber particles.
rubber particles.
22000 Density (N/m3) 22000 Density (N/m3)
21700 21700
21400 21400
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 80 11 of 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 11. Strength reduction ratio comparison between GPC mixes for rubber treatment.
Table 7. Density of concrete GPC and CRGPC.
3.2. Density
Mix IDof Concrete Density (N/m3 ) Mix ID Density (N/m3 )
A summary
M1 of the density21,600
of various GPC and CRGPC
M2 mixes used in this research is
21,700
presented in Table 7 and Figure 12. The test was conducted following AS 1012.5 [52]. It is
M1 TC05 21,500 M2 TC05 21,500
M1 that
observed TC15with the increase 21,200 M2the
of rubber content in TC15 21,450
mix, the density of the concrete
decreases. As rubber particles possess a lower unit weight compared to that21,350
M1 TC25 21,100 M2 TC25 of the natural
M1 C05 21,400 M2 C05 21,550
M1 C15 21,300 M2 C15 21,400
rubber M1
particles.
C25 21,200 M2 C25 21,300
22000 Density (N/m3) 22000 Density (N/m3)
21700 21700
21400 21400
21100 TCR M1 M1 C05 21100

21,400 CR M1M2 C05 21,550
TCR M2 M1 C15 Rubber % 21,300 CR M2M2 C15 Rubber % 21,400
20800 20800
0% 5% M1 C2515% 25% 21,200 0% 5%M2 C25 15% 25%21,300
Figure12.
Figure 12.Density
Densityof
ofdifferent
differentGPC
GPCand
andCRGPC
CRGPCmixes.
mixes.
3.3.
3.3. Modulus
Modulus ofofElasticity
Elasticity
Table 7. Density of concrete GPC and CRGPC.
The
The stiffness of
stiffness of aa material
material depends
depends on on the
the elastic modulus,E𝐸 , ,ofofthat
elasticmodulus, thatmaterial.
material.ItItisisa
Mix ID Density (N/m3) The Modulus Mix ID C Density (N/m3)
acrucial
crucialparameter
parameter for concrete/geopolymer. The Modulus of Elasticity (MoE) is
for concrete/geopolymer. of Elasticity (MoE) is required
required
to M1 deflection and seismic 21,600 M2 21,700
to analyse
analyse the
the deflection and seismic performanceperformance of of concrete
concrete structures.
structures. In Inthis
thisstudy,
study,
MoE
MoE is M1 TC05 as
is determined
determined as the
the secant
secant 21,500
modulus measuredM2
modulus measured at TC05
at the
the 40%
40% stress
stress level 21,500
level of
of the
the average
average
compressiveM1 TC15
compressive strength
strength of 21,200
of aa concrete
concrete specimen.
specimen. The M2 TC15
The MoE
MoE of
of the
the specimens
specimens were 21,450
were obtained
obtained
from M1 TC25 curves
from stress–strain
stress–strain curves of the21,100
of the representative
representative samples
samplesM2and TC25
and presented
presented in 21,350
in Figure
Figure 13,
13, which
which
clearly
clearly shows
shows thatthat MoE
MoE(Ec)(Ec) of
of the
the GPC
GPC and
and CRGPC
CRGPC concrete
concrete hashas aa trending
trending relationship
relationship
with
with the
the compressive
compressive strength
strength (fcm)
(fcm) ofof the
the concrete.
concrete. The
The MoE
MoE of of GPC
GPCmixesmixesisisdetermined
determined
based
based on the average MoE of three specimens of the same batch of concrete from
on the average MoE of three specimens of the same batch of concrete from thethe same
same
mix. The MoE values of the different mixes are presented
mix. The MoE values of the different mixes are presented in Table 8. in Table 8.
20 𝐸𝑐 (GPa)
10
MoE 𝑓 , (𝑀𝑃𝑎)
0
15 25 35 45
Figure 13.
Figure TheModulus
13. The Modulusof
ofElasticity
Elasticity of
of GPC
GPC and
and CRGPC
CRGPC mixes.
mixes.
Table 8. The Modulus of Elasticity of GPC and CRGPC mixes.
Mix ID MoE (GPa) Batch MoE (GPa) Mix ID MoE (GPa) Batch MoE (GPa)
18.44 11.42
Mix 1 18.75 18.40 Mix 2 11.67 11.37
18.01 11.03
18.54 9.9
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 12 of 25
Table 8. The Modulus of Elasticity of GPC and CRGPC mixes.
Mix ID MoE (GPa) Batch MoE (GPa) Mix ID MoE (GPa) Batch MoE (GPa)
18.44 11.42
Mix 1 18.75 18.40 Mix 2 11.67 11.37
18.01 11.03
18.54 9.9
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEWM1 TC05 19.69 19.09 M2 TC05 9.42 9.95 13 of 27
19.03 10.52
17.28 8.96
M1 TC15 17.79 17.24 M2 TC15 9.19 8.85
21.27 16.65 7.13 8.41
M1 C15 20.16 14.69

20.55 M2 C15 7.48 9.24 7.21
M1 TC25 14.37 14.55 M2 TC25 8.85 9.16
20.22 14.59 7.01 9.38
11.94 17.33 9.32 7.53
M1 C25 12.48 M1 C05 12.22
17.94 M2 C25
17.84 8.47
M2 C05 7.52 8.95 7.78
18.24 8.28
11.88 9.07
21.27 7.13
M1 C15 20.16 20.55 M2 C15 7.48 7.21
20.22 7.01
It is observed11.94
that MoE decreases with the increase of rubber9.32
content in the concrete
mix.
M1When
C25 25% of12.48
sand was replaced
12.22with pre-treated
M2 C25 rubber, it caused a drop in
8.47 8.95MoE up
to 20%, whereas the11.88non-treated crumb rubber resulted in a decrease
9.07 of 36% of MoE for
TC = Treated
25% Crumb Rubber; C = Crumb Rubber.
sand replacement.
It is observed
3.4. Stress–Strain that MoE decreases with the increase of rubber content in the concrete
Behaviour
mix. When 25% of sand was replaced with pre-treated rubber, it caused a drop in MoE up
Stress–strain curves of all GPC and CRGPC mixes are shown in Figures 14–17. Figure
to 20%, whereas the non-treated crumb rubber resulted in a decrease of 36% of MoE for
14 shows the stress–strain curve of Mix 1 and various mixes of treated CRGPC originating
25% sand replacement.
from the core Mix 1. The result shows that with the increase of rubber content in the mix,
the
3.4. overall strength
Stress–Strain of the concrete decreases. A decrease in peak strain at the peak load
Behaviour
is also noticed, along with the increase in rubber content.
Stress–strain curves of all GPC and CRGPC mixes are shown in Figures 14–17.
Figure 15 presents the stress–strain relationship of Mix 1 and various mixes of non-
Figure 14 shows the stress–strain curve of Mix 1 and various mixes of treated CRGPC
treated CRGPC originating from the core Mix 1. The result presents similar behaviour to
originating from the core Mix 1. The result shows that with the increase of rubber content
the treated CRGPC, except all the values are lower than the pre-treated CRGP. The values
in the mix, the overall strength of the concrete decreases. A decrease in peak strain at the
of peak strain obtained from the stress–strain curves are presented in Table 9.
peak load is also noticed, along with the increase in rubber content.
50 (MPa)
Mix 1
M1 TC5
40 M1 TC15
M1 TC25
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Stress–strain
Stress–strain behaviour
behaviour of
of GPC
GPC Mix
Mix 1 and pre-treated CRGPC.
50 (MPa)
Mix 1
M1 C5
40 M1 C15
M1 C25
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Table 9. Strain at peak stress of GPC Mix 1 and CRGPC mixes.
10
Mix ID Strain at Peak Stress, (ε)
0 Mix 1 0.00333
0.000 0.002
M1 TC05 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.00289
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 13 of 25
M1 TC15 0.00305
Figure 14. Stress–strain behaviour of GPC Mix 1 and pre-treated CRGPC.
M1 TC25 0.00242
M1 C05 0.00363
50 (MPa)
M1 C15 Mix 1 0.00235
M1 C5
40 M1 C25 M1 C15 0.00266
TC = Treated Crumb Rubber; C = Crumb M1 C25
Rubber.
30
Figure 16 shows stress–strain curves of GPC Mix 2 and a treated CRGPC variation of
20 2. Figure 17 presents the stress–strain relationship of Mix 2 and various mixes of non-
Mix
treated
10
CRGPC originating from the core Mix 2. The strain value at peak stress of Mix 2
and CRGPC variations of Mix 2 are presented in Table 10.
0 Based on the results, it is clearly understood that the addition of rubber into the GPC
0.000 affects0.002
mixes 0.004 behaviour,
the stress–strain 0.006 and0.008
pre-treatment of rubber positively contrib-
utes
Figureto
Figure 15.
the stress–strain
15. Stress–strain
behaviour.
behaviour of
of GPC
GPC Mix
Mix 11 and
and non-treated
non-treated CRGPC.
Mix
Mix 22
25
25 (MPa)
(MPa) M2
M2 TC5
TC5
M2
M2 TC15
TC15
M2
M2 TC25
TC25
20
20
15
15
10
10
55
00
0.000
0.000 0.002
0.002 0.004
0.004 0.006
0.006 0.008
0.008
Figure
Figure 16.
16. Stress–strain
behaviour of
of GPC
GPC Mix 2 and pre-treated CRGPC.
Mix
Mix 22
25
25 (MPa)
(MPa) M2
M2 C5
C5
M2
M2 C15
C15
M2
M2 C25
C25
20
20
15
15
10
10
55
00
0.000
0.000 0.002
0.002 0.004
0.004 0.006
0.006 0.008
0.008
Figure
Figure 17.
17. Stress–strain
behaviour of
of GPC
GPC Mix 2 and non-treated CRGPC.
TableFigure 15at
10. Strain presents theofstress–strain
peak stress relationship
GPC Mix 2 and of Mix 1 and various mixes of non-
CRGPC mixes.
treated CRGPC originating from the core Mix 1. The result presents similar behaviour to
Mix ID
the treated CRGPC, except all the values are lowerStrain at pre-treated
than the Peak Stress,CRGP.
(ε) The values
Mix 2 0.00397
of peak strain obtained from the stress–strain curves are presented in Table 9.
M2 TC05 0.00371
M2
Table 9. Strain at TC15
peak stress of GPC Mix 1 and CRGPC mixes. 0.00382
M2 TC25 0.00342
M2 C05 0.00403
Mix 1 0.00333
M1 TC05 0.00289
M1 TC15 0.00305
M1 TC25 0.00242
M1 C05 0.00363
M1 C15 0.00235
M1 C25 0.00266
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 14 of 25
Figure 16 shows stress–strain curves of GPC Mix 2 and a treated CRGPC variation
of Mix 2. Figure 17 presents the stress–strain relationship of Mix 2 and various mixes of
non-treated CRGPC originating from the core Mix 2. The strain value at peak stress of Mix
2 and CRGPC variations of Mix 2 are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. Strain at peak stress of GPC Mix 2 and CRGPC mixes.

Mix 2 0.00397
M2 TC05 0.00371
M2 TC15 0.00382
M2 TC25 0.00342
M2 C05 0.00403
M2 C15 0.00388
M2 C25 0.00330

Based on the results, it is clearly understood that the addition of rubber into the GPC
15 of 27
mixes affects the stress–strain behaviour, and pre-treatment of rubber positively contributes
to the stress–strain behaviour.
M2 C15 0.00388
3.5. Failure
M2Mode
C25 0.00330
TC = Treated CrumbaRubber;
Under C = Crumbload,
compressive Rubber.the shear fracture in a concrete cylinder is usually observed
to occur
3.5. Failure Mode diagonally if the interparticle bond in the concrete is good.
Under It aiscompressive
observed load,fromthe Figure 18a that
shear fracture in GPC cylinders
a concrete cylinderprimarily failed in shear showing
is usually ob-
diagonal
served to occurcracks. However,
diagonally with the
if the interparticle increase
bond of rubber
in the concrete content, the cracks in the cylinder are
is good.
It is observed
observed from
to be Figure for
steeper 18a that GPC cylinders
CRGPC. With the primarily failedrubber
increased in shearcontent,
showing the adhesion between
diagonal cracks. However, with the increase of rubber content, the cracks in the cylinder
rubber crumbs and binder/paste became weaker. However, Figure 18 shows that cracks in
are observed to be steeper for CRGPC. With the increased rubber content, the adhesion
the pre-treated
between rubber crumbsrubber concrete
and binder/paste are relatively
became less steep
weaker. However, Figurecompared
18 shows thatto that on non-treated
CRGPC. This indicates that a better inter-particle bond
cracks in the pre-treated rubber concrete are relatively less steep compared to that in theonpre-treated
non- CRGPC mixes
wasCRGPC.
treated developed when compared
This indicates to that of the
that a better inter-particle non-treated
bond counterpart.
in the pre-treated CRGPC Photos of the mode
mixes
of was developed
failure of twowhen comparedfrom
specimens to that of the
each non-treated
mix counterpart.
are presented Photos of
in Figure 18.
the mode of failure of two specimens from each mix are presented in Figure 18.
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e)
Figure 18. Cylinder failure patterns of GPC and CRGPC. (a) GPC Mix; (b) CR 05; (c) CR 25; (d)
Figure 18. Cylinder failure patterns of GPC and CRGPC. (a) GPC Mix; (b) CR 05; (c) CR 25; (d)
TCR 05; (e) TCR 25.
TCR 05;
(e) TCR 25.
4. Comparison with Codes and Models
4.1. Modulus of Elasticity (MoE) Comparison
The MoE of GPC and CRGPC obtained in the study was compared with the same
calculated using the Australian Standard (AS 3600-2018, clause 3.1.2) [53] and the Ameri-
can Concrete Institution (ACI) 363R (1992). Although AS 3600-2018 and ACI-363R 1992
have developed the equations for MoE for OPC concrete, they were used in the study.
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 15 of 25
4. Comparison with Codes and Models

4.1. Modulus of Elasticity (MoE) Comparison
The MoE of GPC and CRGPC obtained in the study was compared with the same
calculated using the Australian Standard (AS 3600-2018, clause 3.1.2) [53] and the American
expression based on regression
Concrete Institution
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW (ACI) 363Ranalysis
(1992). of experimentally
Although obtained
AS 3600-2018 anddata from GPC
ACI-363R 1992 con-
16 have
of 27
crete.
developed the equations for MoE for OPC concrete, they were used in the study.
Figures 19 and
Moreover, Mahdi20 show a comparative
Nematzadeh study
et al. [54] among the
proposed an MoE of GPC,
equation treatedthe
to predict CRGPC,
MoE of
and non-treated CRGPC of this study and the same obtained from AS
OPC concrete. In the past, some researchers also attempted to develop equations for 3600-2018 and ACI-the
expression
363R 1992 based This
[53,56]. on regression
shows analysis
that the of experimentally
measured 𝐸 values obtained
of the data from GPC
experimental con-
samples
determination of MoE of GPC. For instance, Sreenivasulu Chitrala et al. [55] proposed an ex-
crete.
are substantially lower than theanalysis
predicted value calculatedobtained
using ASdata3600from
and GPC
ACI models.
pression based on regression of experimentally concrete.
Figures
Hence,Figures 19
AS 3600 and 20 show a comparative study among the MoE of GPC, treated
the CRGPC,
19(2018)
and 20and showACI (1992) models
a comparative are not
study suitable
among for determining
the MoE of GPC, treated MoE of
CRGPC,
and non-treated
GPC. The proposed CRGPC
models of this study and the same obtained from AS 3600-2018 and ACI-
and non-treated CRGPC of of
thisSreenivasulu
study and the Chitrala et al. and
same obtained Mahdi
from AS Nematzadeh
3600-2018 andetACI-
al.
363R
also 1992 [53,56].
provide This shows
much higher values that thethe
than measured
measured 𝐸 values.
values of the experimental samples
363R 1992 [53,56]. This shows that the measured EC valuesTherefore, these models
of the experimental can-
samples
are
not substantially lower than the predicted value calculated using AS 3600 and ACI models.
arebe suitably used
substantially to determine
lower the MoE value
than the predicted of geopolymer
calculatedand
usingCRGPC.
AS 3600 and ACI models.
Hence, AS 3600 (2018) and ACI (1992) models are not suitable for determining the MoE of
Hence, AS 3600 (2018) and ACI (1992) models are not suitable for determining the MoE of
GPC.
GPC. The proposed
proposed models
models of of Sreenivasulu
SreenivasuluChitrala
Chitralaetetal.
al. and
andMahdi
MahdiNematzadeh
Nematzadehetetal.
40
also
The(GPa)
provide much higher values than the measured values. Therefore, these models
al.
can-
also provide much higher values than the measured values. Therefore, these models cannot
not be suitably
be suitably usedused to determine
to determine the the
MoE MoE of geopolymer
of geopolymer andand CRGPC.
CRGPC.
40
20 (GPa)
20
0
15 25 35 45
Experiment M. Nematzadeh et al.
0 S. Chitrala et al. AS 3600
ACI 1992
15 25 35 45
Figure 19. Modulus of Elasticity versus compressive strength of GPC and pre-treated CRGPC [53–
56].
Experiment M. Nematzadeh et al.
S. Chitrala et al. AS 3600
ACI 1992
For non-treated CRGPC, Figure 20 shows that all the models considered in the study
Figure
Figure 19.
provide Modulus
Modulus of
significantly
19. Elasticity
higher versus
MoE
of Elasticity compressive
values
versus compared
compressive strengthofofGPC
to the
strength GPCand
andpre-treated
measured pre-treated CRGPC
values. CRGPC [53–
[53–56].
56].
40 For non-treated
(GPa) CRGPC, Figure 20 shows that all the models considered in the study
provide significantly higher MoE values compared to the measured values.
40
20 (GPa)
20
0
15 25 35 45
Experiment M Nematzadeh et al.
0 S. Chitrala et al. AS 3600
15 ACI 1992 25 35 45
Figure
Figure20. Experiment
20.Modulus
Modulusof
ofElasticity
Elasticity versus M Nematzadeh
versus compressive strengthof
strength ofGPC
GPCetand
al.non-treated
and non-treatedCRGPC
CRGPC [53–
[53–56].
56].
S. Chitrala et al. AS 3600
For non-treated CRGPC, Figure 20 shows that all the models considered in the study
ACI 1992
A decrease
provide in the MoE
significantly higherwasMoEobserved
values with the increase
compared of rubber content
to the measured values. in the mixes;
Figure
the 20. Modulus
findings of Elasticity
are similar to many versus compressive
recent strength ofby
studies conducted GPC and non-treated
others [15,17–22].CRGPC [53–
56].
A decrease in the MoE was observed with the increase of rubber content in the mixes;
the findings are similar to many recent studies conducted by others [15,17–22].
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 16 of 25
A decrease in the MoE was observed with the increase of rubber content in the mixes;
the findings are similar to many recent studies conducted by others [15,17–22].
4.2. Stress–Strain Behaviour Comparison

Ax well-established
Materials 2024, 17, model for the stress–strain relationship of CRGPC is not read-17
FOR PEER REVIEW of 27
ily available. Consequently, existing models of stress–strain relationships are used in

this study.
4.2. Stress–Strain Behaviour Comparison
4.2.1. Existing Models A well-established model for the stress–strain relationship of CRGPC is not readily
available. Consequently, existing models of stress–strain relationships are used in this
Hardjito [57] highlighted that the stress–strain behaviour of GPC is similar to the
study.
behaviour of OPC. In his study, he showed a good match of the stress–strain relationship
for GPC with the analytical model
4.2.1. Existing Modelsproposed by Collins et al. [58]. This model was also
endorsed by the research of Chitrala
Hardjito et al. that
[57] highlighted [55]the
in stress–strain
the stress–strain
behaviourbehaviour analysis
of GPC is similar to the be-
of GPC. haviour of OPC. In his study, he showed a good match of the stress–strain relationship for
Consequently,GPC Popovics [59]
with the proposed
analytical a model,
model proposed which was et
by Collins developed formodel
al. [58]. This OPC.wasThealso en-
dorsedmatch
model also has a close by the research
with theof Chitrala
results etofal.GPC
[55] inmixes
the stress–strain
obtainedbehaviour analysis of GPC.
in this research.
In recent years, Noushini Consequently,
et al. [60]Popovics
proposed[59] aproposed a model,
stress–strain which was developed
relationship model forfor OPC.
fly The
model also has a close match with the results of GPC mixes obtained in this research. In
ash-based geopolymer concrete. Additionally, the fib model code 2010 [61] describes the
recent years, Noushini et al. [60] proposed a stress–strain relationship model for fly ash-
stress–strain relationship for short-term uniaxial compression.
based geopolymer concrete. Additionally, the fib model code 2010 [61] describes the
stress–strain relationship for short-term uniaxial compression.
4.2.2. Comparison with Existing Models
It is crucial to4.2.2. Comparison
compare with Existing
the existing models Models
with experimental results of the study
to fully understand theItmodels’
is crucialeffectiveness
to compare thein explaining
existing modelsthewithstress–strain behaviour
experimental results of theof
study to
CRGPC. Figures 21fully andunderstand
22 illustratethe models’ effectiveness
the comparison of in explaining the stress–strain
experimentally behaviour of
obtained stress–
strain data with theCRGPC.
variousFigures
existing21models.
and 22 illustrate
Figure 21thepresents
comparison of experimentally
stress–strain curvesobtained
of GPCstress–
strain data with the various existing models. Figure 21 presents stress–strain curves of
Mix 1 and treated variants of CRGPC mixes, while comparing with the models of Collins
GPC Mix 1 and treated variants of CRGPC mixes, while comparing with the models of
et al., Popovics et al., Noushini
Collins et al., and
et al., Popovics et al.,fib 2010. Figure
Noushini 22fib
et al., and compares the22experimental
2010. Figure compares the experi-
stress–strain data of non-treated
mental variants
stress–strain data ofof CRGPC variants
non-treated mixes originating
of CRGPC mixes from GPC Mix
originating 1 GPC
from
with material models. Mix 1 with material models.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 21. Cont.

Materials 2024, 17, 1031 17 of 2518 of 27
(e) (f)
(e) (f)
(g)
Figure 21. Stress–strain model comparison for GPC Mix 1 with pre-treated CRGPC and non-treated
CRGPC mixes. (a) M1 stress–strain(g) comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
CRGPC mixes. (a) M1fibstress–strain comparison
2010; (b) M1 TC05 with
stress–strain the model
comparison of the
with Collins,
modelPopovics, Noushini,
of Collins, Popovics, and and
Noushini,
fib 2010; (b) M1 TC05fibstress–strain comparison
2010; (c) M1 TC15 with
comparison of the
with Collins,
modelPopovics, Noushini,
Noushini,
CRGPC mixes. (a) M1 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib 2010; (c) M1 TC15 fib 2010; (d) M1 comparison
TC25 stress–strain comparison with Collins,
the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib stress–strain
2010; (b) M1 TC05 stress–strain with the model
comparison withofthe model ofPopovics, Noushini,
Collins, Popovics, and and
Noushini,
fib 2010; (e) M1 C25 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib 2010; (d) M1 TC25 stress–strain
fib 2010; comparison
(c) M1 TC15 stress–strainwith the model
comparison with of
theCollins,
model ofPopovics, Noushini,
Collins, Popovics, and and
Noushini,
fib 2010; (f) M1 C15 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and fib
fib 2010; (e) M1 C25 2010; (d) M1 TC25
fibstress–strain stress–strain comparison
comparison withofthe model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
2010; (g) M1 C05 stress–strainwith the model
comparison with the Collins,
model of Popovics, Noushini,
Collins, Popovics, andand
Noushini, fib
fib 2010; (f) M1 C15 stress–strain
2010. comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib 2010; (f) M1 C15 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and fib
fib 2010; (g) M1 C05 stress–strain
2010; (g) M1 C05 comparison with the model
stress–strain comparison with theof Collins,
model Popovics,
of Collins, Noushini,
Popovics, and
Noushini, and fib
fib 2010. 2010.
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) (b) 19 of 27
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 22. Cont.

Materials 2024, 17, 1031 18 of 25
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g)
CRGPC mixes. (a) M2 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
CRGPC mixes. (a) M2 fibstress–strain comparison
2010; (b) M2 TC05 with
comparison ofthe
with Collins,
model Popovics, Noushini,
Noushini,
fib 2010; (b) M2 TC05fibstress–strain
2010; (c) M2 TC15 stress–strain
comparison comparison
with with
the model ofthe model Popovics,
Collins, of Collins, Popovics,
Noushini,Noushini,
and and
fib 2010; (d) M2 TC25 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib 2010; (c) M2 TC15 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib 2010; (d) M2 TC25fibstress–strain comparison
2010; (f) M2 C15 stress–strainwith the model
comparison of Collins,
with the model of Popovics, Noushini,
Collins, Popovics, andand fib
Noushini,
fib 2010; (e) M2 C25 2010; (g) M2 C05
stress–strain stress–strain with
comparison comparison with the
the model of model
Collins,of Collins,
Popovics,Popovics, Noushini,
Noushini, andand fib
2010.
fib 2010; (f) M2 C15 stress–strain comparison with the model of Collins, Popovics, Noushini, and
fib 2010; (g) M2 C05 stress–strain
The models comparison
of Collins with
et al. the
andmodel of Collins,
Popovics Popovics,
et al. were originallyNoushini,
developed and
for OPC
fib 2010. concrete. The above figures show that ascending branches of experimental stress–strain
curves match the models of Collins et al. and Popovics et al. However, the slope of the
The models ofascending
Collins et al.ofand
part Popovics
the models et al.
started to were originally
deviate developed for
from the experimental OPC
results with the
concrete. The above figures
increase show that
of rubber ascending
content in the mix.branches of experimental
The deviation is higher in thestress–strain
non-treated rubber
concrete of
curves match the models when compared
Collins et al.with
andthe pre-treated
Popovics et counterpart.
al. However, Thethe
descending
slope ofpart
the of the
ascending part of the models started to deviate from the experimental results with the of the
experimentally obtained curves always showed values that were lower than any
models used. In both models, strain value at peak stress is obtained from the experimental
increase of rubber content in the mix. The deviation is higher in the non-treated rubber
outcomes. Hence, the strain at peak stress has a close match with the experimental results.
concrete when compared with the pre-treated counterpart. The descending part of the
experimentally obtained curves always showed values that were lower than any of the
models used. In both models, strain value at peak stress is obtained from the experimental
outcomes. Hence, the strain at peak stress has a close match with the experimental results.
However, the strain value at peak stress for the models of Noushini et al. and fib 2010 is
derived from the equation proposed in the models. From Figures 21 and 22, it is observed
that the experimentally obtained stress–strain relationship of the GPC and CRGPC samples
did not align with the model of Noushini et al. and fib 2010. The models either overestimate
or underestimate the strain at peak stress. From Table 11, it can be observed that for the
M1 specimens, the model of Noushini et al. predicted the strain at peak stress up to 91%
higher than the experimental results, whereas fib 2010 predicted up to 36% lower than the
experimental outcomes. For M2 specimens, the model of Noushini et al. predicted up to 51%
higher, and the fib 2010 model predicted up to 49% lower than the experimental results.
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 19 of 25
Table 11. Experimental results of strain at peak stress comparison with the model of Noushini et al.
and fib 2010.
Noushini et al. Fib 2010

Mix ID
% Higher % Lower
M1 4.99 25.00
M1 TC05 38.38 13.51
M1 TC15 31.34 17.91
M1 TC25 85.84 3.25
M1 C05 26.74 36.63
M1 C15 91.41 14.93
M1 C25 69.11 24.84
M2 25.90 49.64
M2 TC05 34.66 46.14
M2 TC15 30.96 47.62
M2 TC25 46.26 41.49
M2 C05 23.41 50.64
M2 C15 28.88 48.45
M2 C25 51.15 39.54
Therefore, the above-mentioned models cannot be suitably used to predict the stress–
strain relationship of fly ash-based heat-cured GPC and CRGPC.
5. Proposed Models
5.1. Modulus of Elasticity Model
In this study, based on a regression analysis of the experimentally obtained data, a
model is proposed to predict the MoE of GPC and CRGPC. The model can be expressed as
the following equation.
EC = 463 f cm + 188 (MPa), (1)
where f cm is the mean compressive strength of GPC and CRGPC in MPa.
Figures 23 and 24 illustrate a well-fitted relationship between the proposed model
and experimental data. The data is provided under Table 12. However, for the pre-treated
CRGPC, the deviation of experimental results from the predicted model is relatively lower
when compared with non-treated CRGPC. Hence, the proposed model can be used to
predict the Modulus of Elasticity of heat-treated geopolymer concrete and crumb rubber
geopolymer concrete.
40 (GPa)
R² = 1
20
0
15 25 35 45
Experiment Proposed Model
Figure23.
Figure ModulusofofElasticity
23.Modulus Elasticityversus
versus compressive
compressive strength of
of GPC
GPCand
andpre-treated
pre-treatedCRGPC
CRGPCforfor
the
the proposed
proposed model
model and
and experimental
experimental results.
results.
40 (GPa)
20 R² = 0.9988
0
15 25 35 45
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 Figure 23. Modulus of Elasticity versus compressive strength of GPC and pre-treated CRGPC for25
20 of
the proposed model and experimental results.
40 (GPa)
20 R² = 0.9988
0
15 25 35 45
Figure 24. Modulus of Elasticity versus compressive strength of GPC and non-treated CRGPC for the
Figure 24. Modulus
proposed ofexperimental
model and Elasticity versus compressive strength of GPC and non-treated CRGPC for
results.
the proposed model and experimental results.
Table 12. Elastic modulus of GPC and CRGPC as of the model.
Table 12. Elastic modulus of GPC and CRGPC as of the model.
Experiment Proposed Model Experiment Proposed Model
Mix ID Experiment Proposed Model Mix ID Experiment Proposed Model
Mix ID (GPa) (GPa) Mix ID (GPa) (GPa)
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
Mix11
Mix 18.40
18.40 19.84
19.84
M1 TC05 19.09 19.41 M1 C05 13.50 16.63
M1 TC05
M1 TC15
19.09
17.24
19.41
16.99
M1 C05
M1 C15
13.50
20.55
16.63
16.18
M1 TC15
M1 TC25 17.24
14.55 16.99
13.50 M1 C15
M1 C25 20.55
12.23 16.18
13.50
M1MixTC252 14.55
11.37 13.50
11.38 M1 C25 12.23 13.50
M2 TC05
Mix 2 9.95
11.37 9.64
11.38 M2 C05 7.78 9.03
M2 TC15 8.85 9.05 M2 C15 7.21 8.15
M2 TC05 9.95 9.64 M2 C05 7.78 9.03
M2 TC25 9.16 8.85 M2 C25 8.96 7.85
M2 TC15 8.85 9.05
M2 C15 7.21 8.15
M2 TC25 9.16 8.85 M2 C25 8.96 7.85
TC = Treated Crumb Rubber;
5.2. Stress–Strain Model C = Crumb Rubber.
The suitability of the existing model in predicting the stress–strain relationship of GPC
5.2. Stress–Strain Model
and CRGPC is discussed in Section 4.2. From the comparison of the experimental results
withThe suitability
available of the
models, theexisting
necessitymodel in predicting
of a new the stress–strain
model to predict relationship
the stress–strain of
behaviour
GPC and CRGPC is discussed in Section 4.2. From the comparison of the
of GPC and CRGPC is understandable. Based on the analysis of the experimental data, aexperimental
results
modelwith available
of the models,
stress–strain the necessity
relationship of a and
for GPC new CRGPC
model tois predict
proposed.the The
stress–strain
proposed
behaviour
model can of GPC and asCRGPC
be expressed is understandable.
the equation below. Based on the analysis of the
n ( εc / ε ′ c )
σc = fcm (MPa), (2)
n − 1 + ( εc / ε ′ c ) n
where n = n1 = [1.02 − 1.17 (Esec /Ec )]−0.95 , if εc ≤ ε′c , for GPC; n1 = [1.02 − 1.17 (Esec /Ec )]−0.85 ,
if εc ≤ ε′c , for CRGPC; n2 = n1 + (ϖ + 28 × ζ), if εc > ε′c ; ϖ = 17 (12.4 + 0.015 fcm )−0.95 ,
for GPC; ϖ = 17 (12.4 + 0.015 fcm )−1.5 , for treated CRGPC; ϖ = 17 (12.4 + 0.015 fcm )−1 , for
−7 1.74
non-treated CRGPC; ζ = 0.83 e(−911/ fcm ) ; Esec = fcm /ε′c ; ε′c = 2.23 × 101.98EC ; Ec = obtained
fcm
from Equation (1) fcm and ε′c are obtained experimentally.
Figures 25–28 present a comparison of the stress–strain relationship between experi-
mental results and the proposed model. It is observed from the mentioned figures that the
proposed stress–strain model fits well with the experimental data. To check the suitability
of the proposed model, the stress–strain relationship following the fib 2010 model is also
plotted in Figures 25–28. However, the strain value at peak stress is replaced with the ex-
perimental value. Modified fib 2010 fits very well when no rubber is added to the concrete
specimens. With the increase of rubber content in the specimens, both the ascending and
descending part of the curve deviates from the proposed model and experimental result.
proposed stress–strain model fits well with the experimental data. To check the suitability
of the proposed model, the stress–strain relationship following the fib 2010 model is also
plotted in Figures 25–28. However, the strain value at peak stress is replaced with the
experimental value. Modified fib 2010 fits very well when no rubber is added to the con-
crete specimens. With the increase of rubber content in the specimens, both the ascending
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 and descending part of the curve deviates from the proposed model and experimental 21 of 25
result.
50 (MPa) Experiment 50 (MPa) Experiment

Proposed Model Proposed Model
40 Modified fib 40
Modified fib
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(a) (b)
50 (MPa) Experiment 50 (MPa) Experiment

40 40
Modified fib Modified fib
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(c) (d)
Figure 25. Experimental stress–strain comparison with the proposed model for GPC Mix 1 and pre-
Figure 25. Experimental stress–strain comparison with the proposed model for GPC Mix 1 and
treated CRGPC mixes. (a) M1 stress–strain comparison with proposed model and modified fib; (b)
pre-treated
M1 TC05CRGPC mixes.
stress–strain (a) M1 with
comparison stress–strain comparison
the proposed model and with proposed
modified model
fib; (c) M1 TC15and modified
stress–
fib; (b) M1 TC05 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib; (c)
strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib; (d) M1 TC25 stress–strain comparison M1 TC15
stress–strain comparison
with the proposed modelwith the proposed
and modified fib. model and modified fib; (d) M1 TC25 stress–strain
comparison with the proposed model and modified fib.
50 (MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment

50
40 40
Modified fib Modified fib
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(a) (b)
50 (MPa) Experiment
Proposed Model
40 Modified fib
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(c)
Figure 26. Experimental stress–strain comparison with the proposed model for GPC Mix 1 and non-
non-treated CRGPC mixes.
M1 C15 stress–strain (a) M1with
comparison stress–strain comparison
the proposed model and with proposed
modified model
fib; (c) M1 C25 and modified
stress–
fib; (b) M1
strain C15 stress–strain
comparison comparison
with the proposed modelwith the proposed
and modified fib. model and modified fib; (c) M1 C25
stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib.
(MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment
25 25
20 Modified fib 20 Modified fib
15 15
10 10
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(c)
Materials 2024, 17, 1031
M1 C15 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib; (c) 22M1ofC25
25 stress–
strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib.

25 25
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(a) (b)

25 25
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(c) (d)
Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of
Figure 27. Experimental stress–strain comparison with the proposed model for GPC Mix 2 and 27
pre-
treated CRGPC mixes. (a) M2 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib;
pre-treated CRGPC mixes. (a) M2 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified
fib; (b) M2 TC05 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib; (c) M2 TC15
(b) M2 TC05 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib; (c) M2 TC15
stress–strain comparison withcomparison
stress–strain the proposed model
with the and model
proposed modified fib; (d) M2
and modified TC25
fib; (d) stress–strain
M2 TC25 stress–strain com-
comparison with the proposed
parison model
with the and modified
proposed model andfib.
modified fib.
25 (MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment

25
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(a) (b)
25 (MPa) Experiment
Proposed Model
20
Modified fib
15
10
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
(c)
treated CRGPC mixes. (a) M2 C05 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified
non-treated CRGPCfib;mixes.
(b) M2 (a)
C15M2 C05 stress–strain
stress–strain comparisoncomparison with the
with the proposed proposed
model modelfib;and
and modified (c) M2 C25
modified fib; (b) M2stress–strain
C15 stress–strain comparison
comparison with the proposed
with the proposed model and model and
modified fib.modified fib; (c) M2
C25 stress–strain comparison with the proposed model and modified fib.
5.3. Strain at Peak Stress
Strain at peak stress plays an important role in predicting the stress–strain behaviour
of GPC and CRGPC. It is observed from Figures 25–28 that when the strain value at peak
stress for the fib 2010 model is replaced with the experimentally obtained value, it matches
well with the experimental stress–strain behaviour of GPC and CRGPC. Due to a lack of
data, a model to predict strain at peak stress was not developed.
6. Conclusions
Fine aggregates of geopolymer concrete (GPC) were replaced with pre-treated and
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 23 of 25
5.3. Strain at Peak Stress

Strain at peak stress plays an important role in predicting the stress–strain behaviour
of GPC and CRGPC. It is observed from Figures 25–28 that when the strain value at peak
stress for the fib 2010 model is replaced with the experimentally obtained value, it matches
well with the experimental stress–strain behaviour of GPC and CRGPC. Due to a lack of
data, a model to predict strain at peak stress was not developed.
6. Conclusions
Fine aggregates of geopolymer concrete (GPC) were replaced with pre-treated and non-
treated rubber crumbs to produce crumb rubber geopolymer concrete (CRGPC). Emphasis
was given to assessing the mechanical properties of CRGPC obtained from the standard
compression tests (deformation controlled) on cylinder specimens. Based on the results,
new material models are proposed to accurately predict the mechanical properties of
CRGPC. The following conclusions have been drawn from this experimental investigation:
1. The compressive strength of CRGPC decreases with the increase of rubber content
in the mix. For a 25% fine aggregate replacement with crumb rubber, a 33% strength
reduction is observed to happen.
2. Pre-treated rubber particles provided relatively higher compressive strength com-
pared to non-treated rubber particles. Rubber pre-treatment contributed a 4% to 9%
increase in the compressive strength.
3. It is also understood that the relationship between the compressive strength and the
percentage of replacement of rubber in concrete is not linear for CRGPC.
4. With the increase of rubber content in CRGPC mixes, the Modulus of Elasticity
decreases. The decrease is observed to be higher in non-treated CRGPC compared to
treated rubber aggregates. For the pre-treated CRGPC, MoE is observed to drop up to
20%; however, for non-treated CRGPC, MoE is observed to drop up to 36%.
5. The CRGPC cylinders showed vertical cracking, with no well-formed cone under the
co-axial load.
6. To predict the Modulus of Elasticity and stress–strain of GPC and CRGPC, the existing
models for conventional concrete are found to be not suitable. However, the proposed
models can reasonably predict the Modulus of Elasticity and stress–strain properties
of heat-cured GPC and CRGPC.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.K.H. and S.A.-D.; Methodology, M.K.H. and S.A.-D.;
Validation, S.A.-D.; Formal analysis, M.K.H. and S.A.-D.; Investigation, M.K.H. and S.A.-D.;
Writing—original draft, M.K.H. and M.I.I.; Writing—review & editing, M.I.I., S.K.S. and S.A.-D.;
Visualization, M.I.I.; Supervision, S.A.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Pourmohammadimojaveri, S. High Performance Rubber Concrete; Sydney University: Sydney, Australia, 2019.
2. Thomas, B.S.; Gupta, R.C.; Kalla, P.; Cseteneyi, L. Strength, abrasion and permeation characteristics of cement concrete containing
discarded rubber fine aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 59, 204–212. [CrossRef]
3. Yadav, J.S.; Tiwari, S.K. The impact of end-of-life tires on the mechanical properties of fine-grained soil: A Review. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 2019, 21, 485–568. [CrossRef]
4. Sodupe-Ortega, E.; Fraile-Garcia, E.; Ferreiro-Cabello, J.; Sanz-Garcia, A. Evaluation of crumb rubber as aggregate for automated
manufacturing of rubberized long hollow blocks and bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 106, 305–316. [CrossRef]
5. Rigotti, D.; Dorigato, A. Novel uses of recycled rubber in civil applications. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 2022, 5, 214–233. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 24 of 25
6. Zhang, B.; Feng, Y.; Xie, J.; Lai, D.; Yu, T.; Huang, D. Rubberized geopolymer concrete: Dependence of mechanical properties and
freeze-thaw resistance on replacement ratio of crumb rubber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 310, 125248. [CrossRef]
7. Ullah, H.; Iqbal, M.; Khan, K.; Jamal, A.; Nawaz, A.; Khan, N.; Jalal, F.E.; Almaliki, A.H.; Hussein, E.E. Experimental Investigation
of the Stress–Strain Behavior and Strength Characterization of Rubberized Reinforced Concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 730. [CrossRef]
8. Gupta, T.; Chaudhary, S.; Sharma, R.K. Assessment of mechanical and durability properties of concrete containing waste rubber
tire as fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 562–574. [CrossRef]
9. Bisht, K.; Ramana, P. Evaluation of mechanical and durability properties of crumb rubber concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 155,
811–817. [CrossRef]
10. Jokar, F.; Khorram, M.; Karimi, G.; Hataf, N. Experimental investigation of mechanical properties of crumbed rubber concrete
containing natural zeolite. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 208, 651–658. [CrossRef]
11. Li, D.; Zhuge, Y.; Gravina, R.; Mills, J.E. Compressive stress strain behavior of crumb rubber concrete (CRC) and application in
reinforced CRC slab. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 166, 745–759. [CrossRef]
12. He, S.; Jiang, Z.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.; Ding, J.; Deng, H.; Mosallam, A.S. Mechanical Properties, Durability, and Structural
Applications of Rubber Concrete: A State-of-the-Art-Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8541. [CrossRef]
13. Han, Y.; Lv, Z.; Bai, Y.; Han, G.; Li, D. Experimental Study on the Mechanical Properties of Crumb Rubber Concrete after Elevated
Temperature. Polymers 2023, 15, 3102. [CrossRef]
14. Youssf, O.; Mills, J.E.; Benn, T.; Zhuge, Y.; Ma, X.; Roychand, R.; Gravina, R. Development of Crumb Rubber Concrete for Practical
Application in the Residential Construction Sector—Design and Processing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 119813. [CrossRef]
15. Khaloo, A.R.; Dehestani, M.; Rahmatabadi, P. Mechanical properties of concrete containing a high volume of tire–rubber particles.
Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 2472–2482. [CrossRef]
16. Ganjian, E.; Khorami, M.; Maghsoudi, A.A. Scrap-tyre-rubber replacement for aggregate and filler in concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2009, 23, 1828–1836. [CrossRef]
17. Mohammed, B.S. Structural behavior and m–k value of composite slab utilizing concrete containing crumb rubber. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2010, 24, 1214–1221. [CrossRef]
18. Zheng, L.; Huo, X.S.; Yuan, Y. Experimental investigation on dynamic properties of rubberized concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
2008, 22, 939–947. [CrossRef]
19. Lv, J.; Zhou, T.; Du, Q.; Wu, H. Effects of rubber particles on mechanical properties of lightweight aggregate concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 91, 145–149. [CrossRef]
20. Xie, J.-H.; Guo, Y.-C.; Liu, L.-S.; Xie, Z.-H. Compressive and flexural behaviours of a new steel-fibre-reinforced recycled aggregate
concrete with crumb rubber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 79, 263–272. [CrossRef]
21. Li, L.; Ruan, S.; Zeng, L. Mechanical properties and constitutive equations of concrete containing a low volume of tire rubber
particles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 70, 291–308. [CrossRef]
22. Hilal, N.N. Hardened properties of self-compacting concrete with different crumb rubber size and content. Int. J. Sustain.
Built Environ. 2017, 6, 191–206. [CrossRef]
23. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Ding, Y.; Jalali, S. Properties and durability of concrete containing polymeric wastes (tyre rubber and
polyethylene terephthalate bottles): An overview. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 30, 714–724. [CrossRef]
24. Abd-Elaal, E.-S.; Araby, S.; Mills, J.E.; Youssf, O.; Roychand, R.; Ma, X.; Zhuge, Y.; Gravina, R.J. Novel approach to improve crumb
rubber concrete strength using thermal treatment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 229, 116901. [CrossRef]
25. Chylík, R.; Trtík, T.; Fládr, J.; Bílý, P. Mechanical properties and durability of crumb rubber concrete. IOP Conf. Series Mater.
Sci. Eng. 2017, 236, 012093. [CrossRef]
26. Saloni; Parveen; Pham, T.M.; Lim, Y.Y.; Malekzadeh, M. Effect of pre-treatment methods of crumb rubber on strength, permeability
and acid attack resistance of rubberised geopolymer concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 41, 102448. [CrossRef]
27. Hassanli, R.; Youssf, O.; Mills, J.E. Experimental investigations of reinforced rubberized concrete structural members. J. Build. Eng.
2017, 10, 149–165. [CrossRef]
28. Youssf, O.; Mills, J.E.; Hassanli, R. Assessment of the mechanical performance of crumb rubber concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
2016, 125, 175–183. [CrossRef]
29. Aly, A.M.; El-Feky, M.; Kohail, M.; Nasr, E.-S.A. Performance of geopolymer concrete containing recycled rubber. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2019, 207, 136–144. [CrossRef]
30. Dong, M.; Elchalakani, M.; Karrech, A.; Yang, B. Strength and durability of geopolymer concrete with high volume rubber
replacement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 274, 121783. [CrossRef]
31. Zhang, H.; Gou, M.; Liu, X.; Guan, X. Effect of rubber particle modification on properties of rubberized concrete. J. Wuhan Univ.
Technol. Sci. Ed. 2014, 29, 763–768. [CrossRef]
32. Shahzad, K.; Zhao, Z. Experimental study of NaOH pretreated crumb rubber as substitute of fine aggregate in concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 358, 129448. [CrossRef]
33. Rajagopal, M.R.; Bhavya, M.; Kumari, G.J. Study on the impact of pre-treatment method and admixture on the mechanical and
durability properties of crumb rubber concrete. AIP Conf. Proc. 2024, 3010, 020010.
34. Najim, K.B.; Hall, M.R. Crumb rubber aggregate coatings/pre-treatments and their effects on interfacial bonding, air entrapment
and fracture toughness in self-compacting rubberised concrete (SCRC). Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 2029–2043. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 1031 25 of 25
35. Raghavan, D.; Huynh, H. Workability, mechanical properties, and chemical stability of a recycled tyre rubber-filled cementitious
composite. J. Mater. Sci. 1998, 33, 1745–1752. [CrossRef]
36. Davidovits, J. False Values on CO2 Emission for Geopolymer Cement/Concrete Published in Scientific Papers; Technical Paper 24;
Geopolymer Institute: Saint-Quentin, France, 2015.
37. Shill, S.K.; Al-Deen, S.; Ashraf, M.; Hutchison, W. Resistance of fly ash based geopolymer mortar to both chemicals and high
thermal cycles simultaneously. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 239, 117886. [CrossRef]
38. Vora, P.R.; Dave, U.V. Parametric Studies on Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete. Procedia Eng. 2013, 51, 210–219.
[CrossRef]
39. Giri, Y.G.A.P.; Mohammed, B.S.; Liew, M.S.; Zawawi, N.A.W.A.; Abdulkadir, I.; Singh, P.; Ravindran, G. Mechanical and
Microstructural Properties of Rubberized Geopolymer Concrete: Modeling and Optimization. Buildings 2023, 13, 2021. [CrossRef]
40. Luhar, S.; Chaudhary, S.; Luhar, I. Development of rubberized geopolymer concrete: Strength and durability studies.
41. Moghaddam, S.C.; Madandoust, R.; Jamshidi, M.; Nikbin, I.M. Mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with
crumb rubber and steel fiber under ambient and sulfuric acid conditions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 281, 122571. [CrossRef]
42. Basics, C. A Guide to Concrete Practice; Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia (CCAA): Melbourne, Australia, 2004.
43. AS 1478.1:2000; Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Mortar and Grout-Admixtures for Concrete. Standards Association of
Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2000.
44. AS 3582.1:1998; Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Use with Portland and Blended Cement, Part 1: Fly Ash. Standards
Association of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 1998.
45. AS 1141.0:1999; Methods for Sampling and Testing Aggregates. Standards Association of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 1974.
46. AS 2758.1:2014; Aggregates and Rock for Engineering Purposes-Concrete Aggregates. Standards Association of Australia: Sydney,
Australia, 2014.
47. Hardjito, D.; Rangan, B.V. Development and Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete; Curtin University of
Technology: Perth, Australia, 2005.
48. Talha Junaid, M.; Kayali, O.; Khennane, A. Response of alkali activated low calcium fly-ash based geopolymer concrete under
compressive load at elevated temperatures. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50, 50. [CrossRef]
49. Junaid, M.T. Performance of Geopolymer Concrete at Elevated Temperatures; The University of New South Wales: Canberra,
Australia, 2015.
50. Shin, S.; Goh, G.; Lee, C. Predictions of compressive strength of GPC blended with GGBFS developed at varying temperatures.
51. AS 1012.9:2014; Methods of Testing Concrete, Compressive Strength Tests—Concrete, Mortar and Grout Specimens. Standards
52. AS 1012.5:2014; Methods of Testing Concrete Determination of Mass per Unit Volume of Freshly Mixed Concrete. Standards
53. AS 3600:2018; Australian Standard for Concrete Structures, BD-002: Concrete Structures. Standards Association of Australia:
Sydney, Australia, 2018.
54. Nematzadeh, M.; Salari, A.; Ghadami, J.; Naghipour, M. Stress-strain behavior of freshly compressed concrete under axial
compression with a practical equation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 115, 402–423. [CrossRef]
55. Chitrala, S.; Jadaprolu, G.J.; Chundupalli, S. Study and predicting the stress-strain characteristics of geopolymer concrete under
compression. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2018, 8, 172–192. [CrossRef]
56. ACI 363r:1992; State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete. Standards Association of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 1992.
57. Hardjito, D. Studies on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete; Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2005.
58. Collins, M.P.; Mitchell, D.; MacGregor, J.G. Structural design considerations for high-strength concrete. Concr. Int. 1993, 15, 27–34.
59. Popovics, S. A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1973, 3, 583–599. [CrossRef]
60. Noushini, A.; Aslani, F.; Castel, A.; Gilbert, R.I.; Uy, B.; Foster, S. Compressive stress-strain model for low-calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer and heat-cured Portland cement concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 73, 136–146. [CrossRef]
61. Dehn, F. Constitutive Concrete and Durability Models in the New Fib Model Code 2010; Encontro Nacional BETÃO ESTRUTURAL
(National Concrete Structural)-BE2012 FEUP; 2012; pp. 1–12. Available online: https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~be2012/Indice/BE201
2/pdf-files/Artigo_C2.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2024).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Materials: Mechanical Properties of Rubberised Geopolymer Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials: Mechanical Properties of Rubberised Geopolymer Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials: Mechanical Properties of Rubberised Geopolymer Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

materials

Materials 2024, 17, 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17051031 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

2. Materials and Methods

Table 1. Specimen details of GPC and CRGPC mixes.

Standard compression tests and deformation-controlled compression tests were car-

2.1. Raw Materials and Treatment

Materials 2024, 17, 1031 Element 4 ofContent

<1 mm 1~3 mm 2~4 mm

Upper Limits Lower Limits Crumb Rubber Sand

2.1.2. Crumb Rubber Pre-Treatment

The importance of rubber surface pre-treatment can be more understandable from

Smooth Surface Smooth Surface

Rough Surface (a) (b)

2.2. GPC and CRGPC Mixing

Table 4. Mix design of GPC Mix 1.

Mix Design of Mix 1 (kg/m3 )

Table 5. Mix design of GPC Mix 2.

Mix Design of Mix 2 (kg/m3 )

3. Experimental Results and Discussion

Table 6. Compressive strengths of GPC and CRGPC mixes.

Strength Batch Strength Strength Batch Strength

Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW

22000 Density (N/m3) 22000 Density (N/m3)

22000 Density (N/m3) 22000 Density (N/m3)

21100 TCR M1 M1 C05 21100

Table 8. The Modulus of Elasticity of GPC and CRGPC mixes.

Table 8. The Modulus of Elasticity of GPC and CRGPC mixes.

M1 C15 20.16 14.69

Mix ID Strain at Peak Stress, (ε)

Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW

(a) (b) (c)

4. Comparison with Codes and Models

4.2. Stress–Strain Behaviour Comparison

ily available. Consequently, existing models of stress–strain relationships are used in

Figure 21. Cont.

Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27

Materials 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) (b) 19 of 27

Figure 22. Cont.

Noushini et al. Fib 2010

50 (MPa) Experiment 50 (MPa) Experiment

50 (MPa) Experiment 50 (MPa) Experiment

50 (MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment

(MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment

(MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment

25 (MPa) Experiment (MPa) Experiment

5.3. Strain at Peak Stress

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.