2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential use of rubber as aggregate in structural reinforced concrete element – A review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
53
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 142 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
53
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The rubber particles consisted of six size ranges: 0-0.5 mm, 0.5-0.8 mm, 1.0-2.5 mm, 2-4 mm, 4-10 mm and 10-20 mm. These represented 5%, 15%, 20%, 10% and 45% of the total added rubber blend, respectively, and were chosen following a detailed mix optimisation procedure in which a balance between workability and strength loss was sought [2]. The specific gravity of rubber was 1.1, and the fineness modulus of the rubber blend was 4.90.…”
Section: Concrete Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The rubber particles consisted of six size ranges: 0-0.5 mm, 0.5-0.8 mm, 1.0-2.5 mm, 2-4 mm, 4-10 mm and 10-20 mm. These represented 5%, 15%, 20%, 10% and 45% of the total added rubber blend, respectively, and were chosen following a detailed mix optimisation procedure in which a balance between workability and strength loss was sought [2]. The specific gravity of rubber was 1.1, and the fineness modulus of the rubber blend was 4.90.…”
Section: Concrete Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The potential benefits of rubberised concrete (RuC) compared with conventional concrete materials (CCMs) were highlighted in various recent investigations [1]. These studies indicated that RuC possesses enhanced ductility, energy absorption, durability and sound insulation, as well as lower unit weight in comparison with CCM [2]. In contrast, the partial replacement of mineral aggregates with rubber particles had a detrimental effect on the fresh and mechanical properties, particularly in terms of the reduction in elastic modulus as well as the compressive and tensile strengths [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The minimum the difference is the maximum will be the polymer‐filler interaction. [ 1,3,21,48 ] Figure 6D shows the delta stress of the samples before and after hydration. It can be inferred that the WC40 and WC20SG40 samples both before and after hydration have a good polymer‐filler interaction.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparable to cement, fly ash (FA), and slag (SG), which are industrial wastes (by‐products) also possess cementing properties due to the presence of the cementitious phases, calcium silicate (CS), and calcium silicate hydrate (CSH). [ 1–7,8–10 ] Owing to such properties, these industrial wastes are presently being utilized in various construction sites as expedient substitutes. [ 3,5–7,11 ]…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation