Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp.

23-31, 2012
Available online at http://www.cjasr.com
ISSN: 2251-9114, 2012 CJASR
23

Experimental and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Hybrid Powder Rubberized-
Normal Concrete under Impact Load

Mustafa Maher Al-Tayeb
1
, B.H. Abu Bakar
1*
, Hanafi Ismail
2
, Hazizan Md Akil
2

1
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
2
School of Materials & Mineral Resources

Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus, 14300 Nibong
Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: cebad@eng.usm.my;

The effect of cement reduction on the behavior of hybrid concrete (double-layer beam with a rubberized top and
a normal bottom) under the impact of three-point bending loading is investigated in this study. The experiment
was conducted through the proportional addition of waste powder rubber. Concrete specimens were prepared
by adding 5% and 20% rubber powder as filler and by decreasing cement by the same percentage. Two types of
specimens (size 50100400 mm), namely, plain and hybrid concrete, were loaded onto a drop-weight impact
machine by subjecting to 20 N weight from a height of 300 mm. Similar specimens were used for the static load
test. Bending load-displacement behavior was analyzed for the plain and hybrid concrete beams under static and
impact loads. A three-dimensional finite-element method simulation was also performed using LUSAS V.14 to
study the impact of load-displacement behavior. The predictions were validated using the experimental results.
The results reveal that the impact of bending load in the hybrid beam increases with the increased percentage of
rubber powder, whereas the static peak of bending load decreases significantly.

Key words: Rubber powder; Hybrid structure; Impact energy; Finite element method.

1. INTRODUCTION

Cement consumption continuously increases.
Cement is the main constituent of concrete, which
is the most widely used construction material. The
increased use of cement poses an environmental
challenge because 5% to 8% of the global
anthropogenic CO
2
emissions originate from
cement production (Scrivener and Kirkpatrick,
2008). The increased generation of waste rubber
also has adverse ecological effects due to its health
hazards and landfill difficulties. The high cost of
disposal and the requirement of large landfill areas
result in random and illegal dumping of waste
rubber (Siddique and Naik, 2004). As a promising
solution to these problems, mixing waste crumb
rubber with concrete as a replacement for sand has
recently gained attention. This process improves
the flexibility and ductility of concrete (Al-Tayeb
et al., 2012a; Sukontasukkul and Chaikaew 2006).
Substantial works report on the use of polymers
such as tire rubber as cement replacement and the
use of sand or aggregates in concrete mixtures
(Corinaldesi et al., 2011; Eldin and Senouci, 1993;
Ganjian et al., 2009; Khatib and Bayomy, 1999; Li
et al., 2004; Sukontasukkul and Chaikaew, 2006;
Taha et al., 2008; Topcu, 1995; Topcu and
Avcular, 1997; Topcu and Bilir, 2009; Tortum et
al., 2005). These studies reveal that the addition of
rubber to concrete enhances elastic behavior, but
reduces compressive strength.
Al-Tayeb et al., (2012b) investigated the effect
of partial replacements of sand and cement with
waste rubber on the fracture characteristics of
concrete. They found that the addition of waste tire
in concrete enhanced the fracture properties, but
decreased its compressive and flexural strengths.
Sukontasukkul and Chaikaew, (2006)
demonstrated that the replacement of coarse
aggregate and sand with crumb rubber enhanced
the flexibility, toughness, energy absorption, and
ductility of concrete, but reduced its compressive
and flexural strengths. In an impact test, Al-Tayeb
et al., (2012c) observed that the replacement of
sand with the crump rubber particles in concrete
enhanced impact resistance. Ganjian et al., (2009)
studied the effect of partial replacement of cement
with rubber powder and coarse aggregate with
chipped rubber on the flexural strength of concrete.
They showed that the former process caused more
reduction (37%) in flexural strength compared with
the latter (29%).
The present study investigates the effects of the
addition of waste powder rubber on the load-
displacement behavior and fracture energy of plain
concrete and the hybrid concrete (double-layer
beam with a rubberized top and a normal bottom)
under impact load. The experiment was conducted
by adding 5% and 20% powder rubber with
Al-Tayeb et al.
Experimental and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Hybrid Powder Rubberized-Normal Concrete under Impact
Load
24
proportional decrease in cement content. The
results were compared with those under static load
using FEM simulations. To the knowledge of the
authors, this type of analysis has not been reported
thus far. For each case, three 50 mm 100 mm
400 mm beams were loaded to failure in a drop-
weight impact machine to facilitate the dropping of
20 N weight from 300 mm height. Similar
specimens were tested under static load. The tup
and bending load histories and the load-
displacement behavior were analyzed for the plain
and hybrid concrete beams.




2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Materials

Concrete with 40MPa compressive strength was
prepared as the control mix. The maximum coarse
aggregate size was 20 mm, and natural sand was
used as the fine aggregate. The specific gravities of
the coarse aggregate and sand were 2.64 and 2.66
respectively. Rubberized concrete mixes, namely,
PrT 5% and PrT 20%, correspond to the additions
of 5% and 20% volume of waste rubber powder
(Figure 1) with a particle size of 0.150.6 mm
(Figure 2) and relative density of 0.6. The
compositions of the plain and rubberized concrete
samples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Mixture properties of plain and rubber powder concrete
Unit Rubber
percent
Cement Water Sand Coarse
aggregate
Crumb
rubber
Weight (kg) - 395 190 797 973 0
Volume(m
3
) 0% 125 190 301 367 0
Weight (kg) - 374 180 797 973 3.8
Volume(m
3
) 5% 119 180 301 367 6.25
Weight (kg) - 315 152 797 973 15
Volume(m
3
) 20% 100 152 301 367 25



Fig. 1: Image of the rubber powder sample.



Fig. 2: Particle size distribution of rubber powder.

To conduct the compression and modulus of
elasticity tests, three cylinders with a height of 200
mm and a diameter 100 mm were used for each
type based on ASTM C 39 and ASTM C 469.
Based on ASTM C 496, three cylinders with a
height of 160 mm and a diameter of 100 mm were
used for split-tensile testing. The specimens for
three-point static and impact flexural loading tests
Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 23-31, 2012
25
were 100 mm wide, 50 mm deep, and 400 mm
long, with a loaded span of 300 mm. All specimens
were cured in water for 28 day in accordance with
ASTM C 192/C192M-98.

2.2. Experimental procedure

Impact tests were conducted on an instrumented
falling-weight impact machine (Figure 3). The
machine facilitated the dropping of 2 kg hammer
from variable heights of up to 2 m (a drop height
of 0.3 m was chosen in this study). The impact
load history during the test was measured using a
Kistler933A piezo-electric load cell of 50 kN
capacity. The specimens were supported by two
steel cylinders of 10 mm diameter, positioned on
movable right-angled supports. The specimen
acceleration during impact was recorded by Dytran
3224A2 accelerometer with a range of 2500 g (g
is gravitational acceleration) and sensitivity of 2
mV/g. Data from the load cell and the
accelerometer were recorded at 0.2 ms intervals
using a PC-based data-acquisition system.


Fig. 3: The experimental impact flexural test rig.

The tup load, P
t
at the mid-span of the beam
recorded by the load cell is the sum of inertial load
(Pi) and bending load (Pb) acting at the center
(Banthia, 1987; Banthia et al., 1987; Banthia et al.,
1989; Banthia et al., 1999). So:
P
b
= P
t
- P
i
(1)
where Pi for linear distribution of accelerations
along the beam is uniform, and expressed by:
Pi = A a [L/3 + (8/3) (ov
3
/L
2
)] (2)
where : mass density of concrete; A: area of
cross-section of the beam; a: acceleration at the
center; L: span of the test beam; and ov: length of
the overhang.
The displacement histories at the load-point can be
obtained by double integrating the acceleration
history a(t):
dt t a
} }
t
0
t
0
) ( = d(t)

(3)
The fracture energy was calculated as the area
under impact bending load versus displacement
curve [23-26].

2.3 Finite element model

In order to simulate the behavior of rubberized
concrete beams subjected to the impact load,
LUSAS V.14 was used. The concrete beam was
assumed to be built up with hexahedron elements
(Figure 4) using standard shape functions as
represented by equation (4) [27].

( ) ) 1 )( 1 )( 1 (
8
1
, ,
) (
, , q q , q
i i i
e
i
N + + + =

(4)
Al-Tayeb et al.
Experimental and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Hybrid Powder Rubberized-Normal Concrete under Impact
Load
26


Fig. 4: The 8-node hexahedron and the natural coordinates , , .

The deformation was calculated by using the
following expression:

{ } { }

=
=
np
i
i i
u N u
1
] [

(5)

where {u}: the deformation vector at any
location over the element; {ui}: the deformation
vector at the specified node of the element; [Ni]:
the nodal shape function matrix of size (3 3); np:
the total number of the nodes in the element.
The boundary conditions (Figure.5) were set as:
The tup load curve obtained from experiment
was used to define the load at the location Pt
(x=200mm, y=50mm, z=50mm), and each beam
was supported widthwise with cylindrical supports
at locations x =50mm (support 1) and x =350mm
(support 2). Elasto-plastic material was used to
model both plain and rubberized concrete
structures. To choose the appropriate number of
elements and mesh size, a number of trials were
made, and 1024 elements (mesh size: 12.5 mm
12.5 mm 12.5mm) were found to be optimum.
The simulation took about 20 minutes, in a
Pentium (R) computer with dual-Core Processor:
CPU T4500 @ 2.30GHz 2.30 GHz; 3.00GB RAM.


5a. Plain 5b. Hybrid
Fig.5: Finite element models for two types of specimens.
The nonlinear equilibrium equation [28] is given
by:

} { } ]{ [ } ]{ [ } ]{ [
e
f d K v C a M = + +

(6)

where M is the mass matrix which is defined as:

}
=
=
n
e
v
e e T e
dv N N M
1
) ( ) ( ) (
] [ ] [ ] [ ] [

(7)

where N is the element shape function array and
is the density matrix. C is the Rayleigh damping
matrix expressed by:
] [ ] [ ] [ K b M a C
R R
+ =

(8)

where K is the structure stiffness matrix defined
by:

}
=
=
n
e
v
e e T e
dv B D B K
1
) ( ) ( ) (
] [ ] [ ] [ ] [

(9)

where B is the strain displacement matrix and D is
material modulus matrix; a
R
(eq. 10) and b
R
(eq.
11) are the Rayleigh damping coefficient of mass
and stiffness respectively.
Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 23-31, 2012
27
) (
) ( 2
2 2
s f
s f f s s f
R
a
= =
= = = =

=

(10)

) (
) ( 2
2 2
s f
s s f f
R
b
= =
= =

=

(11)

where
f
and
s
are the damping ratio of the
structure for first circular frequency (
f
= ) and
second circular frequency (
s
= ) respectively. The
damping ratio for first circular and second circular
frequencies is assumed as 5% (Chopra, 1995).
Explicit (central difference) nonlinear dynamic
scheme was used to determine the acceleration and
thus the velocity and displacement increments for
each time step. Explicit scheme is used for
problems which require small time steps such as
shock response from explosive or impact loading
(LUSAS 14).
The central difference algorithm implemented
in LUSAS 14 is as follows:
For each time step n

Ma (t
n
) =f (t
n
) (12)

v(t
n+1/2
)= v(t
n1/2
)+ a(t
n
)[ t
n
-t
n-1
] (13)

d (T
n+1
) =d (t
n
) +v (t
n+1/2
) tn

(14)

where a, v and d are the acceleration, velocity
and displacement of any node.
For numerical stability, LUSAS itself computes
the time step.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Experimental results

Table 2 summarizes the results of the average
compressive and tensile stresses and the elastic
modulus. The partial substitution of cement by
powder rubber reduced the compressive and tensile
stresses of concrete by 19%51% and 13%40%,
respectively. Compared with plain concrete, the
elastic modulus of the mixture containing 5%20%
fine powder rubber as a substitute for sand was
reduced to approximately 10%31%. Ganjian et
al., (2009) also reported this reduction.

Table 2: Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
Concrete
type
Average compressive stress
(MPa)
Average splitting tensile
stress (MPa)
Average elastic modulus
(kN/mm
2
)
Plain 37
3.36
28.83
Pr 5%
30
2.91
26.02
Pr20%
18
2.03
19.81

Figure 6 shows the variation of tup load with
time, which indicates that the total impact load
increases with the addition of 5% and 20% rubber
powder and the proportional reduction of cement
volume. The enhanced total impact load is
attributed to the high-energy capacity of rubber
compared to normal concrete (Topcu, 1995).
Therefore, the addition of rubber improved the
ductility and impact absorption capacity of the
mixture. Hughes and Watson, (1978) and Fu et al.
(1991) also concluded that higher static bending
strength in concrete results in lower relative
increase in bending strength as the strain rate
increases. Concrete strength with high
water/cement (low c/w) ratio increases more at
high strain rates.

Al-Tayeb et al.
Experimental and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Hybrid Powder Rubberized-Normal Concrete under Impact
Load
28

Fig. 6: Tup load history.

The normal and hybrid rubberized-normal
beams failed in the bending mode. No material
delamination was observed during the hybrid beam
test. Figure 7 depicts the histories of tup load,
inertial load, and bending load for plain concrete
and the two types of hybrid rubberized-normal
concrete structure. The inertial and bending loads
increase with the increased percentage of cement
replacement with powder rubber. The inertial load
increases because the addition of rubber increases
the flexibility of the composite mixture. The
increased tup and bending loads are caused by the
enhanced ability of the rubberized top to absorb
impact energy (Topcu, 1995). The rubberized top
is directly subjected to the impact load. Plain
concrete has better tensile strength than rubberized
concrete. Therefore, a plain bottom has a clear
ability to resist the tensile stress resulting from the
impact load on the hybrid structure. Hughes and
Watson, (1978) and Fu et al. (1991) also concluded
that higher static bending strength in concrete
results in the lower relative increase of bending
strength as the strain rate increases. The strength of
concrete with high water/cement (low c/w) ratio
increases more at high strain rates. Thus, the
present hybrid structure exploits the important
positive features of normal concrete beams,
thereby maximizing its performance under impact
load.


Fig. 7a: Plain concrete.


Fig. 7b: PrT 5%.


Fig. 7c: PrT 20%.
Fig. 7: Variations in Tup, inertial, and bending loads with time.
Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 23-31, 2012
29
Figure 8 shows the calculated impact bending
load against deflection for the plain and the two
types of hybrid rubberized-normal concrete
structure. This article defines fracture energy as the
area subjected to impact bending load vs.
displacement curve (Banthia, 1987; Banthia et al.,
1987; Banthia et al., 1989; Banthia et al., 1999).
Table 3 summarizes the fracture energies for the
plain and hybrid concrete beams. The dynamic
fracture energy is higher than the static fracture
energy, which is similar to the findings in previous
studies (Banthia, 1987; Banthia et al., 1987;
Banthia et al., 1989; Banthia et al., 1999; Jerome
and Ross 1997). The fracture energy of the plain
concrete under impact load is 1.17 Nm. The
fracture energy for the PrT 5% increases by 25%,
whereas a significant increase of 97% is observed
in the PrT 20%.



Fig. 8: Impact bending load against deflection.

3.2 Comparison of Dynamic and Static Test
Results

Table 3 shows the comparison between the results
obtained from static bending and impact bending
tests. Generally the static peak bending load is less
than the impact peak bending load; this is
consistent with the published works (Banthia,
1987; Banthia et al., 1987; Banthia et al., 1989;
Banthia et al., 1999; Jerome and Ross 1997). It is
also observed that that the ratio between dynamic
and static peak bending loads increases with
increase in the percentage of rubber powder. This
is because adding rubber to concrete with
proportional decrease in cement content decreases
its strength under static load, but the ability of
rubber to absorb dynamic energy enhances the
strength of concrete under impact load.

Table 3: Comparison of experimental static and impact bending
Concrete
mixes
Static test Impact test Dynamic/Static
Peak bending
load (N)
Fracture energy
(N.m)
Peak bending
load (N)
Fracture energy
(N.m)
Peak bending
load
Fracture
energy
Plain 3417 0.408 3701 1.17 1.08 2.87
Pr 5% 3265 0.411 4248 1.46 1.30 3.55
Pr 20% 2438 0.434 4330 2.30 1.78 5.30

3.3 Comparison of simulation and experimental
results

Figure 9 shows the result of the comparison
between the predicted impact load vs. the
displacement behaviors for plain concrete and the
two types of hybrid structure beams. The results
demonstrate the strength of the proposed model in
handling the problem under investigation.
Compared to the plain concrete, the rubberized
concrete samples show some acceptable
discrepancies. The displacement of the plain
concrete at the end of the impact response is 1 mm
in simulation and 0.8 mm in the experiment. The
respective displacements increase with the increase
of cement replacement by rubber and reaches 1.4
Al-Tayeb et al.
Experimental and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Hybrid Powder Rubberized-Normal Concrete under Impact
Load
30
and 1.2 mm, as shown in Figure 9c. Thus, we can
deduce that the proposed FEM model can
excellently handle the problem under investigation.


Fig. 9a. Plain concrete.


Fig. 9b. PrT 5%.

Fig. 9c. PrT 20%.
Fig. 9: Comparison of experimental and model results on impact load against displacement.
4. CONCLUSION

The behaviors of the plain and hybrid rubberized-
normal concrete beam were studied under dynamic
and static load conditions. Concrete specimens
were prepared by adding 5% and 20% rubber
powder as filler to the mixture. Cement content
was decreased by the same parentages. All
specimens were tested under impact and static
loads. The reduction in cement volume through the
addition of rubber powder improved the impact
tup, inertial load, and bending load. The static peak
bending load consistently decreased with the
decrease of cement volume, and the impact
bending energies were consistently larger than the
static energies. The experimental observations of
impact load-displacement behavior matched the
numerical predictions obtained by the proposed
FEM model.

REFERENCES

Al-Tayeb MM, Abu Bakar BH, Akil HM, Ismail H
(2012a). Performance of Rubberized and
Hybrid Rubberized Concrete Structures
under Static and Impact Load Conditions.
Experimental Mechanics, DOI:
10.1007/s11340-012-9651-z.
Al-Tayeb MM, Abu Bakar BH, Akil HM, Ismail
H (2012b). Effect of partial replacements of
sand and cement by waste rubber on the
fracture characteristics of concrete. Polymer-
Plastics Technology and Engineering, 51(6):
583-589.
Al-Tayeb MM, Abu Bakar BH, Akil HM, Ismail H
(2012c). Impact Resistance of Concrete with
Partial Replacements of Sand and Cement by
Waste Rubber. Polymer-Plastics Technology
and Engineering, 51(12): 1230-1236.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C192/192 (2006) Standard practice
for making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory, vol. 4.02, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C39/C39 (2001) Test Method for
Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Pennsylvania.
Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 23-31, 2012
31
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C469 (1994) Standard Test Method
for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's
Ratio of Concrete in Compression, Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C496 (1996) Test Method for
Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C78 (1994) Standard test method
for flexural strength of concrete (using
simple beam with third-point loading). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Banthia N (1987). Impact resistance of concrete.
PhD thesis, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Banthia N, Gupta PI, Yan, C (1999). Impact
resistance of fiber reinforced wet-mix
shotcrete. Part 1: beam tests. Materials and
Strutures, 32(8):563-570.
Banthia N, Mindess S, Bentur A (1987). Impact
Behavior of Concrete Beams. Materials and
Strutures 20(119): 293302.
Banthia N, Mindess S, Bentur A (1989). Pigeon M.
Impact testing of concrete using a drop
weight impact machine. Experimental
Mechanics, 29(2): 6369.
Chopra AK (2007). Dynamics of Structures:
Theory and Application to Earthquake
Engineering. third edition Prentice-Hall.
Corinaldesi V, Mazzoli A, Moriconi G(2011).
Mechanical behaviour and thermal
conductivity of mortars containing waste
rubber particles. Materials and Design, 32(3):
1646-1650.
Eldin NN, Senouci AB (1993). Rubber-tire
particles as concrete aggregate. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 5(4): 478
496.
Fu H, Erki M, Seckin M(1991). Review Of effects
of loading rate on concrete in compression.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 117: 3645-
3659.
Ganjian E, Khorami M, Maghsoudi AA (2005)
Scrap tyre rubber replacement for aggregate
and filler in concrete. Construction and
Building Materials, 23(5): 18281836.
Hughes B, Watson A (1978). Compressive strength
and ultimate strain of concrete under impact
loading. Magazine of Concrete Research,
30(105): 189-199.
Jerome DM, Ross CA (1997). Simulation of the
dynamic response of concrete beams
externally reinforced with carbon-fiber
reinforced plastic. Computers and Structures,
64(5-6):11291153.
Khatib ZK, Bayomy FM (1999). Rubberized
Portland cement concrete. J Mater Civ Eng,
11(3): 206213.
Li G, Stubblefield MA, Garrick G, Eggers J,
Abadie C, Huang B (2004). Development of
waste tire modified concrete. Cement and
Concrete Research, 34(12): 22832289.
LUSAS 14 (2006). Theory manual. volume 1 FEA
Ltd., V.14.0.3. Surrey, UK.
Oate E (2009). Structural Analysis with the Finite
Element Method. Linear Statics. Volume 1:
Basis and Solids (Lecture Notes on
Numerical Methods in Engineering and
Sciences) Springer.
Reda-Taha MM, El-Dieb AS, Abd.El-Wahab MA,
Abdel-Hameed ME (2008). Mechanical,
fracture, and microstructural investigations
of rubber concrete. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 20(10): 640649.
Scrivener KL, Kirkpatrick RJ (2008). Innovation in
use and research on cementitious material.
Cement and Concrete Research, 38(2): 128-
136.
Siddique R, Naik TR (2004). Properties of
concrete containing scrap-tire rubber -An
overview. Waste Management, 24(6):563
569.
Sukontasukkul P, Chaikaew C (2006). Properties
of concrete pedestrian block mixed with
crumb rubber. Construction and Building
Materials, 20(7): 450457.
Topcu IB (1995). The properties of rubberized
concretes. Cement and Concrete Research,
25(2): 304310.
Topcu IB, Avcular N (1997). Collision behaviours
of rubberized concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research, 27(12): 1893-1898.
Topcu IB, Bilir T (2009). Analysis of rubberized
concrete as a three phase composite material.
Journal of Composite Materials, 43(11):
12511263.
Tortum A, Celik C, Aydin AC (2005).
Determination of the optimum conditions for
tire rubber in asphalt concrete. Building and
Environment, 40(11): 1492504.