Flexural Strength of Concrete with

Steel Reinforcement versus Used Rubber Tire Strip

Bolaño, PAM N., De Guzman, AC M., Gerez, A. A., Villareal, JK C.

Adviser: Engr. Alexander D. Co

Abstract:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
Today, inventions, prototypes and even theories are being made and formulated because of
the increasing effects of the things that human beings are also responsible for – Global Warming.
In the field of engineering, specifically in the construction industry, finding new ways to innovate
or re-define construction materials by either using new technologies or/and alternative materials
such as wastes are broadly used nowadays.
Rubber, obtained from scrapped tires, is considered as the most recent waste material that
has been examined because of its possible contribution in the said field. Also, the increasing
number of waste tires are becoming a problem not just in the Philippines but also around the globe.
According to Forrest (2017), the annual global consumption of rubber tires alone is approximately
11 million tons. Because of its composition and properties, such as its chemical composition, its
decomposition is harder than the usual rubber. In scholarly works, it was found out that waste tires
cannot be destroyed by the environment on both biological and chemical processes. Waste tires
can only be burned at temperatures above 322℃. Such burning can produce harmful effects to
humans and also to the environment. Thus, this method is being avoided as much as possible.
However, other properties such as its tensile strength can be considered in order to use weary tires
in other ways to reduce its number.
In designing the structural elements, concrete has been widely known to be reinforced with
steel to gain tensile strength. The compatibility between steel and concrete is strong and efficient
when the two acts together to resist the external load. Aside from the compatibility, properties of
reinforcing element such as modulus of elasticity, ductility, and the yield strength must be
substantially greater than the concrete to attain the desired strength of the reinforced concrete
section; and the steel have this essential factors needed (Shahram Pezeshk, 2014). The contraction
and expansion rate of concrete and steel are comparable because of the similarity in the coefficient
of thermal expansion of both materials. These are the reason on why steel is an effective
reinforcing material for concrete structures.
Rubber Tire
The difference between motor vehicle tires and truck tires is not only in the shape, weight,
and size but also on the percentage of the rubber content inside the material. The specification of
the rubber is essential because of its influence in the shape and texture, and most importantly, on
the characteristic of the concrete to be modified. According to Evans & Evans (2006), Passenger
Car Tire has 47% elastomer/rubber, 21.50% carbon black, 16.5% metal, 5.5% textile, 1% zinc
oxide, 1% Sulfur, and 7.5% additives; while Lorry Tires (Truck Tires) has 45% elastomer/rubber,
22% carbon black, 25% metal, 2% zinc oxide, 1% Sulfur, and 5% additives.
 Carbon black are fillers used to improve the tear, tensile, and abrasion properties of rubber.
Additionally, rubber that does not strain-crystallize has a reinforcement in itself to attain the
adequate tensile property it needs. The materials usually used as a reinforcement in rubber is called
carbon black. With these reinforcements, the friction and traction performance of rubber increases.
Aside from carbon black, textiles are also used as reinforcement by supporting the weight of the
vehicles and providing dimensional stability on tires.
In the study conducted in Indonesia in 2015, Maryoto, Hermanto, Haryanto, Waluyo &
Anisa stated that there are some researchers that had already investigated the usage of waste rubber
tires on reinforcements. It can be the usage as a substitute aggregate in a concrete mix. As such,
the ductility and elasticity of such materials can be used as an advantage in producing structural
components such as beams. Furthermore, the chipping of tires, or called as turnings, fillings or
shavings, can also be mixed in mortars to form a better workable paste that has a higher flexural
strength. Unfortunately, the usage of waste tires on simple concrete structures has not been studied
on.
The study mentioned above focused on differentiating the flexural strength of three types
of specimen namely: a concrete beam (without any reinforcements), a reinforced concrete with
non-pre-stressed rubber tire, and a reinforced concrete with pre-stressed rubber tire of about 17%.
The results turned out that reinforced concrete with pre-stressed rubber tire possessed the highest
flexural strength amongst the three specimens. Stressing or pulling the rubber tire contributes to
escalate the flexural strength of the reinforced specimen. Furthermore, it delays the rupture of the
beam when pressure or the load is applied. Thus, this can further strengthen the researchers’ desire
to use rubber tire as reinforcement.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Reinforcement
The total area of both rubber tire and steel reinforcement is based on the 1.80 percent (%)
of the area gross of the beam (Ar= 0.018Ag). The collected used ‘jeepney” rubber tire was stripped
into 16 millimeter in width, 10 millimeter in thickness and 635 millimeter in length (0.630 x 0.394
x 0.251 in.); with this, the diameter of the steel reinforcement was also 16 millimeter, as well as a
length of 635 millimeter.

Figure 1. Used rubber tire strips supported by the spacer to prevent sagging before pouring the
concrete mix

Research Bulletin | College of Engineering |2nd Semester, School Year 2018– 2019 | 2
Molders
The molders were made of phenolic board having a thickness of ½ inch (12.7 mm) and
plywood having a thickness of ¼ inch. The inner dimension of the rectangular molder is 6 x 6 x
21 in. (152.4 x 152.4 x 533.4 mm), similar to the standard dimension. For the reinforced beams,
the first molder had 16 mm diameter circular holes for the steel reinforcement; and the second
molder had 16 x 10 mm rectangular holes at both ends and placed 25 mm from the inner bottom
edge of the design beam/molder to meet the maximum concrete cover requirement.

Figure 2 Schematic of modified molder for steel reinforced beam

Figure 3 Schematic of modified molder for used rubber tire reinforced beam

Flexural Strength Test

Test specimens for flexural strength test were 6 x 6 x 21 in. (152.4 x 152.4 x 533.4 mm)
simple concrete beams. There were three specimens of conventional beams and three specimens
of modified beams (rubber-reinforced). The Universal Testing Machine (UTM) was used to
perform the flexural test in determining the flexure capacity of the steel and rubber tire reinforced
beams. The beams’ yielding strength and ultimate strength was recorded. This method covers the
determination of flexural strength of concrete using simple beams with third-point loading in
compliance with ASTM C78M-10.

The values needed to calculate flexural strength are measured by experimentation, with
rectangular samples of the material placed under load in a 3-point testing setup. Flexural strength
measured by modulus of rupture and the equation is as follows:

Research Bulletin | College of Engineering |2nd Semester, School Year 2018– 2019 | 3
 𝑷𝑳
𝑹=
𝒃𝒅𝟐

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Physical Appearance
Bonding between reinforcement and concrete - The bonding between concrete and steel is greater
than the bonding between the concrete and rubber. The rubber does not adhere to the concrete after
beam failure but it connected the two parts of the ruptured concrete beam.
Crack - The concrete cracked first but the rubber does not yield after the maximum force has been
applied to the rubber tire reinforced beam.
Flexural Strength
The result of the flexural strength of the reinforced concrete are given in Table 1 and Table
2 for the two different reinforcement namely, rubber reinforcement and steel reinforcement.

Table 1 Flexural Strength of Used Rubber Tire

Reinforced Beam
Flexural Strength (MPa)
7-DAYS 14-DAYS 28-DAYS
AVERAGE 2.060 2.236 2.635

Table 2 Flexural Strength of Steel Reinforced Beam

Flexural Strength (MPa)

7-DAYS 14-DAYS 28-DAYS
AVERAGE 8.719 9.162 13.623

Fracture Paths
The crack began in the interface region due to tensile strain produced by the compressive load,
then the crack extends.
• Used rubber tire reinforced beam - the Figure 4 (a) shows that the crack started from
bottom of the middle third of the beam up to near-top of it.

Research Bulletin | College of Engineering |2nd Semester, School Year 2018– 2019 | 4
Figure 4 (a) The crack formed after the load is applied in the rubber tire reinforced beam

• Steel reinforced beam - the Figure 4 (b) shows that the steel reinforced beam made a
diagonal crack from the near-support side of the beam and crawled to the near load block of the
resting machine.

Figure 4 (b) The crack formed after the load is applied in the steel reinforced beam

Summary and Discussions

The flexural strength of the beam with rubber reinforcement increases for about 0.17 MPa
from 7th day to 14th day and about 0.40 MPa from 14th day to 28th day. As shown in Table 1, the
flexural strength of the beam with rubber reinforcement increases as the age of the beam increases.
From the 1st day to the 28th day of curing, the increase in the flexural strength is about 0.575 MPa
or 27.91%.
The flexural strength of the beam with steel reinforcement increases for about 0.44 MPa
from 7th day to 14th day and about 4.461 MPa from 14th day to 28th day. As shown in Table 2,
the flexural strength of the beam with steel reinforcement increases as the age of the beam
increases. Compared to 27.91% increase in strength of rubber reinforced beam from the 1st day to
the 28th day of curing, the increase in the flexural strength of rubber reinforced beam is about 4.90
MPa or 56.24%.

Table 3 Percent Difference of the Rubber Reinforced

Beam to the Steel Reinforced Beam

Research Bulletin | College of Engineering |2nd Semester, School Year 2018– 2019 | 5
 Percent Difference (%)

7-DAYS 14-DAYS 28-DAYS

Rubber to
123.541 121.541 135.177
Steel

Table 3 shows the percentage difference in the flexural strength of rubber reinforced beam
and the flexural strength of the steel. At 28 days, the beam attained the highest difference between
the strength of the two reinforcement that is 135.18 percent. The difference in the strength of rubber
reinforced beam and steel reinforced beam is depicted in Figure 4.3. The relationship between the
age of the beam and the difference in the flexural strength of the two reinforcement is directly
proportional.

CONCLUSION
Based on the data that the researchers have gathered in the previous chapter, the researchers saw
how far the flexural strength of the specimen with rubber tire reinforcement compared to the steel
reinforced beam. The percent difference in average flexural capacity for concrete mix specimen in
the 7th, 14th, and 28th day is approximately 123.541%, 121.541%, and 135.177% respectively.
In reference with the tensile test for the rubber strip, the researchers observed that the properties
cannot be determine because the said substitute reinforcement just slides from the clamp of the
UTM. Furthermore, the researchers observed that the tested beam specimen with rubber
reinforcement is still intact with each other because the rubber tire held the cracked specimen
together.

REFERENCES

Forrest, M. (2017). Developments in Recycling and Re-use of Waste Rubber. Smithers Rapra.

Shahram Pezeshk, P. P. (2014). Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Memphis: The

University of Memphis.

Evans, R., & Evans, A. (2006). The Composition of a Tyre: Typical Components. Banbury, Oxon:
The Waste & Resources Action Programme

Maryoto, A., Hermanto, N. I., Haryanto, Y., Waluyo, S., & Anisa, N. A. (2015). Influence of
Prestressed force in the Waste Tire Reinforced Concrete. Procedia Engineering, 638-643.

Research Bulletin | College of Engineering |2nd Semester, School Year 2018– 2019 | 6