Journal Title : Long-term strength of rubberized concrete paving blocks.

SUMMARY

This journal was written to find out the long-term strength of rubberized concrete paving blocks (RCPB). The studies is done by taking time into consideration to measure how is the strength performance due the quantity of the crumb rubber used and the effect by comparing on three condition in curing treatment of the rubberized concrete paving blocks after 365 days. The research was conducted in Malaysia by four local researchers. Due to the environmental concerns, one of the solid waste materials which is considered as non-biodegradable waste that being produced in transportation sector is scrap tyres. If this scrap tyres is left unattended, it will provide a breeding place for mosquitos breeding and if it is burn in open air, it will caused air pollution, odour and other harmful contaminants. Therefore one of the best approached taken to make use of scrap tyres is by using it as a mixing material in producing concrete paving blocks and it is called Rubberized concrete paving blocks. The preparation for producing RCPB is the same like producing concrete paving blocks(CPB). The raw materials used to develop the rubberized concrete paving blocks (RCPB) and control concrete paving blocks (CCPB) mixes in this study comprised cement, aggregate, coarse sand, fine sand and crumb rubber. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) was used throughout the study. The usage of crumb rubber indirectly will contribute to the preservation of natural raw material such as aggregates. It will also reduce the weight of the RCPB. Once the material is ready together with the crumb rubber which were divided into two particles sizes; 1-3mm and 1-5mm. those two sizes were divided as partial substitute for fine and coarse sand in the production of face and body layer, respectively. The difference amount of scrub rubber is used in making the comparison. Despite CCPB, three other sample of mix is prepared by the difference of percentage of rubber scrub; 10% of rubber scrub(10-RCPB), (20-RCPB) and (30-RCPB). The process of producing the sampling is same as producing CPB, the only different is replacing portion of sand with crumb rubber. After the samples are ready, The samples were then collected and cured at room temperature for 3, 7, 28, 91, 182 and 365 days before being tested. Thus, three types of curing were adopted in the compressive strength tests: mainly (a) air curing, (b) water curing, and (c) natural weather curing and they are defined in the following manner. (a) Natural air curing in the laboratory. Average temperature at 30C with 65% relative humidity. (b) Continuous water curing at 26C. (c) Tropical climate outside the laboratory. Temperature range from 26C (rainy day) to 38C (hot day) with humidity ranges from 25% (hot and dry) to 90% (wet). There are three test were conducted during this studies. Those three are; (i) Compressive strength test, (ii) Splitting tensile strength test, (iii) Flexural strength test. There is no doubt that a CPB is more prone to break under traffic (fail in bending) than to be crushed (fail under compression). The compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of CPB, when measured as described above, are dependent upon the height of the paving units. Generally, the thinner the paving unit the greater will be the measured strength. Flexural (three point bending) strength, however, is not affected by paving unit thickness. For this reason, flexural strength is preferred as an index of strength. The test is simpler and consequently cheaper than a compression test. Flexural strength could be regarded as a better criterion for wearing and weathering resistance.

Journal Title : Long-term strength of rubberized concrete paving blocks.

Data collected by doing those three test was compiled and tabulate in graph. For compressive strength, it shows increasing as the curing age increased for CCPB and 10-RCPB. However the reading of the test on 91 and 365 days, shows opposite trend. In might due to degree of compaction and storage conditions. Meanwhile, for 20-RCPB and 30-RCPB shows the achieved strength was below the required strength (30MPa). For Splitting tensile test, it shows the same manners as compressive strength test and still found out that CCPB is better than RCPB However, the drop in splitting tensile strength was lower than that obtained when tested in. This can be explained by the softer rubber aggregate and bonding behaviour of the rubberized concrete matrix. As for the case in flexural strength test, the studies found out that 10-RCPB had slightly improved in flexural strength by 10% compared to CCPB. This finding actually was differ from previous finding by other researchers. What is the previous finding shows that the reduction of flexural strength even in low rubber contents. The low flexural strength obtained was due to weak bonding between the cement paste and rubber particles. However, it is observed that for 10-RCPB, during the three-point bending tests, initial cracking from the tension zone was apparent in the lower portion of the block. At the end of the testing, it was found that the block was not fully broken into two halves under the loss of bottom support condition. The enhanced toughness obtained by adding rubber aggregate can also be demonstrated by the effort required to fully open the RCPB. From the data collected and compared, a new graph of correlation between splitting tension-compression and flexural-compression are plotted. As the flexural test was found to give higher values for bending strength than the splitting tensile test, it is always of interest to establish a relationship between the two parameters. Therefore investigations were conducted to develop a mathematical relationship between both strengths of the CPB in this study. After the new graph plotted, the new equation was derived and expressed as; = 0.90(T) = 1.5. Conclusion for the finding shows that crumb rubber can be used as replacement of fine aggregate but the quantity of usage should not exceed 20 percent because it did not show any significant change in compressive strength but slightly improved the flexural strength. As the rubber content exceeded 20%, the blocks exhibited a great reduction in strength although ductility increased greatly. It was found that the block specimens tested remained intact after failure and did not shatter. This would be beneficial for trafficked roads. Comparing the three curing regimes at long-term age, the air cured samples gained slightly higher strength over natural weather and water-cured samples for CCPB and 10-RCPB, whereas natural weathercured samples gained higher strength than water and air-cured samples for 20-RCPB and 30RCPB. Nevertheless, a high volume of daily production of CPB makes natural weather curing more economic and applicable. A good correlation between splitting tensioncompression, flexuralcompression and flexuralsplitting tension was found. A valuable relationship of longterm strength would produce benefits for both researchers and road designers.

Journal Title : Long-term strength of rubberized concrete paving blocks.

CRITICS

By referring to other journal that been made on the topic of using the crumb rubber as a replacement in making concrete paving blocks, thus can be concluded that it is practically can be used to make a paving blocks. Only the quantities of the crumb rubber need to be monitor to not to be exceeding 20% of the rubber. Although the finding shows difference reading compared to previous research, yet the finding can be used as in Malaysia. If more rubber needed to be utilized, non-traffic paving blocks can be made.