Accepted Manuscript

Impact resistance of concrete containing waste rubber fiber and silica fume

Trilok Gupta, Ravi K. Sharma, Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Associate Professor

PII: S0734-743X(15)00080-9
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.05.002
Reference: IE 2503

To appear in: International Journal of Impact Engineering

Received Date: 11 February 2015

Revised Date: 29 April 2015
Accepted Date: 2 May 2015

Please cite this article as: Gupta T, Sharma RK, Sandeep Chaudhary Impact resistance of concrete
containing waste rubber fiber and silica fume, International Journal of Impact Engineering (2015), doi:
10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.05.002.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Impact resistance of concrete containing waste rubber fiber and silica fume
2 Trilok Gupta1, Ravi K. Sharma1 and Sandeep Chaudhary2
1
3 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT, Udaipur, India
2
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, Jaipur, India
5 Abstract

6 High impact resistance and greater energy absorption capacity are desirable properties for

PT
7 concrete. Innovative and sustainable materials may be used to improve these properties. In the

8 present study, the effect of replacement of fine aggregates by waste rubber fibers on the impact

RI
9 resistance of concrete has been assessed. Silica fume has also been considered as replacement

SC
10 of cement. Six replacement levels of rubber fiber (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%) and three

11 replacement levels of silica fume (0%, 5% and 10%) have been considered for three different

12
U
water cement ratios. Impact tests on concrete have been conducted by three different
AN
13 techniques; drop weight test, flexural loading test and rebound test. Relationships between

14 impact test results of drop weight test, flexural loading test and rebound test have also been
M

15 established. In view of large variation of impact values, a two-parameter Weibull distribution is

D

16 adopted to analyze the experimental data of drop weight test. The study demonstrates that the
TE

17 waste rubber fiber can be used as a sustainable material to improve the impact resistance and

18 ductility of concrete. The study also demonstrates that the silica fume improves the impact
EP

19 resistance and reduces the ductility of rubber fiber concrete.

20 Keywords: waste rubber fiber concrete, silica fume, impact resistance, energy absorption
C

21 capacity, Weibull distribution.

AC

22 1. Introduction

23 Concrete is a brittle material with high rigidity. High impact resistance and more energy

24 absorption capacity are required in many applications such as shock absorbers, foundation pads

25 of machinery, railway buffers etc. Additional ingredients are required to improve the properties

26 of concrete in some situations where these requirements are not fulfilled.

Corresponding Author:
Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National
Institute of Technology Jaipur-302017, E-mail: sandeep.nitjaipur@gmail.com, Contact no. +91-94144-
75375
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
27 Many studies have been carried out for evaluating the impact resistance and energy

28 absorption capacity on fibrous concrete [1-14]. The impact resistance of concrete has been

29 found to increase up to fifteen times on using steel fibers [5-10] and up to ten times on using

30 polypropylene fibers [11-12]. The addition of natural fibers in the form of coir, sisal, jute, and

31 hibiscus cannabinus has also been found to increase the impact resistance of concrete by up to

PT
32 eighteen times [13]. Rao et al. [14] studied the behavior of slurry-infiltrated concrete slabs,

RI
33 containing steel fibers, under impact loading and reported an increase in energy absorption of

34 concrete with the increase of fiber volume.

SC
35 Studies have also been carried out for the impact resistance or energy absorption capacity of

36 fibrous concrete containing silica fume [15-17]. Nili et al. [15] reported that the impact energy

37
U
increases on partial replacement of cement by silica fume and addition of steel fibers. Yan et al.
AN
38 [16] reported that the addition of steel fibers and partial replacement of cement by silica fume in
M

39 concrete effectively reduces the number and size of cracks, and enhances the performance of

40 high strength concrete under impact and fatigue loads. Nili et al. [17] reported that the silica
D

41 fume improves the impact resistance of concrete containing polypropylene fibers by facilitating
TE

42 dispersion of fibers.

43 Accumulation of discarded rubber tyres is a major problem as its degradation is very

EP

44 difficult because of the highly complex configuration of ingredient materials. The available

45 studies regarding utilization of waste rubber tyres in concrete provide a strong recommendation
C
AC

46 for the use of this waste as a partial replacement of fine aggregate in concrete production [18].

47 This would facilitate effective use of the solid waste, minimize its accumulation and help in

48 reducing the consumption of natural resources.

49 Some studies have been carried out on the impact resistance of concrete. Topcu [19]

50 reported a decrease in elastic energy capacity and increase in plastic energy capacity of the

51 concrete on replacement of coarse aggregates and fine aggregate by coarse rubber chips and

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
52 fine rubber chips respectively. Khaloo et al. [20] carried out a study on concrete containing high

53 volume chip rubber as partial replacement of coarse aggregate and crumb rubber as partial

54 replacement of fine aggregate. The toughness was reported to be highest for 25% concentration

55 of both the types of rubber particles as a part of the total aggregate volume. Sukontasukkul et

56 al. [21] carried out flexural test and reported an increase in toughness of concrete blocks on

PT
57 partial replacement of 10% of fine aggregate and 20% of coarse aggregate by crumb rubber.

RI
58 Aiello and Leuzzi [22] also carried out flexural tests and reported a significant increase in the

59 energy absorption for up to 75% replacements of coarse/fine aggregate by rubber shreds. Ozbay

SC
60 et al. [23] carried out rebound tests and reported about 25% increase in energy absorption

61 capacity of concrete on 25% replacement of fine aggregate by crumb rubber. Al-Tayeb et al.

62
U
[24] substituted up to 25% of fine aggregate by waste crumb rubber and tested the concrete
AN
63 under impact three point bending load. They reported an improvement in impact load behaviour
M

64 with the increase in replacement level of fine aggregates.

65 It is evident from the work reported above that although a number of studies have been
D

66 undertaken for the impact resistance of rubberised concrete; none of the studies has considered
TE

67 waste rubber in the form of fibers. Therefore, there is a need to carry out systematic

68 experimental studies to evaluate the impact resistance of concrete incorporating rubber fibers
EP

69 (with and without silica fume), as partial replacement of fine aggregate, for varying w/c ratios.

70 In the present work, detailed experimental studies have been carried out to determine the
C
AC

71 impact resistance of concrete containing waste rubber fibers. The studies have been undertaken

72 for varying percentage of waste rubber fibers (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%) as partial

73 replacement of fine aggregates at three different w/c ratios (0.35, 0.45 and 0.55). Three

74 replacement levels of silica fume (0%, 5% and 10%) have been considered for partial

75 replacement of cement in the rubber fiber concrete. Impact resistance has been evaluated by

76 carrying out drop weight test (concrete cylinder subjected to impact), flexural loading test

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
77 (concrete beam subjected to impact) and rebound test (concrete cube subjected to impact).

78 Relationships between results of drop weight test, flexural loading test and rebound test have

79 also been established. The experimental results obtained from various techniques have been

80 analyzed by statistical approaches to account for the variability in the properties of concrete.

81 2. Experimental studies

PT
82 2.1 Material

RI
83 Ordinary Portland cement of specific gravity 3.12 and silica fume of specific gravity 2.18 were

84 used for the concrete mixes in this study. The chemical compositions of cement and silica fume

SC
85 are shown in Table 1. Fine aggregate (natural sand) of specific gravity 2.56 and coarse

86 aggregate (crushed gravel) of maximum size of 12 mm and of specific gravity 2.59 were used in

87
U
the concrete mixes. Super plasticizer (SP) “Glanium Sky 777” from BASF was used as an
AN
88 admixture to obtain the desired workability.
M

89 Table 1. Chemical composition of cement and silica fume

Element/ CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 SO3 MgO K 2O LOI

Material (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
D

Cement 62.34 20.14 4.65 3.29 2.42 2.23 0.72 1.96

TE

Silica Fume 0.87 90.12 0.94 1.62 0.29 - 1.21 2.87

90 Rubber fibers, obtained from mechanical grinding of waste rubber tyres, were used as
EP

91 partial replacement of fine aggregates. These rubber fibers were of 2 to 5 mm in width and up to

92 20 mm in length (aspect ratio 4 to 10) with a specific gravity of 1.07. As the rubber fibers are
C

93 obtained from a waste product of used rubber tyres, detailed microstructural characteristics are
AC

94 necessary to be ascertained to ensure the compatibility of this material with the concrete.

95 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used for this purpose.

96 SEM images of a rubber fiber are shown in Figs. 1(a) and (b). A large cavity was observed

97 in the rubber fiber which acts as large pore in the concrete and influences its properties. Micro

98 cracks within the rubber fibers were also visible (Figs. 1(a) and (b)) and these cracks indicate a

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
99 weak interfacial bonding between the rubber fibers and cement paste which affected the

100 strength of rubber fiber concrete.

PT
RI
SC
Fig. 1. SEM image of rubber fiber at (a) 40x magnification; and (b) 150x magnification

U
101 2.2 Mix proportions
AN
102 Concrete mixes were prepared using water/cement ratios of 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 with a partial

103 replacement of fine aggregate (FA) by rubber fibers ranging from 0% to 25%. Concrete mixes
M

104 were also cast by replacing cement with silica fume, ranging from 0% to 10% in the control
D

105 concrete as well as rubber fiber concrete. Concrete mixes were first dry-mixed for 2-3 minutes
TE

106 in the mixer. To maintain the workability and the uniformity of the mixes, the proportion of

107 super-plasticizer (SP) with that of cement by weight was varied. When the concrete mix showed
EP

108 the desired workability and uniform rubber fiber distribution, it was placed in a mould and

109 vibrated on a table vibrator. The specimen were covered with plastic sheets and stored at room
C

110 temperature for 24 hours prior to de-moulding. The details of concrete mix with the observed
AC

111 workability in terms of compaction factor (C.F.) are shown in Table 2.

112

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
113 Table 2. Concrete mix proportions of rubber fiber concrete with and without silica fume

Mix Cement Silica Fine Coarse Rubber Water Super C.F.

(kg) fume aggregates aggregates (kg) fibers (kg) plasticizer
(kg) (kg) (kg) (%)
10 mm 20 mm
R1-R6 364 0 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 127.4 2.1% 0.91
650, 611, 573 48, 64,80
R7-R12 364 0 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 163.8 0.5% 0.92

PT
650, 611, 573 48, 64,80
R13-18 364 0 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 200.2 0% 0.92
650, 611, 573 48, 64,80

RI
U1-U6 345.8 18.2 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 127.4 2.1% 0.92
650, 611, 573 48, 64, 80
U7-U12 345.8 18.2 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 163.8 0.5% 0.92

SC
650, 611, 573 48, 64, 80
U13-U18 345.8 18.2 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 200.2 0% 0.92
650, 611, 573 48, 64, 80
V1-V6 327.6 36.4 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 127.4 2.1% 0.92

U
650, 611, 573 48, 64, 80
V7-V12 327.6 36.4 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 163.8 0.5% 0.92
AN
650, 611, 573 48, 64, 80
V13-V18 327.6 36.4 764, 726, 688, 562 562 0, 16, 32, 200.2 0% 0.92
650, 611, 573 48, 64, 80
M

114 3. Testing program

D

115 In this experimental study, following properties of hardened concrete were evaluated as per the
TE

116 relevant standards.

117 3.1 Compressive strength

EP

118 The mechanical strength of rubber fiber concrete with and without silica fume was measured by

119 conducting compression strength test. This test was performed on 100 mm concrete cubes
C

120 (three for each mix) at 28 days as per BIS 516:1959 [25]. Load was applied gradually with the
AC

121 rate of travel of machine equivalent to 240±35 kN/m2/s [25].

122 3.2 Impact resistance under drop weight test

123 Drop weight test was performed on cylindrical specimens (150 mm in diameter and 65 mm in

124 height, three specimens for each mix) as per ACI 544 [26] to estimate the energy absorption

125 capacity of concrete specimens. In this test, repeated loading was applied on the specimen from

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
126 a height. The number of blows was obtained for the prescribed level of distress (occurrence of

127 first crack and failure cracks).

128 Specimens of 28 days age were tested by the drop weight impact testing machine fabricated

129 in the laboratory as per guidelines of ACI committee 544 [26]. The machine consists of a 4.5 kg

130 hammer ball dropping from 450 mm height on a hardened steel ball of 65 mm diameter (Fig.

PT
131 2(a)). The steel ball was placed at the centre of specimen and this specimen was placed on the

RI
132 base plate within the positioning lugs as shown in Fig. 2(a). The hammer ball was dropped

133 repeatedly and the number of blows (N1) required to cause the first visible crack on the top was

SC
134 recorded. Number of blows (N2) which caused opening of cracks in such a way that the concrete

135 pieces started touching side lugs was also recorded. The values of N1 and N2 were designated as

136
U
initial crack resistance factor and ultimate crack resistance factor respectively.
AN
137 The impact energy at initial crack, E p , dwi (where first subscript p denotes the type of energy
M

138 absorbed i.e. potential energy and second subscript dw denotes the type of test i.e. drop weight)

139 was calculated by the equation given below:

D

140 E p , dwi = N 1mgh (1)

TE

141 Similarly, the impact energy at ultimate crack, E p ,dwu was calculated by the equation given
EP

142 below:

143 E p , dwu = N 2 mgh (2)

C
AC

144 where, N1 and N2 are the number of blows at initial and ultimate crack level, m is the mass of

145 drop hammer (4.5 kg), g is acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2) and h is the releasing height

146 of drop hammer (450 mm).

147 3.3 Impact resistance under flexural loading

148 Impact test on the beams was performed to determine the potential energy of rubber fiber

149 concrete (Fig. 2(b)). In this test, beams of 100 mm × 100 mm × 500 mm size (three specimens

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
150 for each mix) were tested with a center to center span of 400 mm. A hammer of 1.0 kg weight

151 was dropped on the mid span of the beam from a height of 450 mm. Number of drops up to

152 failure, Nf was measured and energy absorbed by the specimen, E p , fl (subscript fl denotes

153 flexural loading) was calculated by the following equation:

PT
Nf
154 E p , fl = ∑ mighi (3)
i =1

RI
155 where, mi is the mass of drop hammer (1.0 kg) and hi is the drop height (450 mm).

SC
156 3.4 Impact resistance under rebound test

157 Rebound test was performed on cubes of 150 mm size to determine the impact resistance of

158
U
waste rubber fiber concrete (Fig 2(c)). A steel ball of 0.5 kg weight was dropped on to the
AN
159 specimens (three for each mix) from a standard height of 1.0 m. The rebound height of steel ball

160 was recorded by a sensitive camera. Initial potential energy before rebound, E p,ri and final
M

161 potential energy after rebound, Ep,rf were calculated using following equations:
D

162 E p,ri = mghi (4)

TE

163 E p ,rf = mgh f (5)

EP

164 where m is mass of steel ball (0.5 kg), hi is the initial height of steel ball (1.0 m) and hf is height
C

165 recorded after rebound (varies for different mixes).

AC

166 The energy absorption capacity of concrete specimen, E p ,r was calculated as the difference

167 of the final and initial potential energy ( E p ,r = E p ,ri − E p,rf ). Loss due to air resistance was

168 ignored.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(a) (b) (c)

Lugs

Fig. 2. (a) Drop weight test; (b) Flexural loading test; and (c) Rebound test

PT
169 3.5 Micro-structural analysis:

RI
170 The microstructure of the specimen was analyzed using Scanning Electron Microscope (ZEISS

SC
171 make) at EHT 20 kV. Testing was performed on 1 cm × 1 cm pieces cut from concrete samples.

172 A gold coating was applied to the surface before carrying out the analysis.

173 4. Results and discussion

U
AN
174 4.1 Compressive strength
M

175 Three specimens were tested for compressive strength for each type of mix [25]. The results

176 presented in the study are the average of these three values in Table 3. The compressive
D

177 strength of the waste rubber fiber concrete for w/c ratios of 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 at 28 days, is
TE

178 shown in Figs. 3(a), (b) and (c) respectively. It can be seen that the compressive strength

179 decreases with an increase in the replacement level of rubber fibers for all three w/c ratios. The
EP

180 compressive strength of control concrete (without rubber fiber and silica fume) decreases from

58.97 N/mm2 to 28.43 N/mm2, 50.43 N/mm2 to 23.60 N/mm2 and 33.70 N/mm2 to 15.30
C

181

N/mm2 for w/c ratios of 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively, on 25% replacement of sand by
AC

182

183 rubber fiber.

184 It is also observed from the Figs. 3(a), (b) and (c) that on replacement of cement by silica

185 fume, the compressive strength increases for control concrete as well as for the rubber fiber

186 concrete. Compressive strength of control concrete (without rubber fiber and silica fume)

187 increases from 58.97 N/mm2 to 75.20 N/mm2, 50.43 N/mm2 to 62.70 N/mm2 and 33.70

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
188 N/mm2 to 39.70 N/mm2 for w/c ratios of 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively on 10% replacement

189 of cement by silica fume. Compressive strength of rubber fiber concrete (25% rubber fiber)

190 increases from 28.43 N/mm2 to 37.90 N/mm2, 23.60 N/mm2 to 29.90 N/mm2 and 15.30 N/mm2

191 to 19.10 N/mm2 for w/c ratios of 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively, on 10% replacement of

192 cement by silica fume.

PT
without silica fume 5% silica fume 10% silica fume

RI
80
(a)
28 days compressive strength

60

SC
40
(N/mm2)

20

U
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
AN
% of Rubber Fibres
193

80 without silica fume 5% silica fume

M
28 days compressive
strength (N/mm2)

60 (b)
D

40

20
TE

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
194 % of Rubber Fibres
EP

without silica fume 5% silica fume 10% silica fume

40
28 days compressive strength

(c)
C

30
(N/mm2)
AC

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% of Rubber Fibres
195
196

197 Fig. 3. 28 days compressive strength of rubber fiber concrete for (a) 0.35 w/c ratio; (b) 0.45 w/c
198 ratio; and (c) 0.55 w/c ratio

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
199 Table-3. 28 days compressive strength of rubber fiber concrete

0% Silica Fume 5% Silica Fume 10% Silica Fume

Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV
Mix 2 SD Mix 2 SD Mix 2 SD
(N/mm ) (%) (N/mm ) (%) (N/mm ) (%)
R1 58.97 1.13 2.06 U1 67.2 0.56 0.82 V1 75.2 0.67 0.87
R2 48.37 1.05 2.3 U2 56.1 0.21 0.38 V2 64.5 1.00 1.56
R3 45.50 1.00 2.27 U3 52.3 0.50 0.95 V3 59.6 1.01 1.71
R4 38.47 1.05 2.36 U4 45.4 1.01 2.21 V4 53.1 1.00 1.89

PT
R5 34.73 1.00 2.85 U5 40.3 0.66 1.58 V5 46.7 0.52 1.1
R6 28.43 0.56 1.75 U6 33.3 0.55 1.61 V6 37.9 0.59 1.51

R7 50.43 1.01 2.1 U7 56.5 0.54 0.94 V7 62.7 1.52 2.46

RI
R8 39.03 0.5 1.33 U8 44.5 1.11 2.4 V8 50.7 1.05 2.12
R9 35.87 1.61 4.41 U9 40.8 0.52 1.26 V9 45.7 1.54 3.28
R10 30.73 0.25 0.8 U10 35.3 0.79 2.11 V10 39.2 1.52 3.79

SC
R11 26.93 1.01 3.45 U11 30.4 1.01 3.28 V11 33.1 0.82 2.32
R12 23.60 0.53 1.91 U12 26.9 0.51 1.87 V12 29.9 0.71 2.24

R13 33.70 0.51 1.51 U13 37.1 0.51 1.36 V13 39.7 0.61 1.49

U
R14 27.23 0.5 1.33 U14 30.5 0.50 1.64 V14 33.6 0.75 2.11
R15 24.97 0.07 0.23 U15 27.7 0.52 1.84 V15 29.4 1.05 3.45
AN
R16 20.13 1.00 3.58 U16 22.5 0.54 2.33 V16 24.5 0.63 2.44
R17 17.10 0.12 0.55 U17 19.1 0.51 2.63 V17 20.1 0.57 2.71
R18 15.30 0.50 2.34 U18 17.4 0.79 4.32 V18 19.1 0.57 2.85
M

200 SD = Standard deviation; COV = coefficient of variation

201 4.2 Impact resistance under drop weight test

D

202 The impact resistance of rubber fiber concrete for three different w/c ratios (0.35, 045 and 0.55)
TE

203 was recorded in terms of numbers of blows required for producing first visible crack (N1) and

204 ultimate failure (N2) of the specimen.

EP

205 The numbers of blows for 0% to 25% replacement of fine aggregate by rubber fiber, without
C

206 any replacement of cement by silica fume, at three selected w/c ratios are listed in Table 4. It
AC

207 can be seen from the Table that the number of blows, required for causing the first crack and

208 ultimate failure, increase significantly with the increase in replacement level of rubber content

209 for all three w/c ratios. The difference between number of blows for ultimate failure and first

210 crack (N2-N1) is also found to increase significantly with the increase of replacement level of

211 rubber fibers for all three w/c ratios. Typically, for w/c ratio of 0.45, the difference increases

212 from 6 to 32 on 25% replacement of fine aggregate by rubber fibers.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
213 The number of blows for rubber fiber concrete, with 5% and 10% replacement of cement by

214 silica fume, are shown in Tables 5 and 6 respectively. An increase in number of blows is

215 observed with the increase in replacement level of rubber fiber as observed earlier in Table 4

216 for concrete without silica fume. The values of N1 and N2 for all three water cement ratios,

217 increase by about five times on incorporation of 25% rubber fiber for both 5% silica fume

PT
218 concrete and 10% silica fume concrete.

RI
219 Table 4. Impact resistance results for rubber fiber concrete without silica fume

Mix N1 N2 N2-N1 Impact Energy (J) N2/N1

SC
Mean SD COV Mean SD COV First Ultimate
(%) (%) crack failure
R1 58 5.29 10.17 65 3.61 5.23 7 1152 1291 1.12

U
R2 82 9.64 13.58 95 2.65 2.82 13 1629 1887 1.16
R3 106 6.93 6.79 124 7.00 5.88 18 2106 2463 1.17
AN
R4 198 9.64 5.16 219 23.39 9.51 21 3933 4350 1.11
R5 242 6.08 2.47 278 7.81 2.90 36 4807 5523 1.15
R6 302 24.33 8.88 349 4.00 1.13 47 5999 6933 1.16
M

R7 47 1.73 3.53 53 2.00 3.64 6 934 1053 1.13

R8 69 6.08 9.81 78 5.29 7.35 9 1371 1549 1.13
D

R9 87 9.54 12.55 102 7.81 8.40 15 1728 2026 1.17

R10 145 11.53 8.73 167 10.82 6.98 22 2880 3317 1.15
TE

R11 197 8.66 4.63 221 16.64 6.93 24 3913 4390 1.12
R12 214 4.36 2.09 246 2.65 1.09 32 4251 4887 1.15

R13 39 3.61 9.03 44 2.65 6.46 5 775 874 1.13

EP

R14 48 3.61 7.68 56 5.29 10.17 8 954 1112 1.17

R15 65 1.73 2.75 76 2.65 3.63 11 1291 1510 1.17
R16 89 9.64 12.36 106 7.94 8.19 17 1768 2106 1.19
C

R17 118 4.58 3.75 144 6.24 4.55 26 2344 2861 1.22
R18 189 3.61 1.95 224 2.65 1.20 35 3755 4450 1.19
AC

220 SD = Standard deviation; COV = coefficient of variation

221

222 Table 5. Impact resistance results for rubber fiber concrete with 5% silica fume
Mix N1 N2 N2-N1 Impact Energy (J) N2/N1
Mean SD COV Mean SD COV First Ultimate
(%) (%) crack failure
U1 61 2.65 4.14 67 2.65 3.79 6 1212 1331 1.10
U2 84 2.00 2.38 96 4.36 4.32 12 1669 1907 1.14

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
U3 115 1.73 1.52 135 1.73 1.29 20 2285 2682 1.17
U4 209 7.94 3.97 233 7.94 3.54 24 4152 4629 1.11
U5 245 13.23 5.51 279 9.64 3.60 34 4867 5542 1.14
U6 309 2.65 0.86 355 8.54 2.35 46 6138 7052 1.15

U7 49 3.00 6.12 56 3.61 6.94 7 973 1112 1.14

U8 75 1.73 2.37 83 3.61 4.57 8 1490 1649 1.11
U9 89 1.73 1.99 108 6.56 6.50 19 1768 2145 1.21
U10 153 3.61 2.42 178 4.36 2.41 25 3039 3536 1.16

PT
U11 214 10.54 5.19 251 13.11 5.53 37 4251 4986 1.17
U12 221 1.73 0.79 261 3.46 1.32 40 4390 5185 1.18

RI
U13 43 2.65 6.46 49 3.61 8.02 6 854 973 1.14
U14 52 1.73 3.46 62 2.65 4.49 10 1033 1232 1.19
U15 71 6.24 9.75 83 4.36 5.59 12 1410 1649 1.17

SC
U16 97 1.73 1.75 112 2.65 2.43 15 1927 2225 1.15
U17 128 7.00 5.60 162 6.56 4.23 34 2543 3218 1.27
U18 197 11.36 6.17 236 2.65 1.13 39 3913 4688 1.20

U
223 SD = Standard deviation; COV = coefficient of variation
AN
224 Table 6. Impact resistance results for rubber fiber concrete with 10% silica fume
Mix N1 N2 N2-N1 Impact Energy (J) N2/N1
M

Mean SD COV Mean SD COV First Ultimate

(%) (%) crack failure
V1 64 3.61 6.02 72 6.08 9.35 8 1271 1430 1.13
D

V2 89 1.73 1.92 101 6.08 6.47 12 1768 2006 1.13

V3 124 1.00 0.81 143 3.00 2.14 19 2463 2841 1.15
TE

V4 214 2.00 0.94 240 3.61 1.53 26 4251 4768 1.12

V5 251 8.19 3.38 289 6.08 2.13 38 4986 5741 1.15
V6 322 6.08 1.93 372 6.08 1.67 50 6397 7390 1.16
EP

V7 54 4.58 9.35 59 4.36 8.07 5 1073 1172 1.09

V8 84 3.46 4.33 91 6.24 7.43 7 1669 1808 1.08
V9 94 3.00 3.30 112 4.36 4.07 18 1867 2225 1.19
C

V10 158 6.00 3.66 184 3.46 1.92 26 3139 3655 1.16
AC

V11 223 2.65 1.20 265 12.49 4.98 42 4430 5264 1.19
V12 229 8.89 4.06 274 5.57 2.08 45 4549 5443 1.20

V13 49 4.36 9.91 54 6.56 10.75 5 973 1073 1.10

V14 58 2.65 4.82 67 5.57 9.13 9 1152 1331 1.16
V15 74 4.36 6.32 89 6.08 7.41 15 1470 1768 1.20
V16 101 7.00 7.53 121 6.24 5.47 20 2006 2404 1.20
V17 132 6.08 4.86 164 15.13 10.29 32 2622 3258 1.24
V18 204 11.14 5.80 244 5.57 2.34 40 4053 4847 1.20
225 SD = Standard deviation; COV = coefficient of variation

226

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
227 In general, it can be concluded that the impact resistance, for first crack as well as for

228 ultimate failure, increases with the increase in rubber fiber content. Similar observations were

229 made by Mohammadi et al. [12] for steel fibers and the increase in impact energy was attributed

230 to long fibers which are expected to arrest the cracks due to their superior bond resistance. As

231 the replacement level of rubber fibers will increase, rubber-cement composite will have higher

PT
232 flexibility and this increase in flexibility level will lead to more energy absorption as compared

RI
233 to the control mix.

234 Tables 4-6 reveal that although the impact energy is enhanced by silica fume, however, no

SC
235 definite pattern is observed for effect of silica fume on N2-N1.

236 The number of blows required for the first crack in concrete, for three different w/c ratios, is

237
U
shown in Fig. 4. It can be observed that the number of blows is more for the rubberized
AN
238 concrete as compared to the corresponding case of non rubberized concrete. The fracture
M

239 pattern of cylindrical specimen for control concrete and rubber fiber concrete (25% rubber

240 fibers) without silica fume is shown in Figs. 5(a) and (b) respectively. It may be noted that there
D

241 may be some deviation in the results as the surfaces of the specimen were not polished.
TE

242

without silica fume 5% silica fume 10% silica fume

EP

400
Number of blows for first crack

w/c -0.35 w/c -0.45 w/c -0.55

300
C

200
AC

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
% of Rubber Fibers
243
244 Fig. 4. Number of blows for first crack (N1)

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(a) (b)

PT
Fig. 5. Fracture pattern of concrete with different rubber fiber volume: (a) control concrete;
and (b) rubber fiber concrete (25 % rubber fibers)

RI
245 4.3 Regression analysis for drop weight test

SC
246 Linear relationship between number of blows for first crack and ultimate failure crack for

247 rubber fiber concrete, with and without silica fume, was established. The prediction equations

248
U
developed for the ultimate failure are expressed as below:
AN
249 N 2 = 1.145 N 1 + 1.037 for rubber fiber concrete without silica fume (6)
M

250 N 2 = 1.155 N 1 + 1.108 for rubber fiber concrete with 5% silica fume (7)
D

251 N 2 = 1.171 N 1 + 0.884 for rubber fiber concrete with 10% silica fume (8)
TE

252 Coefficient of determination (R2) for rubber fiber concrete without silica fume, with 5%

253 silica fume and with 10% silica fume are 0.998, 0.996 and 0.997 respectively. According to
EP

254 Rahmani et al. [27], a coefficient of determination of 0.7 or higher is sufficient for a reasonable
C

255 model, hence above equations can be successfully used to represent the relationship between
AC

256 the number of blows for first crack and ultimate failure strength for rubber fiber concrete,

257 without and with silica fume.

258 4.4 Impact resistance under flexural loading

259 Fig. 6(a) shows the impact energy at failure, under flexural loading, for rubber fiber concrete

260 without silica fume. It can be seen that increase in the replacement level of rubber fibers

261 significantly improves the impact energy for all three w/c ratios. It is observed that on 25%

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
262 replacement with rubber fibers in fine aggregates, the impact energy of control concrete

263 increases from 36.0 J to 108.0 J, 27.0 J to 90.0 J and 22.5 J to 81.0 J for w/c ratios 0.35, 0.45

264 and 0.55 respectively. Figs. 6(b) and (c) show the impact energy at failure under flexural

265 loading for rubber fiber concrete with 5% and 10% silica fume respectively. It is again observed

266 that the impact energy increases with the increase of replacement level of fine aggregate by

PT
267 rubber fiber. According to RedaTaha et al. [28], the low stiffness of the rubber particles leads to

RI
268 higher flexibility of rubberized concrete and absorption of considerable amount of impact

269 energy.

SC
270 It can be observed from Figs. 6(a), (b) and (c) that the impact energy increases with the

271 increase of silica fume in concrete. It is also observed that on 10% replacement of cement by

U
AN
272 silica fume, the impact energy of control concrete increases from 36.0 J to 50.0 J, 27.0 J to 41.0

273 J and 22.5 J to 32.0 J for w/c ratios 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively. Similarly, the impact
M

274 energy of rubber fiber concrete (25% rubber fiber) increases from 108.0 J to 131.0 J, 90.0 J to

275 117.0 J and 81.0 J to 113.0 J for w/c ratios 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively, on 10%
D

276 replacement of cement by silica fume. For 10% silica fume with 10% rubber fiber, a lower
TE

277 value of impact resistance is observed at w/c ratio 0.45 in comparison to w/c ratio 0.55 (Fig.

278 6(c)). This may be due to error in manually maintaining the height of dropping the weight (450
EP

279 mm) or some unidentified experimental error [29, 30]. It may be noted that this behavior was
C

280 not observed in drop weight test (Table 6) where the height of dropping the weight is
AC

281 maintained by the equipment.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
120

Impact energy under flexural loading (J)

(a)
100

80

60

40

20 w/c 0.35
w/c 0.45
w/c 0.55

PT
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

282 Rubber Fibers

140
Impact energy under flexural loading (J)

(b)

RI
120

100

SC
80

60

40 w/c 0.35
w/c 0.45

U
w/c 0.55

20
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
AN
283 Rubber Fibers
140
Impact energy under flexural loading (J)

120
(c)
M

100

80
D

60

40 w/c 0.35
w/c 0.45
TE

w/c 0.55

20
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

284 Rubber Fibers

285 Fig. 6. Impact energy under flexural loading of rubber fiber concrete containing (a) 0% silica
EP

286 fume; (b) 5% silica fume; and (c) 10% silica fume
C

287 4.5 Impact resistance under rebound test

AC

288 Fig. 7(a) shows the impact energy absorbed in rebound test for rubber concrete without silica

289 fume. It can be seen that the increase in the replacement level of rubber fibers significantly

290 improves the impact energy absorbed for all three w/c ratios of 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55. It is also

291 observed that on 25% replacement of fine aggregates by rubber fibers, the impact energy

292 absorbed by concrete increases from 1.79 J to 1.99 J, 1.77 J to 1.96 J and 1.74 J to 1.94 J for

293 w/c ratios 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively. Figs. 7(b) and (c) show the impact energy absorbed

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
294 under rebound test for rubber fiber concrete with 5% and 10% silica fume respectively. It is

295 again observed that the impact energy absorbed increases with the increase of replacement level

296 of rubber fiber. Similar observations were made by Obzay et al. [24] for the crumb rubber

297 concrete.

2.1

PT
(a)
Energy absorbed in rebound test (J)

2.0

RI
1.9

w/c 0.35

SC
w/c 0.45
1.8 w/c 0.55

1.7
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

U
298 Rubber Fibers
AN
2.1
(b)
Energy absorbed in rebound test (J)

2.0
M

1.9

w/c 0.35
D

w/c 0.45
1.8 w/c 0.55
TE

1.7
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

299 Rubber Fibers

EP

2.1

(c)
Energy absorbed in rebound test (J)

2.0
C

1.9
AC

w/c 0.35
w/c 0.45
1.8 w/c 0.55

1.7
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

300 Rubber Fibers

301 Fig. 7. Impact energy absorbed under rebound test by rubber fiber concrete containing (a) 0%
302 silica fume; (b) 5% silica fume; and (c) 10% silica fume

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
303 It can be observed from Figs. 7(a), (b) and (c), that there is a minor effect of replacement of

304 cement by silica fume on the impact energy absorbed. It is also observed that on 10%

305 replacement of cement by silica fume, the impact energy absorbed by control concrete increases

306 marginally from 1.79 J to 1.80 J, 1.77 J to 1.79 J and 1.74 J to 1.76 J for w/c ratios 0.35, 0.45

307 and 0.55 respectively. Similarly, impact energy absorbed by rubber fiber concrete (25% rubber

PT
308 fiber) increases marginally from 1.99 J to 2.01 J, 1.96 J to 1.98 J and 1.94 J to 1.97 J for w/c

RI
309 ratios 0.35, 0.45 and 0.55 respectively on 10% replacement of cement by silica fume.

310 4.6 Relationship between Impact Energy under drop weight and flexural loading

SC
311 A relationship was developed in form of an equation for evaluating the impact energy under

U
312 drop weight test from the impact energy under flexural loading or the impact energy under
AN
313 rebound test and vice-versa. Table 7 shows the logarithmic relationship between impact energy

314 under drop weight, E p , dwi and impact energy under flexural loading, E p , fl . Correlation
M

315 coefficient (R2) values show good relationship between E p , dwi and E p , fl . Similarly, Table 8
D

316 shows the logarithmic relationship between impact energy under drop weight, E p , dwi and impact
TE

317 energy under rebound test, E p ,r . Correlation coefficient (R2) values show good relationship

318 between E p , dwi and E p ,r .

EP

319 Table 7. Relationship between Impact Energy under drop weight test E p , dwi and flexural
C

320 loading E p , fl .
AC

Silica fume (%) w/c ratio Equation correlation coefficient (R²)

0 E p , dwi = 4589.ln E p , fl - 15621
0.35 0.988

0.45 E p , dwi = 2954.ln E p , fl - 8886 0.972

0.55 E p , dwi = 2374.ln E p , fl - 7098 0.930

5 E p , dwi = 4783.ln E p , fl - 17318

0.35 0.972

0.45 E p , dwi = 3165.ln E p , fl - 10208 0.938

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.55 E p , dwi = 2291.ln E p , fl - 7122 0.856

10 E p , dwi = 4967.ln E p , fl - 18478

0.35 0.949

0.45 E p , dwi = 3666.ln E p , fl - 12768 0.969

0.55 E p , dwi = 2240.ln E p , fl - 7255 0.801

321 E p , dwi and E p , fl are in J.

PT
322 Table 8. Relationship between Impact Energy under drop weight test E p , dwi and rebound test

RI
323 E p ,r .

Silica fume w/c ratio Equation correlation coefficient (R²)

SC
(%)
0 0.35 E p , dwi = 43444.ln E p ,r - 24441 0.937

U
0.45 E p , dwi = 33013.ln E p ,r - 18223 0.915
AN
0.55 E p , dwi = 25782.ln E p ,r - 13956 0.832

5 0.35 E p , dwi = 44957.ln E p ,r - 25558 0.921

M

0.45 E p , dwi = 35073.ln E p ,r - 19607 0.914

0.55 E p , dwi = 26567.ln E p ,r - 14485 0.854

D

10 0.35 E p , dwi = 46458.ln E p ,r - 26798 0.900

TE

0.45 E p , dwi = 34887.ln E p ,r - 19578 0.923

0.55 E p , dwi = 25809.ln E p ,r - 14143 0.809

EP

324 E p , dwi and E p ,r are in J.

C
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
325 4.7 Weibull distribution analysis of drop weight test:

326 The statistical analysis of impact test data of concrete has been described in literature by

327 different mathematical probability models [4, 31-33]. In the present study, a number of blows

328 were required in drop weight test making the mechanism similar to the fatigue test. Thus,

329 Weibull distribution function [4] has been adopted as a method for statistical analysis of impact

PT
330 test data since this function has been widely used for statistical description of fatigue test data

RI
331 [34-35].

332 Weibull distribution function is characterized by a probability distribution function f (n)

SC
333 and is given below [4]:

U
α
α −1 n
α n − 
334 f ( n) =   e u
(9)
AN
u u

335 where, α is Weibull slope or shape parameter; u is scale parameter; and n is specific value of
M

336 random variable N (=N1 and N2 for the present study).

D

337 Cumulative density function is obtained by integration of probability distribution function

TE

338 and expressed as

α
n
− 
FN ( n ) = e
EP

u
339 (10)

340 The probability of survivorship function is given by [4]

C

α
n
− 
AC

341 LN (n) = 1 − FN (n) = e u 

(11)

342 Following relation is obtained by taking natural logarithms of both sides of equation (11).

  1 
343 ln ln    = α ln(n) − α ln(u ) (12)
  LN  

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
344 The relation expressed in equation (12) is used to verify the number of blows for first crack

345 resistance and failure resistance. The data of impact resistance ( N1 and N 2 ) is arranged in

346 ascending order and the empirical survivorship functions for N1 and N 2 are obtained as [4]

j
347 LN = 1 − (13)
s +1

PT
348 where, j = failure order number and s = total number of specimen.

RI
349 The relationship between ln  ln  1 LN   and ln n should be linear for the application of two

SC
350 parameter Weibull distribution to statistical data of impact resistance [4]. The variation of

351 ln  ln  1 LN   with ln N1 for rubber fiber concrete without silica fume, with 5% silica fume and

352
U
with 10% silica fume is shown in Figs. 8(a), (b) and (c) respectively. Similarly, the variation of
AN
353 ln  ln  1 LN   with ln N2 for rubber fiber concrete without silica fume, with 5% silica fume and
M

354 with 10% silica fume is shown in Figs. 9(a), (b) and (c) respectively.
D

1.5
(a)
1
TE

0.5
ln[ln(1/LN)]

0
-0.5 0.35 w/c ratio
EP

-1 0.45 w/c ratio

-1.5
0.55 w/c ratio
-2
-2.5
C

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln N1
AC

355

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
(b)
0.5
0

ln[ln(1/LN)]
-0.5
0.35 w/c ratio
-1
-1.5 0.45 w/c ratio
-2 0.55 w/c ratio

PT
-2.5
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
ln N1

RI
356
357

SC
1.5
1 (c)
0.5
ln[ln(1/LN)]

U
0
-0.5 0.35 w/c ratio
AN
-1 0.45 w/c ratio
-1.5 0.55 w/c ratio
-2
-2.5
M

3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln N1
358
D

359 Fig. 8. Weibull distribution of N1 for rubber fiber concrete containing (a) 0% silica fume; (b)
TE

360 5% silica fume; and (c) 10% silica fume

361
EP

1
(a)
0.5
0
ln[ln(1/LN)]

-0.5 0.35 w/c ratio

-1
AC

0.45 w/c ratio

-1.5
0.55 w/c ratio
-2
-2.5
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
ln N2
362
363

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
0.5 (b)
0

ln[ln(1/LN)]
-0.5
0.35 w/c ratio
-1
0.45 w/c ratio
-1.5
0.55 w/c ratio
-2
-2.5

PT
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

ln N2
364

RI
365

SC
(c)
0.5
0
ln[ln(1/LN)]

-0.5

U
0.35 w/c ratio
-1
0.45 w/c ratio
AN
-1.5
0.55 w/c ratio
-2
-2.5
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
M

ln N2
366
367 Fig. 9. Weibull distribution of N2 for rubber fiber concrete containing (a) 0% silica fume; (b)
D

368 5% silica fume; and (c) 10% silica fume

TE

369 The regression coefficients of α, αlnu and the correlation coefficient R2 corresponding to all the

concrete samples for linear regression are shown in Table 9. The correlation coefficient R2 is
EP

370

371 more than 0.95 in all the cases. Therefore, a two parameter Weibull distribution can be assumed
C

372 to apply to statistical distribution of N1 and N 2 for concrete containing rubber fibers. Similar
AC

373 observation has been made earlier by Xiang-yu et al. [4] for the concrete containing steel fibers.

374 Table 9. Linear regression coefficients of impact resistance in Weibull distribution

Failure Silica fume (%) w/c Regression Regression correlation

crack ratio coefficient coefficient coefficient
blow (α) (α ln u) (R2)
N1 0 0.35 1.373 7.293 0.961
0.45 1.483 7.477 0.966
0.55 1.525 7.172 0.948

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5 0.35 1.397 7.469 0.963
0.45 1.469 7.49 0.956
0.55 1.569 7.492 0.95
10 0.35 1.429 7.692 0.971
0.45 1.539 7.92 0.953
0.55 1.661 8.013 0.935
N2 0 0.35 1.378 7.501 0.972
0.45 1.483 7.675 0.972

PT
0.55 1.482 7.227 0.957
5 0.35 1.39 7.613 0.975
0.45 1.442 7.581 0.964

RI
0.55 1.516 7.516 0.955
10 0.35 1.417 7.82 0.976
0.45 1.457 7.734 0.963

SC
0.55 1.588 7.95 0.955

375

U
376 4.8 Micro structural analysis
AN
377 SEM images of the concrete containing 15% rubber fiber for 0.45 w/c ratio specimens are

378 shown in Figs. 10(a), (b) and (c). A number of micro cavities are observed in the cement matrix
M

379 as shown in Fig. 10(a), which reduce the strength of concrete. Gaps are observed in the
D

380 interface of rubber fibers and cement matrix in Figs. 10(b) and (c) reflecting a weak bond
TE

381 between rubber fibers and cement mortar. The SEM images further show that the rubber fiber

382 particles have irregular shapes. It indicates that the interfacial bonding between the rubber fiber
EP

383 and cement paste is weak, resulting in the cracking at the interface. The cracking results in the

384 reduction of the strength of rubber fiber concrete.

C

(a)
AC

Cement Paste

Rubber fiber

385

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(b)
GAP

Rubber fiber

PT
RI
386

(c) GAP

U SC
Rubber fiber
AN
Cement Paste
M

387
388 Fig. 10. Microstructure of rubber fiber concrete at (a) 283x magnification; (b) 1000x
D

389 magnification; and (c) 1210x magnification

TE

390 5. Conclusions

391 In the present study, the impact resistance of concrete containing waste rubber fibers and silica
EP

392 fume was evaluated by carrying out experimental studies. Waste rubber tyres converted to the

form of rubber fibers were used to partially replace the fine aggregate whereas silica fume was
C

393
AC

394 used to partially replace the cement. Six replacement levels of rubber fibers (0%, 5%, 10%,

395 15%, 20% and 25%) and three replacement levels of silica fume (0%, 5% and 10%) were

396 considered. Drop weight test, flexural loading test and rebound test were carried out as per

397 relevant standards for three different w/c ratios (0.35, 0.45 and 0.55). Based on the test results

398 and discussions, following conclusions are drawn:

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
399 1. The impact resistance of concrete improves on replacement of fine aggregate by rubber

400 fibers and on replacement of cement by silica fume.

401 2. The difference between number of blows for ultimate failure and first crack increases

402 significantly with the increase in replacement level of rubber fibers, which indicate the

403 reduction in brittleness of concrete or increase in ductility of waste rubber fiber

PT
404 concrete.

RI
405 3. Linear relationship exists between number of blows for first crack and ultimate failure

406 cracks for rubber fiber concrete.

SC
407 4. A good correlation exists between the results of drop weight test, flexural loading and

408 rebound test.

409
U
5. The impact resistance data for drop weight test follows the two-parameter Weibull
AN
410 distribution function.
M

411 Further studies can be carried out for higher replacement levels of rubber fibers and silica

412 fumes. Studies can also be carried out in future using the bigger impactors and higher heights
D

413 along with the measurement of impact force and acceleration of the sample/impactor.
TE

414 References
EP

415 1. Mougin JP, Perrotin P, Mommessin M, Tonnelo J, Agbossou A. Rock fall impact on
416 reinforced concrete slab: an experimental approach. International Journal of Impact
417 Engineering 2005;31(2):169-183.
C

418 2. Nyström U, Gylltoft K. Comparative numerical studies of projectile impacts on plain

AC

419 and steel-fibre reinforced concrete. International Journal of Impact Engineering

420 2011;38(2):95-105.

421 3. Máca P, Sovják R, Konvalinka P. Mix design of UHPFRC and its response to projectile
422 impact. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2014;63:158-163.

423 4. Xiang-yu C, Yi-ning D, Azevedo C. Combined effect of steel fibers and steel rebars on
424 impact resistance of high performance concrete. Journal of South Central University
425 Technology 2011;18:1677-1684.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
426 5. Schrader EK. Impact resistance and test procedure for concrete. ACI Journal
427 1981;78(2):141–146.

428 6. Ramakrishnan V, Coyle WV, Kulandaisamy V, Schrader EK. Performance

429 characteristics of fiber reinforced concrete with low fibre content. ACI Journal
430 1981;78(5):388–94.

431 7. Song PS, Hwang S, Sheu BC. Statistical evaluation for impact resistance of steel fibre-

PT
432 reinforced concretes. Magazine of Concrete Research 2004;56(8):437–42.

433 8. Zhang XX, AbdElazimAM, Ruiz G, Yu RC. Fracture behaviour of steel fibre-reinforced

RI
434 concrete at a wide range of loading rates. International Journal of Impact Engineering
435 2014;71:89-96.

SC
436 9. Dancygier AN, Yankelevsky DZ, Jaegermann C. Response of high performance
437 concrete plates to impact of non deforming projectiles. International Journal of Impact
438 Engineering 2007;34(11):1768–79.
U
AN
439 10. Zhang X, Ruiz G, Elazim AMA. Loading rate effect on crack velocities in steel fiber-
440 reinforced concrete. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2015;76:60-66.
M

441 11. Badr A, Ashour AF, Platten AK. Statistical variations in impact resistance of
442 polypropylene fibre-reinforced concrete. International Journal of Impact Engineering
D

443 2006;32(11):1907-1920.
TE

444 12. Mohammadi Y, Carkon-Azad R, Singh SP, Kaushik SP. Impact resistance of steel
445 fibrous concrete containing fibers of mixed aspect ratio. Construction and Building
EP

446 Materials 2009;23:183-189.

447 13. Ramakrishna G, Sundararajan T. Impact strength of a few natural fibre reinforced
C

448 cement mortar slabs: a comparative study. Cement and Concrete Composites
AC

449 2005;27(5):547–53.

450 14. Rao HS, Ghorpade VG, Ramana NV, Gnaneswar K. Response of SIFCON two-way
451 slabs under impact loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering
452 2010;37(4):452-458.

453 15. Nili M, Afroughsabet V. Combined effect of silica fume and steel fibers on the impact
454 resistance and mechanical properties of concrete. International Journal of Impact
455 Engineering 2010;37(8):879-886.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
456 16. Yan H, Sun W, Chen H. The effect of silica fume and steel fiber on the dynamic
457 mechanical performance of high-strength concrete. Cement and Concrete Research
458 1999;29(3):423-426.

459 17. Nili M, Afroughsabet V. The effects of silica fume and polypropylene fibers on the
460 impact resistance and mechanical properties of concrete. Construction and Building
461 Materials 2010;24(6):927-933.

PT
462 18. Gupta T, Chaudhary S, Sharma RK. Assessment of mechanical and durability properties
463 of concrete containing waste rubber tyre as fine aggregate. Construction and Building

RI
464 Materials 2014;73:562-574.

465 19. Topcu IB. The properties of rubberized concrete. Cement and Concrete Research

SC
466 1995;25:304-310.

467 20. Khaloo AR, Dehestani M, Rahmatabadi P. Mechanical properties of concrete containing
468
U
a high volume of tire-rubber particles. Waste Management 2008;28:2472-2482.
AN
469 21. Sukontasukkul P, Chaikaew C. Properties of concrete pedestrian block mixed with
470 crumb rubber. Construction and Building Materials 2006;20:450-457.
M

471 22. Aiello MA, Leuzzi F. Waste tyre rubberized concrete: Properties at fresh and hardened
472 state. Waste Management 2010;30:1699-1704.
D

473 23. Ozbay E, Lachemi M, Sevim UK. Compressive strength, abrasion resistance and energy
TE

474 absorption capacity of rubberized concretes with and without slag. Material and
475 Structures 2011;44:1297-1307.
EP

476 24. Al-Tayeb MM, Bakar BHA, Akil HM, Ismail H. Performance of rubberized and hybrid
477 rubberized concrete structures under static and impact load conditions. Experimental
C

478 Mechanics 2013;53(3):377-384.

AC

479 25. BIS 516. Methods of tests for strength of concrete. Bureau of Indian Standard 1959.

480 26. ACI 544.2R-89. Measurement of properties of fiber reinforced concrete. West
481 Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States 1999.

482 27. Rahmani T, Kiani B, Shekarchi M, Safari A. Statistical and experimental analysis on the
483 behavior of fiber reinforced concretes subjected to drop weight test. Construction and
484 Building Materials 2012;37:360-369.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
485 28. RedaTaha MM, El-Dieb AS, El-Wahab MA, Abdel-Hameed ME. Mechanical, fracture
486 and micro structural investigations of rubber concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil
487 Engineering 2008;20(10):640-649.

488 29. Kim JK, Kim CY, Yi ST, Lee Y. Effect of carbonation on the rebound number and
489 compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites 2009;31(2):139-
490 144.

PT
491 30. Bravo M, Brito J. Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: durability-related
492 performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 2012;25:42-50.

RI
493 31. Nataraja M, Dhang N, Gupta A. Statistical variations in impact resistance of steel fiber-
494 reinforced concrete subjected to drop weight test. Cement and Concrete Research

SC
495 1999;29(7):989−995.

496 32. Song P, Wu J, Hwang S, Sheu B. Assessment of statistical variations in impact

497
U
resistance of high-strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete. Cement and Concrete
AN
498 Research 2005;35(2):393−399.

499 33. Atef B, Ashraf F, Andrew K. Statistical variations in impact resistance of polypropylene
M

500 fibre-reinforced concrete. International Journal of Impact Engineering

501 2006;32:1907−1920.
D

502 34. Li H, Zhang M, Ou J. Flexural fatigue performance of concrete containing nano-

TE

503 particles for pavement. International Journal of Fatigue 2007;29(7):1292−1301.

504 35. Raif S, Irfan A. Statistical analysis of bending fatigue life data using Weibull
EP

505 distribution in glass-fiber reinforced polyester composites. Materials and Design

506 2008;29(6):1170−1181.
C
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Impact resistance of concrete containing waste rubber fiber and silica fume assessed.

Drop weight test, flexural loading test and rebound test conducted.

Relationships established between results of these tests.

Waste rubber fibers increase the impact resistance and ductility of concrete.

Silica fume increases the impact resistance of rubberized concrete.

PT
.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC