International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 395–408 | Cite as

Dynamic Properties of Saturated Sands Mixed with Tyre Powders and Tyre Shreds

  • Hadi Bahadori
  • Roohollah Farzalizadeh
Research Paper


This study examined the effect of adding tyre powders and tyre shreds on the liquefaction potential of loose saturated sandy soil. Also, the dynamic properties of reinforced soil such as the damping ratio and shear modulus were investigated. To this end, a series of 1-g shaking table model tests were carried out at different percentages of sand–tyre powders and sand–tyre shreds mixtures. The results showed that the use of tyre powders and tyre shreds decreases pore-water pressure due to liquefaction. Maximum shear modulus of reinforced soil increased with the increase in tyre powder content in the mixture. However, an increased percentage of tyre shreds had no noticeable effect on maximum shear modulus. Furthermore, the mean damping ratio increases with the increase in tyre powder content in the specimens. Therefore, as the percentage of tyre shreds is increased up to 10%, the mean damping ratio experiences an increasing trend. Nevertheless, at values above 10%, the mean damping ratio reduces. In general, reinforcing soil with tyre powders and tyre shreds reduces the deformations caused by liquefaction.


Tyre powders Tyre shreds Liquefaction Dynamic property Shaking table 

List of Symbols


Coefficient of curvature


Coefficient of uniformity


Damping ratio


Mean damping ratio


Average size of sand grains

\(e_{\hbox{min} }\)

Minimum void ratio

\(e_{\hbox{max} }\)

Maximum void ratio


Void ratio of sand grains


Fines content


Shear modulus


Specific gravity


Acceleration due to gravity


Mass of sand


Mass of tyre chips


Mass of tyre chips


Excess pore pressure ratio


Tyre powders ratio


Tyre shreds ratio


Acceleration at position i


Total volume of mixture


Volume of sand particles


Volume of tyre chip particles


Maximum stored elastic energy per cycle


Depth of position i


Shear strain

\(\Delta W\)

Energy loss per cycle




Initial effective stress


Shear stress


  1. 1.
    Seed B, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found Div 92(6):105–134Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlosser F, Long NT (1974) Recent results in French research on reinforced earth. J Constr Div 100(3):223–237Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graf ED (1992) Earthquake support grouting in sands. In: Grouting, soil improvement and geosynthetics. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30, vol 2. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, pp 879–888Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell JK, Wentz FJ (1991) Performance of improved ground during the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Report No. UCB/EERC-91/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sasaki Y, Taniguchi E (1982) Shaking table tests on gravel drains to prevent liquefaction of sand deposits. Soils Found 22(3):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pepin N, Aubertin M, James M (2012) Seismic table investigation of the effect of inclusions on the cyclic behaviour of tailings. Can Geotech J 49(4):416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alibolandi M, Ziaie Moayed R (2015) Liquefaction potential of reinforced silty sands. Int J Civil Eng 13(3-4B):195–202Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tajdini M, Nabizadeh A, Taherkhani H, Zartaj H (2016) Effect of added waste rubber on the properties and failure mode of kaolinite clay. Int J Civil Eng. doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0057-7 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aldeeky H, Al Hattamleh O, Alfoul BA (2016) Effect of sand placement method on the interface friction of sand and geotextile. Int J Civil Eng 14(2):133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keskin MS, Laman M (2014) Experimental study of bearing capacity of strip footing on sand slope reinforced with tire chips. Geomech Eng 6(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bali Reddy S, Pradeep Kumar D, Murali Krishna A (2015) Evaluation of the optimum mixing ratio of a sand-tire chips mixture for geoengineering applications. J Mater Civil Eng 28(2):06015007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bosscher PJ, Edil TB, Kuraoka S (1997) Design of highway embankments using tire chips. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(4):295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JH, Salgado R, Bernal A, Lovell CW (1999) Shredded tires and rubber-sand as lightweight backfill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(2):132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Shaughnessy V, Garga VK (2000) Tire-reinforced earthfill. Part 3: environmental assessment. Can Geotech J 37(1):117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khabiri MM, Khishdari A, Gheibi E (2016) Effect of tyre powder penetration on stress and stability of the road embankments. Road Mate Pavement Des 14:1–4Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naval S, Kumar A, Bansal SK (2014) Model tests on footing resting on waste tire fiber reinforced granular soil. Int J Geotech Eng 8(4):469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poh PS, Broms BB (1995) Slope stabilization using old rubber tires and geotextiles. J Perform Constr Facil 9(1):76–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ahmed I, Lovell CW (1992) Use of rubber tires in highway construction. In: Proceedings of the Utilization of Waste Materials in Civil Engineering Construction, ASCE, New York, USA, pp 166–181Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karakurt C (2015) Microstructure properties of waste tire rubber composites: an overview. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 17(3):422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edinçliler A, Yildiz O (2015) Seismic behavior of tire waste-sand mixtures for transportation infrastructure in cold regions. Sci Cold Arid Reg 7(5):0626–0631Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eldin NN, Senouci AB (1993) Rubber-tire particles as concrete aggregate. J Mater Civil Eng 5(4):478–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mehrzad B, Haddad A, Jafarian Y (2016) Centrifuge and numerical models to investigate liquefaction-induced response of shallow foundations with different contact pressures. Int J Civil Eng 14(2):117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baziar MH, Shahnazari H, Sharafi H (2011) A laboratory study on the pore pressure generation model for Firouzkooh silty sands using hollow torsional test. Int J Civil Eng 9(2):126–134Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foose GJ, Benson CH, Bosscher PJ (1996) Sand reinforced with shredded waste tires. J Geotech Eng 122(9):760–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feng ZY, Sutter KG (2000) Dynamic properties of granulated rubber-sand mixtures. Geotech Test J 23(3):338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hazarika H, Yasuhara K (2008) Tire derived recycle material as earthquake resistant geosynthetic. Jioshinsetikkusu Rombunshu/Geosynth Eng J 23:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hazarika H, Hyodo M, Yasuhara K (2010) Investigation of tire chips-sand mixtures as preventive measure against liquefaction. In: Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE, pp 338–345Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bahadori H, Manafi S (2015) Effect of tyre chips on dynamic properties of saturated sands. Int J Phys Model Geotech 15(3):116–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Uchimura T, Chi N, Nirmalan S, Sato T, Meidani M, Towhata I (2007) Shaking table tests on effect of tire chips and sand mixture in increasing liquefaction, resistance and mitigating uplift of pipe. In: Proceedings, international workshop on scrap tire derived geomaterials—opportunities and challenges pp 179–186Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Towhata I, Alam MJ, Honda T, Tamate S (2009) Model tests on behaviour of gravity-type quay walls subjected to strong shaking. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 42(1):47Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bahadori H, Ghalandarzadeh A, Towhata I (2008) Effect of non plastic silt on the anisotropic behavior of sand. Soils Found 48(4):531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S, Scarpa F, Bianchi M (2015) Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    El-Emam MM, Bathurst RJ (2007) Influence of reinforcement parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotext Geomembr 25(1):33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zeghal M, Elgamal AW, Tang HT, Stepp JC (1995) Lotung downhole array. II: evaluation of soil nonlinear properties. J Geotec Eng 121(4):363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brennan AJ, Thusyanthan NI, Madabhushi SP (2005) Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(12):1488–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sabermahani M, Ghalandarzadeh A, Fakher A (2009) Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls. Geotext Geomembr 27(2):121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUrmia UniversityUrmiaIran

Personalised recommendations