Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Dynamic properties of granular soils mixed with granulated rubber

A. Nakhaei, S.M. Marandi n, S. Sani Kermani, M.H. Bagheripour
Department of Civil Engineering, Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Increasing traffic in developing countries creates extra waste tires and may cause various environ-
Received 24 June 2009 mental problems. Due to the lightweight and high capacity of rubber in damping energy, it can be used
Received in revised form for seismic forces reduction and absorption of earthquake vibration. Many researchers have carried out
4 December 2010
many studies on static and dynamic properties of soils mixed with waste rubber. However, large-scale
Accepted 14 July 2012
Available online 10 August 2012
dynamic experimental tests which can be valuable and largely applied in civil engineering are very rare.
In this study, dynamic properties of granular soils mixed with different percentages of granulated tire
rubber are studied using a series of large-scale consolidated undrained cyclic triaxial tests. The samples
diameters and heights were 15 and 30 cm, respectively. The results showed that, for all confining
pressures, with an increase in rubber percentage, shear modulus decreases while for any percentage of
rubber inclusion, shear modulus increased as the confining pressure increased. It was observed that,
with an increase in rubber percentage, damping ratio decreased for the confining pressures of 50 and
100 kPa while this contribution was the reverse for the confining pressures of 200 and 300 kPa. It was
also observed that, with a decrease in confining pressure, damping ratio increased for the soil without
rubber inclusion and it was the reverse for the soil with rubber inclusion. Finally, new relations were
introduced to define maximum shear modulus (Gmax) and normalized shear modulus (G/Gmax)
as functions of confining pressure (s3) and granulated rubber percentage (R).
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the analysis of most soil dynamic problems, determination
of shear modulus and damping ratio as a function of shear strain
amplitude is a key parameter to specify dynamic properties or to
estimate the stiffness and energy absorbing capacity. Soil-
structure interaction response to earthquake incidence, vibratory
equipment foundations, blast forces, the response of marine
structures to ocean waves etc. are complicated. For dynamic
loading, soil stress–strain behavior is presented by Hysteresis
loops. The slope of the lines connecting vertex of the loops and
the areas covered by loops are indication of stiffness and material
damping, respectively.
In the last two decades many studies were conducted on
engineering properties of soil–rubber mixtures by numerous
researchers. Some key parameters studied are shear modulus,
bearing capacity, permeability, shear strength, poisson’s ratio,
compaction characteristics, swelling, and compressibility (Hum-
phrey and Manion [1]; Edil and Bosscher [2]; Foose et al. [3];
Masad et al. [4]; Lee et al. [5]; Feng and Sutter [6]; Edincliler et al.
[7]; Hataf and Rahimi [8]; Attom [9]; Gotteland et al. [10];
Pamukcu and Akbulut [11]; Yoon et al. [12]; Attom et al. [13];
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ98 341 2459164.
E-mail address: marandi@mail.uk.ac.ir (S.M. Marandi).
Özkul and Baykal [14]; and Naeini and Sajadi [15]). Despite
tremendous efforts performed by various researchers and large
amount of experimental data available on static and dynamic
properties of soils, the authors were not successful in finding
evidence of any research conducted on large-scale experiments of
cyclic loading on granular soil-granulated rubber mixtures. There-
fore, such new experiments may be useful for dynamic analysis of
soil-granular rubber mixtures used in retaining walls, railroad
track beds, buried pipes, base isolator, machine foundations,
slopes and embankments. Also obtaining new data may be
beneficial to understand the behavior of these materials particularly
in engineering projects where the use of granulated materials is of
prime concern.
A series of conventional direct shear, torsional resonant
column, large-scale direct shear and dynamic triaxial tests was
carried out by various researchers [3,6,7,9] to investigate the
feasibility of using shredded waste tires, granulated rubber and
tire buffings as reinforcement materials to find out their effects on
physical properties of sands. Foose et al. [3] found that shred
content and sand matrix unit weight were the most significant
characteristics influencing the shear strength of the mixture. Feng
and Sutter [6] studied Ottawa sand-waste rubber mixtures and
indicated that, reference strain can be used to normalize the shear
modulus into a less scattered band for granulated rubber/sand
mixtures. Edincliler et al. [7] also showed that, shear modulus and
damping values of sand-tire mixtures were higher than those

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.026
 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132
measured for tire buffings only, and tire buffings addition to sand
increased the initial slope of shear stress-displacement curve.
Attom [9] reported that the addition of shredded waste tires
increased both the angle of internal friction and the shear
strength of the sands.
Mechanical behavior of tire chip–sand mixtures and the
usefulness of optimizing the size of waste tire shreds on shear
strength were investigated [10,16]. Gotteland et al. [10] showed
that the percentage mass and unit weight had effective influence
on maximum shear strength. Ghazavi and Sakhi [16] found that,
for a given width of tire rectangular shreds, there is solely a
certain length, which gives the greatest initial friction angle for
sand-tire shred mixtures.
A series of laboratory tests were conducted on Ottawa sand by
mixing ground rubber of similar size and reinforcing the effects of
the newly devised ‘‘Tirecell‘‘ made from treads of waste tires, in
sand [11,12]. Pamukcu and Akbulut [11] showed a simultaneous
increase in both the shear modulus and the damping ratio of the
sand specimens up to an optimum volume proportion of the
rubber. Yoon et al. [12] found that the bearing capacity increased
and the settlement reduction was the highest at the lowest
density of sand, and the reinforcing effect of sand was obtained
when the embedded depth was within 1.0B, where B was the
loading width.
A series of experimental works performed on the effects of the
addition of shredded waste tires, compacted rubber fiber and
waste polymer materials on the properties of clayey soils [13–15].
The test results of Attom et al. [13] showed that increasing the
amount of shredded waste tires will increase the shear strength
and decrease plasticity index, maximum dry density, permeabil-
ity, swelling pressure, swell potential, and the compression index
of the clayey soil. The findings of Özkul and Baykal [14] showed
that the peak strength of the composite is comparable to or
greater than that of clay alone when tested at confining pressures
below 200–300 kPa. Above this threshold, the presence of inclu-
sions tended to degrade the strength of the clay. Naeini and Sajadi
[15] clearly showed a significant improvement in the shear
parameters (c and j) of the treated soils.
Engineering demand for modeling of behavior of earth struc-
tures formed of waste materials will continue to increase. Due to
the lightweight and high capacity of rubber in damping energy, it
100
90 Granular Soil
80 Granulated Rubber
Percentage Finer (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 that had been mechanically chopped using multiple chopping
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Size, D (mm)
Fig. 1. The particle size distribution for granular soil and granulated rubber.
Table 1
The tested soil properties.
Coeficient of Coeficient of Passed
uniformity curvature seive
(cu) (cc) no. 200 (%)
Soil 77.77 1.29 8.5
125
can be used for seismic force reduction and absorption of earth-
quake vibration in various Civil Engineering structures.
Objectives of this research were determination of shear mod-
ulus, damping ratio and development of models for prediction of
shear modulus of the granular soil–rubber mixtures with various
confining pressures and percentage of granulated rubber. This
provides insight to how mixture rules may be established for
particular mechanics of soil structures that include non-soil
materials.
In this study, a series of large-scale consolidated undrained
cyclic triaxial tests was carried out to obtain the shear modulus
and damping ratio. The samples were mixed with several differ-
ent percentages of granulated rubber and specific granular soil.
The variation of shear modulus and damping ratio with the
percentage of granulated rubber are presented. Models are
introduced to predict maximum shear modulus (Gmax) and
normalized shear modulus (G/Gmax) for various confining pres-
sures (s3) and granulated rubber percentages (R).
2. Experimental program
A large and extensive experimental research was undertaken
in order to investigate the dynamic properties of granular soils
mixed with granulated rubber. This program is explained in the
following sections.
2.1. Material properties
The soil tested was river type granular soil excavated from a
huge mine situated in Ekhtiar Abbad Kerman site, south-east of
Iran. The excavated soil was sieved based on ASTM D 422-63 [17].
The particle size distribution curve is shown in Fig. 1.
Based on ASTM D 3999-91 [18], specimens shall be cylindrical
and the largest particle size shall be smaller than 1/6 the speci-
men diameter; thus, regarding the mould dimensions, (diameter
and height were 15 and 30 cm, respectively), 100 percent of the
used materials must be finer than 25 mm in diameter. Consider-
ing Fig. 1, it is understood that this limitation is fully observed.
The coeficients of uniformity and curvature were determined
77.77 and 1.29, respectively based on ASTM D 2487-10 [19].
The percentage passing seive number 200 was 8.5%. The values of
sand equivalent and plasticity index of the tested soil determined
based on ASTM D 2419-02 [20] and ASTM D 4318-00 [21] and
were 51 and 4%, respectively. Based on Unified Soil Classification
System [19], the tested soil was well-graded gravel with clay,
GW-GC. The specific gravity of the tested soil was found to be
2.65 at a temperature of 20 1C using ASTM Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Soils (D 854-02) [22]. The above stated
information are summarized in Table 1.
The granulated rubber used in the test samples was supplied
by Behzist Factory located in Orumieh City, north-west of Iran.
Based on ASTM D 6270-08e1 [23], it was composed of waste tires
100
steps and sieved with mesh numbers of 3/800 , No.4, No.10, No.40
and No.100. The particles passing sieved 3/800 and remaining on
sieve No.100 were used. These particles had nonspherical shapes
Sand Plasticity Unified Specific
equivalent index (%) classification gravity
(%)
51 4 GW–GC 2.65
126 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132

with dimensions, from 0.15 to 9.5 mm. The particle size distribu- Table 3
tion curve for the granulated rubber is shown in Fig. 1. The The prepared specimen properties.
specific gravity of the granulated rubber was found to be 1.1 at a
Granulated Moisture unit Dry unit weight Void Relative
temperature of 20 1C according to ASTM Test Method for Specific rubber (%) weight (kN/m3) (kN/m3) ratio density Dr(%)
Gravity of Soils (D 854-02) [22]. Generally, the specific gravity of
granulated rubber varies between 1 and 1.36 [2]. The difference 0.0 22.00 20.64 0.259 91.47
depends on the existance of steel wire particles. In this research, 8.0 20.14 18.68 0.250 92.25
10.0 19.47 17.96 0.266 91.14
the steel wire particles were extracted by a magnet. 14.0 18.67 17.10 0.267 91.37

2.2. Specimen preparation procedure

Based on the standard laboratory procedures ASTM D 4253-00 Table 4

[24] and ASTM D 4254-00 [25], relative density expresses the Testing program procedure.
degree of compactness of the tested mixture with respect to the
s3(kPa) 50 100 200 300
loosest and densest conditions. ASTM D 4253-00 [24] suggests
that, for some soils containing between 5 and 15% fines, the use of Series 1 sd(kPa) 10, 20, 30, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 100, 120, 140,
impact compaction (Test Methods ASTM D 698-00ae1 [26] and 20, 40, 50, 110, 120, 130, 140, 160, 180, 200,
ASTM D 1557-02e1 [27]) may be useful in evaluating appropriate 30, 60, 70, 150, 160, 170, 180 220, 240, 260,
40 80 280
maximum unit weight. By this consideration, the soil was mixed
s3(kPa) 50 100 200 300
with 0, 8, 10 and 14% granulated rubber by weight with the same Series 2 sd(kPa) 15, 25, 35, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95, 105, 110, 130, 150,
grain size distribution. Then, to determine the maximum dry unit 25, 45, 55, 115, 125 170, 190
weight and optimum water content, the compaction tests were 35 65, 75,
85
carried out based on ASTM D 1557-02e1, method C [27]. The
optimum water content, maximum and minimum dry unit
weights, and specific gravites of the mixtures are presented in
Table 2.
Optimum water content was added to the soil-granulated
rubber mixture and mixed uniformly. Then the mixture was Table 5
placed in a split mould. The test specimens were prepared in Determined regression analysis constants A, a, b
and n for Eq. (4).
such a way that, the cyclic test results will be consistent,
repeatable, and less influenced by the specimen preparation. Constant Value
To prepare test specimens, undercompaction method developed
by Ladd 1 [28], that would provide a highly uniform specimen, A 39847.7
and also used by Feng and Sutter [6], was applied. The samples a 0.275
b 0.53
were sequentially compacted in eight layers from the bottom to
n 0.67
top of the mould. Each layer was compacted to a selected
percentage of the required dry unit weight of the specimen. This
procedure differs from the application of a constant compactive Kingdom. The samples diameters and heights were 15 and
effort to each layer required by ASTM Tests for Moisture–Density 30 cm, respectively.
Relations of Soils, using 5.5-lb (2.5-kg) rammer and 12-in. (304.8- Based on ASTM D 3999-91 [18], clauses 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5, all
mm) drop [26] and ASTM Tests for Moisture–Density Relations of the samples were saturated, and pore water pressure parameter, B,
Soils, using 10-lb (4.5-kg) rammer and 18-in. (457-mm) drop [27]. (B¼ Du/Ds) reached over 95%. Then, each sample was consolidated
The compaction of each layer was initiated by using a Harvard isotropically under 50, 100, 200 and 300 kPa pressueres.
tamping device [29], having a spring force of 18 kg (40 lb) and In each test, forty cycles with the same deviator stress
with a compaction foot having a diameter equal to about 1/2 the amplitude and the same confining pressure were applied on the
diameter of the specimen. Finally, the split mould was removed, specimens under stress controlled condition and 1 Hz frequency.
and the sample was placed in triaxial cell and covered with In every cycle, 100 data were obtained by data logger and saved
rubber membrane. The prepared sample properties are presented by computer program.
in Table 3. The testing program performed with and without granulated
rubber is summarized in Table 4. Each series of the tests was
2.3. Test procedure performed with 0, 8, 10 and 14% granulated rubber by weight. In
Table 5, sd denotes the amplitude of deviator stress, and s3 refers
All the samples were tested with a large-scale cyclic triaxial to confining pressure.
apparatus manufactured by Wykeham Farrance in United

Table 2
3. Test results and discussion
The optimum water content, maximum and minimum dry unit weights, and
specific gravites of the mixtures. Kokusho [30] suggested that the effect of the number of cycles
practically disappears when the stress application is repeated for
Granulated Optimum water Maximum dry Minimum dry Mixture
more than 10 cycles. Therefore, the 11th cycle output data were
rubber (%) content (%) unit weight unit weight specific
(kN/m3) (kN/m3) gravity used for calculation procedures and diagram layout.
Considering the grain size distribution curves of granular soil
0.0 6.6 21.68 13.63 2.65 and granulated rubber (Fig. 1), it is clear that the granulated
8.0 7.8 19.42 12.85 2.38 rubber grains accommodate amongst the soil grains, and since the
10.0 8.4 19.03 11.38 2.32
14.0 9.2 18.05 10.98 2.21
grains of granulated rubber have more flexibility than the soil
grains, the dependency of mixture function on the behavior of
 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132
granulated rubber is expected. Based on the tested materials, the
following discussions are made on the mixture behaviors.
3.1. Discussion on shear modulus
The shear modulus-shear strain amplitude curves for the soil-
granulated rubber mixtures are presented in Fig. 2 for the
confining pressures of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa and 0.0, 8, 10,
and 14% of granulated rubber additive. The results indicate that at
a constant confining pressure, with an increase in granulated
rubber percentage, shear modulus decreases. This result was
predictable by comparing the stiffness of rubber and soil grains.
250
200
Shear Modulus, G (MPa)
150
100
50
0
0.001
50 kPa & 0% Rubber
100 kPa & 0% Rubber
200 kPa & 0% Rubber
300 kPa & 0% Rubber
Fig. 2. Shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for the confining pressures of 50, 100, 200 and 300 kPa and the variation of granulated rubber percentages.
250
200
Shear Modulus, G (MPa)
150
100
50
0
0.100
0% Rubber & 50 kPa
8% Rubber & 50 kPa
10% Rubber & 50 kPa
14% Rubber & 50 kPa
Fig. 3. Shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for 0.0, 8, 10 and 14% granulated rubber and the variation of confining pressures.
127
Also, by replacement of the soil grains with granulated rubber the
mixture becomes more softer and the shear modulus decreases.
The shear modulus-shear strain amplitude curves for the soil-
granulated rubber mixtures are presented in Fig. 3 for addition of
0.0, 8, 10, and 14% granulated rubber and the confining pressures
of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa. It can be observed that, for the soil
with or without rubber, with an increase in confining pressure,
shear modulus increases. This phenomenon is due to increasing
intergranular friction as a result of an increase in confining
pressure which leads to an increase in stiffness.
Fig. 3 also shows that, with an increase in granulated rubber
percentage, the effect of confining pressure on shear modulus
decreases. This coincides with the results obtained by Feng and
0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Amplitude,γ (%)
50 kPa & 8% Rubber 50 kPa & 10% Rubber 50 kPa & 14% Rubber
100 kPa & 8% Rubber 100 kPa & 10% Rubber 100 kPa & 14% Rubbe
200 kPa & 8% Rubber 200 kPa & 10% Rubber 200 kPa & 14% Rubber
300 kPa & 8% Rubber 300 kPa & 10% Rubber 300 kPa & 14% Rubber
0 .01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
0% Rubber & 100 kPa 0% Rubber & 200 kPa 0% Rubber & 300 kPa
8% Rubber & 100 kPa 8% Rubber & 200 kPa 8% Rubber & 300 kPa
10% Rubber & 100 kPa 10% Rubber & 200 kPa 10% Rubber & 300 kPa
14% Rubber & 100 kPa 14% Rubber & 200 kPa 14% Rubber & 300 kPa
128 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132
50
45
40
35
Damping Ratio, D (%)
30
25
20
15
10
0
0.001
50 kPa & 0% Rubber
100 kPa & 0% Rubber
200 kPa & 0% Rubber
300 kPa & 0% Rubber
Fig. 4. Damping ratio versus shear strain amplitude for the confining pressures of 50, 100, 200 and 300 kPa and the variation of granulated rubber percentages.
Sutter [6], who worked on sand-granulated rubber. They showed
that, in soil–rubber mixtures containing high percentage of
rubber, the material tends to behave more elastic, and also the
influnce of confining pressure on the material’s stiffness is
insignificant.
3.2. Discussion on damping ratio
The damping ratio-shear strain amplitude curves for soil-
granulated rubber mixtures are presented in Fig. 4 for the
confining pressures of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa and 0.0, 8, 10,
and 14% addition of granulated rubber. The results show that,
with an increase in rubber inclusion, damping ratio decreases for
the confining pressures of 50 and 100 kPa, while this trend is
reversed for the confining pressures of 200 and 300 kPa. This
discrepancy may be described in this way that, in low confining
pressures (50 and 100 kPa), with an increase in rubber inclusion
and due to the high elastic deformation capacity of rubber grains,
the elastic strain increases and cuases damping ratio to decrease.
However, for high confining pressures (200 and 300 kPa), the
rubber grains are pressed and become inflexibe, which leads to an
increase in the relative displacement of the grains during the
application of deviator stress and finally to an increase in both
plastic strain and damping ratio.
The damping ratio-shear strain amplitude curves for soil-
granulated rubber mixtures are presented in Fig. 5 for 0.0, 8, 10,
and 14% of granulated rubber additive and the confining pres-
sures of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa. It can be observed that, for the
soil without rubber inclusion, with an increase in confining
pressure, damping ratio decreases. The explanation for this
behavior is that, with an increase in intergranular friction which
is due to an increase in confining pressure, plastic strain
decreases. Thus, the width of hysteresis loop decreases and causes
the damping ratio to decrease.
Fig. 5 also shows that, for the soil with granulated rubber
inclusion, with an increase in confining pressure, damping ratio
increases and is reversed for the soil without granulated rubber
0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
50 kPa & 8% Rubber 50 kPa & 10% Rubber 50 kPa & 14% Rubber
100 kPa & 8% Rubber 100 kPa & 10% Rubber 100 kPa & 14% Rubber
200 kPa & 8% Rubber 200 kPa & 10% Rubber 200 kPa & 14% Rubber
300 kPa & 8% Rubber 300 kPa & 10% Rubber 300 kPa & 14% Rubber
inclusion. This discrepancy may be described in such a way that,
in the soil with rubber inclusion, increasing confining pressure
causes the rubber grains to be compressed and become more
inflexible; hence, during the application of deviator stress, the
slippage of the soil grains on each other increases. So the plastic
strain increases and cuases damping ratio to increase.
Furthermore, the results indicate that, not only does the
damping ratio increase with an increase in confining pressure
for 8, 10 and 14% rubber inclusion, but also the influence of
confining pressure on damping ratio increases as rubber inclusion
increases. This phenomenon can be explained in a way that, when
higher percentage of rubber is used, the mixture has more plastic
strain at high confining pressures and more elastic strain at low
confining pressures. Therefore, it makes a higher difference
between damping ratios at different confining pressures due to
increasing rubber inclusion.
4. Maximum shear modulus (Gmax) and reference
shear strain (cr)
The experimental data obtained for shear modulus (G) values
were plotted versus shear strain amplitude (g) and are presented
in Figs. 3 and 4. The general trend observed in these figures.
appeared to follow the well-known Hyperbolic law used by
Hardin and Drnevich in [31].
G 1
¼ ð1Þ
Gmax 1 þ g=gr
where Gmax is the maximum shear modulus and gr is known as
the reference shear strain.
Using regression analysis on obtained laboratory experimental
data (G and g), and Eq. (1), the values of Gmax and gr are evaluated
and the results are plotted in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
Fig. 6 shows that, as rubber percentage increases, the values of
Gmax decreases and also the defference between the values of
 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132 129

50

45

40

35
Damping Ratio, D (%)
30

25

20

15

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
0% Rubber & 50 kPa 0% Rubber & 100 kPa 0% Rubber & 200 kPa 0% Rubber & 300 kPa
8% Rubber & 50 kPa 8% Rubber & 100 kPa 8% Rubber & 200 kPa 8% Rubber & 300 kPa
10% Rubbe & 50 kPa 10% Rubber & 100 kPa 10% Rubber & 200 kPa 10% Rubber & 300 kPa
14% Rubber & 50 kPa 14% Rubber & 100 kPa 14% Rubber & 200 kPa 14% Rubber & 300 kPa

Fig. 5. Damping ratio versus shear strain amplitude for 0.0, 8, 10 and 14% granulated rubber and the variation of confining pressures.

300 0.6
Maximum Shear Modulus, Gmax (MPa)

50 kPa 50 kPa
Reference Shear Strain, γr (%)

250 100 kPa 0.5 100 kPa

200 kPa 200 kPa
200 0.4
300 kPa
300 kPa
150 0.3

100 0.2

50
0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Rubber (%)
Rubber (%)
Fig. 6. Maximum shear modulus versus granulated rubber percentage for the
Fig. 7. Reference shear strain versus granulated rubber percentage for the
variation of the confining pressures.
variation of confining pressures.

Gmax in different confining pressure reduces which is compatible

with the results obtained by Feng and Sutter [6]. inclusion may be approximated and equated to the void ratio of
Fig. 7 shows that, with an increase in rubber inclusion, the the soil (i.e., R  e).
reference shear strain (gr) increases. This can be explained that, as In this research, further studies were carried out to clarify the
the rubber inclusion increases, the mixture becomes more flexible approximation, to examine the applicability and suitability and to
and softer. Therefore, the slope of stress–strain diagram decreases present a new model. Considering Eqs. (2) and (3), the current
and causes an increase in gr values. model suggested to predict of Gmax values as follows:
Furthermore, the experimental data obtained showed that an
appropriate relation may be established between Gmax and other ðaRÞ2
Gmax ¼ A   sn3 ð4Þ
physical and mechanical properties and stress conditions applied b þR
on soil-granulated rubber mixtures. An experimental relation has
previously been proposed by Kokusho [32] to predict of Gmax Eq. (4) is introduced for evaluation of Gmax in terms of R and s3 in
values as follows: a similar manner to Eq. (2). The constants A, a and b as well as n
were determined by regression analysis and are presented in
Gmax ¼ A  FðeÞ  ðs3 Þn ð2Þ Table 5.
The equation which is obtained clearly shows that for soil–
where F(e) is known as the void ratio function, Kokusho and
rubber mixtures investigated in this research, the suggestion
Esashi [33], and is determined as follows:
made by Feng and Sutter [6] is not applicable for tested soil.
ð2:17eÞ2 However, it is possible to conduct a separate investigation in
FðeÞ ¼ ð3Þ order to find the suitable relation between e and R values. Fig. 8
1þe
shows the graphical comparsion of variation of Gmax calculated
Investigation into the properties of rubber/sand mixtures from Hyperbolic law (Eq. (1)) and those obtained by Eq. (4) using
carried out by Feng and Sutter [6] suggests that the rubber constant values presented in Table 5.
130 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132

300 Table 7
Maximum Shear Modulus, Gmax (MPa)

50 kPa (Hyperbolic) Determined new regression analysis constants p, A,

250 100 kPa (Hyperbolic) m and n for Eq. (6).
200 kPa (Hyperbolic)
300 kPa (Hyperbolic) Constant Value
200
50 kPa (Eq. (4))
p 1.00
150 100 kPa (Eq. (4))
A 207.65
200 kPa (Eq. (4))
m  13.70
100 300 kPa (Eq. (4)) n  0.41

50
0.6

Reference Shear Strain, γr (%)

0 50 kPa (Hyperbolic)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0.5 100 kPa (Hyperbolic)
Rubber (%)
200 kPa (Hyperbolic)
Fig. 8. Maximum shear modulus versus graulated rubber percentage obtained 0.4 300 kPa (Hyoerbolic)
from Hyperbolic Law (Eqs. (1) and (4)).
50 kPa (Eq. (6))
0.3
100 kPa (Eq. (6))
Table 6 200 kPa (Eq. (6))
0.2
Determined regression analysis constants p, A, m 300 kPa (Eq. (6))
and n for Eq. (5).
0.1
Constant Value
0
p 0.94 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Rubber (%)
A 147.37
m  12.73
Fig. 9. Reference shear strain (gr) versus granulated rubber percentage Obtained
n  0.38
from Hyperbolic Law (Eqs. (1) and (6)).

Considering the values of Gmax obtained from Hyperbolic law 1

50 kPa (Hyperbolic)
Normalized Shear Modulus, G/Gmax

(Eq. (1)), the non-dimensional values of G/Gmax are determind in

100 kPa (Hyperbolic)
terms of R and s3 as functions of g. It is understood that gr, itself, 0.8
200 kPa (Hyperbolic)
is dependent on R and s3; hence, Eq. (1) was expanded to
300 kPa (Hyperbolic)
examine such dependancy. Trial and error functions were used
0.6 50 kPa (Eq. (5))
to reach the following relation:
100 kPa (Eq. (5))
G 1 0.4 200 kPa (Eq. (5))
¼ ð5Þ
Gmax 1 þ ½A  sn3  ðI þ RÞm   gp 300 kPa (Eq. (5))

Using the values of G/Gmax and g and regression analysis, the 0.2
constants of A, m, n and p are calculated and presented in Table 6.
It may be noted that Eq. (5) is in fact the expansion of 0
Hyperbolic law (Eq. (1)) and if p is rationally approximated to 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
unity (i.e., p ¼1.0); then, the term in bracket in Eq. (5) is equated Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
to an equation for gr. Therefore, Fig. 10. Normalized shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for 0.0%
1 granulated rubber and the variation of confining pressures.
n m
¼ A  s  ðI þRÞ 3 ð6Þ
gr
1
The refined form of Eq. (5) with p ¼1.0 leads to new values for
Normalized Shear Modulus, G/Gmax

constants A, m and n which are presented in Table 7:

0.8 50 kPa (Hyperbolic)
Fig. 9 shows the graphical presentation of reference strain
100 kPa (Hyperbolic)
values (gr) against rubber inclusion obtained from Hyperbolic law
(Eq. (1)) and those defined by Eq. (6) using constant values 0.6 200 kPa (Hyperbolic)

presented in Table 7. 300 kPa (Hyperbolic)

Considering Fig. 9 and the fact that setting p in Eq. (5) to unity 0.4 50 kPa (Eq. (5))

(p¼1) makes a good correlation between reference strains 100 kPa (Eq. (5))

obtained from Hyperbolic law and those predicted by Eq. (6), 0.2
200 kPa (Eq. (5))
settig p to unity (p ¼1) seems reasonable. Finally, the values of 300 kPa (Eq. (5))
G/Gmax were calculated using Eq. (5) and regression analysis
0
constants presented in Table 7 and were plotted in Figs. 10–14. 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
In Figs. 10–14, the symbols are the values of G/Gmax obtained Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
from Hyperbolic law (Eq. (1)), and the curves represent the values
of G/Gmax calculated from Eq. (5) and constants in Table 7. Fig. 11. Normalized shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for 8.0%
granulated rubber and the variation of confining pressures.
The effect of confining pressure on G/Gmax values for the
various of rubber inclusion is presented in Figs. 10–12. it can be
observed that, for a given percentage of rubber, as confining Figs. 13 and 14 show the impact of rubber incluion on G/Gmax
pressure inceases, the values of G/Gmax increases. This phenom- for the variation of confining pressures. It can be observed that, at
enon results from an increase in material stiffness due to an a given confining pressure, the values of G/Gmax increase with an
increase in confining pressure. increase in rubber percentage. This phenomenon shows more
 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132 131

1 elastic and flexible behavior (uniform behavior) of the mixture by

Normalized Shear Modulus, G/Gmax

increasing the rubber percentage.

0.8 50 kPa (Hyperbolic)
The summary of the test results for Shear modulus, Damping
ratio and normalized shear modulus are presented in Table 8.
100 kPa (Hyperbolic)
0.6 200 kPa (Hyperbolic)
300 kPa (Hyperbolic)
50 kPa (Eq. (5))
5. Conclusions
0.4
100 kPa (Eq. (5))
200 kPa (Eq. (5))
In the present research a series of large-scale consolidated
0.2
300 kPa (Eq. (5))
undrained cyclic triaxial tests was carried out using granular
soils-granulated rubber mixtures. Based on the tested materials,
0 the following conclusions are made:
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
1. Shear modulus decreased with an increase in rubber inclusion
Fig. 12. Normalized shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for 10.0% for all the confining pressures.
granulated rubber and the variation of confining pressures. 2. Shear modulus increased with an increase in the confining
pressure for any percentage of rubber inclusion.
3. Damping ratio decreased with an increase in rubber inclusion
1 at 50 and 100 kPa confining pressures. However, for 200 and
Normalized Shear Modulus, G/Gmax

300 kPa confining pressures, the results were vice versa.

0.8 4. Damping ratio in granular soil-granulated rubber mixtures
0% (Hyperbolic) increased as the confining pressure increased. This was the
0.6
8% (Hyperbolic) reverse for granular soil without rubber inclusion.
10% (Hyperbolic) 5. A model was introduced to predict Gmax for various confining
14% (Hyperbolic) pressures and rubber inclusion percentage.
0.4 0% (Eq. (5)) 6. A model was established to evaluate the normalized shear
8% (Eq. (5)) modulus (G/Gmax) versus shear strain amplitude (g) for various
0.2 10% (Eq. (5)) confining pressures and rubber inclusion percentage.
14% (Eq. (5)) 7. For a given percentage of rubber, with an increase in confining
0 pressure, the values of G/Gmax increased.
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
8. At a given confining pressure, the values of G/Gmax increased
Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%)
with an increase in rubber inclusion percentage.
Fig. 13. Normalized shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for the confin-
ing pressure of 50 kPa and the variation of granulated rubber percentages.
Acknowledgments

1 The authors would like to express their thanks and apprecia-

Normalized Shear Modulus, G/Gmax

tions to the management and staff of the ‘‘Technical and Soil

0.8 Mechanic Lab Co.’’ in Tehran, Iran for their generous assistance
0% (Hyperbolic) and valuable comments during the experimental works con-
0.6
8% (Hyperbolic) ducted in this research. We are also grateful to Ehsan Mehrabi
10% (Hyperbolic) Kermani for editing the English text. At finally yet importantly,
14% (Hyperbolic) the authors extend their special thanks to reviewers of this paper
0.4
0% (Eq. (5)) for their valuable comments.
8% (Eq. (5))
0.2 10% (Eq. (5))
14% (Eq. (5))
References
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 [1] Humphrey DN, Manion W. Properties of tire chips for lightweight grouting
Shear Strain Amplitude, γ (%) soil, improvement and geosynthetics, ASCE. Geotechnical Special Publication
1992;30:1344–55.
Fig. 14. Normalized shear modulus versus shear strain amplitude for the confin- [2] Edil TB, Bosscher PJ. Engineering properties of tire chips and soil mixtures.
ing pressure of 300 kPa and the variation of granulated rubber percentages. Geotechnical Testing Journal 1994;17(4).
[3] Foose GJ, Benson CH, Bosscher PJ. Sand reinforced with shredded waste tires.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (ASCE) 1996;122(9):760–7.
[4] Masad EM, Taha RHOC, Papagiannakis T. Engineering properties of tire/soil
Table 8 mixtures as a lightweight fill material. Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ
The summary of test results for shear modulus, damping ratio and normalized 1996;19(3):297–304.
shear modulus. [5] Lee JH, Sagado R, Bernal A, Lovell CW. Sheredded tires and rubber-sand as
lightweight backfill. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neereing, American Society of Civil Engineering 1999;125(2):132–41.
Increase in confining Increase in rubber inclusion
[6] Feng ZY, Sutter KG. Dynamic properties of granulated rubber/sand mixtures.
pressure
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ 2000;23(3):338–44.
[7] Edincliler A, Baykal G, Delgili k. Deretmination of static and dynamic behavior
Shear modulus Increase Decrease of recycled material for highways, Science Direct. Conservation and Recycling
Damping ratio Decrease for soil Decrease for 50 & 100 kPa 2004;42:223–37 Elsevier, Ltd..
without rubber confining pressures [8] Hataf N, Rahimi MM. Experimental investigation on bearing capacity of sand
Increase for soil with Increase for 200 & 300 kPa reinforced with randomly distributed tire shreds. Construction and Building
rubber confining pressures Materials 2005;20:910–6 Elsevier, Ltd..
Normalized shear Increase Increase [9] Attom MF. The use of shredded waste tires to improve the geotechnical
modulus Engineering properties of sands, Journal of Environmental Geology, Vol. 49.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; Feburary, 2005 497-503.
132 A. Nakhaei et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43 (2012) 124–132
[10] Gotteland P, Lambber S, Balachowski L. Strength characteristics of tire chips-
sand mixtures. Studia Geotechnical et Mechanica 2005;XXVII(1-2).
[11] Pamukcu S, Akbullut S. Thermoelastic enhancement of damping of sand
using synthetic ground rubber. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Engineering 2006;132(4):501–10.
[12] Yoon YW, Heo DB, kim KS. Geotechnical performance of waste tires for soil
reinforcement from chamber tests, science direct. Journal of Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 2006;26:100–7 Elsevier, Ltd..
[13] Attom M, Khedaywi T, Sameer AM. The effect of shredded waste tire on the
shear strength, swelling and comprssibility properties of the clayey soil.
Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 2007;33(4).
[14] Özkul ZH, Baykal G. Shear behavior of compacted rubber fiber-clay composite
in drained and undrained loading, ASCE. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 2007;133(7):767–81.
[15] Naeini SA, Sadjadi SM. Effect of waste polymer materials on shear strength of
unsaturated clays. Engineering Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE) 2008.
[16] Ghazavi M, Amel Sakhi M. Influence of optimized tire shreds on shear
strength parameters of sand. International Journal of Geomechanics
2005;5(1):58–65.
[17] ASTM D 422-63 (Reapproved 2002), Standard test method for particle-size
analysis of soils.
[18] ASTM D 3999-91 (Reapproved 2003), Standard test methods for the deter-
mination of the modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic tri-
axial apparatus.
[19] ASTM D 2487-10, standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
purposes (Unified soil classification system).
[20] ASTM D 2419-02, Standard test method for sand equivalent value of soils and
fine aggregate.
[21] ASTM D 4318-00, Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils.
[22] ASTM D 854-02, standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by
water pycnometer.
[23] ASTM D 6270-08e1, standard practice for use of scrap tires in civil engineer-
ing applications.
[24] ASTM D 4253-00, standard test methods for maximum index density and
unit weight of soils using a vibratory table.
[25] ASTM D 4254-00, standard test methods for minimum index density and unit
weight of soils and calculation of relative density.
[26] ASTM D 698-00ae1, standard test methods for laboratory compaction
characteristics of soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kn-m/m3)).
[27] ASTM D 1557-02e1, standard test methods for laboratory compaction
characteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2700 kn-m/m3)).
[28] Ladd RS. Preparing test specimens using undercompaction. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, GTJODJ 1978;1(1):16–23.
[29] Wilson SD. Suggested method of test for moisture–density relations of soils
using Harvard compaction apparatus, in special procedures for testing soil
and rock for Engineering purposes, STP 479. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia 1970:101–3.
[30] Kokusho T. Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain
range. Soils and Foundations 1980;22(1):45–60.
[31] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design
equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics Foundations Division,
ASCE 1972;98(SM7):667–92.
[32] Kokusho, T. In situ dynamic soil properties and their evaluation, Proceedings
of The 8th Asian regional conference on soil mechanics and foundations
engineering, Koyoto, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 215–435.
[33] Kokusho, T, Esashi, Y. Cyclic triaxial test on sands and coarse materials,
Proceedings of The 10th international Conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 1, 1981.