APPLICATION OF RUBBER TYRE STRIPS IN GRANULAR SOILS

SUBMITTED BY: RAJWINDER SINGH BANSAL ROLL NUMBER: 81402105008

ABSTRACT Soil reinforcement is an effective and reliable technique for increasing the strength and stability of soils. The technique is used today in a variety of applications ranging from retaining structures and embankments to sub grade stabilization beneath footings and pavements. Reinforcement can vary greatly; either in form (strips, sheets, grids, bars, or fibers), texture (rough or smooth), and relative stiffness (high such as steel or low such as polymeric fabrics). In past practice reinforcements have typically consisted of long, flexible, galvanized steel strips with either a smooth or ribbed surface. Most field research to date on the mechanics of reinforced earth has tended to focus on high modulus, steel strips. (Wasti Y Butun MD [1997]. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of use of waste tyre rubber strips as soil reinforcement. A series of laboratory tests were conducted on dry sand reinforced with waste tyre rubber strips. The following factors were studied to evaluate their influence on pressure settlement behavior and improvement in bearing capacity: relative density of sand and depth at which reinforcement is provided. The soil has been reinforced with the waste tyre rubber strips at various relative densities of 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% provided at different depths of 0.5B, 1.0B, 1.5B and 2.0B, where B is the width of footing. The results show that the maximum increase in BCR (Bearing Capacity Ratio) of 1.78 and a minimum SRF (Settlement Reduction Factor) of 0.24 at a relative density of 50%. The maximum BCR and minimum SRF has been observed at a depth of reinforced layer at 0.5B. The findings strongly recommend the use of tyre rubber strips obtained from non-reusable tyres as a viable alternative way for improving behavior of loose granular soil , particularly when environmental effect is considered.
1

CHAPTER -I INTRODUCTION

More than 33 million vehicles have been added to Indian roads in the last three years; one can only imagine the number of tyres that will be discarded. One way to put an end to this menace would be landfills, but tyres are not desired at landfills, due to their large volumes and 75% void space, which quickly consume valuable space. Tyres can trap methane gases, causing them to become buoyant, or bubble to the surface. This bubbling effect can damage landfill liners that have been installed to help keep landfill contaminants from polluting local surface and ground water. Tyre stockpiles create a great health and safety risk. Fires involving tyres can occur undoubtedly, burning for months, creating substantial pollution in the air and ground. An additional health risk, tyre piles can harbor vermin and provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Illegal dumping of scrap tyres pollutes ravines, woods, deserts, and empty lots. Due to heavy metals and other pollutants in tyres there is a potential risk for the leaching (leachate) of toxins into the groundwater when placed on wet soils. Surveys claims that 10% of tyres currently go to landfill, 4% are recycled and the remaining 86% are illegally grooved, dumped in the veld, burned for steel contained by the tyres or are stockpiled. Approximately, one tyre is discarded per person per year As such tyre disposal is a huge challenge faced by waste management engineers, not only in developing countries but in more economically developed countries also, where there exist stockpiles of tyres in alarming volumes. Their disposal proves to be a serious problem as tyres do not decompose. Hence waste tyres pose a threat to public health and to the environment in terms of current methods of their disposal due to the following three reasons:
2

(i) they occupy large volumes in already overcrowded landfills, (ii) waste tyre storage can be a dangerous fire risk, (iii) waste tyre dumps provide the breeding ground for vermin, including rats and mosquitoes This has prompted an interest in new ways to recycle tyres, to be used in civil engineering applications. Waste tyres have many properties which result in their being of value from a Civil or Geotechnical engineering perspective: low density, high strength, hydrophobic nature, low thermal conductivity, durability, resilience and high frictional strength. It is due to these properties that the use of tyres has been specifically recommended in civil engineering applications such as lightweight material for backfill of retaining structures, drainage layer, thermal insulation layer or reinforcement layer. If waste tyres are reused as a construction material rather than disposed or burned (probably the leading method of reuse), their unique properties can once again be beneficially used due to following advantages:

1. It will help in not only saving huge spaces occupied by waste tyre and tubes, but the environmental health hazards will also be reduced. 2. The consumption of natural soil will be reduced, there by rendering cost saving benefits. 3. The various soil properties such as bearing capacity, shear strength, drainage etc. can be improved by reinforcing it with waste tyre rubber. 4. With the introduction of waste tyre rubber in soil its capacity to absorb and dissipate energy will be enhanced drastically. But this possible only with the better understanding the behaviour of rubber soil mixture. Ahmed (1993)[2] carried out tri-axial tests on tyre chips soil mixture and contended that, with the increase of chip content, apparent cohesion increases. Edil and Bosscher(1994)[19] performed direct shear test
3

on sand reinforced with tyre strips , and showed that tyre strip reinforcement increases peak shear strength and limits the post peak shear strength loss. Massad et.al (1996)[41] concluded through his studies that the tyre chips can be used as light weight fill material in highway construction. Tatlisoz et.al (1998)[49], conducted large scale direct shear test with tyre chips, sand, sandy silt, and reported that shear strength of soil increases with the increase of tyre content up to 30% by volume. Scrap tyres can also be used as construction materials such sub-grade fill, bridge abutments, and for erosion control. The examples of using as whole as shown by Garga and OShaughnessy(2000)[24] in their studies, or as a tyre shred as shown by Okaba et.al (2001)[45], Ghani et.al(2002)[26] Edinclier et.al (2004)[20], showed that by the addition of 10% of tyre buffing by weight to sand increases the internal friction angle by 22 -33 . Mousa F. Atom(2006)[44], conducted a series of tests and concluded that the presence of shredded waste tyre in sand improves internal friction and shear strength of soil. Martin Christ and Park (2010)[40]conducted direct shear test on rubber sand mixes and showed that rubber mix soil have higher compressive, shear, and tensile strength as compared to pure sand. Unconfined compression testing by Roustaei and Ghazavi (2011)[38] on waste tire mixed clay soil shows improvement in reduction of strength in freeze and thaw cycles thus pointing towards theapplication of waste tire scrap in cold regions. Ayse Edinclier et.al (2012) [7], reported that tyre buffings addition to the sand increased the internal friction angle from 22 to33 , and cohesion ranged from 3.1kPa to 15.45kPa. Though from the above literature review, it is clear that a number of studies have been reported over the effect of waste tyre reinforcement on the behaviour and properties of sand. But the studies on footing supported by waste tyre rubber are limited.

1.2 RESEARCH GAP IN LITRATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK The above-mentioned review of available literature cites works related to the mobilization of internal friction, reinforced soil bed on soft clay and sand, footings subjected to axial and eccentric loads in respect of reinforced and unreinforced soil bed. Most problems of soft clays under imposed loads can be identified to be associated with low shear strength and high compressibility. The review further highlights scanty work on reinforced soil technique using rubber strips as reinforcing material in solving engineering problems associated with foundations on granular soil. On the backdrop of the need to understand the behaviour of a rubber reinforced system, an experimental investigation was conducted to investigate load settlement behaviour of the model foundation resting on soil reinforced with waste scrap tyre strips. The improvement in the bearing capacity and settlement shall be studied. 1.3 OBJECTIVES The present study was focused on i) Pressure-settlement behaviour of the model strip footing resting on sand reinforced with waste tyre strips, at Relative Densities 50% ,60% ,70% and 80% of sand ii) The improvement in the bearing capacity at Relative Densities 50% ,60% ,70% and 80% of sand

CHAPTER-II LITRATURE REVIEW

The increasing stockpiles of tyre waste have led to an interest in the development of new ways to reuse or recycle tyre wastes. Tyre wastes can be used with soil (ASTM D6270)[6]. Using tyre wastes in construction activities is increasing as a result of the limited availability of natural resources and the increasing cost of disposal. Because of their low unit weight, high strength and widespread availability, tyre wastes are finding increasing use in various civil engineering works. Reinforced soil structures are now widely used in many engineering projects. Its basic knowledge is of utmost importance for a Civil engineer. Reinforced soil is any wall or slope supporting system in which reinforcing elements (inclusions) are placed in a soil mass to improve its mechanical properties. Inclusion is a generic term that encompasses all man-made elements incorporated in the soil to improve its behavior. Examples of inclusions are: steel strips, geotextile sheets, steel or polymeric grids, etc. In the last decade a lot of efforts are being done to use waste materials as inclusion for soil reinforcement. Such inclusions not only reduce the cost, as waste materials are available at very low price, but also help in Solid Waste Management. In this study an effort has been made to determine the feasibility of using waste tyre strips to improve the strength characteristics of Granular soil. The concept of reinforcing soil originated in ancient times, when materials such as tree trunks, mall bushes and heavy cotton fabrics were used to reinforce soil. The first type of reinforcement used in modern soil reinforcement was developed by Vidal[50] (Schlosser 1974)[48] using long steel strips. Presently variety of materials with different shapes and techniques are used in civil engineering applications. Reinforced soils can be obtained by either incorporating continuous
6

reinforcement inclusions such as sheet, strip or bar within a soil mass in a defined pattern that named systematically reinforced soil, or mixing discrete fibers randomly with a soil fill namely randomly reinforced soils. 2.1 Reinforced Soil Foundation Reinforced soil foundation is basically foundation constructed over soil whose properties have been improved /altered. In the past three decades, reinforced soil foundations (RSF) have been widely used in various geotechnical engineering applications, such as bridge approach slab, bridge abutment, building footings, and embankment. Researchers have shown that the inclusion of reinforcement in soil foundations is a cost-effective solution to increase the ultimate bearing capacity and/or reduce the settlement of shallow footings as compared to the conventional methods, such as replacing natural soils or increasing footings dimensions. A typical reinforced soil foundation and the descriptions of various geometric parameters are shown in Figure 2.3 .The geometric parameters in the figure are denoted as follows: (1) top layer spacing, or depth to first reinforcement layer (u), (2) number of reinforcement layers (N), (3) total depth of reinforcement (d), (4), vertical spacing between reinforcement (h), (5) length of reinforcement (l), (6) embedment depth of footing (Df).

Figure 1.3 Geometric parameters for a reinforced soil foundation During the past thirty years, many experimental, numerical, and analytical studies have been performed to investigate the behaviour of reinforced soil foundation (RSF) for different soil types (e.g., Binquet and Lee , 1975a,b[10] [11]; Huang and Tatsuoka, 1990[29]; Kurian et al., 1997[35]; Chen 2007[16]). Researchers introduced two concepts to evaluate the benefits of RSF (e.g., Chen 2007[16], Abu-Farsakh et al. 2007[1]): one is the bearing capacity ratio (BCR), which is defined as the ratio of the bearing capacity of the reinforced soil foundation (RSF) to that of unreinforced soil foundation. The other one is the settlement reduction factor (SRF), which is defined here as the ratio of the immediate settlement of the footing on a RSF to that on an unreinforced soil foundation at a specified surface pressure.

2.1.1 Reinforcement Mechanism of Reinforced Soil Foundation The improved performance of reinforced soil foundation can be attributed to three fundamental reinforcement mechanisms as described below (1) Rigid boundary (Figure 1.4a): if the top layer spacing (u) is greater than a certain value, the reinforcement would act as a rigid boundary and the failure would occur above the reinforcement. Binquet and Lee (1975b)[11] were the first who reported this finding. Experimental study conducted by several researchers (Akinmusuru and Akinbolade, 1981[3]; Mandal and Sah, 1992[39]; Khing et al., 1993[33]; Omar et al., 1993b[39]; Ghosh et al., 2005[29]) confirmed this finding subsequently. (2) Membrane effect (Figure 1.4b): Under loading, the footing and soil beneath the footing move downward. As a result, the reinforcement is deformed and tensioned. Due to its tensile stiffness, the curved reinforcement develops an upward force to support the applied load. A certain amount of settlement is needed to mobilize tensioned membrane effect, and the reinforcement should have enough length and stiffness to prevent it from failing by pull out and rupture. Binquet and lee (1975b)[11] were perhaps the first who applied this reinforcement mechanism to develop a design method for a strip footing on reinforced sand with the simple assumption made for the shape of reinforcement after deformation. Kumar and Saran (2003)[34] extended this method to a rectangular footing on reinforced sand.

Figure 1.4 reinforcement mechanism (3)Confinement Effect(lateral restrain effect):Due to relative displacement between soil and reinforcement, the friction force is reduced at the soil reinforcement interface. For grid reinforcement, the interlocking can be developed by interaction of soil and reinforcement. Consequently lateral deformation of potential tensile strain of the soil is restrained. As a result vertical deformation of soil is reduced. Since most soils are stress-dependent materials, improved lateral confinement can increase the compressive strength of soil and thus improve the bearing capacity. Huang and Tatsuoka (1990)[32] substantiated this mechanism by successfully using short reinforcement having a length (L) equal to the footing width (B) to reinforce sand in their experimental study. Michalowski (2004)[42] applied this reinforcing mechanism in the limit analysis of reinforced soil foundations.
10

An extensive literature survey was conducted, and it was found that many studies have been performed to determine the use of shredded scrap tyres for improving the various characteristics of soil. Gray Donald H, Ohashi Harukazu.[1983][30]Direct shear tests were run on a dry sand reinforced with different types of fibers. Both natural and synthetic fibers plus metal wires were tested. Experimental behavior was compared with theoretical predictions based on a force equilibrium model of a fiber reinforced sand. Test results showed that fiber reinforcement increased the peak shear strength and limited post peak reductions in shear resistance. The fiber reinforcement model correctly predicted the influence of various sand-fiber parameters through shear strength increases that were: (1) Directly proportional to concentration or area ratio of fibers; (2) greatest for initial fiber orientations of 60 with respect to the shear surface; and (3) approximately the same for a reinforced sand tested in a loose and dense state, respectively. The findings of this study are relevant to such diverse problems as the contribution of roof reinforcement to the stability of sandy, coarse textured soils in granitic slopes, dune and beach stabilization by pioneer plants, tillage in root permeated soils, and soil stabilization with low modulus, woven fabrics. McGown, Andrews &Hytiris(1985)[43]Drained triaxial test and model footing tests were done. Result showed that mesh increased the deviator stress developed at all strains, even at very small strains, and the peak stresses in the sand-mesh mixture occurred at slightly higher axial strains than for the sand alone. Very large improvements were obtained at all strain levels which were similar to triaxial tests in terms of both strength and deformation characteristics. Recoverable settlement plot shows that where a layer of sand -mesh mixture was present, almost 20% of the imposed vertical settlement was recovered, which was 4 times that for the soil alone .Bresette (1984)[12] tested two scrap tyre samples. One sample was termed 2-inch square and it had a cohesion intercept of 540
11

psf and = 21o, whereas the other sample was termed as 2-inch shredded and it had cohesion intercept of 660 psf and = 14o. Ahmed and Lovell (1993)[2] conducted different tests on tyre shreds with a maximum size of 0.5 inch and 1 inch. Using a 20% axial strain as failure criteria, they found that cohesion intercepts ranged from 694 to 818 psf and friction angles ranged from 200 to 250 degrees. Humphery et al. (1993)[33] investigated the shear strength of three separate tyre shred sizes that had maximum sizes of 1.5 inches, 2 inches and 3 inches. These experiments were performed under different normal stress conditions and they found that these shreds possess frictional angle values of 19o to 26o and cohesion values of 90 to 240 psf. Foose et.al. (1993) [22]performed tests to investigate the shear strength characteristics of a tyre shred mixture (sizes ranging from 2 to 6 inches). Several factors, including normal stress, tyre shred size, and orientation of tyre shreds were considered in their study and they found angle of friction of 30 and cohesion of 0-62.6 psf. Cosgrove (1995)[17] conducted interface shear strength tests between tyre shreds and different geo membranes (smooth and textured) under three normal stresses simulating landfill cover conditions. Tests were conducted using both 1.5 inch and 3 inch size tyre shreds and under dry as well as saturated conditions. The interface shear strengths under saturated conditions were less than the interface strengths under dry conditions, and the interface friction angle was higher for a textured geo membrane than a smooth geo membrane. Larger size tyre shreds exhibited higher interface shear strength. This study showed that the interface friction values range from 18 o to 35o and the adhesion values range from 6.5 to 21.5 psf. Duffy (1995)[18], Bernal et al. (1996)[9], Cecich et al. (1996)[14], and Andrews and Guay (1996)[5]also performed tests under different initial density and normal stress conditions. These investigators found that 0.04 to 3 inch size tyre shreds had angle of internal friction values ranged from 17o to 38o and cohesion values ranged from 0 to 150 psf.
12

Wasti Y., Butun M.D., [1996][51]. A series of laboratory model tests on a strip footing supported by sand reinforced by randomly distributed polypropylene fiber and mesh elements was conducted in order to compare the results with those obtained from un reinforced sand and with each other. For conducting the model tests, uniform sand was compacted in the test box at its optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. Three types of reinforcement, two sizes of mesh elements having the same opening size and one size of fiber element cut from the meshes, were used in varying amounts in the tests. Results indicated that reinforcement of sand by randomly distributed inclusions caused an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity values and the settlement at the ultimate load in general. The effectiveness of discrete reinforcing elements was observed to depend on the quantity as well as the shape of the inclusions. The larger mesh size was found to be superior to other inclusions considering the ultimate bearing capacity values. For the mesh elements there appears to be an optimum inclusion ratio, whereas fibers exhibited a linearly increasing trend on the basis of an increase in ultimate bearing capacity for the range of reinforcement amounts employed. Fooseet al., (1996)[23]Conducted direct shear tests on the sandy silt-tyre chip mixtures showed an improvement in strength as the percentage of rubber increased (from 10% to 20%)for the sandy silttyre chip mixtures compared with values for the sandy silt alone; this was attributed to the higher friction angle and greater cohesion. The increase in strength for sand-tyre chip mixtures is related to the increased initial friction angle while for the sandy silt-tyre chip mixtures this increase is due to increases in cohesion and not in friction angle. Gebhardt et.al.(1997)[25] investigated the shear strength properties of large tyre shreds containing 1.6 to 55 inches in size using the two failure criteria: peak failure and 10% failure. This investigation showed that the shear strength of the shredded tyres does not depend on the shred size and = 38 was found for all the tyre shreds. Wu 13 et al. (1997)[52] conducted tri axial tests using four different tyre shreds with different maximum

tyre shred sizes of 0.08, 0.37, 0.74, and 1.5 inches, respectively and they found that all of these tyre shreds possess angle of internal friction of 45o to 60o with cohesion value of zero. Yetimoglu T Salbas O [2003][54]A study was undertaken to investigate the shear strength of sands reinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers by carrying out direct shear tests. The effect of the fiber reinforcement content on the shear strength was investigated. The results of the tests indicated that peak shear strength and initial stiffness of the sand were not affected significantly by the fiber reinforcement. The horizontal displacements at failure were also found comparable for reinforced and unreinforced sands under the same vertical normal stress. Fiber reinforcements, however, could reduce soil brittleness providing smaller loss of post-peak strength. Thus, there appeared to be an increase in residual shear strength angle of the sand by adding fiber reinforcements. Yeo Won Yoon et.al. (2004)[53]conducted laboratory plate load test under various conditions such as relative density, embedded depth, number of reinforced layers, and size of a mat and combination type of tyre segments on sand having waste tyres as reinforcing material . From the plate load test results, the effectiveness of tyre mat as a reinforcing material could clearly be seen. The effects of reinforcing and settlement reduction are higher at lower sand density. The reinforced sands bearing capacity is more than twice that of unreinforced sand. The effects were more pronounced at a cover depth of less than 0.4B. The reinforcement of single layer in medium density sand was enough to reduce the settlement more than half and increase bearing capacity more than a factor of two. The combinations of both treads and sidewalls resulted in the highest bearing capacity. The bearing capacity increased steadily as the width of the mat increased up to five times the plate width and converged at just over twice the bearing capacity of unreinforced sand and remained constant thereafter.
14

MAHMOUD GHAZAVI (2005)[37]conducted tests to determine how shear strength characteristics of sand mixed with various percentages of waste rubber are altered. The results show that the influencing parameters on shear strength characteristics of sand-rubber mixtures are normal stress, mixture unit weight, and rubber content. With the selected waste particles, compaction states and rubber contents, the initial friction angle does not change significantly. Hataf N., Rahimi M.M., [2005][31], Conducted a series of laboratory model tests to investigate the using of shredded waste tyres as reinforcement to increase the bearing capacity of soil. They showed, Shred content and shreds aspect ratio are the main parameters that affect the bearing capacity. They used tyre shreds with rectangular shape and widths of 2 and 3 cm with aspect ratios 2, 3, 4 and 5 mixed with sand. Five shred contents of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% by volume were selected. They reported that the addition of tyre shreds to sand increases BCR (bearing capacity ratio) from 1.17 to 3.9 with respect to shred content and shreds aspect ratio. The maximum BCR is attained at shred content of 40% and dimensions of 3 to 12 cm. It is shown that increasing of shred content increases the BCR. However, an optimum value for shred content is observed after that increasing shreds led to decrease in BCR. For a given shred width, shred content and soil density it seems that aspect ratio of 4 to 5 gives maximum BCR. According to Cetin et al. (2006)[15], the shear strength increases by 30% (when fine (<0.425 mm) tyre chips are used) and by 20% (when coarse (2-4.75 mm) tyre chip mixtures are used), cohesion increases as the amount of rubber increases up to 40%, while the angle of internal friction decreases. In addition, the mixtures of sand and tyre rubber particles are materials that exert less lateral earth pressures on retaining structures compared with those exerted by sand alone. G. VenktarppaRao andR.K.Dutta(2006)[27]reported Scrap tyres can be shredded into chips and can easily be mixed with granular soils. To assess the behaviour of the admixtures, compressibility, tri axial compression tests were carried out by varying chip size and chip content.
15

The results demonstrated that sand-tyre chip mixtures up to 20% could be a potential material for highway construction and embankment construction up to around 10 m height. Baleshwar Singh and ValliapanVinot(2007)[8] conducted an experimental study to investigate the effect of waste tyre chips on the strength characteristics of a cohesive clayey silt soil and cohesion less fine sand soil. They perform standard Proctor tests, unconfined compression tests and California bearing ratio tests on specimens of the soil-tyre mixtures, by varying tyre chips content and reveal that the addition of 13% and 30% chips content can be considered as optimum to reinforce the cohesive soil and the cohesion less soil, respectively . Edinliler & Ayhan, 2010[21] tested the effect of including tyre wastes in sand particles. They used two types of tyre wastes, namely crumb and fiber-shaped tyre buffing which is a by-product of the tyre retreat process formed with various lengthened fibrous shapes. They examined the effect of the variation of such factors as normal stress, tyre waste type, aspect ratio, and tyre waste shape on the shear strength when tyre crumbs and fiber-shaped tyre buffing were mixed with sand particles and concluded that sand shear strength increases with the increase of aspect ratio of tyre buffing and tyre content. In their study Cabalar et.al., 2011[13]investigated the sand shear strength improvement by mixing fine and coarse sand with rubber wastes at four percentages, namely 5%, 10%, 20%, and 50%. The mixture of Leighton Buzzard as coarse sand and Ceyhan as fine sand with different percentages of rubber particles in direct shear test showed the internal friction and the sand shear strength would lessen a little when the percentage of rubber particle increased. They reported 10% rubber content is the border where sand shows different reactions. From one hand, sand containing rubber particles less than 10% indicated a reduction in maximum shear values. From the other hand, maximum shear stress values of sands remained constant when the percentages of rubber content increased to more than 10%. As for internal friction angel of Ceyhan sand, a reduction was observed
16

up to 10% rubber content, while no changes were observed at other percentages. They reported no significant change regarding Leighton Buzzard sand internal friction.Ghazavi, Ghaffar &Farshadfar, 2011[28]determined the interface shear strength improvement of tyre scraps-sandgeogrid using large direct shear test apparatus. For this purpose, the author prepared his specimens with mixing ratios of 0:100, 15:85, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65 and 100:0 by volume as fill materials. The author reported the peak friction angle of the sand for density of 1400 kg/m3 to be 30.2. Tyre chip used in their study were processed scrap tyres reported to be free of steel, with specific gravity of 1.20. He used one type of geogrid for interface tests. Their results showed that an increase in tyre chip content would result in an increase in the shear strength and friction angle up to tyre chip content value around 30%.The shear strength and friction angle then decreased for tyre chip contents beyond this 30 percent. S.N. Moghaddase.et.al (2012)[47]Conducted a series of laboratory tests to obtain the bearing capacity of a square footing resting on shredded rubber -reinforced soil. They showed that efficiency of rubber reinforcement was increased by the addition of rubber content, the thickness of rubber-reinforced soil layer and the soil cap thickness up to the optimum values of these parameters, after that , with further increase in each of these parameters , the bearing capacity decrease. For the optimum value of rubber content of 5% at footing settlement level of 5%, the maximum improvement in bearing capacity of rubber reinforced bed was obtained as 2.68 times the unreinforced bed. This value of improvement was achieved using the optimum thickness of reinforced layer of 0.5 times of footing width and optimum thickness of soil cap of 0.25 times of footing width. AminatonMarto et.al (2013)[4]The shear strength of tyre chips and sand mixture was analyzed in this research to figure out whether it is convenient for using as a lightweight material. For analysis
17

purposes, Standard Direct Shear Device was used. Samples were sand, tyre chips and the mixture of them with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% tyre chips of the total weight. The relative density of sand was determined 70%. It was found that Shear resistance of mixture is greater than the sand alone and, in this case; an increase in tyre chips up to 20% increases the internal friction angle from 32.8to 34.2. The angle of pure tyre chips is about17. Moreover, the findings indicate that adding 10% to 20% tyre chips to sand increases the internal friction angle and the shear strength of sand. The observations reveal that adding more tyre chips decreases the angle gradually. Table 2.1, summarise the findings of various authors, Also, it has been revealed that tyre waste content, aspect ratio, compaction, and normal stress are influencing factors on the shear strength of the mixtures. Table2.1.Waste tyre-sand mixtures shear strength parameters Shear Unit Strengt Refere Material Weight(k h nce N/m3) Param eters Hump c=8.6 Prioduct 1(<76mm hery 7.01 kPa;= tyre chips-1) and 25 Sandfo c=11.5 Product 2(<76mm rd 6.82 kPa;= tyre chips-1) (1993) 19
18

Product 3(<76mm 7.24 tyre chips-1) Product 3(<76mm tyre chips-2)

100% tyre chips

100% sand

5.9
16.8

Tatliso %90 sand + 10% tyre z et.at. 15.6 chips (1998) %80 sand + 20% tyre 14.5 chips %70 sand + 30% tyre 13.3 chips

c=7.7 kPa;= 21 c=4.3 kPa;= 26 c=0 kPa;= 30 c=2 kPa;= 34 c=2 kPa;= 46 c=2 kPa;= 50 c=2 kPa;= 52

19

100% sandy silt

18.3

90% sandy silt + 17.6 10% tyre chips

80% sandy silt + 17 20% tyre chips

c=21 kPa;= 30 c=8 kPa;= 53 c=38 kPa;= 54

20

70% sandy silt + 18.9 30% tyre chip Foose 90% sand + 10% tyre et.al. shred(15 cm- 16.8 (1996) random) 90% sand + 10% tyre 16.8 shred(15 cm-vertical) 90% sand + 10% tyre shred(15 cm- 14.7 random) 70% sand + 30% tyre 14.7 shred(5 cm-vertical)

c=39 kPa;= 53 =37.9k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =18.6k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =8.3kP a (at =25.5 kPa) =37.2k Pa (at =25.5 kPa)

21

70% sand + 30% tyre 14.7 shred(5 cm-random) 70% sand + 30% tyre 16.8 shred(5 cm-vertical)
70% sand + 30% tyre 16.8 shred(5 cm-random) 70% sand + 30% tyre 14.7 shred(5 cm-vertical) 90% sand + 10% tyre 14.7 shred(15 cm-vertical)

=11kP a (at =25.5 kPa) =20.7k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =55.2k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =32.4k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =32.4k Pa (at =25.5 kPa)

22

90% sand + 10% tyre 16.8 shred(5 cm-random) 90% sand + 10% tyre 14.7 shred(15 cm-vertical)
70% sand + 10% tyre 16.8 shred(15 cm-vertical) 70% sand + 10% tyre 16.8 shred(15 cm-vertical) 90% sand + 10% tyre 16.8 shred(5 cm-vertical)

=32.4k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =13.8k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =78.6k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =22.8k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =29.0k Pa (at =25.5 kPa)

23

70% sand + 30% tyre shred(15 cmrandom)

14.7

90% sand + 10% tyre shred(5 cm-random) 14.7 100%Sand A 10% Shredded tyre + %90 Sand A 20% Shredded tyre + %80 Sand A 30% Shredded tyre + %70 Sand A Attom 40% Shredded tyre + (2006) %60 Sand A 100% Sand B 10% Shredded tyre + %90 Sand B 20% Shredded tyre + %80 Sand B 15.5 14 15 15.5 16 15.9 14 15

=42.1k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =19.3k Pa (at =25.5 kPa) =25 =30 =37 =41 =45 =28 =35 =42
24

30% Shredded tyre + %70 Sand B 40% Shredded tyre + %60 Sand B 100% Sand C 10% Shredded tyre + %90 Sand C 20% Shredded tyre + %80 Sand C 30% Shredded tyre + %70 Sand C 40% Shredded tyre + %60 Sand C

15.9 16 16.6 15 16 16.5 16.6

=47 =49 =36 =42 =45 =48 =50 c=3.1 kPa;= 22 c=6.9 kPa;= 33 c=10.4 kPa;= 28.2
25

%100 Tyre Buffings 5.1 Edinli let %100 Sand 15.3 et.al (2004) %95 Sand + %5 Tyre 15.2 Buffings

%90 sand + 10% tyre 14.9 chips

c=8.7 kPa;= 29

From the literature study, it is observed that by-products of tyre wastes as tyre shreds, tyre chips and tyre buffing can be used to improve the mechanical properties of the soil inclusion of these materials into the sand has a reinforcing effect. Although past studies have shown evidence of the beneficial use of waste tyre scrap inclusions when mixed with soil, the optimization of tyre in strips form deserve further study. Current understanding on the behaviour of tyre strips - soil mixtures is based mostly on testing programs conducted using tyre strips of uncontrolled sizes and shapes. Most of the studies have been carried out through shear strength tests. 2.2 RESEARCH GAP IN LITRATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK The above-mentioned review of available literature cites works related to the mobilization of internal friction, reinforced soil bed on soft clay and sand, footings subjected to axial and eccentric loads in respect of reinforced and unreinforced soil bed. Most problems of soft clays under imposed loads can be identified to be associated with low shear strength and high compressibility. The review further highlights scanty work on reinforced soil technique using rubber strips as reinforcing material in solving engineering problems associated with foundations on granular soil. On the backdrop of the need to understand the behaviour of a rubber reinforced system, an experimental investigation was conducted to investigate load settlement behaviour of the model foundation resting on soil reinforced with waste scrap tyre strips. The improvement in the bearing capacity and settlement shall be studied.
26

2.3 OBJECTIVES This research aims to help in assisting partially the environmental issue resulted from disposing waste vehicle tyres. The present study was focused on i) ii) Pressure-settlement behaviour of the model strip footing resting on sand reinforced with waste tyre strips, at Relative Densities 50% , 60% ,70% and 80% of sand.

The improvement in the bearing capacity at Relative Densities 50% ,60% ,70% and 80% of sand.

27

CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 TEST SAND PREPARATION Relatively uniformly graded sand was used in this study. The sand used in the test was cleaned and sieved by 200 micron sieve. This sand is classified as SP as per Indian Standard Classification System. The particle size distribution of the sand is shown in Fig. 4.1. It had a mean grain diameter (D60) of 0.46mm. Various tests were performed to obtain the engineering properties of sand. Those are listed in Table 4.1 3.2 DETERMINATION OF PROPERTIES OF THE TEST SAND 3.2.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION. Weight of pan = 0.795 kg Weight of sample = 1.500 kg Procedure: 1. The sand was passed through 4.75mm; sand was sieved through a set of fine sieve analysis. 2. The sample was then placed on the top sieve and the set of sieves was kept on the mechanical sieve shaker and shaking was done for 10 minutes. 3. The weight of soil retained on each sieve was and pan was obtained to the nearest 0.1g. 4. The percentage of soil retained on each sieve and pan was obtained to the nearest 0.1 g 5. The percentage retained, and percentage passing on each sieve was calculated.

28

Table -3.1 Grain Size Analysis Cumulative Mass mass of Mass of Sieve Mass of of Soil Cumulative % S.NO. Soil size Sieve(g) Sieve+ Retained(g) % Retained finer Retained(g) Soil(g)
1 2 850 600 380 360 390 370 10 10 10 20 0.66 1.33 99.34 98.67

3 4
5 6 7

425 300
150 75 Pan

240 380
330 330 330

1200 630
580 350 340

950 250
250 20 10

970 1220
1470 1490 1500

64.67 81.33
98 99.33 100

35.33 18.67
2.0 0.67 0

29

Fig.3.1Grain Size Analysis of sand used.

30

3.2.2 DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY This test is done to determine the specific gravity of fine grained soil by bottle method as per IS: 2720 (Part III/Sec1)-1980. Specific gravity is the ratio of the weight of a given volume of a material at standard temperature to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at the same stated temperature. APPRATUS i) Two density bottles of approximately 50ml capacity along with stoppers o ii) Constant temperature water bath (27.0 + 0.2 C) iii) Vacuum desiccators o iv) Oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 105 to 110 C v) Weighing balance, with an accuracy of 0.001g vi) Spatula Procedure to Determine the Specific Gravity of Fine-Grained Soil o i) The density bottle along with the stopper, was dried at a temperature of 105 to 110 C, cooled in the desiccator and weighed to the nearest 0.001g (W1). ii) The sub-sample, which had been oven-dried was transferred to the density bottle directly from the desiccator in which it was cooled. The bottles and contents together with the stopper was weighed to the nearest 0.001g (W2). iii) The soil was covered with air-free distilled water from the glass wash bottle and was left for a period of 3hrs for soaking. Water was added to fill the bottle to about half. iv) Entrapped air was removed by heating the density bottle on a water bath. v) The temperature in the bottle was recorded. vi) The stopper was inserted in the density bottle, wiped and its weight (W3) was recorded.
31

vii) The bottle was emptied, clean thoroughly and filled with distilled water at the same temperature. The stopper in the bottle was inserted, wiped dry from the outside and weighed (W4). REPORTING OF RESULTS the specific gravity G of the soil = Since the room temperature was different from 27oC, the following was applied:G = kG where, G = Corrected specific gravity at 27oC Table 3.2 Calculation of Specific Gravity of sand Description Determination Number No. I II III 1. Temperature in C 30.5 30.5 30.5 2. Weight of Bottle (W1) in g 18.47 18.52 18.58 3. Weight of bottle + Dry Soil (W2) in g 28.47 28.52 28.58 4. Weight of bottle + Dry Soil +Water 90.78 90.22 90.98 (W3) in g 5. Weight of bottle + Water (W4) in g 84.64 84.02 84.79 Calculations 1. G= Specific Gravity= 2.59 2.63 2.62 2. Average G at 32.5 C 2.61 3. Average G at 27 C=2.61 =2.608 Say 2.61
32

3.2.3 DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DENSITY Materials and Equipment: (i) Mould (15.45 cm diameter, 15.50 cm height) (ii) Balance sensitive to 1g (iii) Dynamic Shaker Procedure: 3.2.3.1 Calculation of d(max) i) Volume of the mould, V, was measured. ii) Weight of mould (W1) was measured. iii) Mould was filled with oven dried sand. iv) A surcharge weight was placed over the top of sand surface and the mould was placed on vibrating table. v) The specimen mould was vibrated for 8 Minutes. vi) The weight of mould with compacted sand (W2) was measured. vii) The weight of compacted sand (W= W2- W1) was calculated. viii) d(max) was calculated using d(max)= 3.2.3.2 Calculation of d(min) i) Volume of the mould, V was measured. ii) Weight of mould (W1) was measured. iii) The mould was filled with oven dried sand such that height of free fall of sand was adjusted to 25cm. iv) Weight of mould with sand (W2) was measured.
33

v) Weight of sand specimen (W= W2- W1 )was calculated vi) d(min)was calculated using = Table 3.3 Calculation of Maximum and Minimum Dry Density Specimen Weight of Wt. of Wt. Height Volume Density(g/cc) for Empty Empty of of of the W/V Mould Mould Sand Sand mould (kg) +Sand (kg) (cm) (cc) W1 (kg) (V) W2 (W) W2W1 Maximum 9.88 13.36 3.48 15.50 2905.88 1.2 Density Minimum 9.88 14.81 4.93 15.50 2905.88 1.7 Density

34

Table 3.4: Physical and engineering properties of sand used Property d(max)(Maximum Dry Density)

12 KN/m3

17 KN/m3 d(min)( Minimum Dry Density) D10(effective grain size) 220 ( Particle Size such that 10% of soil is finer than this size) D30(medium grain size) 310 ( Particle Size such that 30% of soil is finer than this size) D60(medium grain size) 460 ( Particle Size such that 60% of soil is finer than this size) Cc(Co-efficient of Curvature)= 0.95 Cu(Co-efficient of Uniformity)= (D30)2/D10XD60 2.09
35

3.3MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF WASTE TYRE RUBBER

Table 3.5: Physical and engineering properties of tyre strips used

Property Type Strip Length Cross Section

Scrap Tyre Strip Form 300mm Rectangular 65mmX5mm Specific Gravity 1.02-1.27 Colour Black

36

As an alternative reinforcement material shredded tyre rubber strips were used in this study. They were clean and free from any steel and cord. They were cut from waste tyres into rectangular shape. The nominal size of the tyre strips was 65mmin width and about 300mm in length, so as to have an aspect ratio (ratio of length to width) of approximately 5. The aspect ratio was so chosen, to achieve maximum performance in increasing the bearing capacity of foundation bed and in decreasing the settlement of soil. Table 3.2, shows physical and engineering properties of the tyre rubber used in the test. Fig.3.3 shows tyre strips used in the test.

Fig. 3.2 , Tyre strips used in the test

37

3.4 WORK PROCEDURE 3.4.1 TEST VARIABLES 3.4.1.1 Relative Density (RD) Specimens for different relative densities were prepared. In this project work samples having relative densities of 50%,60%,70% and 80% were considered. 3.4.1.2 Depth of reinforcement Specimens having reinforcement at different depths for each RD were prepared. In this reinforcement at 0.5 B, 1.0 B, 1.5B, and 2.0 B (Where B is width of the footing)were considered. 3.4.2 EQUIPMENTS USED The tests were carried out in a tank of size 83 cm 68 cm 60 cm. The sides of tanks were made up of 6 mm thick metal sheet. The tank was placed over a concrete base & portal frame of I section was provided with tank. Fig.3.5 shows settlement load tester used in the test.

38

4.4.2.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP The plate load test was conducted on the sandy soil. Settlement load tester at DAVIET Shown in Figure 3.3.

Fig. 3.3 , Settlement Load tester used in the test

39

 All the engineering properties of the sand were determined with the help of experiments as mentioned earlier. Weight of sand required to be filled for different relative densities were calculated as described below: d, Dry density at the particular relative density (KN/m3),was calculated using formula R.D. =

Where, d = Dry density at the particular relative density (kN/m3) d(min) = Minimum Dry Density (KN/m3) d(max) = Maximum Dry Density (KN/m3) R.D. = Relative Density (%) Knowing the d for a particular R.D., and volume of tank, weight was calculated for a particular R.D., as detailed below:

40

External Dimension of tank =830 680mm Internal Dimension of tank =818 668mm Thickness of layer Internal Volume of tank For RD= 50% =50mm = =0.0819636 m3

d Weight of sand For RD= 60% d

14.06 kN/ m3

= =1.152kN=115.2kg 14.06 0.0819636

14.57 kN/ m3
41

Weight of sand For RD= 70% d

= =1.194kN=119.4kg 14.57 0.0819636

15.11 kN/ m3

Weight of sand
For RD= 80%

= =1.238kN=123.8kg 15.11 0.0819636

d
Weight of sand

15.69 kN/ m3

= =1.286kN=128.6kg 15.690.0819636

42

 Specimens were prepared for each relative density. The model footing was made out of steel plate of size 68cm 12cm 13cm was used. It had a smooth bottom face. The sand was placed in the mould and compacted to attain desired relative density.

Fig.3.4 Arrangement of reinforcement in tank

43

Fig.3.5 Arrangement of reinforcement at various depths

44

 The tank was filled in layers of 160mm each. To achieve desired relative density of 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% respectively, each layer was temped and compacted to a specified thickness. For each RD, First of all the plate load test was carried out on pure sand sample. Then the test was carried out by placing the reinforcement in the form of strips at 0.5 B, 1.0B, 1.5 B, 2.0 B (Where B is width of the footing). The fig.3.4 shows the general arrangement of placing the reinforcement. Fig. 4.5 shows the arrangement of strips at different depths. In this way a total of 20 tests were carried out. After preparation of sample, the pressure was applied on the sand with the help of a mechanical arrangement. Footing was loaded statically until failure reached. The settlement of the footing was measured for each load using load cell and dial gauges. The bearing capacity was obtained using tangent method. In this method, two tangents were plotted along the initial portion and latter portion of the load-settlement curve and the load corresponding to the intersection of these two lines was taken as ultimate bearing capacity of the footing

45

CHAPTER-IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A series of laboratory test have been carried out on the model of strip footing resting on reinforced sand. Tyre strips were used as reinforcement elements. Two parameters were selected to identify their influence on bearing capacity of sand: 1. Relative Density of sand 2. Depth at which reinforcement is provided. 4.1 Calculation of Bearing Capacity: The Pressure-Settlement curves were plotted. The bearing capacity was obtained by the double tangent method. In this method, two tangents were plotted along the initial straight portion and latter portion of the curve and the load corresponding to the intersection point of these two lines were taken as ultimate bearing capacity of the footing. Figure no.4.1 to Figure no.4.4 shows calculation of bearing capacity by double tangent method at 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% respectively. The details of the ultimate bearing capacity and settlement for reinforced & unreinforced sand are listed in Table 4.1

46

Fig.4.1 Calculation of bearing capacity of sand at 50% RD by double tangent method

Fig.4.2 Calculation of bearing capacity of sand at 60% RD by double tangent method

47

Fig.4.3 Calculation of bearing capacity of sand at 70% RD by double tangent method

Fig.4.4 Calculation of bearing capacity of sand at 80% RD by double tangent method

48

4.2 Calculation of Bearing Capacity Ratio and Settlement Ratio: The graphs were drawn between pressure and corresponding settlement for sand in unreinforced condition and with reinforcement at different heights, for each RD. Figure no. 4.5 to Figure No. 4.8 shows pressure settlement curves of pure sand at relative density 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% respectively. To express the data, a term bearing capacity ratio (BCR) has been used, which is defined as
To express the data, a term settlement reduction factor (SRF) has been used, which is defined as SRF = Where Srand So are settlement of reinforced and unreinforced soil at ultimate pressure of unreinforced soil. For comparison, SRF has been calculated at a pressure level corresponding to ultimate bearing capacity of unreinforced sand.

49

Fig.4.5 Pressure settlement curves at relative density 50% and various depths of reinforced layers

50

Fig.4.6 Pressure settlement curves of pure sand at Relative densities 60%, and various depths of reinforced layers

51

Fig.4.7 Pressure settlement curves at relative density 70% and various depths of reinforced layers

52

Fig.4.8 Pressure settlement curves at relative density 80% and various depths of reinforced layers

53

Table4.1: Bearing Capacity and Settlement at various relative densities and depths of reinforced layer. Bearing Relative Settlement Capacity in Density in mm kN/m2 Pure Sand 50% 59 20
0.5B 1.0B 1.5B 105 96 84 6 8 11

2.0B

73

13

54

Relative Density60%

Pure Sand

Bearing Capacity in kN/m2

Settlement in mm

0.5B 1.0B 1.5B

71 123 110 96

14 6.5 8.5 10

2.0B

85

11.5

55

Relative Density
70%

Pure Sand

0.5B 1.0B 1.5B

Bearing Settlement Capacity in in mm kN/m2 164.1414 23.66 265.1515 6.54 239.899 8.02 214.6465 10.22

2.0B

189.3939

11.52

56

Relative Density80%

Pure Sand

0.5B 1.0B 1.5B

Bearing Settlement Capacity in in mm kN/m2 227.2727 12.34 328 5.01 303.0303 6.01 277.7778 7.33

2.0B

252.5253

9.05

57

Table4.2: Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) and Settlement Ratio (SR) at various relative densities and depths of reinforced layer Relative Density Depth of Reinforced Layer 0.5B 50% 1.0B 1.5B 2.0B 0.5B BCR 1.78 1.63 1.42 1.24 1.73 SRF 0.24 0.32 0.44 0.52 0.33

1.0B
60% 1.5B 2.0B

1.55
1.35 1.20

0.43
0.50 0.58
58

Relative Density

Depth of Reinforced Layer 0.5B 1.0B

BCR 1.62 1.46 1.31

SRF 0.38 0.46 0.59

70%

1.5B

2.0B
0.5B 80% 1.0B 1.5B 2.0B

1.15
1.44 1.32 1.22 1.13

0.66
0.44 0.53 0.65 0.80

59

4.3 Effect of relative density on sand reinforced with waste tyre rubber: Bearing capacity improves from 59kN/m2 to 105kN/m2 at 50% RD, from 71kN/m2 to 123kN/m2 at 60% RD, from 164.14kN/m2 to 265.15kN/m2 at 70% RD, and from 227.27kN/m2 to 328kN/m2 at 80% RD, as shown in Table5.1. The maximum BCR observed at 50% RD is 1.78, at 60% RD is 1.73, at 70% RD is 1.62 and at 80% RD is 1.44 respectively, as shown in table 5.2. This result implies BCR is maximum at 50% RD. Similarly the minimum SRF observed at 50% RD is 0.24, at 60% RD is 0.33, at 70% RD is 0.38 and at 80% RD is 0.44 respectively, as shown in table 5.2. This result implies SRF is minimum at 50% RD. The above results imply that this reinforcement is more suitable for loose granular soils. Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) and SRF at various relative densities and at various depths of reinforced layer, has been tabulated in Table 4.1

60

Figure 4.9 Bearing Capacity Ratio at various Relative densities and depth of reinforced Layer

61

4.4 Effect of depth at which reinforcement is provided

Figure 5.9, shows bearing capacity ratios (BCR) at various Relative densities and at various depths of reinforced Layer. The graph indicates that BCR decreases with the increase in depth of reinforcement. At a given depth of reinforcement 0.5B, 1.0B and 1.5B and 2.0B,, increase in BCR for RD 50% is observed as 1.78,1.63,1.42 and 1.24, for RD 60% as1.73, 1.55, 1.35% and 1.20 , for 70% as 1.62,1.46,1.31, and 1.15, for 80% as 1.44,1.32,1.22,1.13,respectively. Figure 5.10 Settlement Reduction Factor (SRF) at various Relative densities and at various depths of reinforced Layer. The graph indicates that SRF increases with the increase in depth of reinforcement. At a given depth of reinforcement 0.5B, 1.0B and 1.5B and 2.0B, decrease in SRF for RD 50% has been observed as 0.24, 0.32, 0.44and 0.52, for RD 60% as0.33, 0.43, 0.50and 0.58, for RD 70% as 0.38,0.46,0.59,0.66 , and for 80% RD as 0.44,0.53,0.65,0.80 respectively . Hence the BCR is maximum at a depth of reinforcement at 0.5B; and SRF is minimum at the same depth of reinforcement. This result implies that a high concentration of tyre strips reinforcement in the foundation soil within a depth of 0.5B below the base of footing can
62

sufficiently reinforce the sand to produce highest BCR and lowest Settlement Reduction Factor.
Bearing Capacity ratio (BCR) and Settlement Reduction factor (SRF) at various relative densities and depths of reinforced layer, has been tabulated in Table 4.1

Figure 4.10 SRF at various Relative densities and depth of reinforced Layer
63

4.5 Summary of Results: On the basis of experimental investigation following results has been obtained:
1 Maximum improvement in B.C.R. (Bearing Capacity Ratio) of rubber reinforced soil was obtained as 1.76 times the unreinforced soil at 50% RD and at a depth of reinforcement 0.5B. 2 BCR decreases with increase in depth of reinforced layer. 3 Minimum improvement in SRF. (Settlement Reduction Factor) of rubber reinforced soil was obtained as 0.24 times the unreinforced soil at 0.5B. 4 SRF decreases with increase in depth of reinforced layer.

64

CHAPTER-V CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The inclusion of reinforcement generally increased the ultimate bearing capacity of granular soil and reducing footing settlement at ultimate load. Its effect is more predominant in loose granular soils tested in this study. (2) The optimum depth to place the reinforcement layer was at 0.5B below the footing for granular soil tested in this study.

65

CHAPTER-VI LIST OF PUBLICATIONS [1] Rajwinder Singh Bansal et al., Applications of Rubber Tyre Strips in Granular Soils, IJERT; International journal on Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 3, March-2013.

ACCEPTANCE LETTER
Dear Author, Your manuscript id ISSN 2278-0181.Please use this manuscript id in future communications. Your Manuscript entitled Applications of Rubber Tyre Strips in Granular Soils has been accepted for publications. Thanks & Regards Editor, IJERT.
66

CHAPTER-VII REFERENCES
1. Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., Sharma R., and Zhang X., (2007), Laboratory Investigation of the Behavior of Foundations on Geosynthetic Reinforced Clayey Soil, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2004, Soil Mechanics, pp. 28-40. 2. Ahmed, I(1993)Use of waste material in highway construction . Report FHWA/IN/JHRP-91/3, School of civil Engineering, Purdue university, West Lafayette 3. Akinmusuru, J.O., and Akinbolade, J.A.(1981) Stability of Loaded Footing on Reinforced Soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, No.6, 1981, pp. 819- F827. 4. Aminato Marto, Nimma Latifi, Razieh Moradi(2013), Shear Properties of Sand - Tyre Chips Mixtures EJGE 2013, pp.325-334

67

5. Andrews, D.W., and Guay, M.A. (1996), Tyre chips in a Superfund Landfill Cap: A Case History of the First use of a Tyre Chip Drain Layer, Nineteenth International Madison Waste Conference, Dept. of Engineering Professional Development, University of Wisconsin Madison., 6. ASTM D 6270-98, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, PA, 19p.p. 7. Aye Edinliler, Ali Firat Cabalar, Ahmet Cagatay, Abdulkadir Cevik (2012),"Tri axial compression behavior of sand and tyre wastes using neural networks", Springer, Neural Computer & Application (2012) 21:pp.441-452 8. Baleshwar Singh and Valliapan Vinot (2011) Influence of Waste Tyre Chips on Strength Characteristics of Soils Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Sep. 2011, Volume 5, No. 9 (Serial No. 46), pp. 819-827 9. Bernal, A., Lovell, C.W., and Salgado, R. (1996), Laboratory Study on the use of Tyre Shreds and Rubber-Sand in Backfills and Reinforced Soil Applications , FHWA/IN/JHRP-96/12, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

68

10. Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L.(1975a) Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced Earth Slabs. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No.GT12, 1975a, pp. 1241-1255. 11. Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L. (1975b) Bearing Capacity Analysis of Reinforced Earth Slabs. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No.GT12, 1975b, FHuamgpp. 1257-1276. 12. Bressette (1984),Used Tyre Material as an Alternative Permeable Aggregate , Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/07, Office of Transportation Laboratory, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California. 13. Cabalar, A. F. (2011) Direct Shear Tests on Waste Tyres-Sand Mixtures Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1-8. 14. Cecich, V., Gonzales, L., Hoisaeter, A., Williams, J., and Reddy, K., (1996), Use of Shredded Tyres as Lightweight Backfill Material for Retaining Structures , Waste Management & Research, Vol.14, pp.433-451. 15. Cetin H., Fener M. and Gunaydin O. (2006), Geotechnical properties of tyre-cohesive clayey soil mixtures as a fill material, Engineering Geology, 88, 110-120.
69

16. Chen, Q.M.(2007) An Experimental Study on Characteristics and Behavior of Reinforced Soil Foundation. PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 2007. 17. Cosgrove, T.A. (1995),"Interface Strength between Tyre Chips and Geomembrane for Use as a Drainage Layer in a Landfill Cover," Proceedings of Geosynthetics'95, Industrial Fabrics Association, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 3, pp. 1157-1168. 18. Duffy, D.P. (1995), Using Tyre Chips as a Leachate Drainage Layer, Waste Age, Vol. 26, No. 9, September, pp. 113-122. 19. Edil T, and Bosscher P.J.(1994). Engineering properties of tyre chips and soil mixtures. Geotechnical Testing Journal , ASTM,14(4),pp.453-464 20. Edinclier. A., Baykal, G., and Dengili K.(2004), Determination of static and dynamic behaviour of waste materials.Resources, Conservation and Recycling,42(3),223-237 21. Edinliler, A., &Ayhan, V. (2010) Influence of tyre fiber inclusions on shear strength of sand . Geosynthetics International, 17(4), 183-192.

70

22. Foose, G.J., (1993), Reinforcement of Sand by Tyre Chips, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 23. Foose G.J, Benson C.H. and Bosscher P.J.(1996), Sand reinforced with shredded waste tyres . Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,122(9),pp.760-767. 24. Garga and OShanghnessy(2000)Tyre reinforced earth fill, Part-3: Environmental assessment Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37,117-131

25. Gebhardt, M.A.(1997), Shear Strength of shredded tyres as applied to the Design and Construction of a shredded stream crossing , MS Thesis ,Iowa State University 26. Ghani. A.N.A., Ahmad ,F and Hamir , R.(2002), Varying effects of compressible layers in Retaining Wall Backfill, Proceedings of 2nd world congress 27. G. VenktarppaRao and R.K.Dutta (2006) June 2006, Compressibility and strength behaviour of Sand Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 711-724
71

28. Ghazavi, M., Ghaffari, J., &Farshadfar, A. (2011) Experimental Determination of Waste Tyre Chip-Sand-Geogrid Interface Parameters Using Large Direct Shear Tests. 5th symposium on advances in science and technology. 29. Ghosh, A., and Bera,(2005) A.K. Bearing Capacity of Square Footing on Pond Ash Reinforced with Jute-geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 23, No.2, 2005, pp. 144-173. 30. Gray D.H., Ohashi H., (1983). Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in sand Journal of geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 109 (3), 335-353. 31. Hataf N.,Rahimi M.M.(2005) Experimental investigation of bearing capacity of sand reinforced with randomly distributed Tyre shred. Construction and building materials,20,pp.910-916 32. Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F. (1990)Bearing Capacity Reinforced Horizontal Sandy Ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 9, 1990, pp. 51-82.

72

33. Humphery, D. N., and Sandford, T.C., Cribbs, M.M., and Manion, W. P. (1993),Shear Strength and Compressibility of Tyre Chips for Use as Retaining Wall Backfill, Transportation Research Record 1422, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 34. Kumar, A., and Saran, S. (2003)Bearing Capacity of Rectangular Footing on Reinforced Soil. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 21, 2003, pp. 201-224 35. Kurian, N.P., Beena, K.S., Kumar, R.K. (1997). Settlement of reinforced sand in foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo- environmental Engineering, ASCE, 123 (9):818-827. 36. Khing, K.H.; Das, B.M.; Puri, V.K.; Cook, E.E.; and Yen, S.C. (1993)The Bearing Capacity of a Strip Foundation on Geogrid-reinforced Sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 12, 1993, pp. 351-361 37. Mahmoud Ghazavi(2005) Influence of optimized tyre shreds on shear strength parameters of sand ,International Journal of Geo-mechanics ASCE 1532-3641

73

38. Mahya Roustaei, Mahmoud Ghazavi(2011) Strength Characteristics of Clay Mixtures with Waste Materials in Freeze-Thaw Cycles, Journal of Structural Engineering andGeotechnics,1 (2), 57-62, Fall 2011. 39. Mandal, J.N., and Sah, H.S.(1992) Bearing Capacity Tests on Geogridreinforced Clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1992, pp. 327-333. 40. Martin Christ and Jun-Boun Park(2010), Laboratory determination of strength properties of frozen rubber sand mixtures,Cold region science and technology 60 (2010 )169-175 41. Massad., E,. Taha, R.,Ho, C., and Papagiannakis, T., (1996), Engineering properties of Tyre /Soil mixtures as light weight fill materials , Geotechnical Testing Journals , Vol.19,No.3, pp.297-304 42. Michalowski, R.L.(2004) Limit Loads on Reinforced Foundation Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No.4, 2004, pp. 381-390. 43. McGown, A., Andrawes, K.Z., Yeo, K.C. and Dubois, D. (1985). The load strain behaviour of Tensargeogrids. Proc. Conf. on Polymer grid reinforcement. Thomas Telford. London. 11-12
74

44 Mousa F. Atom(2006), The use of shredded waste tyre to improve geotechnical properties of sand, Environmental and geology, Volume 49, Issue 4,pp.497-503
45. Okaba., S.H., Ei-Died , A.S., Abdel -Wahab, M.M. and Abdel -Hameed , M.E.(2001), Performance of rubber tyre particles, International Symposium of recycling and reuse of used tyres , University of Dundee , United Kingdom. 46. Omar, M.T.; Das, B.M.; Puri, V.K.; and Yen, S.C.(1993) Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on Sand with Geogrid Reinforcement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1993b, pp. 435-440. 47. S.N. Moghaddas, A.H. Norouzi (2012), Bearing Capacity of a square Model footing on sand reinforced with shredded tyre - An Experimental Investigation ELSEVIER Construction and Building Material, Vol.35, pp.547-556. 48. Schlosser F and Long N.T, (1974)Recent Results in French Research on Reinforced Earth, Journal of the construction division, ASCE, 100 (paper 10800), pp. 223-237, 1974
75

49. Tatlisoz, N., T.B., and Benson C.H(1998), Interaction between reinforcing geo synthetics and soil tyre chip mixtures ,Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering pp1024-1061
50. Vidal H., The principle of Reinforced Earth, Highway Research Record(1969), 282, pp. 1-6, 1969. 51. Wasti Y., Butun M.D., [1996]. Behaviour of Model Footings on Sand Reinforced with Discrete Inclusions 52. Wu, W., Benda, C., and Cauley, R., (1997), Tri axial Determination of Shear Strength of Tyre Chips, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.5, pp.479-482. 53. Yeo Won Yoon, Sung Han Cheon, Dae Seong Kang (2004)Bearing capacity and settlement of tyre-reinforced sands Geotextiles and Geomembranes Volume 22, Issue 5, October 2004, Pages 439-453. 54. Yetimoglu T Salbas O (2003) A study on shear strength of sands reinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers.

76