1banasal 1652013

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

1/78

APPLICATION OF RUBBERTYRE STRIPS IN GRANULARSOILS

SUBMITTED BY:RAJWINDER SINGH BANSAL ROLL NUMBER:81402105008

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

2/78

ABSTRACT

Soil reinforcement is an effective and reliable technique for increasing the strength andstability of soils. The technique is used today in a variety of applications ranging from retainingstructures and embankments to sub grade stabilization beneath footings and pavements.

Reinforcement can vary greatly; either in form (strips, sheets, grids, bars, or fibers), texture (roughor smooth), and relative stiffness (high such as steel or low such as polymeric fabrics). In pastpractice reinforcements have typically consisted of long, flexible, galvanized steel strips with eithera smooth or ribbed surface. Most field research to date on the mechanics of reinforced earth hastended 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 soilreinforcement. A series of laboratory tests were conducted on dry sand reinforced with waste tyrerubber strips. The following factors were studied to evaluate their influence on pressure settlementbehavior and improvement in bearing capacity: relative density of sand and depth at whichreinforcement is provided. The soil has been reinforced with the waste tyre rubber strips at variousrelative 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 arelative density of 50%. The maximum BCR and minimum SRF has been observed at a depth ofreinforced layer at 0.5B. The findings strongly recommend the use of tyre rubber strips obtainedfrom non-reusable tyres as a viable alternative way for improving behavior of loose granular soil ,particularly when environmental effect is considered.

1

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

3/78

CHAPTER -I

INTRODUCTION

More than 33 million vehicles have been added to Indian roads in the last three years; one can onlyimagine the number of tyres that will be discarded. One way to put an end to this menace would belandfills, but tyres are not desired at landfills, due to their large volumes and 75% void space, whicquickly consume valuable space. Tyres can trap methane gases, causing them to become buoyant, obubble to the surface. This bubbling effect can damage landfill liners that have been installed tohelp keep landfill contaminants from polluting local surface and ground water. Tyre stockpilescreate a great health and safety risk. Fires involving tyres can occur undoubtedly, burning formonths, creating substantial pollution in the air and ground. An additional health risk, tyre piles ca

harbor vermin and provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes.Illegal dumping of scrap tyres pollutes ravines, woods, deserts, and empty lots. Due to heavy metalsand other pollutants in tyres there is a potential risk for the leaching (leachate) of toxins into thegroundwater when placed on wet soils. Surveys claims that 10% of tyres currently go to landfill, 4are recycled and the remaining 86% are illegally grooved, dumped in the veld, burned for steelcontained 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 indeveloping countries but in more economically developed countries also, where there existstockpiles of tyres in alarming volumes. Their disposal proves to be a serious problem as tyres donot decompose.

Hence waste tyres pose a threat to public health and to the environment in terms of current methodsof their disposal due to the following three reasons:

2

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

4/78

(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 orGeotechnical engineering perspective: low density, high strength, hydrophobic nature, low thermalconductivity, durability, resilience and high frictional strength. It is due to these properties that theuse of tyres has been specifically recommended in civil engineering applications such as lightweighmaterial for backfill of retaining structures, drainage layer, thermal insulation layer or reinforcemenlayer. 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 useddue to following advantages:

1. It will help in not only saving huge spaces occupied by waste tyre and tubes, but theenvironmental 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 energywill 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 ochip content, apparent cohesion increases. Edil and Bosscher(1994)[19] performed direct shear test

3

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

5/78

on sand reinforced with tyre strips , and showed that tyre strip reinforcement increases peak shearstrength and limits the post peak shear strength loss. Massad et.al (1996)[41] concluded through hisstudies that the tyre chips can be used as light weight fill material in highway construction. Tatlisozet.al (1998)[49], conducted large scale direct shear test with tyre chips, sand, sandy silt, and reportedthat 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 forerosion 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 sandincreases the internal friction angle by 22-33. Mousa F. Atom(2006)[44], conducted a series oftests 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 sandmixes and showed that rubber mix soil have higher compressive, shear, and tensile strength ascompared to pure sand. Unconfined compression testing by Roustaei and Ghazavi (2011)[38] onwaste tire mixed clay soil shows improvement in reduction of strength in freeze and thaw cyclesthus 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 from22to33, 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 ovethe effect of waste tyre reinforcement on the behaviour and properties of sand. But the studies onfooting supported by waste tyre rubber are limited.

4

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

6/78

1.2 RESEARCH GAP IN LITRATURE AND SCOPE OF WORKThe above-mentioned review of available literature cites works related to the mobilization ofinternal friction, reinforced soil bed on soft clay and sand, footings subjected to axial and eccentricloads in respect of reinforced and unreinforced soil bed. Most problems of soft clays under imposedloads 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 reinforcingmaterial in solving engineering problems associated with foundations on granular soil. On thebackdrop of the need to understand the behaviour of a rubber reinforced system, an experimentalinvestigation was conducted to investigate load settlement behaviour of the model foundationresting on soil reinforced with waste scrap tyre strips. The improvement in the bearing capacity andsettlement shall be studied.

1.3 OBJECTIVESThe present study was focused oni) 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 sandii) The improvement in the bearing capacity at Relative Densities 50% ,60% ,70% and 80% of

sand

5

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

7/78

CHAPTER-II

LITRATURE REVIEWThe increasing stockpiles of tyre waste have led to an interest in the development of new ways toreuse 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 andthe increasing cost of disposal. Because of their low unit weight, high strength and widespreadavailability, tyre wastes are finding increasing use in various civil engineering works.Reinforced soil structures are now widely used in many engineering projects. Its basic knowledgeis of utmost importance for a Civil engineer. Reinforced soil is any wall or slope supporting systemin 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 thesoil to improve its behavior. Examples of inclusions are: steel strips, geotextile sheets, steel orpolymeric grids, etc. In the last decade a lot of efforts are being done to use waste materials asinclusion for soil reinforcement. Such inclusions not only reduce the cost, as waste materials areavailable 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 toimprove the strength characteristics of Granular soil.

The concept of reinforcing soil originated in ancient times, when materials such as tree trunks, mallbushes 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 steelstrips. Presently variety of materials with different shapes and techniques are used in civilengineering applications. Reinforced soils can be obtained by either incorporating continuous

6

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

8/78

reinforcement inclusions such as sheet, strip or bar within a soil mass in a defined pattern thatnamed systematically reinforced soil, or mixing discrete fibers randomly with a soil fill namelyrandomly reinforced soils.2.1 Reinforced Soil FoundationReinforced 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, buildingfootings, and embankment.

Researchers have shown that the inclusion of reinforcement in soil foundations is a cost-effectivesolution to increase the ultimate bearing capacity and/or reduce the settlement of shallow footings a

compared to the conventional methods, such as replacing natural soils or increasing footingsdimensions.A typical reinforced soil foundation and the descriptions of various geometric parameters are showin 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).

7

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

9/78

Figure 1.3 Geometric parameters for a reinforced soil foundationDuring the past thirty years, many experimental, numerical, and analytical studies have beenperformed 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]; Chen2007[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 ofthe 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 aspecified surface pressure.

8

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

10/78

2.1.1 Reinforcement Mechanism of Reinforced Soil FoundationThe 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, thereinforcement 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 studyconducted 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 thisfinding subsequently.(2) Membrane effect (Figure 1.4b): Under loading, the footing and soil beneath the footing movedownward. 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 amountof settlement is needed to mobilize tensioned membrane effect, and the reinforcement should havenough 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 designmethod for a strip footing on reinforced sand with the simple assumption made for the shape ofreinforcement after deformation. Kumar and Saran (2003)[34] extended this method to arectangular footing on reinforced sand.

9

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

11/78

Figure 1.4 reinforcement mechanism(3)Confinement Effect(lateral restrain effect):Due to relative displacement between soil andreinforcement, the friction force is reduced at the soil reinforcement interface. For gridreinforcement, 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, improvedlateral confinement can increase the compressive strength of soil and thus improve the bearingcapacity. Huang and Tatsuoka (1990)[32] substantiated this mechanism by successfully using shortreinforcement having a length (L) equal to the footing width (B) to reinforce sand in theirexperimental study. Michalowski (2004)[42] applied this reinforcing mechanism in the limit analysisof reinforced soil foundations.

10

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

12/78

An extensive literature survey was conducted, and it was found that many studies have beenperformed to determine the use of shredded scrap tyres for improving the various characteristics ofsoil.

Gray Donald H, Ohashi Harukazu.[1983][30]Direct shear tests were run on a dry sand reinforcedwith 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 equilibriummodel of a fiber reinforced sand. Test results showed that fiber reinforcement increased the peakshear strength and limited post peak reductions in shear resistance. The fiber reinforcement modelcorrectly predicted the influence of various sand-fiber parameters through shear strength increasesthat were: (1) Directly proportional to concentration or area ratio of fibers; (2) greatest for initialfiber 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 relevanto such diverse problems as the contribution of roof reinforcement to the stability of sandy, coarsetextured soils in granitic slopes, dune and beach stabilization by pioneer plants, tillage in rootpermeated 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 smallstrains, 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 totriaxial tests in terms of both strength and deformation characteristics. Recoverable settlement plotshows that where a layer of sand -mesh mixture was present, almost 20% of the imposed verticalsettlement was recovered, which was 4 times that for the soil alone .Bresette (1984)[12] tested twoscrap tyre samples. One sample was termed 2-inch square and it had a cohesion intercept of 540

11

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

13/78

psf and = 21o, whereas the other sample was termed as 2-inch shredded and it had cohesionintercept of 660 psf and = 14o. Ahmed and Lovell (1993)[2] conducted different tests on tyreshreds with a maximum size of 0.5 inch and 1 inch. Using a 20% axial strain as failure criteria, theyfound that cohesion intercepts ranged from 694 to 818 psf and friction angles ranged from 200 to 25degrees. 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 wereperformed under different normal stress conditions and they found that these shreds possessfrictional 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 (sizesranging from 2 to 6 inches). Several factors, including normal stress, tyre shred size, and orientatioof tyre shreds were considered in their study and they found angle of friction of 30 and cohesion o0-62.6 psf. Cosgrove (1995)[17] conducted interface shear strength tests between tyre shreds anddifferent geo membranes (smooth and textured) under three normal stresses simulating landfillcover conditions. Tests were conducted using both 1.5 inch and 3 inch size tyre shreds and underdry as well as saturated conditions. The interface shear strengths under saturated conditions wereless than the interface strengths under dry conditions, and the interface friction angle was higher fora textured geo membrane than a smooth geo membrane. Larger size tyre shreds exhibited higherinterface shear strength. This study showed that the interface friction values range from 18o 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 differentinitial density and normal stress conditions. These investigators found that 0.04 to 3 inch size tyreshreds had angle of internal friction values ranged from 17o to 38o and cohesion values ranged from

0 to 150 psf.

12

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

14/78

Wasti Y., Butun M.D., [1996][51]. A series of laboratory model tests on a strip footing supported bysand reinforced by randomly distributed polypropylene fiber and mesh elements was conducted inorder to compare the results with those obtained from un reinforced sand and with each other. Forconducting the model tests, uniform sand was compacted in the test box at its optimum moisturecontent and maximum dry density. Three types of reinforcement, two sizes of mesh elements havin

the same opening size and one size of fiber element cut from the meshes, were used in varyingamounts in the tests. Results indicated that reinforcement of sand by randomly distributed inclusioncaused an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity values and the settlement at the ultimate load ingeneral. The effectiveness of discrete reinforcing elements was observed to depend on the quantityas well as the shape of the inclusions. The larger mesh size was found to be superior to otherinclusions considering the ultimate bearing capacity values. For the mesh elements there appears tobe an optimum inclusion ratio, whereas fibers exhibited a linearly increasing trend on the basis of aincrease 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 animprovement in strength as the percentage of rubber increased (from 10% to 20%)for the sandysilt-tyre chip mixtures compared with values for the sandy silt alone; this was attributed to the higherfriction angle and greater cohesion. The increase in strength for sand-tyre chip mixtures is related

tothe increased initial friction angle while for the sandy silt-tyre chip mixtures this increase is due toincreases in cohesion and not in friction angle. Gebhardt et.al.(1997)[25] investigated the shearstrength properties of large tyre shreds containing 1.6 to 55 inches in size using the two failurecriteria: peak failure and 10% failure. This investigation showed that the shear strength of theshredded tyres does not depend on the shred size and = 38 was found for all the tyre shreds. Wu

t l 1997 [52] d d i i l i f diff h d i h diff i

13

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

15/78

tyre shred sizes of 0.08, 0.37, 0.74, and 1.5 inches, respectively and they found that all of these tyreshreds 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 sandsreinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers by carrying out direct shear tests. The effect ofthe 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 bythe fiber reinforcement. The horizontal displacements at failure were also found comparable forreinforced and unreinforced sands under the same vertical normal stress. Fiber reinforcements,however, could reduce soil brittleness providing smaller loss of post-peak strength. Thus, thereappeared to be an increase in residual shear strength angle of the sand by adding fiberreinforcements. Yeo Won Yoon et.al. (2004)[53]conducted laboratory plate load test under variousconditions such as relative density, embedded depth, number of reinforced layers, and size of a matand combination type of tyre segments on sand having waste tyres as reinforcing material . From thplate 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 reinforcedsands bearing capacity is more than twice that of unreinforced sand. The effects were morepronounced at a cover depth of less than 0.4B. The reinforcement of single layer in medium densitysand 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 bearingcapacity. The bearing capacity increased steadily as the width of the mat increased up to five timesthe plate width and converged at just over twice the bearing capacity of unreinforced sand andremained constant thereafter.

14

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

16/78

MAHMOUD GHAZAVI (2005)[37]conducted tests to determine how shear strength characteristicsof sand mixed with various percentages of waste rubber are altered. The results show that theinfluencing 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 andrubber 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 wastetyres as reinforcement to increase the bearing capacity of soil. They showed, Shred content andshreds aspect ratio are the main parameters that affect the bearing capacity. They used tyre shredswith 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 thatthe addition of tyre shreds to sand increases BCR (bearing capacity ratio) from 1.17 to 3.9 withrespect to shred content and shreds aspect ratio. The maximum BCR is attained at shred content of40% 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 todecrease in BCR. For a given shred width, shred content and soil density it seems that aspect ratio o4 to 5 gives maximum BCR. According to Cetin et al. (2006)[15], the shear strength increases by30% (when fine (

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

17/78

The results demonstrated that sand-tyre chip mixtures up to 20% could be a potential material forhighway construction and embankment construction up to around 10 m height. Baleshwar Singhand ValliapanVinot(2007)[8] conducted an experimental study to investigate the effect of wastetyre chips on the strength characteristics of a cohesive clayey silt soil and cohesion less fine sandsoil. 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 theaddition of 13% and 30% chips content can be considered as optimum to reinforce the cohesive soiland the cohesion less soil, respectively .Edinliler & Ayhan, 2010[21] tested the effect of including tyre wastes in sand particles. They usedtwo types of tyre wastes, namely crumb and fiber-shaped tyre buffing which is a by-product of thetyre 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 theshear strength when tyre crumbs and fiber-shaped tyre buffing were mixed with sand particles andconcluded that sand shear strength increases with the increase of aspect ratio of tyre buffing and tyrcontent. In their study Cabalar et.al., 2011[13]investigated the sand shear strength improvement bymixing fine and coarse sand with rubber wastes at four percentages, namely 5%, 10%, 20%, and50%. The mixture of Leighton Buzzard as coarse sand and Ceyhan as fine sand with differentpercentages 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 containingrubber 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 contentincreased to more than 10%. As for internal friction angel of Ceyhan sand, a reduction was observe

16

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

18/78

up to 10% rubber content, while no changes were observed at other percentages. They reported nsignificant change regarding Leighton Buzzard sand internal friction.Ghazavi, Ghaffar&Farshadfar, 2011[28]determined the interface shear strength improvement of tyre scraps-sand-geogrid using large direct shear test apparatus. For this purpose, the author prepared his specimenwith 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 chiused 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 tyrechip content would result in an increase in the shear strength and friction angle up to tyre chipcontent value around 30%.The shear strength and friction angle then decreased for tyre chipcontents 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 rubbercontent, the thickness of rubber-reinforced soil layer and the soil cap thickness up to the optimumvalues of these parameters, after that , with further increase in each of these parameters , the bearin capacity decrease.

For the optimum value of rubber content of 5% at footing settlement level of 5%, the maximumimprovement 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 ofreinforced layer of 0.5 times of footing width and optimum thickness of soil cap of 0.25 times offooting width.AminatonMarto et.al (2013)[4]The shear strength of tyre chips and sand mixture was analyzed inthis research to figure out whether it is convenient for using as a lightweight material. For analysi

17

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

19/78

purposes, Standard Direct Shear Device was used. Samples were sand, tyre chips and the mixture othem with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% tyre chips of the total weight. The relative density ofsand was determined 70%. It was found that Shear resistance of mixture is greater than the sandalone and, in this case; an increase in tyre chips up to 20% increases the internal friction angle from32.8to 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 wastecontent, aspect ratio, compaction, and normal stress are influencing factors on the shear strength ofthe mixtures.

Table2.1.Waste tyre-sand mixtures shear

strength parameters Shear

Reference

Hump

heryandSandford(1993)

Material

Prioduct 1(

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

20/78

Tatlisoz et.at.(1998)

Product 3(

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

21/78

c=21100% sandy silt

90% sandy silt +10% tyre chips

80% sandy silt +20% tyre chips

18.3

17.6

17

kPa;=30c=8

kPa;=

53c=38kPa;=54

20

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

22/78

70% sandy silt +30% tyre chip

18.9c=39kPa;=53

Fooseet.al.(1996)

90% sand + 10% tyreshred(15 cm-random)

90% sand + 10% tyreshred(15 cm-vertical)



16.8

16.8

14.7

14.7

=37.9k

Pa (at=25.5kPa)=18.6kPa (at=25.5

kPa)=8.3kPa (at=25.5kPa)

=37.2k

Pa (at=25.5kPa)

21

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

23/78

=11kP





90% sand + 10% tyre

shred(15 cm-vertical)

14.7

16.8

16.8

14.7

14.7

a (at=25.5kPa)=20.7k

Pa (at=25.5kPa)

=55.2kPa (at=25.5

kPa)=32.4kPa (at=25.5kPa)=32.4k

Pa (at

=25.5kPa)

22

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

24/78

=32.4k





90% sand + 10% tyre

shred(5 cm-vertical)

16.8

14.7

16.8

16.8

16.8

Pa (at=25.5kPa)=13.8k

Pa (at=25.5kPa)

=78.6kPa (at=25.5

kPa)=22.8kPa (at=25.5kPa)=29.0k

Pa (at

=25.5kPa)

23

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

25/78

Attom(2006)



100%Sand A

10% Shredded tyre +

%90 Sand A20% Shredded tyre +%80 Sand A30% Shredded tyre +%70 Sand A

40% Shredded tyre +%60 Sand A

100% Sand B10% Shredded tyre +%90 Sand B

20% Shredded tyre +%80 Sand B

14.7

14.7

15.5

14

15

15.5

16

15.9

14

15

=42.1k

Pa (at=25.5kPa)=19.3k

Pa (at=25.5kPa)

=25

=30

=37

=41

=45

=28=35

=42

24

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

26/78

Edinlilet

et.al(2004)

30% Shredded tyre +%70 Sand B

40% Shredded tyre +%60 Sand B100% Sand C

10% Shredded tyre +%90 Sand C20% Shredded tyre +%80 Sand C

30% Shredded tyre +%70 Sand C

40% Shredded tyre +%60 Sand C

%100 Tyre Buffings

%100 Sand

%95 Sand + %5 TyreBuffings

15.9

16

16.6

15

16

16.5

16.6

5.1

15.3

15.2

=47

=49

=36

=42

=45

=48

=50

c=3.1kPa;=22

c=6.9kPa;=33c=10.4kPa;=28.2

25

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

27/78

%90 sand + 10% tyrechips

c=8.714.9 kPa;=

29

From the literature study, it is observed that by-products of tyre wastes as tyre shreds, tyre chips an

tyre buffing can be used to improve the mechanical properties of the soil inclusion of these materialinto the sand has a reinforcing effect.

Although past studies have shown evidence of the beneficial use of waste tyre scrap inclusionswhen mixed with soil, the optimization of tyre in strips form deserve further study. Currentunderstanding on the behaviour of tyre strips - soil mixtures is based mostly on testing programsconducted using tyre strips of uncontrolled sizes and shapes. Most of the studies have been carriedout 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 ofinternal friction, reinforced soil bed on soft clay and sand, footings subjected to axial and eccentricloads in respect of reinforced and unreinforced soil bed. Most problems of soft clays under imposedloads can be identified to be associated with low shear strength and high compressibility. Thereview 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 thebackdrop of the need to understand the behaviour of a rubber reinforced system, an experimentalinvestigation was conducted to investigate load settlement behaviour of the model foundationresting on soil reinforced with waste scrap tyre strips. The improvement in the bearing capacity andsettlement shall be studied.

26

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

28/78

2.3 OBJECTIVESThis research aims to help in assisting partially the environmental issue resulted from disposingwaste vehicle tyres. The present study was focused on

i) Pressure-settlement behaviour of the model strip footing resting on sand reinforced withwaste 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% osand.

27

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

29/78

CHAPTER-III

MATERIALS AND METHODS3.1 TEST SAND PREPARATION

Relatively uniformly graded sand was used in this study. The sand used in the test was cleanedand sieved by 200 micron sieve. This sand is classified as SP as perIndian StandardClassification System. The particle size distribution of the sand is shown in Fig. 4.1. It had amean grain diameter (D60) of 0.46mm. Various tests were performed to obtain the engineeringproperties of sand. Those are listed in Table 4.13.2 DETERMINATION OF PROPERTIES OF THE TEST SAND3.2.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION.

Weight of pan = 0.795 kgWeight 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 themechanical 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 g5. The percentage retained, and percentage passing on each sieve was calculated.

28

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

30/78

Table -3.1 Grain Size Analysis

Cumulative

S.NO.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sieve

size

850

600

425

300

150

75

Pan

Mass of

Sieve(g)

380

360

240

380

330

330

330

Mass

of

Sieve+

Soil(g)

390

370

1200

630

580

350

340

Mass of

SoilRetained(g)

10

10

950

250

250

20

10

mass of

Soil

Retained(g)

10

20

970

1220

1470

1490

1500

Cumulative

% Retained

0.66

1.33

64.67

81.33

98

99.33

100

%

finer

99.34

98.67

35.33

18.67

2.0

0.67

0

29

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

31/78

Fig.3.1Grain Size Analysis of sand used.

30

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

32/78

3.2.2 DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITYThis 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 amaterial at standard temperature to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at the samestated temperature.

APPRATUSi) Two density bottles of approximately 50ml capacity along with stoppersii) Constant temperature water bath (27.0 + 0.2

o

C)iii) Vacuum desiccatorsiv) Oven, capable of maintaining a temperature of 105 to 110

o

Cv) Weighing balance, with an accuracy of 0.001gvi) SpatulaProcedure to Determine the Specific Gravity of Fine-Grained Soili) The density bottle along with the stopper, was dried at a temperature of 105 to 110

o

C, cooled inthe 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 fromthe desiccator in which it was cooled. The bottles and contents together with the stopper wasweighed 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 aperiod 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

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

33/78

vii) The bottle was emptied, clean thoroughly and filled with distilled water at the sametemperature. 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 = kGwhere,G = Corrected specific gravity at 27oC

Table 3.2 Calculation of Specific Gravity of sand

Description Determination NumberNo. I II III

1. Temperature in C 30.5 30.5 30.52. Weight of Bottle (W1) in g 18.47 18.52 18.583. Weight of bottle + Dry Soil (W2) in g 28.47 28.52 28.584. Weight of bottle + Dry Soil +Water 90.78 90.22 90.98

(W3) in g5. Weight of bottle + Water (W4) in g 84.64 84.02 84.79

Calculations1. G= Specific Gravity= 2.59 2.63 2.62

2. Average G at 32.5 C 2.613. Average G at 27 C=2.61 =2.608 Say 2.61

32

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

34/78

3.2.3 DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DENSITYMaterials and Equipment:(i) Mould (15.45 cm diameter, 15.50 cm height)(ii) Balance sensitive to 1g

(iii) Dynamic ShakerProcedure:3.2.3.1 Calculation ofd(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 ofd(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 adjustedto 25cm.iv) Weight of mould with sand (W2) was measured.

33

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

35/78

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)W2-W1

Maximum 9.88 13.36 3.48 15.50 2905.88 1.2Density

Minimum 9.88 14.81 4.93 15.50 2905.88 1.7Density

34

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

36/78

Table 3.4: Physical and engineering properties of sand used

Property

d(max)(Maximum Dry Density) 12 KN/m3

d(min)( Minimum Dry Density) 17 KN/m3

D10(effective grain size) 220 ( Particle Size such that 10% of soil is finer than thissize)

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 thissize)

Cc(Co-efficient of Curvature)= 0.95

Cu(Co-efficient of Uniformity)= 2.09(D30)2/D10XD60

35

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

37/78

3.3MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF WASTE TYRE RUBBER

Table 3.5: Physical and engineering properties of tyre strips used

Property

Type

Strip Length

Cross Section

Specific Gravity

Colour

Scrap Tyre

Strip Form

300mm

Rectangular65mmX5mm1.02-1.27

Black

36

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

38/78

As an alternative reinforcement material shredded tyre rubber strips were used in this study. Theywere clean and free from any steel and cord. They were cut from waste tyres into rectangularshape.

The nominal size of the tyre strips was 65mmin width and about 300mm in length, so as tohave an aspect ratio (ratio of length to width) of approximately 5. The aspect ratio was sochosen, to achieve maximum performance in increasing the bearing capacity of foundation bedand in decreasing the settlement of soil. Table 3.2, shows physical and engineering properties ofthe 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

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

39/78

3.4 WORK PROCEDURE3.4.1 TEST VARIABLES3.4.1.1 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 differentdepths for each RD were prepared. In this reinforcement at 0.5 B, 1.0 B, 1.5B, and2.0 B (Where B is width of the footing)were considered.3.4.2 EQUIPMENTS USEDThe tests were carried out in a tank of size 83 cm 68 cm 60 cm. The sides oftanks were made up of 6 mm thick metal sheet. The tank was placed over aconcrete base & portal frame of I section was provided with tank. Fig.3.5 showssettlement load tester used in the test.

38

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

40/78

4.4.2.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUPThe plate load test was conducted on the sandy soil. Settlement load tester atDAVIET Shown in Figure 3.3.

Fig. 3.3 , Settlement Load tester used in the test

39

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

41/78

All the engineering properties of the sand were determined with the help ofexperiments as mentioned earlier.

Weight of sand required to be filled for different relative densities werecalculated as described below:

d, Dry density at the particular relative density (KN/m3),was calculated usingformulaR.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 thed for a particular R.D., and volume of tank, weight was

calculated for a particular R.D., as detailed below:

40

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

42/78

External Dimension of tank =830 680mm

Internal Dimension of tank =818 668mm

Thickness of layer =50mmInternal Volume of tank = =0.0819636 m3

For RD= 50%

d = 14.06 kN/ m3

Weight of sand = =1.152kN=115.2kg14.06 0.0819636

For RD= 60%

d = 14.57 kN/ m3

41

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

43/78


For RD= 70%

d = 15.11 kN/ m3


For RD= 80%

d = 15.69 kN/ m3

Weight of sand = =1.286kN=128.6kg15.690.0819636

42

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

44/78

Specimens were prepared for each relative density.

The model footing was made out of steel plate ofsize 68cm 12cm 13cm was

used. It had a smooth bottom face.

The sand was placed in the mould and compacted to attain desired relativedensity.

Fig.3.4 Arrangement of reinforcement in tank

43

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

45/78

Fig.3.5 Arrangement of reinforcement at various depths

44

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

46/78

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 thetest 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 ofplacing the reinforcement. Fig. 4.5 shows the arrangement of strips at different depths. Inthis way a total of 20 tests were carried out.

After preparation of sample, the pressure was applied on the sand with the help of amechanical arrangement. Footing was loaded statically until failure reached. Thesettlement of the footing was measured for each load using load cell and dial gauges. Thebearing capacity was obtained using tangent method. In this method, two tangents wereplotted along the initial portion and latter portion of the load-settlement curve and the loadcorresponding to the intersection of these two lines was taken as ultimate bearing capacityof the footing

45

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

47/78

CHAPTER-IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A series of laboratory test have been carried out on the model of strip footing resting onreinforced sand. Tyre strips were used as reinforcement elements. Two parameters wereselected to identify their influence on bearing capacity of sand:

1. Relative Density of sand2. 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 tangentswere plotted along the initial straight portion and latter portion of the curve and the loadcorresponding to the intersection point of these two lines were taken as ultimate bearingcapacity of the footing. Figure no.4.1 to Figure no.4.4 shows calculation of bearingcapacity by double tangent method at 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% respectively. The details ofthe ultimate bearing capacity and settlement for reinforced & unreinforced sand are listed inTable 4.1

46

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

48/78

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


47

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

49/78



48

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

50/78

4.2 Calculation of Bearing Capacity Ratio and Settlement Ratio: The graphs weredrawn 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. 4.8shows 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, whichis defined as

To express the data, a term settlement reduction factor (SRF) has been used, which isdefined as SRF =

Where Srand So are settlement of reinforced and unreinforced soil at ultimate pressure ofunreinforced soil. For comparison, SRF has been calculated at a pressure levelcorresponding to ultimate bearing capacity of unreinforced sand.

49

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

51/78

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

50

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

52/78

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

51

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

53/78

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

52

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

54/78

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

reinforced layers

53

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

55/78

Table4.1: Bearing Capacity and Settlement at various relative densities and depths ofreinforced layer.

RelativeDensity

BearingCapacity in

kN/m2

Settlementin mm

50% Pure Sand

0.5B1.0B1.5B

59

1059684

20

6811

2.0B 73 13

54

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

56/78

RelativeDensity60%

Pure Sand BearingCapacity in

kN/m2

Settlementin mm

71 14

0.5B 123 6.51.0B 110 8.51.5B 96 10

2.0B 85 11.5

55

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

57/78

RelativeDensity

70%

Pure Sand

0.5B

1.0B1.5B

BearingCapacity in

kN/m2164.1414

265.1515

239.899214.6465

Settlementin mm

23.66

6.54

8.0210.22

2.0B 189.3939 11.52

56

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

58/78

RelativeDensity80%

Pure SandBearing

Capacity in

kN/m2

Settlementin mm

227.2727 12.34

0.5B 328 5.01

1.0B 303.0303 6.011.5B 277.7778 7.33

2.0B 252.5253 9.05

57

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

59/78

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 BCR SRF

0.5B 1.78 0.24

1.0B 1.63 0.3250%

1.5B 1.42 0.44

2.0B 1.24 0.52

0.5B 1.73 0.33

1.0B 1.55 0.43

60% 1.5B 1.35 0.502.0B 1.20 0.58

58

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

60/78

Relative Density Depth of Reinforced Layer BCR SRF

1.62 0.380.5B

1.0B 1.46 0.46

70% 1.5B 1.31 0.59

2.0B 1.15 0.66

0.5B 1.44 0.44

1.0B 1.32 0.5380%

1.5B 1.22 0.65

2.0B 1.13 0.80

59

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

61/78

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 from227.27kN/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 1.62and at 80% RD is 1.44 respectively, as shown in table 5.2. This result implies BCR ismaximum at 50% RD.Similarly the minimum SRF observed at 50% RD is 0.24, at 60% RD is 0.33, at 70% RD is0.38 and at 80% RD is 0.44 respectively, as shown in table 5.2. This result implies SRF isminimum at 50% RD.

The above results imply that this reinforcement is more suitable for loose granularsoils. Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) and SRF at various relative densities and at variousdepths of reinforced layer, has been tabulated in Table 4.1

60

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

62/78

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

61

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

63/78

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 theincrease in depth of reinforcement. At a given depth of reinforcement 0.5B, 1.0B and 1.5Band 2.0B,, increase in BCR for RD 50% is observed as 1.78,1.63,1.42 and 1.24, for RD60% as1.73, 1.55, 1.35% and 1.20 , for 70% as 1.62,1.46,1.31, and 1.15, for 80% as1.44,1.32,1.22,1.13,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 indepth 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 as0.44,0.53,0.65,0.80 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 stripsreinforcement in the foundation soil within a depth of 0.5B below the base of footing can

62

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

64/78

sufficiently reinforce the sand to produce highest BCR and lowest Settlement ReductionFactor.

Bearing Capacity ratio (BCR) and Settlement Reduction factor (SRF) at various relativedensities 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

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

65/78

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 soilwas obtained as 1.76 times the unreinforced soil at 50% RD and at a depth ofreinforcement 0.5B.2 BCR decreases with increase in depth of reinforced layer.3 Minimum improvement in SRF. (Settlement Reduction Factor) of rubber reinforced soilwas obtained as 0.24 times the unreinforced soil at 0.5B.

4 SRF decreases with increase in depth of reinforced layer.

64

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

66/78

CHAPTER-V

CONCLUSIONSBased on the results of the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

(1) The inclusion of reinforcement generally increased the ultimate bearing capacityof granular soil and reducing footing settlement at ultimate load. Its effect is morepredominant in loose granular soils tested in this study.

(2) The optimum depth to place the reinforcement layer was at 0.5B below the footingfor granular soil tested in this study.

65

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

67/78

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 futurecommunications.Your Manuscript entitled Applications of RubberTyre Strips in Granular Soils has beenaccepted for publications.

Thanks & RegardsEditor,IJERT.

66

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

68/78

CHAPTER-VII

REFERENCES1. Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., Sharma R., and Zhang X., (2007), Laboratory

Investigation of the Behavior of Foundations on Geosynthetic ReinforcedClayey Soil, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2004, SoilMechanics, pp. 28-40.

2. Ahmed, I(1993)Use of waste material in highway construction. ReportFHWA/IN/JHRP-91/3, School of civil Engineering, Purdue university, WestLafayette

3. Akinmusuru, J.O., and Akinbolade, J.A.(1981) Stability of Loaded Footingon 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 ofSand - Tyre Chips Mixtures EJGE 2013, pp.325-334

67

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

69/78

5. Andrews, D.W., and Guay, M.A. (1996), Tyre chips in a Superfund LandfillCap: A Case History of the First use of a Tyre Chip Drain Layer, Nineteenth

International Madison Waste Conference, Dept. of Engineering ProfessionalDevelopment, 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 neuralnetworks", Springer, Neural Computer & Application (2012) 21:pp.441-452

8. Baleshwar Singh and Valliapan Vinot (2011) Influence of Waste Tyre Chipson Strength Characteristics of Soils Journal of Civil Engineering andArchitecture, 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 theuse of Tyre Shreds and Rubber-Sand in Backfills and Reinforced SoilApplications, FHWA/IN/JHRP-96/12, Purdue University, West Lafayette,

Indiana.

68

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

70/78

10. Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L.(1975a) Bearing Capacity Tests on ReinforcedEarth 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 PermeableAggregate, Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/07, Office of TransportationLaboratory, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California.

13. Cabalar, A. F. (2011) Direct Shear Tests on Waste Tyres-Sand MixturesGeotechnical 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 RetainingStructures, 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

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

71/78

16. Chen, Q.M.(2007) An Experimental Study on Characteristics and Behaviorof 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," Proceedingsof 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 andsoil mixtures. Geotechnical Testing Journal , ASTM,14(4),pp.453-464

20. Edinclier. A., Baykal, G., and Dengili K.(2004), Determination of static anddynamic behaviour of waste materials.Resources, Conservation andRecycling,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

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

72/78

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 theDesign and Construction of a shredded stream crossing, MS Thesis ,IowaState University

26. Ghani. A.N.A., Ahmad ,F and Hamir , R.(2002), Varying effects ofcompressible layers in Retaining Wall Backfill, Proceedings of 2nd world

congress

27. G. VenktarppaRao and R.K.Dutta (2006) June 2006, Compressibility andstrength behaviour of Sand Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 711-724

71

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

73/78

28. Ghazavi, M., Ghaffari, J., &Farshadfar, A. (2011) ExperimentalDetermination of Waste Tyre Chip-Sand-Geogrid Interface Parameters Using

Large Direct Shear Tests. 5th symposium on advances in science andtechnology.

29. Ghosh, A., and Bera,(2005) A.K. Bearing Capacity of Square Footing onPond 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 sandJournal of geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 109 (3), 335-353.

31. Hataf N.,Rahimi M.M.(2005)Experimental investigation of bearing capacityof sand reinforced with randomly distributed Tyre shred. Construction andbuilding materials,20,pp.910-916

32. Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F. (1990)Bearing Capacity ReinforcedHorizontal Sandy Ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 9, 1990, pp.51-82.

72

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

74/78

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 sandin foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo- environmentalEngineering, ASCE, 123 (9):818-827.

36. Khing, K.H.; Das, B.M.; Puri, V.K.; Cook, E.E.; and Yen, S.C. (1993)TheBearing 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 shearstrength parameters of sand,International Journal of Geo-mechanics ASCE

1532-3641

73

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

75/78

38. Mahya Roustaei, Mahmoud Ghazavi(2011) Strength Characteristics of ClayMixtures 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 Geogrid-reinforced Clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1992, pp.327-333.

40. Martin Christ and Jun-Boun Park(2010), Laboratory determination ofstrength properties of frozen rubber sand mixtures,Cold region science andtechnology 60 (2010 )169-175

41. Massad., E,. Taha, R.,Ho, C., and Papagiannakis, T., (1996), Engineeringproperties of Tyre /Soil mixtures as light weight fill materials, GeotechnicalTesting 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 loadstrain behaviour of Tensargeogrids. Proc. Conf. on Polymer gridreinforcement. Thomas Telford. London. 11-12

74

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

76/78

44 Mousa F. Atom(2006), The use of shredded waste tyre to improvegeotechnical 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 rubbertyre particles, International Symposiumof 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 BearingCapacity 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 Modelfooting on sand reinforced with shredded tyre - An ExperimentalInvestigation 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 (paper10800), pp. 223-237, 1974

75

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

77/78

49. Tatlisoz, N., T.B., and Benson C.H(1998), Interaction betweenreinforcing 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 ResearchRecord(1969), 282, pp. 1-6, 1969.

51. Wasti Y., Butun M.D., [1996]. Behaviour of Model Footings on SandReinforced with Discrete Inclusions

52. Wu, W., Benda, C., and Cauley, R., (1997),Tri axial Determination ofShear Strength of Tyre Chips, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.5, pp.479-482.

53. Yeo Won Yoon, Sung Han Cheon, Dae Seong Kang (2004)Bearing capacityand settlement of tyre-reinforced sands Geotextiles and GeomembranesVolume 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

7/27/2019 1banasal 1652013

78/78

1banasal 1652013

Documents

Transcript of 1banasal 1652013