Material Properties of Large-Size Tire Derived Aggregate

for Civil Engineering Applications

Il-Sang Ahn, M.ASCE 1; Lijuan Cheng, M.ASCE 2; Patrick J. Fox, M.ASCE 3; Joaquin Wright 4;
Stacey Patenaude 5; and Bob Fujii 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Tire derived aggregate (TDA) is a recycled fill material produced by cutting scrap tires into pieces ranging in size from 12 to
305 mm. For the last two decades, TDA has been successfully used in various projects such as embankments, bridge abutments, subgrade
insulation for roads, vibration mitigation for rail lines, and landfill daily cover. The material properties of TDA are necessary for the planning
and design of such projects; however, there is limited information available, especially for large-size TDA (maximum particle size ≥75 mm).
Large-size TDA is typically used as lightweight fill material for embankments, foundations, and retaining walls. In this paper, the material
properties of large-size TDA, as collected from published sources and recently completed material tests, are presented and discussed. These
properties include unit weight, shear strength, compressibility, and lateral earth pressure coefficient. In addition, several civil engineering
projects are discussed and compared to highlight the use of TDA in state-of-the-art applications. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0001225. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Tire derived aggregate; Material properties; Recycled materials; Embankments; Retaining structures.

Introduction 20 years. The current standard ASTM D6270 provides specific

Many countries prohibit the stockpiling of scrap tires and instead
promote recycling and recovery efforts. Markets for this material
have continuously grown over the years and now primarily consist
of tire derived fuel (TDF), civil engineering construction, and
ground rubber/rubberized asphalt applications [Rubber Manufac-
turers Association (RMA) 2011]. Tire derived aggregate (TDA)
consists of pieces of scrap tires that generally range in size from
12 to 305 mm and are intended for use in civil engineering con-
struction [ASTM D6270 (ASTM 2008)]. For the past several years,
TDA usage for construction has dropped, whereas TDF usage has
been steady in the United States. The internal heating reaction
(i.e., combustion) was one of the early problems for TDA fills.
In 1995, two sites in Washington and one in Colorado experienced
serious self-heating reactions within 6 months after project comple-
tion (Humphrey 2004). These occurrences considerably slowed the
wider usage of TDA for civil engineering construction over the past
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 755900, Fairbanks, AK 99775.
E-mail: ahn.ilsang@alaska.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California–Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616
(corresponding author). E-mail: dawcheng@ucdavis.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California–San
Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093. E-mail: pjfox@ucsd.edu
4
TDA Specialist, GHD, 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150, Santa Rosa,
CA 95407. E-mail: joaquin.wright@ghd.com
5
Integrated Waste Management Engineer, California Integrated Waste
Management Board, Special Waste Division, 1001 I St., Sacramento,
CA 95812. E-mail: stacey.patenaude@calrecycle.ca.gov
6
Senior Waste Management Engineer, California Integrated Waste
Management Board, Special Waste Division, 1001 I St., Sacramento,
CA 95812. E-mail: bob.fujii@calrecycle.ca.gov
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 28, 2014; approved
on October 21, 2014; published online on December 8, 2014. Discussion
period open until May 8, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014258(11)/$25.00.
guidelines for TDA fill construction, including maximum fill
height, to avoid self-heating reactions. Short-term and long-term
effects of TDA fills on the environment, particularly on ground-
water contamination, have also been a concern. Research con-
ducted on this issue has, however, indicated only minor impacts
of TDA materials on the surrounding environment (Humphrey
and Katz 2000, 2001; Hoppe and Mullen 2004; Humphrey and
Swett 2006; Edil 2008; Edstrom et al. 2009).
The primary benefit of TDA as a construction material is its low
unit weight. The unit weight of compacted TDA is one-third to one-
half that of typical compacted soil. In addition, free drainage, high
thermal insulation capacity, good vibration damping, and high
compressibility are beneficial for some applications [ASTM
D6270 (ASTM 2008)]. As a result, TDA has been used for sub-
grade and embankment fills (Whetten et al. 1997; Humphrey et al.
1998; Humphrey 2008; Nelson 2009); backfill for retaining walls
and bridge abutments (Reid and Soupir 1998; Tatlisoz et al. 1998;
Tweedie et al. 1998a, b); subgrade insulation for highways
(Humphrey and Eaton 1995; Lawrence et al. 1999); lateral edge
drains for highways (Lawrence et al. 1999); vibration damping
below rail lines (Wolfe et al. 2004); daily cover and drainage
for landfills (Jesionek et al. 1998; Park et al. 2003); and drain fields
for septic systems (Lassiter 2009; Zicari 2009). ASTM D6270 pro-
vides guidelines for the successful usage of TDA in such applica-
tions. In addition, several manuals have been published by federal
and state agencies to advance TDA beneficial reuse technology
(Humphrey 2003; Geosyntec Consultants 2008).
Large-size TDA is shredded tire material with a maximum par-
ticle size of greater than or equal to 75 mm and, because less shred-
ding is required, is often cost-effective for engineering projects that
require large quantities of fill, such as embankments and retaining
walls. However, available material property data for large-size TDA
are limited because conventional testing devices generally cannot
accommodate the large particle size. Recently, Strenk et al. (2007)
analyzed the material properties of granulated rubber, tire chips,
and tire shreds. Values of compacted dry unit weight, secant con-
strained modulus, modified second compression index, cohesion

© ASCE 04014258-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258

 Table 1. Recycled Materials from Scrap Tires (Data from ASTM 2008) soils. Material properties required for design typically include unit
Classification Size (mm) weight (γ), shear strength parameters in terms of cohesion (c) and
internal friction angle (ϕ), and coefficient of lateral earth pressure
Powdered rubber <0.425
(K). Settlement analysis for TDA requires consideration of imme-
Ground rubber <2
Granulated rubber <12
diate settlement and secondary settlement. Immediate settlement
Tire chips 12–50 can be estimated using elastic theory with the secant constrained
Tire shreds 50–305 modulus (M sec ) and should be considered to calculate in-place unit
weight and the required overbuild for TDA projects (Mills and
McGinn 2008; ASTM 2008). Secondary settlement is long-term
creep compression that results from readjustments at individual
intercept, and friction angle were selected for statistical analyses particle contacts and other microscale effects and can be evaluated
and investigation of particle size effects. Strenk et al. (2007) con- using the modified secondary compression index (Cαε ).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cluded that unit weight and constrained modulus were dependent

on TDA particle size, whereas cohesion intercept, friction angle,
and modified secondary compression index were not. However,
Strenk et al. (2007) also noted that the analysis results did not imply
causality between TDA particle size and engineering properties,
which left the issue of possible scale dependency of material prop-
erties unresolved. Moreover, substantially less data were available
for large-size TDA than that for small-size TDA in their analysis.
The objective of this paper is to present and discuss the material
properties of large-size TDA as a resource for engineering planning
and design. New material test results are presented and compared
with existing data for large-size TDA. Properties discussed in this
paper include unit weight, secant constrained modulus, modified
secondary compression index, cohesion intercept, friction angle,
and lateral earth pressure coefficient. The data are useful because
published information for large-size TDA shows considerable vari-
ability, and tests on this material are difficult to perform. This paper
also presents and discusses several TDA embankment and retaining
wall projects in California, as well as a large-scale test of a retaining
wall with TDA backfill.
Material Properties of Large-Size TDA
ASTM D6270 classifies recycled materials produced from scrap
tires according to particle size, as indicated in Table 1. TDA in-
cludes tire chips and tire shreds, and large-size TDA consists of
large tire shreds. Material specifications for Type A and Type B
TDA are based on particle size gradation. Large-size TDA is better
represented as a Type B TDA material because, although the maxi-
mum size can reach 100 mm or more, the majority of particles for
Type A TDA are smaller than 75 mm.
Design procedures for TDA fill materials in embankments and
retaining walls usually follow methods developed for conventional
Unit Weight
TDA is a highly compressible fill material and, as such, TDA unit
weight can change substantially during construction. TDA unit
weight increases with placement and compaction and then further
increases with the application of overburden stress. In an early
study, Humphrey et al. (1993) investigated the unit weights of tire
chips provided by three suppliers. Palmer chips had a maximum
size of 76 mm and contained a significant amount of steel belt
exposed at the edges. The uncompacted unit weight of the loose
material was 3.35 kN=m3 , and the compacted unit weight for
60% standard Proctor effort was 6.07 kN=m3 . These measurements
were made using a mold with a diameter and height of 254 mm.
Meles et al. (2013) applied loading/unloading cycles on 38–
125 mm TDA in one-dimensional compression tests using a mold
with a diameter of 570 mm and a height of 1,120 mm. Some TDA
materials were derived from off-the-road (OTR) tires of construc-
tion vehicles with rim diameters up to 1 m. In comparison to con-
ventional TDA from passenger car and light truck tires, TDA
particles from OTR tires had a more irregular shape and larger aver-
age thickness (up to 30 mm). In these tests, the plastic (permanent)
strain during the first cycle of the loading was 8.21% and 5.0% for
conventional TDA and OTR TDA, respectively. During the third
cycle, the plastic strain decreased to 0.10%, and the unit weight
did not change significantly with subsequent cycles.
Table 2 provides a summary of unit weight data for large-size
TDA from the literature. Uncompacted unit weights range from
3.30 to 4.90 kN=m3 , and compacted unit weights range from
4.47 to 6.92 kN=m3 . As discussed in a later section of the paper,
the measured values of in-place unit weights from several projects
range from 5.98 to 8.63 kN=m3 . The in-place unit weight for TDA
varies depending on the method of compaction and the overburden

Table 2. Unit Weight of Large-Size TDA

TDA size Uncompacted unit Compacted unit Specimen
(mm) weight (kN=m3 ) weight (kN=m3 ) Compaction effort sizea (mm) Reference
≤76 3.35 6.07 60% of standard Proctor energy 254ðDÞ × 254ðHÞ Humphrey et al. (1993)
50–305 N/Ab 4.71–6.30 Laboratory compaction Varies Strenk et al. (2007)
≤178 N/Ab 4.47 N/Ab 305ðLÞ × 305ðWÞ Wartman et al. (2007)
≤76 3.30–4.88 5.03–6.92 Laboratory compaction Varies Geosyntec
6.45–7.54 Field compaction Consultants (2008)
38–125 4.90c 6.31 Cyclic loading with a maximum of 54 kPa 570ðDÞ × 1,120ðHÞ Meles et al. (2013)
6.48 Cyclic loading with a maximum of 134 kPa
38–125 4.80c 6.11 Cyclic loading with a maximum of 58 kPa
(OTR)d 6.24 Cyclic loading with a maximum of 146 kPa
a
D, L, W, and H = diameter, length, width, and height, respectively.
b
Not available.
c
Under a vertical stress of 50–60 kPa.
d
Off-the-road TDA.

© ASCE 04014258-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258


stress. Moreover, values of field-compacted unit weight and in-
place unit weight are based on the estimated volume and weight
of TDA in the field, which may include substantial errors compared
with laboratory measurements.
Shear Strength
Shear strength parameters for large-size TDA are generally un-
known due to the difficulty of performing large-scale tests on this
material, as such tests require a large experimental apparatus to
accommodate the particle size. TDA also requires significant shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
displacement to reach peak shear strength. Foose et al. (1996) con-
ducted direct shear tests on TDA with an average specific gravity of
1.27, an uncompacted unit weight of 4.41 kN=m3 , and a particle
size ranging from 100 to 150 mm. The same material was used
in previous research conducted by Edil et al. (1990). The shearing
device had an inside diameter of 279 mm and top and bottom sec-
tions with a height of 157 mm each. The TDA was not compacted
prior to shearing. Specimens were sheared at a displacement rate of
1.3 mm=min to a maximum displacement limit of 25.4 mm; how-
ever, peak shear strengths were not reached in the study because of
the limited travel of the shearing device.
Moo-Young et al. (2003) used a large direct shear device
(length ¼ 610 mm, width ¼ 610 mm, height ¼ 305 mm) to test
TDA with particle sizes ranging from 50 to 300 mm. Specimens
were compacted using a modified Proctor hammer (Moo-Young
et al. 2001) and sheared at a constant displacement rate of
0.05 mm=min until a peak strength condition or the displacement
limit of the device was reached (10% of the length). In their study,
some tests reached peak strength, while other tests were stopped
short of the peak.
Recently, Xiao et al. (2013) performed shear tests on Type B
TDA, with the largest pieces removed, using a large direct shear
device (length ¼ 800 mm, width ¼ 787 mm, height ¼ 1,219 mm).
The particle size ranged from 5 to 150 mm, and the compacted unit
weight was 6.60 kN=m3 . Shear tests were conducted at a constant
displacement rate of 22 mm=min until the specimen reached peak
strength or shear displacement of 152 mm. Peak shear strengths
were measured at low vertical stress; however, the displacement
limit of the device was limiting for tests conducted at higher normal
stress.
Very large direct shear tests were conducted by Fox (2013a) to
investigate the shear strength of large-size TDA for a variable dis-
placement rate. The dimensions of this shear device were 3,048 mm
in length, 1,219 mm in width, and 1,829 mm in height. The com-
pacted unit weight of TDA was 6.60 kN=m3 , and the applied nor-
mal stress was 26 kPa. Shear tests were conducted for displacement
rates of 1, 10, and 100 mm=min. Fig. 1 shows the shear stress–
displacement relationships for these tests. The relationships are
nearly identical leading up to peak shear strength and produce es-
sentially the same peak strengths (23.1–23.6 kPa) at a displacement
of approximately 360 mm. After accounting for shear area correc-
tion, the secant peak friction angles range from 41.1 to 41.7° and
indicate that the shear strength behavior for large-size TDA was
essentially independent of the displacement rate in this study. After
the peak strength, the curves diverge somewhat, with one relation-
ship (10 mm=min) showing no postpeak strength reduction and
the other two relationships showing approximately 13% postpeak
reduction when shear was terminated at displacements between 670
and 770 mm.
Shear strength data are summarized in Table 3 and plotted in
Fig. 2. Fig. 2 also shows the strength envelopes generated from
linear regression analysis. Because peak shear strengths were
© ASCE 04014258-3
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258
25
20
Shear Strength (kPa)
15
10
Rate = 1 mm/min
5 Rate = 10 mm/min
Rate = 100 mm/min
0
0 200 400 600 800
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 1. Shear stress–displacement relationships from very large direct
shear tests on large-size TDA (data from Fox 2013a)
not reached for the majority of tests, except for Fox (2013a),
the envelopes represent mobilized strengths at serviceability (not
failure) conditions and can be used as conservative estimates of
shear strength for engineering analysis. Due to the large strain
capability of TDA, serviceability conditions can be more relevant
for design than peak strength conditions. The lower envelope is
based on data from Moo-Young et al. (2003) and two points from
Foose et al. (1996) at a higher normal stress and is defined by co-
hesion cl ¼ 13.3 kPa and friction angle ϕl ¼ 22.2°. The measured
peak strengths from Fox (2013a) are also in good agreement with
this relationship. The upper strength envelope was generated using
the first six data points from Xiao et al. (2013) and yields cu ¼
14.4 kPa and ϕu ¼ 36.0°. The final two data points from Xiao et al.
(2013), measured at a normal stress of 150 kPa, likely deviate from
this line due to the limited displacement of the test apparatus.
Approximate lower-bound and upper-bound strength envelopes,
each passing through the origin (i.e., c ¼ 0), are also shown in
Fig. 2 and yield lower-bound and upper-bound secant friction
angles ϕl;sec ¼ 24° and ϕu;sec ¼ 60°, respectively. Additional
large-scale test data, such as in Fox (2013a), are needed to better
define peak strength envelopes for large-size TDA materials.
Compressibility
Immediate and long-term settlements of TDA must be considered
for engineering design because of the high compressibility of
the material. Immediate settlement occurs during construction,
whereas time-dependent settlement occurs subsequently over an
extended period. The magnitude of immediate settlement can be
large and depends primarily on TDA particle size, TDA layer thick-
ness, and applied stress conditions. During construction, immediate
settlement can be compensated by adding additional fill. However,
time-dependent settlement can also be substantial for TDA and can
eventually influence the long-term performance and serviceability
of pavements, rail lines, or other supported structures. The majority
of the time-dependent settlement occurs within 60 days after con-
struction (Wartman et al. 2007). To control time-dependent com-
pression, a TDA layer can be surcharged during construction
and prior to the placement of overlying structures.
Immediate Deformation
The secant constrained modulus, M sec , is typically used to calculate
the immediate settlement of TDA (Wartman et al. 2007) and is
defined as
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 3. Shear Strength of Large-Size TDA
TDA size Unit weight Normal stress Shear stress Shear box
(mm) (kN=m3 ) (kPa) (kPa) sizea (mm) Failure criteria Reference
100–150 4.41 b
7 6 279ðDÞ × 314ðHÞ Lateral displacement Foose et al. (1996)
42 19 of 25.4 mm
55 36
76 44
100–200 6.30c 4 14 610ðLÞ × 610ðWÞ × 305ðHÞ Shear force decrease or lateral Moo-Young
13 19 displacement of 61 mm et al. (2003)
19 22
200–300 6.00c 10 18
16 20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

19 21
5–150 6.60c 24 31 800ðLÞ × 787ðWÞ × 1,219ðHÞ Shear force decrease or lateral Xiao et al. (2013)
24 33 displacement of 152 mm
48 48
48 51
96 82
96 86
144 88
144 94
5–150 7.27c 26 23 3,048ðLÞ × 1,219ðWÞ × 1,829ðHÞ Shear force decrease Fox (2013a)
a
D, L, W, and H = diameter, length, width, and height, respectively.
b
Uncompacted unit weight.
c
Compacted unit weight.

100 Ei ν o
ν¼ ð4Þ
Ei ν o þ Eo ð1 − ν i Þ
75 c u= 14.4 kPa, φ u = 36°
Shear Strength (kPa)

where Ei = in-plane Young’s modulus (isotropic direction,

c l = 13.3 kPa, φ l = 22°
φ u,sec= 60° horizontal); Eo = out-of-plane Young’s modulus (anisotropic direc-
50 tion, vertical); ν i = in-plane Poisson’s ratio; and ν o = out-of-plane
Moo-Young et al. (2003) Poisson’s ratio.
Moo-Young et al. (2003) One-dimensional compression tests provide a direct measure-
25 φ l,sec = 24° ment of the secant constrained modulus. Test chambers can be
Foose et al. (1996)
Fox (2013a) made of plastic (Humphrey et al. 1993) or steel (Shalaby and Khan
Xiao et al. (2013) 2005; Finney et al. 2013; Meles et al. 2013) and should be large
0
0 50 100 150 200
enough to contain a representative number of TDA particles.
Normal Stress (kPa) Although cylindrical containers have typically been used for
one-dimensional compression tests, Wartman et al. (2007) used a
Fig. 2. Shear strengths from direct shear tests on large-size TDA square box. After TDA is compacted in the test container, loading/
unloading cycles are typically applied to measure the constrained
modulus under serviceability conditions. The amount and rate of
loading differ between testing programs; for example, Humphrey
Δσv et al. (1993) applied three cycles of loading/unloading (3–40 kN) at
M sec ¼ ð1Þ
Δεv a rate of 13 mm=min, whereas Shalaby and Khan (2005) applied
20 loading/unloading cycles at a rate of 10 mm=min. Tests con-
where Δσv = change of vertical stress and Δεv = corresponding ducted by Finney et al. (2013) reached a maximum vertical stress
change in the vertical strain. Based on the theory of elasticity, of 690 kPa, which is substantially larger than for other studies.
the relationship between Young’s modulus, E, and Msec is Meles et al. (2013) investigated OTR TDA and found that, for small
compression, compressibility was influenced by initial TDA unit
1 − ν − 2ν 2 weight.
E¼ Msec ð2Þ
1−ν Heimdahl and Drescher (1999) measured anisotropic material
properties for large-size TDA from plane-strain tests. Three cycles
where ν = Poisson’s ratio. of 21-kPa loading/unloading were first applied to square speci-
TDA has also been characterized as an anisotropic, transversely mens, followed by a vertical stress increment of 52 kPa and a lateral
isotropic material. In this case, the relationship for the secant con- stress increment of 24 kPa. Values of out-of-plane and in-plane
strained modulus is given by (Heimdahl and Drescher 1999) Young’s moduli were Eo ¼ 2.19 MPa and Ei ¼ 5.86 MPa, respec-
tively, and the out-of-plane and in-plane Poisson’s ratios were vo ¼
E2o ð1 − ν i Þ½Ei ν o þ Eo ð1 − ν i Þ − 2Eo E2i ν 2o 0.11 and vi ¼ 0.1–45. From Eqs. (3) and (4), the corresponding
M sec ¼ ð3Þ
½Ei ν o þ Eo ð1 − ν i ÞEo ð1 − ν i Þ − 2Ei ν 2o parameters for one-dimensional (vertical) loading are M sec ¼
1.95 MPa and v ¼ 0.26. Jeremić et al. (2004) also characterized
and the relationship for Poisson’s ratio is TDA as anisotropic and conducted wave propagation tests on large

© ASCE 04014258-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258

 TDA specimens for triaxial loading conditions. The specimens
were compacted in 150-mm lifts using a vibrating plate. Hydraulic
rams applied the vertical load while a vacuum generator provided
confinement. P and S waves were generated by striking metal or
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) blocks. Lateral stress and the equivalent
anisotropic material parameters were measured for three levels of
vertical stress. For a vertical stress of 35.2 kPa, the out-of-plane and
in-plane Young’s moduli were Eo ¼ 3.14 MPa and Ei ¼ 5 MPa,
and the corresponding out-of-plane and in-plane Poisson’s ratios
were vo ¼ 0.09 and vi ¼ 0.11.
Table 4 summarizes the values of Msec and corresponding E
from the aforementioned studies. Msec is also plotted versus vertical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stress in Fig. 3. Heimdahl and Drescher (1999) and Jeremić et al.
(2004) considered the anisotropy of TDA, and the resulting values
are significantly different from the other isotropic values. More-
over, the modulus values from Humphrey et al. (1993) were large
and in close agreement with those from Heimdahl and Drescher
(1999). Data from these three studies are not included in Fig. 3,
where each line corresponds to the measurements from a single
specimen. The dotted lines correspond to OTR TDA materials,
which have larger moduli, and the solid lines correspond to conven-
tional TDA.
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between the secant constrained
modulus and TDA unit weight for a vertical stress of approximately
50 kPa. Interpolation was used to estimate the values for Finney
et al. (2013). The data yield the following linear regression
relationship:
M sec;50 ¼ 115γ − 368 kPa
where M sec;50 = secant modulus (kPa) corresponding to a vertical
stress σv ¼ 50 kPa and γ = compacted unit weight (kN=m3 ).
As all lines in Fig. 3 have a similar slope of 1.45–2.14, with an
average of 1.8, the TDA modulus for general conditions can be
estimated as
M sec ¼ 1.8σv þ M sec;50 − 90 kPa
In addition, the lower-bound and upper-bound values of M sec in
Fig. 3 are
M l;sec ¼ 1.45σv þ 115γ − 441 kPa
M u;sec ¼ 2.14σv þ 115γ − 475 kPa
Time-Dependent Settlement
The time-dependent settlement, ΔHt , can be calculated as
t2
ΔHt ¼ HCαε log
t1
where H = thickness of the TDA layer at initial time t1
(typically t1 ¼ 1 day); t2 = final time (days); and Cαε = modified
secondary compression index. Wartman et al. (2007) conducted
long-term, one-dimensional compression tests to measure the
modified secondary compression index of large-size TDA. The
maximum particle size of TDA was 178 mm, and the average du-
ration of the tests was 4 weeks. A cantilever arm loading system
was used to apply constant vertical pressure during each test. Com-
pression was initially rapid, reached a steady rate after 10 to 20 h,
and then remained approximately constant for the duration of
the tests. The average modified secondary compression index
was 0.0065.
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258
Lateral Earth Pressure
The coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K, is equal to the ratio of
horizontal stress to vertical stress and varies with lateral strain con-
ditions. For at-rest conditions (i.e., zero lateral strain), this coeffi-
cient can be estimated from one-dimensional compression tests and
is in the range of 0.26–0.32 for TDA (Humphrey et al. 1993;
Jeremić et al. 2004). Depending on the movement of a retaining
structure, the appropriate value in the field ranges from the active
pressure to the passive pressure coefficient. Tweedie et al. (1998a)
conducted a study on a 4.88-m-high retaining wall constructed with
a 4.0-m-thick layer of TDA backfill. The maximum size of TDA
from two suppliers was 76 mm, and the compacted unit weights
were 6.77 and 6.97 kN=m3 . The active lateral pressure on the wall
was measured as the wall rotated about its base away from the back-
fill. Lateral pressure coefficients were evaluated by dividing the
measured lateral pressure by the calculated vertical pressure along
the height of the backfill. Helstrom et al. (2010) measured earth
pressures for two bridge abutments and three retaining walls. Pile
foundations for the abutments did not allow sufficient movement
for the development of active pressure conditions. The retaining
walls in this study were Wall 119 and Wall 207 in Riverside,
California, and were the same walls studied by Tweedie et al.
(1998a).
Table 5 summarizes the lateral pressure coefficients from
Tweedie et al. (1998a) and Helstrom et al. (2010). Variability of
the compacted unit weight, construction procedure, and back-
fill configuration produced significant variation in these values.
ð5Þ Tweedie et al. (1998a) reported that a substantial amount of wall
movement was needed to mobilize active conditions for TDA back-
fill, which was not generally observed for walls with natural soil
backfill. As a result, an at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient
(K o ¼ 0.3) was recommended for designs involving TDA backfill
(Humphrey and Helstrom 2009; Helstrom et al. 2010).
Case Studies
ð6Þ
Dixon Landing Interchange Project, Milpitas, California
The Dixon Landing Interchange was the first project in California
to use TDA as lightweight fill for highway construction. In 2000
and 2001, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
ð7Þ and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
(now CalRecycle) used TDA for a highway on-ramp. Fig. 5 shows
the typical transverse and longitudinal sections. Subgrade condi-
tions were poor due to approximately 9 m of underlying San
Francisco soft bay mud and, as such, lightweight fill was needed
for the project. Applied stress from the TDA fill was sufficiently
low that preloading of the natural foundation soils was not required,
which accelerated the construction schedule by 1 year and pro-
ð8Þ
duced substantial cost savings for the project. Approximately
59 MN of TDA were placed in a 210-m-long, 15-m-wide, and
6-m-tall embankment (IT Corporation 2002). Two 3-m-thick TDA
layers were separated by a 1-m-thick layer of low-permeability soil.
Finally, 1.5 m of soil and roadbed were placed on top of the TDA
embankment. The estimated in-place unit weight of TDA was
7.85 kN=m3 for this project.
Marina Drive Landslide Repair, Calpella, California
A section of Marina Drive in Calpella, California, had been in a
state of gradual slope failure since the 1960s and was maintained
periodically by regrading the road surface using soil or base rock
and asphalt concrete. The resulting heavy grading layer at the top of
04014258-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 4. Immediate Compressibility of Large-Size TDA
TDA size Compacted unit Vertical stress Msec E Container
(mm) weight (kN=m3 ) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)a sizeb (mm) Reference
≤76 6.07 110 c
1,680 1,120 305ðDÞ × 318ðHÞ Humphrey et al. (1993)
150–200 N/Ad 52, 24e 1,950 1,594 330ðLÞ × 370ðWÞ × 300ðHÞ Heimdahl and Drescher (1999)f
2–300 N/Ad 35.2 3,088 2,950 1,200 (D) Jeremić et al. (2004)g
61.3 6,089 3,865
84.3 15,230 10,721
150 N/Ad 50 135 106 900ðDÞ × 1,000ðHÞ Shalaby and Khan (2005)
100 233 182
150 324 254
300 N/Ad 50 129 101
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100 219 172

150 305 238
≤178 4.47 50h 255 199 305ðLÞ × 305ðWÞ Wartman et al. (2007)
38–125 4.90 46 164 129 570ðDÞ × 1,120ðHÞ Meles et al. (2013)
5.60 48 226 177
74 279 218
100 333 261
147 426 333
6.00 48 253 198
74 312 244
100 377 295
147 464 363
38–125 (OTR)i 4.80 52 187 146
5.80 46 280 219
75 336 263
100 380 297
148 473 370
6.30 46 368 288
75 429 335
100 476 372
148 576 450
6.50 49 467 365
75 510 399
100 556 435
148 658 515
5–203 4.19 3 34 27 914ðDÞ × 1,118ðHÞ Finney et al. (2013)
9 45 35
14 42 33
40 87 68
185 310 243
696 1,039 813
125 213 166
55 106 83
19 58 45
4.44 3 29 23
15 45 35
62 134 105
292 487 381
264 440 344
662 1,015 794
17 43 34
15 39 30
a
Poisson’s ratio is 0.28 when E is calculated from M sec (Fox 2013b).
b
D, L, W, and H = diameter, length, width, and height, respectively.
c
Modulus determined in the branch between the unloading/reloading point and the point for vertical stress = 110 kPa.
d
Not available.
e
Lateral stress.
f
Anisotropic material test; three cycles of 21-kPa loading/unloading were initially applied for compaction.
g
Anisotropic material test; wave propagation method; vibrating plate compaction.
h
Modulus determined in the branch between 0 and 50 kPa vertical stress.
i
Off-the-road TDA.

the slope—over 2 m thick—contributed to further destabilization of layer of Type B TDA separated and covered by a 1-m-thick layer of
the site. In 2007, a landslide repair was undertaken using TDA, natural soil (Kennec 2008). The project utilized 12 MN of TDA
which represented the first such application in California. The within a volume of 1,400 m3 , thus yielding an in-place unit weight
design specified a lower 3-m-thick layer and an upper 1.5-m-thick of 8.6 kN=m3 . Fig. 6(a) shows a typical cross section of the layered

© ASCE 04014258-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258

 Compacted Unit Low Permeability
Weight (kN/m3 ): Reference Soil Cover
700
4.90:Meles et al. (2013)
TDA
600 5.60:Meles et al. (2013)
6.00:Meles et al. (2013) TDA
500 4.80:Meles (OTR; 2013)
Msec (kPa)

5.80:Meles (OTR; 2013) Compressible Bay Mud

400 (a)
6.30:Meles (OTR; 2013)
300 6.50:Meles (OTR; 2013)
Surcharge
4.47:Wartman et al. (2007) Low Permeability
200
4.19:Finney et al. (2013) Soil Cap
100 4.44:Finney et al. (2013) 3m
Shalaby and Khan (2005) TDA
0
0 100 200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Vertical Stress (kPa) TDA

(b)
Fig. 3. Secant constrained modulus for large-size TDA
Fig. 5. Illustration of TDA fill for Dixon Landing Interchange:
(a) transverse section; (b) longitudinal section
Vertical Stress (kPa)
450 Msec,50 = 115 × γ - 368 : Reference
(R 2 = 0.744) 50:Wartman et al. (2007)
46:Meles et al. (2013) roadbase layer (Kennec 2009). Approximately 14 MN and more
Msec.50 (kPa)

350
250
150
50
2.50 5.00 7.50
Compacted Unit Weight, γ (kN/m 3)
Fig. 4. Relationship between compacted unit weight and secant mod-
ulus at vertical stress of approximately 50 kPa (vertical stress ranging
from 46 to 52 kPa)
TDA fill. Over the deepest fill areas, 50 mm of settlement was
measured after 2 years following project completion.
Geysers Road, Sonoma County, California
During the winter of 2006, a landslide occurred along an 80-m-long
section of Geysers Road in Sonoma County, California. The cause
of the slide was saturated soils due to heavy rains, which was fur-
ther exacerbated by inadequate functioning of the roadway sub-
drain system. The landslide was repaired by replacing some of the
slide material with an upper 3-m-thick layer and a lower 1.5-m-
thick layer of TDA separated by 1-m-thick, low-permeability soil,
as shown in Fig. 6(b). The top TDA layer was covered with 1-m-
thick, low-permeability soil and natural soil backfill to serve as a
48:Meles et al. (2013)
52:Meles (OTR; 2013)
46:Meles (OTR; 2013)
49:Meles (OTR; 2013)
50:Finney et al. (2013)
50:Finney et al. (2013)
than 1,900 m3 of TDA were used for this project, thus yielding
an in-place unit weight of 7.1 kN=m3 . Over the deepest fill areas,
60 mm of settlement was measured after 2 years following project
completion.
Embankment in Windsor and Kirkwood, New York
As a pilot project, a 200-m-long embankment was built with TDA
for the reconstruction of Route 17 in Windsor and Kirkwood, New
York (Dickson et al. 2001). The TDA layer had a maximum particle
size of 450 mm and a maximum thickness of 3 m. The TDA was
compacted using eight passes of a smooth-drum roller with a nomi-
nal gross weight of 88 kN. After placement and compaction, the
layer was covered with 1.0–1.5 m of soil, as shown in Fig. 7(a).
The embankment was then surcharged with a 1.25 to 2.5 m thick
soil layer, which was removed after 4 months. Measured settle-
ments indicated that the TDA layer compressed by 9% (i.e., 270 mm
for a thickness of 3 m) under the 2.9-m-thick overlying soil cover
and surcharge. The TDA layer experienced an additional settlement
of 10–25 mm over a period of 60 days after surcharge placement.
The estimated unit weight of TDA was 5.5 kN=m3 after compac-
tion and 6.0 kN=m3 under the surcharge load.
Embankment in New Brunswick, Canada
In 2006, a highway embankment failed in New Brunswick, Canada,
due to rapid construction and low strength of the foundation soils
(Mills and McGinn 2010). The embankment was reconstructed

Table 5. Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient

Compacted Lateral earth
TDA size unit weight pressure TDA layer
(mm) (kN=m3 ) coefficient, K thickness (m) Vertical load Remarks Reference
≤76 6.77 0.22–0.23 4 35.9-kPa surcharge Univ. of Maine wall test, Tweedie
≤76 6.97 0.22–0.25 0.01-H rotation in the retaining walla et al. (1998a)
≤200b 7.90c 0.21–0.50 4.2 1.3-m-thick soil Merrymeeting Bridge, pile foundation Helstrom
and ≤450d et al. (2010)
≤450d 0.22–0.64 3 0.9 to 2.3 m thick soil Limestone Run Bridge, pile foundation
≤450d 0.33–2.30 3 0.5 to 0.7 m thick soil Wall 119
≤450d 0.20–0.62 2.23–3.05 1.16 to 1.22 m thick soil Wall 207
a
Active pressure not mobilized; lateral earth pressure coefficient between at-rest and active conditions.
b
Type A TDA.
c
TDA compacted unit weight assumed for calculation of vertical stress.
d
Type B TDA.

© ASCE 04014258-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258

 Road Surface
Final Grade 3m
3m TDA
Low Permeability
Soil
TDA Compacted Clay
Existing Grade
Organic Clay
TDA Peat In-Place Clay

Fig. 8. Illustration of TDA embankment in Mankato, Minnesota

(a)
Road Surface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Retaining
(unit: m)
Wall
Low Permeability
Soil TDA 0.61 SOIL

3m
TDA TDA 1.45
3.35

(b)
1.07
SOIL
Fig. 6. Illustration of TDA fill for landslide repair projects: (a) Marina
Drive landslide in Mendocino County, California; (b) Geysers Road Shake Table
landslide in Sonoma County, California
Fig. 9. Retaining wall test using shake table

Surcharge Final Grade

longitudinal tension cracks due to undetected deposits of peat
3m and organic clay in the foundation soils (Gale et al. 2013). To re-
duce the applied stress and future settlement, the upper 4.6 m of the
TDA
embankment was reconstructed with TDA, as shown in Fig. 8.
TDA compaction was performed using a large tracked vehicle
(a)
and was completed when the material did not compress more than
Surcharge Final Grade 25 mm for each vehicle pass. Settlement was permitted for 6 months
prior to construction of the pavement and measured 600 mm at the
end of this period. An additional 18-mm settlement occurred in the
3m
TDA year following pavement construction. Although the TDA fill was
thicker than the recommended limit as per ASTM D6270, no sign
TDA
of self-heating reaction has been observed for this project.

Silty Sand
(b)
Fig. 7. Illustration of TDA embankment in (a) Windsor and Kirkwood,
New York; (b) New Brunswick, Canada
using two TDA layers (3.0 and 2.1 m thick) with a 1.4-m-thick,
low-permeability soil layer in between. A 2.2-m-thick soil cover
and pavement were placed on the upper TDA layer, as illustrated
in Fig. 7(b). A total of 140 MN of Type B TDA was used for the
project. The TDA was compacted using a minimum of six passes of
a vibratory smooth-drum roller (88 kN) and had an in-place unit
weight of 8.1 kN=m3 . A surcharge was also placed on the TDA
fill for a short period (10 days). Performance of the reconstructed
embankment was monitored over 25 months during and after con-
struction. The predicted time-dependent settlement over 2 months
following surcharge removal was 50 mm. Field measurements in-
dicated that the combined time-dependent settlement of both TDA
layers was 43 mm over 3 months.
Embankment in Mankato, Minnesota
When a 9.1-m-high roadway embankment was completed in
Mankato, Minnesota, the slope became distressed and showed
Retaining Wall Test Using Shake Table
Ahn and Cheng (2014) performed a full-scale shake-table test for a
2.06-m-high concrete retaining wall with a combination of granular
soil and TDA backfill. Fig. 9 shows the configuration of the back-
fill. Type B TDA was compacted in a 1.45-m-thick layer using six
passes of a small trench compactor and had a compacted unit
weight of 6.13 kN=m3 . A 0.61-m-thick layer of sand was then
placed and compacted on top of the TDA. During construction
of the top soil layer, the TDA experienced an immediate settle-
ment of 212 mm, which increased the in-place unit weight to
7.27 kN=m3 . Twelve pressure cells measured static and dynamic
lateral pressures on the back face of the retaining wall. From these
measurements, the estimated lateral pressure coefficient for static
loading conditions was K o ¼ 0.27, which is in the range of
0.26–0.32 for the at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient given
by Humphrey et al. (1993) and Jeremić et al. (2004).
Comparison of Material Properties
Table 6 summarizes the compacted unit weights and in-place unit
weights from the aforementioned case studies. Compacted unit
weights vary from 5.45 to 6.13 kN=m3 , which is in the range of
4.47–6.92 kN=m3 observed from the laboratory compaction tests.

© ASCE 04014258-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258

 Table 6. Unit Weight of TDA from Case Studies
Compacted In-place
TDA size unit weight unit weight
(mm) (kN=m3 ) (kN=m3 ) Compaction method Layer compositiona Project location
≤450 b
N/A c
7.85 N/A c
3 m T; 1 m S; 3 m T; 1.5 m S Milpitas, California
≤450b N/Ac 8.63 N/Ac 3 m T; 1 m S; 1.5 m T; 1 m S Calpella, California
≤450b N/Ac 7.06 N/Ac 1.5 m T; 1 m S; 3 m T; 1 m S Sonoma County, California
≤450b 5.45 5.98 Eight passes of a vibratory 3 m T; 2.9 m Sd Windsor and Kirkwood,
or nonvibratory smooth New York
steel-wheel roller
≤450b N/A 8.10 Six passes of a vibratory 2.1 m T; 1.4 m S; 3 m T; 2.2 m S New Brunswick, Canada
smooth-drum roller
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5–150 6.13 7.27 Six passes of trench compactor 1.2 m T; 0.82 m S University of California–Davise
a
From bottom to top of embankment, S = soil; T = TDA.
b
Type B TDA.
c
Not available.
d
Including surcharge.
e
Retaining wall test.

Table 7. Modified Secondary Compression Index

TDA size Compacted unit Vertical
(mm) weight (kN=m3 ) stress (kPa) Cαε Structure type Reference
a a
50–305 N/A N/A 0.0038–0.0128 Varies Strenk et al. (2007)
≤178 4.74 80 0.0065 Specimen: 305 × 305 mm Wartman et al. (2007)
≤450 5.45 67b 0.0047c Embankment Dickson et al. (2001)
≤450d N/Aa 42b 0.004e Embankment Kennec (2008)
≤450d N/Aa 38b 0.0047f Embankment Kennec (2009)
≤450d N/Aa 32 0.004 Embankment Mills and McGinn (2010)
a
Not available.
b
Vertical stress calculated at the middle of TDA layer. Soil unit weight assumed as 19.60 kN=m3 and TDA unit weight assumed as 6.87 kg=m3 . If there were
two TDA layers in the project, the average was taken.
c
Taken for settlement ¼ 25 mm; TDA thickness ¼ 3.0 m.
d
Type B TDA.
e
Settlement ¼ 50 mm.
f
Settlement ¼ 60 mm.

In-place unit weights vary from 5.98 to 8.63 kN=m3 , depending on
the thickness and configuration of the overlying layers. Table 7
summarizes the values of the modified secondary compression in-
dex. The indexes from Strenk et al. (2007) correspond to small-size
TDA, and the value from Wartman et al. (2007) was obtained from
laboratory tests. Values for the four case studies were estimated
from field measurements. Previous studies have found that field
compression is typically smaller than values predicted from one-
dimensional laboratory compression tests (Humphrey et al. 2000;
Geosyntec Consultants 2008; Meles et al. 2013). This trend is also
observed for the values of the modified secondary compression in-
dex given in Table 7. The field-measured values range from 0.004
to 0.0047 and are smaller than the laboratory-measured value of
0.0065 from Wartman et al. (2007).
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on the aforementioned review
of material properties for large-size TDA from published and un-
published test results and field case studies:
• The unit weight of TDA changes with placement and compac-
tion conditions and the application of overburden stress. The
values of uncompacted unit weights, compacted unit weights,
and in-place unit weights of large-size TDA range from 3.30
to 4.90 kN=m3 , 4.47 to 6.92 kN=m3 , and 5.98 to 8.63 kN=m3 ,
respectively.
• Available shear strength data give cohesion c ¼ 13 to 14 kPa
and friction angle ϕ ¼ 22 to 36°. Upper-bound and lower-bound
envelopes for the data set as a whole yield lower-bound and
upper-bound secant friction angles of 24° and 60°, respectively.
• Values of the secant constrained modulus are needed for the
calculation of immediate settlement and vary linearly with
the compacted unit weight and applied vertical stress. Field
measurements of the modified secondary compression index
range from 0.004 to 0.0047 and are generally smaller than va-
lues given by laboratory tests.
• The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K o ) ranges from
0.26 to 0.32. The lateral earth pressure coefficient measured
from a recent test of a 2.06-m-high retaining wall with TDA
backfill was 0.27 and is consistent with this range. Because
of the substantial wall movement required to mobilize active
conditions, a value of K o ¼ 0.3 has been recommended for
the design of retaining walls with TDA backfill.
• Civil engineering field applications for large-size TDA material
generally fall into the category of fills for embankments and
retaining walls. The low unit weight of this material makes it
attractive for landslide repair and embankments over highly
compressible and weak foundation soils. Good design practice
requires that TDA fills be separated by a soil layer to limit the
risk for self-heating of the material.
Considering the available database of material property infor-
mation for large-size TDA, future research is needed with regard

© ASCE 04014258-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258

 to shear strength parameters, development of a simple and reliable
method to measure in-place unit weight, and variation of engineer-
ing properties for different types and suppliers of TDA materials.
Acknowledgments
Mr. Roberto Chang Siu in the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at the University of California–Davis prepared
several drawings for this paper. His contribution is gratefully
acknowledged.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Ahn, I.-S., and Cheng, L. (2014). “Tire derived aggregate for retaining wall
backfill under earthquake loading.” Constr. Build. Mater., 57, 105–116.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard practice for use of scrap tires in civil engineering
applications.” D6270, West Conshohocken, PA.
Dickson, T. H., Dwyer, D. F., and Humphrey, D. N. (2001). “Prototype tire-
shred embankment construction.” Transportation Research Record
1755, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 160–167.
Edil, T. B. (2008). “A review of environmental impacts and environmental
application of shredded scrap tires.” Scrap tire derived geomaterials—
Opportunities and challenges, H. Hazarika and K. Yasuhara, eds.,
Taylor & Francis Group, London, 3–18.
Edil, T. B., Bosscher, P. J., and Eldin, N. N. (1990). “Development of
engineering criteria for shredded or whole tires in highway applications.”
Interim Rep., Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Univ. of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI.
Edstrom, R., Jordahl-Larson, M., and Sampson, J. (2009). “Oak Grove
tire shreds project: Tire shreds below the seasonal groundwater table
(MN/RC 2009-02).” Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
Finney, B., Chandler, Z. H., Bruce, J. L., and Apple, B. (2013). “Properties
of tire derived aggregate for civil engineering applications.” California
Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Humbolt
State Univ., Sacramento, CA.
Foose, G. J., Benson, C. H., and Bosscher, P. J. (1996). “Sand reinforced
with shredded waste tires.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1996)122:9(760), 760–767.
Fox, P. J. (2013a). “Direct shear test of type B TDA.” Interim Rep.,
California Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
Sacramento, CA.
Fox, P. J. (2013b). “Literature review on shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio
for tire-derived aggregate (TDA).” Interim Rep., California Dept. of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Sacramento, CA.
Gale, S., Lichty, N., and Forsberg, A. (2013). “Bridge approach embank-
ment slope distress: Analysis, monitoring, design & remediation—A
case study.” Geo-Congress 2013, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1384–1399.
Geosyntec Consultants. (2008). Guidance manual for engineering uses of
scrap tires, Maryland Dept. of the Environment’s Scrap Tire Program,
Baltimore.
Heimdahl, T. C., and Drescher, A. (1999). “Elastic anisotropy of tire
shreds.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1999)125:5(383), 383–389.
Helstrom, C. L., Weaver, J. W., and Humphrey, D. N. (2010). “Lateral
pressures behind retaining walls backfilled with tire derived aggregate.”
Presentation at the Transportation Research Board 89th Annual
Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Hoppe, E. J., and Mullen, W. G. (2004). “Field study of a shredded-tire
embankment in Virginia.” Final Rep., Virginia Transportation Research
Council, Charlottesville, VA.
Humphrey, D. N. (2003). “Civil engineering applications using tire derived
aggregate (TDA).” California Integrated Waste Management Board,
Sacramento, CA.
Humphrey, D. N. (2004). “Effectiveness of design guidelines for use of tire
derived aggregate as lightweight embankment fill.” Recycled Materials
in Geotechnics (GSP 127), Proc., ASCE Civil Engineering Conf. and
Exposition 2004, ASCE, Reston, VA.
© ASCE 04014258-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258
Humphrey, D. N. (2008). “Tire derived aggregate as lightweight fill for
embankments and retaining walls.” Scrap tire derived geomaterials—
Opportunities and challenges, H. Hazarika and K. Yasuhara, eds.,
Taylor & Francis Group, London.
Humphrey, D. N., and Eaton, R. A. (1995). “Field performance of tire chips
as subgrade insulation for rural roads.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Low-
Volume Roads, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
77–86.
Humphrey, D. N., and Helstrom, C. (2009). “Tire derived aggregate as
backfill for retaining walls.” New York State TDA Workshop, Center
for Integrated Waste Management, Buffalo, NY.
Humphrey, D. N., and Katz, L. E. (2000). “Five-year field study of the
water quality effects of tire shreds placed above the water table.”
Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Humphrey, D. N., and Katz, L. E. (2001). “Field study of the water quality
effects of tire shreds placed below the water table.” Int. Conf. on
Beneficial Use of Recycled Materials in Transportation Applications,
Air and Waste Management Association, Sewickley, PA.
Humphrey, D. N., Sandford, T. C., Cribbs, M. M., and Manion, W. P.
(1993). “Shear strength and compressibility of tire chips for use as
retaining wall backfill.” Transportation Research Record 1422,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 29–35.
Humphrey, D. N., and Swett, M. (2006). “Literature review of the water
quality effects of tire derived aggregate and rubber modified asphalt
pavement.” Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Maine, Orono, ME.
Humphrey, D. N., Whetten, N., Weaver, J., and Recker, K. (2000). “Tire
shreds as lightweight fill for construction on weak marine clay.”
Proc., Int. Symp. on Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 611–616.
Humphrey, D. N., Whetten, N., Weaver, J., Recker, K., and Cosgrove, T. A.
(1998). “TDA as lightweight fill for embankments and retaining walls.”
Proc., Conf. on Recycled Materials in Geotechnical Applications,
ASCE, Arlington, VA, 51–65.
IT Corporation. (2002). “Civil engineering applications of tire shreds,
Dixon Landing on-ramp, Highway 880, Milpitas, California.”
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA.
Jeremić, B., Putnam, J., Sett, K., Humphrey, D., and Patenaude, S. (2004).
“Calibration of elastic-plastic material model for tire shreds.” GeoTrans
2004, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Jesionek, K. S., Humphrey, D. N., and Dunn, R. J. (1998). “Overview of
shredded tire applications in landfills.” Tire Industry Conf., Clemson
Univ., Clemson, SC.
Kennec. (2008). “Construction activity summary report Marina Drive
landslide repair, Calpella, California.” California Integrated Waste
Management Board, Sacramento, CA.
Kennec. (2009). “Tire derived aggregate as backfill for slide repair,
construction report, Geysers Road Project, Sonoma County, CA.”
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA.
Lassiter, A. (2009). “Septic system trench TDA—A national overview.”
New York State TDA Workshop, Center for Integrated Waste Manage-
ment, Buffalo, NY.
Lawrence, B., Humphrey,, D., and Chen, L.-H. (1999). “Field trial of tire
shreds as insulation for paved roads.” 10th Int. Conf. on Cold Regions
Engineering: Putting Research into Practice, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Meles, D., Bayat, A., and Soleymani, H. (2013). “Compression behavior
of large-sized tire-derived aggregate for embankment application.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000675, 1285–
1290.
Mills, B., and McGinn, J. (2008). “Recycled tires as lightweight fill.”
Annual Conf. of the Transportation Association of Canada, Toronto,
ON, Canada.
Mills, B., and McGinn, J. (2010). “Design, construction, and performance
of a highway embankment failure repaired with tire-derived aggregate.”
Transportation Research Record 2170, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 90–99.
Moo-Young, H., et al. (2001). “Guidance document for scrap tires utiliza-
tion in embankments (PA-2001-022-96-30(4)).” Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Moo-Young, H., Sellasie, K., Zeroka, D., and Sabnis, G. (2003). “Physical
and chemical properties of recycled tire shreds for use in construction.”
J. Environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2003)129:10(921),
921–929.
Nelson, B. E. (2009). “Using tire chips for roadway embankment fill.”
New York State TDA Workshop, Center for Integrated Waste Manage-
ment, Buffalo, NY.
Park, J. K., Edil, T. B., Kim, J. Y., Huh, M., Lee, S. H., and Lee, J. J. (2003).
“Suitability of shredded tires as a substitute for a landfill leachate
collection medium.” Waste Manage. Res., 21(3), 278–289.
Reid, R. A., and Soupir, S. P. (1998). “Mitigation of void development
under bridge approach slabs using rubber tire chips.” Proc., Conf.
on Recycled Materials in Geotechnical Applications, ASCE, Arlington,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by California State University- Fresno on 10/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
VA, 37–50.
RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association). (2011). “U.S. scrap tire
management summary 2005–2009.” 〈http://www.rma.org/publications/
scrap_tires/index.cfm?PublicationID=11517〉 (Jan. 2, 2012).
Shalaby, A., and Khan, R. A. (2005). “Design of unsurfaced roads con-
structed with large-size shredded rubber tires: A case study.” Resour.
Conserv. Recycl., 44(4), 318–332.
Strenk, P. M., Wartman, J., Grubb, D. G., Humphrey, D. N., and
Natale, M. F. (2007). “Variability and scale-dependency of tire-derived
aggregate.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:3
(233), 233–241.
Tatlisoz, N., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (1998). “Interaction between
reinforcing geosynthetics and soil-tire chip mixtures.” J. Geotech.
© ASCE 04014258-11
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(9): 04014258
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:11(1109),
1109–1119.
Tweedie, J. J., Humphrey, D. N., and Sandford, T. C. (1998a). “Full scale
field trials of tire chips as lightweight retaining wall backfill, at-rest
conditions.” Transportation Research Record 1619, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 64–71.
Tweedie, J. J., Humphrey, D. N., and Sandford, T. C. (1998b). “Tire shreds
as lightweight retaining wall backfill: Active conditions.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:11(1061),
1061–1070.
Wartman, J., Natale, M. F., and Strenk, P. M. (2007). “Immediate and
time-dependent compression of tire derived aggregate.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:3(245),
245–256.
Whetten, N. L., Weaver, J., Humphrey, D. N., and Sandford, T. C. (1997).
“Rubber meets the road in Maine.” Civ. Eng., 67(9), 60–63.
Wolfe, S. L., Humphrey, D. N., and Wetzel, E. A. (2004). “Development of
tire shred underlayment to reduce groundborn vibrations from LTR
track.” GeoTrans 2004, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Xiao, M., Ledezma, M., and Hartman, C. (2013). “Shear resistance of tire
derived aggregate (TDA) using large-scale direct shear tests.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001007, 04014110.
Zicari, L. (2009). “New York state tire derived aggregate program.”
New York State TDA Workshop, Center for Integrated Waste Manage-
ment, Buffalo, NY.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.