ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

Bearing capacity and settlement of

tire-reinforced sands
Yeo Won Yoona,*, Sung Han Cheonb, Dae Seong Kangb
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Inha University, 253 Yonghyundong, Nam-ku,
Inchon 402-751, South Korea
b
Graduate School, Inha University, South Korea
Received 12 September 2003; received in revised form 17 December 2003; accepted 20 December 2003

Abstract

This paper presents the beneficial use of waste tires as reinforcing material in sand from
laboratory plate load tests. Treads and sidewalls of tires were combined to make the tire mat.
Plate load tests were conducted to study the reinforcing effect under various conditions such as
relative density, embedded depth, number of reinforced layers, size of a mat and combination
type of tire segments. From the plate load test results, the effectiveness of tire mat as a
reinforcing material could clearly be seen. The effects of reinforcing and settlement reduction
are higher at lower sand density. The reinforced sand’s bearing capacity is more than twice
that of unreinforced sand. The effects were more pronounced at a cover depth of less than
0.4B. The reinforcement of single layer in medium density sand was enough to reduce the
settlement more than half and increase bearing capacity more than a factor of two. The
combinations of both treads and sidewalls resulted in the highest bearing capacity. The
bearing capacity increased steadily as the width of the mat increased up to five times the plate
width and converged at just over twice the bearing capacity of unreinforced sand and
remained constant thereafter.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bearing capacity; Reinforcement; Settlement; Waste tires; Sand

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-32832-7101; fax: +82-32873-7560.

E-mail address: yoonyw@inha.ac.kr (Y.W. Yoon).

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2003.12.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
440 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

Nomenclature

f peak angle of internal friction

d interface angle between soil and tire surface
b width of reinforcement
B width (diameter) of a load plate
BCR bearing capacity ratio
Dr relative density of sand
ID inside diameter
N number of reinforcement layers
OD outside diameter
SRF settlement reduction factor
u depth of first reinforcement layer below load plate
Dz vertical spacing between reinforcement layers
z depth of final reinforcement layer below load plate

1. Introduction

Disposal of waste tires has become a troublesome problem in many countries.

Each year approximately 50 million used tires are discarded in the United States
(Blumenthal, 1998) and Canada generates over 28 millions of passenger tires per year
(Garga and O’Shaughnessy, 2000). Korea generates approximately 20 millions of
waste tires per year since 1998, and some of the tires are utilized for rubber tiles or as
an energy source for making cement. However, the cost of making rubber powder
from a tire is very high. Therefore, several beneficial uses of waste tires have been
proposed in the last decade, and some of them have already been used in
construction area. Utilization of waste tires as construction material is desirable
because of its excellent mechanical properties and durability. This includes: using
fine-ground tire powders as a partial replacement for asphalt in asphaltic concrete;
using tire chips for lightweight fill (Humphrey and Manion, 1992; Foose et al., 1996);
using whole tires or tires with one sidewall removed (Garga and O’Shaughnessy,
2000; Nguyen, 1996). In some cases, environmental assessments of toxic compounds
in the tire-embedded earth fill were performed previously by some researchers
(O’Shaughnessy and Garga, 2000; Humphrey and Katz, 2002; Moon, 2003).
According to the authors, the field monitoring of the effluent indicated that
no significant adverse effects on ground water quality had occurred over a period
of 2 years.
In this research, the tire mat made by combination of treads and sidewalls was
devised in order to utilize for soil reinforcement, and a series of plate load tests were
carried out in a large test chamber. Plate load tests were conducted previously by
some researchers (Dash et al., 2001; DeMerchant et al., 2002; others) to study the
reinforcement effect on bearing capacities. The factors evaluated in this research
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 441

were relative density, number of layers, embedded depth, and mat shape of
combination.

2. Material properties

2.1. Tire mat

The tire mats used in this research were developed by combination of treads or
sidewalls only, and both treads and sidewalls are shown in Fig. 1. Both sidewalls
were separated and connected to each other, and they were overlapped in four
locations of the sidewalls. The mat made of sidewalls can be formed by connecting
each sidewalls in the four locations mentioned. The long treads are crossed at inside
an empty circle within the sidewall in order to make tire mats composed of plurality
of sidewalls and treads. The treads and sidewalls were linked using plastic bolts.
Three sizes of tire mat were used to study boundary influence by mat width and the
width ratios of mat to load plate were 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Tires used in this study
were for small-size light truck.
The mat may be used either as an underlying material over unstable ground
surfaces, or as reinforcing elements between soil layers for embankment or for soil
reinforcement of foundations.

Fig. 1. Type of tire mat (unit: cm).

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
442 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

2.2. Sand

The sand (called ‘Incheon’ sand) obtained from western coastal area of Korea is
uniformly graded and rounded quartz particle classified as SP in the Unified Soil
Classification System. The particle size distribution curve of Incheon sand is shown
in Fig. 2, and the engineering properties of the sand are listed in Table 1. The typical
stress–stain and volumetric behavior of Incheon sand are shown in Fig. 3. Interface
friction angles between tire tread and the sand for different relative densities were
measured by direct shear test. Tensile properties of tire treads were determined by
universal testing machine, and the results are shown in Table 2. The tensile strength
of a tread was governed by the strength of plastic bolt for connection rather than
tread itself. The ratio of sand–tire interface angle (d) to internal friction angle (f) of
sand was about 0.9 for both the outside and inside of tire treads. There was almost
no difference in interface friction angles for both inside and outside of the tread.

Fig. 2. Chamber for model test: (a) schematic of test set up (unit: cm), and (b) loading position.

Table 1
Physical properties of sand sample

Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 2.81

Coefficient of concavity, Cc 1.00
Effective size, D10(mm) 0.19
Maximum dry unit weight (kN=m3 ) 15.89
Minimum dry unit weight (kN=m3 ) 13.24
Specific gravity, Gs 2.64
Friction angle, f
Dr =40% 34.6
Dr =55% 35.4
Dr =70% 36.5
Interface friction angle, d=f E0.90
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 443

100
90
80
Percent finer (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle diameter (mm)
Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curve.

Table 2
Properties of a tire mat

Tire tread dimension (mm) 130(B)
1700(L)
5(t)

Sidewall dimension (mm) OD=500, ID=300
Tire mat dimension (mm) 1700
1700
Tensile strength of connection (kN) 1 bolt 2.48
2 bolts 5.70
3 bolts 7.47

3. Experimental program

3.1. Test chamber

The plate load tests for this research were carried out in a test chamber of 2.0 m
width, 2.0 m length, and 1.5 m height. The chamber was placed under a loading
frame and was filled with sand up to a depth of 150 cm. Oil jacks, dial gages, and a
measuring system were involved for the test (Fig. 4). The chamber has rigid
boundaries, and the size was determined through the finite element analysis in order
to check boundary influence. No boundary influence was confirmed from the pilot
plate load tests preceding the main tests.

3.2. Sample preparation

Sand compaction was by tamping technique applying undercompaction concept

(Ladd, 1978). This method has the advantage to obtain almost same density
throughout the layers consistently. The relative densities of 40%, 55% and 70% of
sand were prepared to investigate the effect of soil improvement by tire mat. For
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
444 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

500
Dr = 55%
400
(σ1-σ3)(kN/m2)
300

200
σ3 = 30kN/m2
σ3 = 60kN/m2
100 σ3 = 120kN/m2

0
0 5 10 15 20
15

10
εv (%)

-5
0 5 10 15 20
εa (%)

Fig. 4. Typical triaxial behavior for medium dense Incheon sand (Dr =55%).

more uniform density, the wooden frame divided into nine cells was used. The height
was divided into five levels. The weight of sand in each section was measured and
poured carefully into every square cell of a wooden frame. The frame was removed,
and tamping was conducted with a tamper with 25 cm
25 cm size of a square plate.

3.3. Testing program

A series of plate load tests were performed to study the reinforcing effect of sand
with variation of relative density, embedded depth, number of reinforced layers,
width of mat and mat type. The details of the test scheme are listed in Table 3.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Plate load tests

Plate load tests were conducted in a chamber (Fig. 2) as described in Section 3.1,
and a 350 mm load plate was used. Four parameters in the bearing capacity and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 445

Table 3
Scheme of plate load tests for tire mat

Test series Dr (%) No. of tests Remarks

Unreinforced 40 1
55 1
70 1
Reinforced 40 3 u=B ¼ 0:4; Dz=B ¼ 0:4; b=B ¼ 5 1; 2; 3 layers,
respectively
55 3
70 3
Embedded 55 3 u=B ¼ 0:2; 0:4; 0:8; b=B ¼ 5
depth (u/B)
Mat type 55 3 Treads or sidewalls only and treads+sidewalls
u=B ¼ 0:4; b=B ¼ 5
Mat size (b=B) 55 3 b=B ¼3, 4, 5, u=B ¼ 0:4

settlement of tire-reinforced sand were investigated. The parameters include relative

density, Dr ; of the sand; number of layers of tire reinforcement, N; depth below the
bearing plate to the top of the first layer of tire reinforcement; u; expressed in non-
dimensional form of u=B where B is the diameter of the plate; and the width, b; of a
square area of tire mat reinforcement in non-dimensional form of b=B; the width
ratio. In all the tests, except for the influence with type of a tire mat, a tire mat
combined by both treads and sidewalls was used consistently.
The vertical spacing of reinforcement between the bottom of the previous layer
and the top of the next layer Dz=B ¼ 0:4; the embedded depth to top layer u=B ¼ 0:4
and mat width b=B ¼ 5 were held constant in all the tests. For comparison of test
results, the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) and settlement reduction factor (SRF) were
used as previously described by Gudio and Christou (1988) and others
BCR ¼qr =q0 ; ð1Þ

SRF ¼ ðs=BÞr =ðs=BÞ0 ; ð2Þ

where qr and q0 are the ultimate bearing capacities for the reinforced and
unreinforced sands, respectively and s is settlement at the corresponding ultimate
bearing capacity.
Figs. 5–7 show typical load–settlement curves for unreinforced and reinforced
sands of relative density 40%, 55% and 70%, respectively. It can be observed that
there were no pronounced ultimate points in the load–settlement curves of reinforced
sands and that the curve patterns of reinforced sand were quite similar to
unreinforced sands except for higher bearing capacities for reinforced soils.

4.2. Relative density

Plate load test results are expressed in terms of BCR and SRF for different
densities. The results are listed in Tables 4 and 5, and shown in Figs. 8 and 9,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
446 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

Load (kN/m2)
10 100 1000
0
5 Dr = 40%
10
Settlement (mm) 15
20
25
30
35
40
45 Unreinforced
50 1 layer
2 layers
55 3 layers
60

Fig. 5. Load–settlement curves for reinforced sands (Dr =40%).

Load (kN/m2)
10 100 1000
0
5 Dr = 55%
10
Settlement (mm)

15
20
25
30
35
40
45 Unreinforced
50 1 layer
2 layers
55 3 layers
60

Fig. 6. Load–settlement curves for reinforced sands (Dr =55%).

Load (kN/m 2 )
10 100 1000
0
5 Dr = 70%
10
Settlement (mm)

15
20
25
30
35
40
45 Unreinforced
50 1 layer
2 layers
55 3 layers
60

Fig. 7. Load–settlement curves for reinforced sands (Dr =70%).

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 447

Table 4
Ultimate bearing capacities of reinforced sands (kN=m2 )

Dr (%) Unreinforced 1 layer 2 layers 3 layers

40 132.4 282.0 297.1 308.9

55 230.5 472.5 509.9 519.8
70 426.6 511.9 529.6 563.9

Table 5
BCR and SRF for different densities and number of layers

Dr (%) 1 layer 2 layers 3 layers

BCR SRF BCR SRF BCR SRF

40 2.13 0.31 2.24 0.30 2.33 0.26

55 2.05 0.40 2.21 0.34 2.26 0.29
70 1.20 0.66 1.24 0.63 1.32 0.57

2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
BCR

1.8
1.6
1.4
1 layer
1.2 2 layers
3 layers
1.0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Relative density ( Dr,% )
Fig. 8. Variation of BCR with relative density ðm=B ¼ 0:4; Dz=B ¼ 0:4; b=B ¼ 5Þ:

respectively. The bearing capacity increases steadily from 132.4 to 426.6 kPa for the
unreinforced sand, and the bearing capacity increases from 282.0 to 511.9 kPa for the
single-layer tire-reinforced sand. It is evident that the percent increase in bearing
capacity is substantially greater for the unreinforced sand than for the tire-reinforced
sand.
In order to show more clearly the increase of bearing capacity and the decrease of
settlement by inclusion of tire mat, BCR and SRF are used in the following tables
and figures. From Fig. 8, it is clear that BCR is higher at lower density than at higher
density irrespective of the number of reinforced layers. There is a slight difference
between 40% and 55% relative densities. For single-layer reinforcement, the bearing
capacity increases about 113% (BCR=2.13) at relative density 40%, whereas there
is only 20% (BCR=1.2) increase at relative density of 70%. It indicates that the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
448 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

1 .0
1 layer
2 layers
0 .8 3 layers

SRF 0 .6

0 .4

0 .2

0 .0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Relative density (Dr, %)
Fig. 9. Variation of SRF with relative density ðm=B ¼ 0:4; Dz=B ¼ 0:4; b=B ¼ 5Þ:

reinforcement of well-compacted ground in order to increase the bearing capacity is

ineffective. Further increase of the reinforced layer increases BCR and decreases
settlements slightly. It shows that the efficiency decreases with the increase of the
layers.
Therefore, as in the case of commercial geosynthetics such as geogrid, geotextile
and geocell, benefits can also be obtained from the inclusion of tire mat for lower
densities. The inclusion of waste tire seems to increase the stiffness of sand
remarkably.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of SRF with different densities. For single-layer
reinforcement, settlement reduces 69% (SRF=0.31) at relative density 40%,
whereas there is 34% (SRF=0.66) reduction at 70% relative density. Reinforcement
of a layer reduces the settlement remarkably at loose soil than at dense soil. The
reinforcement of 2 or 3 layers increases bearing capacity and reduces settlement.
However, the rate of increase diminishes by adding the reinforcement of layers.
Therefore, it can be seen that a layer of tire mat reinforcement is enough to increase
bearing capacity or to reduce the settlement to a great extent.

4.3. Number of reinforced layers

Figs. 10–12 show the variation of the BCR and SRF of relative densities 40%,
55% and 70%, respectively, as the number of tire mat layers varies. The results are
listed in Table 5. There is a substantial increase in the bearing capacity coupled with
a substantial decrease in the settlement due to the simple addition of a layer of tire
mat. From those three figures, it can be observed that the increases in the bearing
capacity and decreases in the settlement due to additional layers of tire reinforcement
begin to converge at around the second layer and almost constant at the third layer
of reinforcement. The depth of the third layer corresponds to z=B=1.23. This result
does not differ much from the effective depth of z=B ¼ 1 observed by Gudio and
Christou (1985, 1988) and Omar et al.(1993) for geotextiles or geogrids.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 449

2.6 1.6
BCR
2.4 D r = 40 % SRF 1.4
2.2 1.2
BCR 2.0 1.0

SRF
1.8 0.8
1.6 0.6
1.4 0.4
1.2 0.2
1.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Number of reinforced layers, N
Fig. 10. Variation of BCR and SRF with the number of tire-reinforced layers (Dr =40%).

2.6 1.6
BCR
2.4 D r = 55 % SRF 1.4
2.2 1.2
2.0 1.0
BCR

SRF
1.8 0.8
1.6 0.6
1.4 0.4
1.2 0.2
1.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Number of reinforced layers, N
Fig. 11. Variation of BCR and SRF with the number of tire-reinforced layers (Dr =55%).

2.6 1.6
BCR
2.4 D r = 70% SRF 1.4
2.2 1.2
2.0 1.0
BCR

SRF

1.8 0.8
1.6 0.6
1.4 0.4
1.2 0.2
1.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Number of reinforced layers, N
Fig. 12. Variation of BCR and SRF with the number of tire-reinforced layers (Dr =70%).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
450 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

2.6 1.6
BCR
2.4 D r = 55 % SRF 1.4
2.2 1.2
2.0 1.0
BCR

SRF
1.8 0.8
1.6 0.6
1.4 0.4
1.2 0.2
1.0 0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Embedded depth of reinforcement (u/B)

Fig. 13. Variation of BCR and SRF with embedded depth of the first tire-reinforced layer.

Table 6
BCR and SRF with different embedded depths of reinforced layers

Dr (%) 0.2B 0.4B 0.8B

BCR SRF BCR SRF BCR SRF

55 2.21 0.34 2.05 0.29 1.06 0.91

4.4. Embedded depth of the first reinforced layer

Fig. 13 shows the variation of the BCR and SRF with the embedded depth to the
top of the first reinforced layer, u=B: As the depth of the reinforced layer of tire mat
decreases, BCR increases and the SRF decreases. It indicates that the bearing
capacity increases while the settlement decreases. Similar results in BCR were
observed by Gudio and Christou (1985, 1988) and Omar et al. (1993). At a value of
u=B of about 0.8, the tire-reinforced layers have no influence on the improvement of
bearing capacity. In addition, the settlements associated with this u=B of 0.8 are
essentially those of unreinforced sand. This implies that a high concentration of
tire reinforcement within this depth of sand sufficiently reinforces the sands to
produce higher bearing capacities and lower settlements. Therefore, when u=B is
large enough, the tire reinforcement does not interfere with the formation of the
failure planes, and, in turn, a shear failure of the sand occurs above the top of the
uppermost layer of tire reinforcement (Table 6).

4.5. Width size of tire mat

Different sizes of mats were made as shown in Fig. 1 in order to know the
maximum width ratio where width ratio is defined by the ratio of mat width (b) to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 451

2. 6 1.6
BCR
2. 4 D r = 55 % SRF 1.4
2. 2 1.2
BCR 2. 0 1.0

SRF
1. 8 0.8
1. 6 0.6
1. 4 0.4
1. 2 0.2
1.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mat width to loading width (b/B)

Fig. 14. Variation of BCR and SRF for different mat widths.

Table 7
BCR and SRF for different mat widths (Dr =55%)

4
4(b=B ¼ 5) 3
3(b=B=4) 2
2(b=B ¼3)

BCR SRF BCR SRF BCR SRF

2.05 0.29 2.00 0.33 1.83 0.37

width of load plate (B). Fig. 14 shows the variation of BCR and SRF with tire mat
width b=B: As b=B increases, the BCR increases and the SRF decreases, reaching a
maximum value of BCR and a minimum value of SRF at b=B value of
approximately 5.0. This result is different from b=B=2.5 of Gudio and Christou
(1988) in case of geocell but similar to b=BE6 of Fragaszy and Lawton (1984) in case
of reinforcing strips. This result indicates that a mat width 5.0 times larger than the
width of the footing can be ineffective (Table 7).

4.6. Type of tire mat

In order to evaluate the reinforcing effect by tire mat, different types of

combination of tire treads or sidewalls were made as previously shown in
Fig. 1.
Fig. 15 shows the results for different types of tire mats, and the results are listed in
Table 8. From the figure, it could be seen that the BCR increases with the order of
the tire mat by combination of treads and sidewalls, treads only, and sidewalls; SRF
decreases as the same order. Treads contain many coils inside whereas sidewalls do
not contain any coil. The treads or sidewalls combination can also improve the
bearing capacity as much as over 70%. The coils inside the tread increase the
stiffness of the material.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
452 Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453

Fig. 15. Variation of BCR and SRF for different mat types.

Table 8
BCR and SRF for different mat types (Dr =55%)

Tread+sidewall Tread only Sidewall only

BCR SRF BCR SRF BCR SRF

2.05 0.29 1.83 0.34 1.74 0.39

5. Conclusions

This study has discussed a series of laboratory model plate load tests on tire-
reinforced sand. Based on these tests, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The sand reinforced by waste tires had more than twice the bearing capacity of
loose sand. The improvement in bearing capacity due to the tires decreased with
increase of the density.
2. The settlement reduction due to tire reinforcement with combination of treads
and sidewalls was as much as about 70% for loose sand and 34% for dense sand.
3. The bearing capacity increased with a decrease of embedded depth, and the tire
mat should be reinforced within the depth of z=B ¼ 0:8 to improve bearing
capacity or to reduce settlements.
4. The size of tire mat should be at least five times the load plate widths for full
improvement of sands.
5. The combination of treads and sidewalls gave the greatest improvement in
bearing capacity.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Daelim Industrial Co. for the financial help with the testing
program. Thanks are extended to Mr. Young-il Cha, Sang-jun Lee and Deok-sung
Seo for their help.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y.W. Yoon et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (2004) 439–453 453

References

Blumenthal, M., 1998. Scrap tire market development: the impact of state programs. Resource Recycling
XVII (3), 15–19.
Dash, S.K., Foose Krishnaswamy, N.R., Rajagopal, K., 2001. Bearing capacities of strip footings
supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, 235–256.
DeMerchant, M.R., Valsangkar, A.J., Schriver, A.B., 2002. Plate load tests on geogrid-reinforced
expanded shale lightweight aggregate. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20, 173–190.
Foose, G.J., Benson, C.H., Boscher, P.J., 1996. Sand reinforced with shredded waste tire. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122, 760–767.
Fragaszy, R.J., Lawton, E., 1984. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 110 (10), 1500–1587.
Garga, V.K., O’Shaughnessy, V., 2000. Tire-reinforced earth fill. Part1: construction of a test fill,
performance and retaining wall design. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37, 75–96.
Gudio, V.A., Christou, S.N., 1988. Bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of Geoweb-reinforced
earth slabs. Proceedings of the ASCE 1988 Spring Meeting, Nashville, TN, pp. 21–36.
Gudio, V.A., Bisiadecki, G.L., Sullivan, M.J., 1985. Bearing capacity of a geotextile-reinforced
foundation. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 3, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1777–1780.
Humphrey, D.N., Katz, L.E., 2002. Water quality effects if using tire shreds below the ground water table,
Final Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Main, Orono, ME.
Humphrey, D.N., Manion, W.P., 1992. Properties of tire chips for light weight fill. Grouting, Soil
Improvement and Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 30, Vol. 2, ASCE, New York,
NY, pp. 1345–1355.
Ladd, R.S., 1978. Preparing test specimens using undercompaction. Geotechnical Testing Journal ASTM
1 (1), 16–23.
Moon, C.M., 2003, Environmental effect of waste tires as earth reinforcing material. Master Thesis, Inha
University (in Korean).
Nguyen, T.H., 1996. Utilization of used tyres in civil engineering—The Pneusol ‘Tyresoil’. Proceedings
of the Second International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
pp. 809–814.
Omar, M.T., Das, B.M., Yen, S.C., Puri, V.K., Cook, E.E., 1993. Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular
foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotechnical testing journal. ASTM 16 (2), 246–252.
O’Shaughnessy, V., Garga, V.K., 2000. Tire-reinforced earth fill. Part3: environmental assessment.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37, 117–131.