KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2011) 15(7):1209-1217 Geotechnical Engineering

DOI 10.1007/s12205-011-1307-5
www.springer.com/12205

Pullout Behavior of Cell-Type Tires in Reinforced Soil Structures

Keun Soo Kim*, Yeo Won Yoon**, and Gil Lim Yoon***
Received August 30, 2010/Accepted December 21, 2010

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

A series of field-scaled pullout tests were carried out to investigate the pullout behavior of cell-type tires in reinforced soil
structures. It is difficult to perform laboratory-scale pullout tests due to the size and geometry of the cell-type tires. Therefore it was
necessary to perform field tests. The purpose of the field tests carried out in this study was to investigate the effects of surcharge
height, effective anchorage length, tires connection materials, and the number of tires on the pullout behavior of cell-type tires. The
ultimate tensile strength of cell-type tires was determined for the design and construction of reinforced soil structures. For
comparison, pullout testing of the commercially available geocell was also conducted. The pullout resistance of cell-type tire
increased with increasing surcharge height, effective anchorage length, and the number of tires. The ultimate pullout resistance of
cell-type tires was approximately 1.25 times that of the geocell reinforcement. This difference was mainly due to the high-strength
steel wires inside the tires. The pullout resistance normalized by the number of tires and the surcharge height was 4 kN.
Keywords: pullout test, cell-type tire, geocell, pullout resistance, ultimate tensile strength
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
The annual generation of waste tires is rapidly increasing as
the vehicle industry is expanding. Therefore, the disposal of
waste tires has become a major worldwide environmental issue.
In advanced countries the numbers of waste tires generated in
2005 were approximately 300 million, 104 million, and 30 million,
for the United States, Japan and Canada respectively (RMA, 2009;
Kamokar et al., 2007; Eco-flex, 2009). In Korea, the number of
vehicles increased from 10 million in 1997 to 16 million in 2008
(MLTM, 2009), and the generation of waste tires during the
same period increased quickly from 17 million to 29 million
(KECO, 2009).
The Korean government legislated the ‘Act on the promotion
of saving and recycling of resources’ in December 1992, so that
recycling waste tires began to be possible. Accordingly, waste
tires are being utilized since then in various applications such as
retreaded tire, tire derived fuel (TDF), and rubber goods manu-
facturing. Retreaded tires are reused with used cars, and TDF is
available as an energy alternative to fossil fuel. However, TDF is
significantly undesirable because it is extremely dangerous to
human health and to the natural environment. Incineration of
tires emits toxic pollutants (dioxins, and furans), and a number of
other harmful chemicals known as carcinogen (PCBs, chlorine-
based pollutants, and non-chlorinated hydrocarbon pollutants) as
well as greenhouse gas. The recycling of tires into rubber goods
is steadily increasing, however its rate is much lower than that of
other recycling methods because of the recycling processes cost.
The use of waste tires in reinforced soil structures such as retain-
ing walls and slope stabilization does not pollute the environment
with greenhouse gas or various dangerous pollutants, and the
construction cost is lower than that of the conventional method.
In other words, it is an efficient and beneficial method compared
to other methods.
A new recycling method called the “cell-type tire” has been
proposed to utilize waste tires as a reinforcement material in
reinforced soil structures. To make a cell-type tire unit, both
sidewalls are removed from a tire as shown in Figs. 1(a) and (b).
A shallow, large-diameter cylinder-type tire is folded to assemble
into a small two-cell unit forming an Arabic number 8 as shown
in Fig. 1(c). Several cell-type tire units can be combined to
complete a cell-type tire.
For the design and construction of cell-type tire-reinforced soil
structures, it is necessary to understand the pullout behavior of cell-
type tires and to estimate their ultimate tensile strength. Laboratory-
scale pullout testing is not possible because of the geometry and
size of cell-type tires; hence, all pullout tests were conducted in the
field. The factors that influence the ultimate pullout resistance of
cell-type tires are the surcharge height, effective anchorage
length, connection materials, and the number of tires.

*Graduate School, Inha University, Incheon 402-751, Korea (E-mail: modujoada@hanmail.net)

**Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 402-751, Korea (E-mail: yoonyw@inha.ac.kr)
***Member, Senior Researcher, Coastal Harbor Engineering Lab., Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute, Ansan 425-744, Korea (Corresponding
Author, E-mail: glyoon@kordi.re.kr)

− 1209 −
 Keun Soo Kim, Yeo Won Yoon, and Gil Lim Yoon
Fig. 1. Cell-Type Tire Unit Formation (Yoon et al., 2008): (a) Proto-
type or Whole Tire, (b) Removed Sidewall, (c) Tirecell Unit
2. Waste Tires as Soil Reinforcement Material
The main issue that should not be overlooked is that the waste
tire reinforcement materials should not affect humans and the
environment. They have to sustain high tensile forces and pro-
perly withstand the most important internal or external effects
(physical-chemical aging, creep, UV radiation, pH, and sea water),
and damage that may occur during the construction phase as well
as during the structure expected life.
In this respect, the environmental assessment of toxic com-
pounds emitted from waste tires used as construction materials,
has been performed by several researchers in the last decade.
Humphrey and Katz (2000) and Humphrey and Katz (2001)
monitored effluents, and the results indicated that toxic com-
pounds had no significant adverse effects on ground water
quality above or below the water table over a period of 5 years.
O’Shaughnessy and Garga (2000b) and Yoon et al. (2004b)
obtained results showing that waste tires are harmless, because
steel wires which may provide adverse effect to water quality or
soil are covered by vulcanized rubber or polymer material.
Usually, tires are strongly reinforced with synthetic fibers, textile
cords, high-strength steel, and reinforcing beads. In addition to
very high tensile strength, tires have high frictional resistance
(Yoon et al., 2007). Tires are not susceptible to corrosion, and the
deterioration of tires is negligible in the pH range from 4 to 5,
which are the usual acidic groundwater conditions (O’Shaughnessy
and Garga, 2000b). Though tires are susceptible to fire and UV
radiation, tires embedded in soil will not present such problems.
Therefore, tires are desirable and attractive as soil reinforcement
materials in addition to their original purpose.
Waste tires have already been used as soil reinforcement
materials to recycle resources and to minimize environmental
effect in the United States, Canada, England, France, Japan,
Australia, and Brazil (Forsyth and Egan, 1976; Hausmann, 1990;
Garga and O’Shaughnessy, 2000; Ecoflex, 2009). In Australia,
waste tires are utilized in various civil engineering structures,
such as retaining walls, roads, and embankment stabilization.
The utilization ways are accredited under ISO 14001, the inter-
national standard concerning environmental management sys-
tems, and are also certified by the Australian ecolabel program.
The usefulness of waste tires in civil engineering structures has
− 1210 −
been proven by over 500 construction projects.
A large number of plate load tests were performed in a test
chamber filled with sand for both plain tread-mat (Yoon et al.,
2004a) and 3-dimensional cell-type tire (Yoon et al., 2008) to
study reinforcement effects on the bearing capacity and settlement.
Yoon et al. (2004a) and Yoon et al. (2008) confirmed that soil
improvement using tread-mat and cell-type tire is better than that
achieved with commercial reinforcement materials, i.e., geogrid
and geocell, respectively. The predominant effects may be due to
the high-strength steel wires included in tires. In addition to the
mechanism of soil reinforcement, the shapes of tread-mat and
cell-type tire are respectively similar to geogrid and geocell.
Therefore, tread-mat and cell-type tire can be utilized in the same
applications as geogrid and geocell for reinforced soil structures.
3. Field Pullout Tests
3.1 Pullout Test Apparatus
A schematic diagram and a list of the principal components of
the pullout test apparatus are presented in Fig. 2 and Table 1,
respectively. The pullout forces are transmitted from a hydraulic
cylinder ( ① ) to the crossbeams (② -II, III), strands ( ③ ), and
reinforcement materials embedded in the test embankment. To
ensure an equal transfer of pullout force to each frontal cell-type
tire unit, the measuring system, comprising two load cells ( ④ )
Fig. 2. Schematic of Pullout Test Apparatus
Table 1. Principal Components of Pullout Test Apparatus (in Fig.
2)
No. Remarks
① Hydraulic Cylinder (Cap.: 1370 kN, Stroke: 200 mm)
② Crossbeam (H beam: 300×300×12×10)
③ Strand (Cap.: 78 kN/ea.)
Load Cell (Cap.: 196 kN, Standard Error: 0.098 kN)
④
LVDT (Sens.: 0.01 mm, Stroke: 200 mm)
⑤
⑥ Reaction Pile (H beam: 300×300×12×10)
⑦ Channel
⑧ Supplementary Beam (H beam: 300×300×12×10)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Pullout Behavior of Cell-Type Tires in Reinforced Soil Structures

and two LVDTs ( ⑤ ), was installed on both sides between the

crossbeams (② -II, III). To resist the pullout force, reaction piles
(⑥) of 10 m length were driven to a depth of 8.5 m, and channels
(⑦) were used to distribute the pullout force to the reaction piles.
Supplementary beams ( ⑧ ) were set to adjust the height of the
pullout test apparatus to the level of the reinforcement materials
and to transfer the pullout force horizontally. Rigid rods (10 mm
dia., 300 mm length) were added to reduce the friction between
the crossbeams and the supplementary beams.
A plan view of cell-type tires embedded in the test embank-
ment is shown in Fig. 3. Each frontal tire was connected to the
pullout crossbeam III by strands. To measure rear displacement,
two wires of 3 mm diameter covered with polyurethane were
attached to the first and second rows of cell-type tires as shown
in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4. Embedded Location of Cell-Type Tires to Resist Pullout
Force: (a) Full Effective Anchorage Length, (b) Half Effec-
3.2 Experimental Program tive Anchorage Length
It is known that the pullout resistance of cell-type tires is in-
fluenced by surcharge height, effective anchorage length, the Table 3. Specifications of Geocell (Presto Co.)
connection materials, and the number of tires. Therefore, field- Weight Dimension (mm)
Material
scaled pullout tests with various test conditions given in Table 2 (g/m2) Width Length Height Thickness
were carried out to determine the pullout characteristics of cell- HDPE 1430 160 160 20 1.25±0.64
type tires and to investigate factors influencing ultimate pullout
resistance. In Table 2, the notations regarding cell-type tires indi-
cate ‘the number of tires perpendicular to the pullout direction forcement resist pullout force. The symbol (F) indicates that the
(or row direction)×the number of tires parallel to the pullout direc- effective anchorage length is the same as the total length of
tion (or column direction)’. For example, “2×7 cell-type tire” in reinforcement because the cell-type tires are fully embedded in
Fig. 3 means cell-type tire arranged in 2 rows and 7 columns, the embankment. The symbol (H) indicates that the effective
comprising a total of 14 cell-type tire units. anchorage length is half as long as the total length, so that one
Figure 4 describes the effective anchorage length to of the rein- half of the cell-type tires are embedded in the embankment and
the other half are embedded in the slope.
Cell-type tires were mostly connected by high-strength bolts at
the points of contact between cell-type tire units. However 2×7
(R) cell-type tire was made by connecting cell-type tire units
with polypropylene rope of 10 mm diameter. The commercial
geocell made by Presto company was also tested for comparison,
and its specifications are given in Table 3.

3.3 Construction of Test Embankment

The soil used in the test embankment is a weathered soil classi-
fied as SM by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS),
and the index properties are given in Table 4. The frictional
parameters between the soil and tire tread are provided in Table
Fig. 3. Plan View of Cell-Type Tires Embedded in Embankment 5. From the table, it can be seen that the interface frictional
Table 2. Field Pullout Testing Program for Cell-Type Tires
Reinforcement Reinforcement Effective Anchorage Surcharge Height
Connection Method
Type Configuration Length (m) (m)
1×1 0.8 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.2 -
1×7 0.8 1.5 Bolt
Cell-Type Tire
2×7 0.8, 1.6 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.2 Bolt or Rope
4×7 3.2 1.5 Bolt
Geocell 1.6 m×1.6 m 1.6 1.5 Molten Bond
Note : 2×7 (R) is cell-type tire connected by rope.

Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011 − 1211 −

 Keun Soo Kim, Yeo Won Yoon, and Gil Lim Yoon

Table 4. Index Properties of Backfill Material

Water D10 D30 D60 γ d max OMC
Gs Cu Cg USCS
Content (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m3) (%)
11.7~12.3 2.71 0.02 0.08 0.25 12.5 1.28 SM 18.42 10.66

Table 5. Frictional Parameters between Soil and Tire Tread step, 4.9 kN, obtained by dividing the expected maximum force
by 30~40 steps. The strain is defined as the ratio of the frontal
Strength Parameter
Condition of Test displacement to the total reinforcement length. The test was
(R.C: 90%) Friction Angle Cohesion
Rϕ1) Rc2) stopped when the strain reached 20%, except for the case when a
(°) (kPa)
Soil-Soil ϕ=34.7 - c=39.7 -
definite peak value occurs before the 20% strain value is attained.
When a clear peak value is observed, it becomes the ultimate
Soil-Outside of Tread δout=33.9 0.97 ca-out=13.2 0.33
pullout resistance. Otherwise, the ultimate pullout resistance is
Soil-Inside of Tread δin=31.9 0.90 ca-in=18.4 0.46
the pullout force when the strain reaches 20%.
Note : 1) Rϕ = reduction factor on friction = tanδ/tanϕ
Note : 2) Rc = reduction factor on cohesion = ca/c
The failure of the soil mass that occurred in this test is shown
in Fig. 5(b). As reported by FHWA (2001) reinforcement
materials can fail in two different ways. The first failure mode is
characteristics between soil and tire treads are excellent. the failure by pullout. This will happen when the tensile force in
The test embankment was built by conventional construction the reinforcements is larger than the pullout resistance, that is,
techniques. The reinforcement materials used in the test were the force required to pull the reinforcements out of the soil mass.
placed on a compacted soil bed 0.6 m high and were spaced at However, if the tensile force in the reinforcements becomes
distance twice their width, and thereafter, the surcharge was greater than the tensile strength of the reinforcements, they will
placed. Every layer 300 mm thick was compacted to 90% RC excessively elongate or break. The second mode is called failure
using a 98 kN vibrating roller. by elongation or breakage of the reinforcements. Consequently,
failure by both modes leads to large movements and possible
3.4 Pullout Test collapse of the structure.
Figure 5(a) shows a photograph of the pullout test apparatus. This study investigates the failure mode and pullout behavior
The frontal and rear displacements measured at every loading of cell-type tires by observation and measurement. One method

Fig. 5. Performance of Field Pullout Test: (a) Full-Scale Test Fig. 6. Deformed Shape of Cell-Type Tires after Pullout Test: (a)
Setup, (b) Tension Crack 2×7 Cell-Type Tire, (b) 2×7 (R) Cell-Type Tire

− 1212 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Pullout Behavior of Cell-Type Tires in Reinforced Soil Structures

Table 6. Pullout Test Results for Cell-Type Tires

La H σn Fpo(ult) dfront εfront Failure
Type Notation
(m) (m) (kPa) (kN) (m) (%) Mode
0.5 9.12 30.42 0.160 20.0 Pullout
Cell-Type 1.5 27.36 63.77 0.163 20.4 Pullout
1×1 0.8
Tire Unit 2.5 45.60 88.29 0.168 21.0 Pullout
3.2 58.37 98.10 0.166 20.8 Pullout
0.5 9.12 77.50 0.084 5.2 Pullout
1.5 27.36 117.72 0.177 11.1 Pullout
2×7 (F)1) 1.6
2.5 45.60 188.72 0.235 14.7 Pullout
Cell-Type 3.2 58.37 251.36 0.233 20.0 Elongation
Tire 2×7 (H)1) 0.8 1.5 27.36 63.77 0.152 9.5 Pullout
1×7 0.8 1.5 27.36 68.47 0.105 13.1 Pullout
4×7 3.2 1.5 27.36 206.01 0.292 9.1 Pullout
2×7 (R)2) 1.6 1.5 27.36 88.29 0.133 8.3 P & E3)
Geocell 1.6 1.5 27.36 93.20 0.147 9.2 Breaking
Note : 1) 2×7 (F) and 2×7 (H) refer to Fig. 4.
Note : 2) 2×7 (R) is cell-type tire connected by rope.
Note : 3) P & E = combination failure by pullout and excessive elongation.

is to observe the deformed shape of cell-type tires after the tests,

and the other method is to measure the rear displacement and
elongation as well as the frontal displacement. Figs. 6(a) and 6(b)
show respectively deformed shapes of cell-type tires connected
by bolts and those connected by ropes at failure. A summary of
failure modes of cell-type tires is given in Table 6.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Ultimate Pullout Resistance

Table 6 shows the results of the pullout tests of cell-type tires
in terms of the ultimate pullout resistance, Fpo(ult), the frontal
displacement at the ultimate pullout resistance, dfront, strain of
frontal displacement that is the ratio of frontal displacement to
total length of reinforcement, εfront, and the failure modes of the
reinforcement. The frontal displacement was measured by
LVDT attached to the crossbeam II (Fig. 2).
Increasing the surcharge height, H, and the effective anchorage
length, La, increases the pullout resistances and the correspon-
ding frontal displacement for the ultimate pullout resistance. The
ultimate pullout resistance and the pullout behavior seem to
depend on the stiffness of the connection materials such as bolts
and rope.
The normalized pullout resistance behavior with respect to the
number of tires and surcharge height is shown in Fig. 7 together
with the results of tests reported by O’Shaughnessy and Garga
(2000a) and Gerscovich et al. (2001). All normalized pullout
resistance behavior can be represented by a respective single
curve, and the values converge to a constant value as the number
of tires increases. Hence, Gerscovich et al. (2001) proposed a
minimum pullout resistance of 4 kN per tire per surcharge height
for engineering purposes.
The test setups of some previous studies are described in Table
Fig. 7. Normalized Behavior of Pullout Resistance with the Num-
ber of Tires and Surcharge Height
7 in detail. The test setups of O’Shaughnessy and Garga (2000a)
and Gerscovich et al. (2001) were similar to each other.
O’Shaughnessy and Garga (2000a) and Gerscovich et al. (2001)
compacted mechanically the embankment and the inside of the
tires with equipment. However, the surcharge and slope in front
of the first row of tire mats was kept in a loose state to reduce the
passive resistance of the soil. Also, the surcharge and the
embankment were newly constructed each time.
In this study, due to cost and time constraints, cell-type tires
with the same surcharge height were simultaneously installed in
the embankment, and all parts of the embankment were compact-
ed with a 98 kN vibrating roller. Therefore, the passive or friction
resistance in the soil around cell-type tires could be developed.
When the number of tires tested was less than 10 tires, the
results obtained in this study were considerably higher than those
of the other studies. However, the difference was insignificant at
more than 10 tires because the effect of the passive resistance
that develops in front of the first row of tire mats decreases as the
number of tires increases.

Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011 − 1213 −

 Keun Soo Kim, Yeo Won Yoon, and Gil Lim Yoon

Density of Slope of
Surcharge Load
Type of Tire Used
Connecting Material of Tire
Soil
Range of Surcharge Height
0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.2
(m)
Table 7. Test Setup Configurations for Pullout of Tire Mats in Other Studies
O’Shaughnessy
Present Work Gerscovich et al. (2001)
and Garga (2000a)
Compaction in dense state for simul-
Keep in a loose state to reduce pas- Keep in a loose state to reduce pas-
taneous installation of reinforce-
sive resistance of the soil sive resistance of the soil
ments in the test embankment
Whole tire (Fig. 1(a)) and Whole tire (Fig. 1(a)) and
Cell-type tire
cut tire with one sidewall removed cut tire with one sidewall removed
High-strength bolt and polypropy-
Polypropylene rope (d = 9.5 mm) Polypropylene rope (d = 6 mm)
lene rope (d = 10 mm)
Sand (SP) and cohesive soil (MH
Weathered soil (SM) Sand (SP)
and CH)
0.5, 1.0 0.5, 1.5, 2.5

O’Shaughnessy and Garga (2000a) and Gerscovich et al.

(2001) reported that the strain of a tire mat is associated with the
type of tire used (i.e. whole tire or cut tire), which influences the
soil compaction quality. This is because it is not as easy to com-
pletely compact the soil inside whole tires as is when using cut
tires. Also, cut tires have a larger soil volume inside the tire
cylinder than cell-type tires, so they show greater settlement. If
the inside of tires is sufficiently filled with backfill material, the
stiffness of the tire-reinforced soil increases gradually. The more
its stiffness increases, the less strain develops on the tire mats.
Other test factors, such as the surcharge height and the connect-
ing materials of the tires, can also influence the test results. These
influences are discussed in the following section.

4.2 Factors Influencing Ultimate Pullout Resistance

4.2.1 Surcharge Height

Figure 8(a) shows the pullout behavior of cell-type tire units
with various surcharge heights. As shown in this figure, the
pullout resistance increases as surcharge height increases until a
certain level beyond which it steadily converges to some value.
The trend of variation of the pullout resistance with effective
vertical stress is shown in Fig. 8(b). As seen in this figure, the
pullout resistance increases proportionally until the surcharge
height value of 2.5 m (σ v = 45.6 kPa) and converges at higher Fig. 8. Pullout Resistance (kN) of Cell-Type Tire Units for Various
surcharge heights. Surcharge Heights: (a) Pullout Resistance versus Frontal
Displacement, (b) Pullout Resistance versus Effective Verti-
4.2.2 Effective Anchorage Length cal Stress
Figure 9 shows the curves of pullout resistance per unit width
versus frontal displacement for various cell-type tires with various However, the effective anchorage length of 2×7 (H) is the same
configurations at the same surcharge height (H = 1.5 m). Every as that of 1×7, so that the ultimate pullout resistance of 2×7 (H),
pullout resistance behavior of cell-type tires has a peak value. 39.9 kN/m, is rather similar to that of 1×7, 42.8 kN/m. Conse-
This peak value is defined as the ultimate pullout resistance. quently, the factor influencing ultimate pullout resistance is not
The ultimate pullout resistances for 1×7, 2×7 (F) and 4×7 cell- the total length embedded in the soil but the effective anchorage
type tires were respectively obtained as 42.8 kN/m, 73.6 kN/m length behind the potential failure surface which actually resists
and 128.8 kN/m, with corresponding effective anchorage lengths the pullout force. The effective vertical stress under the slope is
of 0.8 m, 1.6 m and 3.2 m respectively. The ultimate pullout negligible because half of 2×7 (H) embedded in the slope does
resistance increases as the effective anchorage length increases. not contribute to the ultimate pullout resistance.
The total length of 2×7 (H) is the same as that of 2×7 (F).

− 1214 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Pullout Behavior of Cell-Type Tires in Reinforced Soil Structures
Fig. 9. Pullout Resistance (kN/m) of Cell-Type Tires with Various
Configurations
4.2.3 Connecting Means
A 2×7 (R) cell-type tire was made by connecting cell-type tire
units with rope. The ultimate pullout resistance of 2×7 (F) connect-
ed by bolts is 1.25 times larger than that of 2×7 (R). Yoon et al.
(2007) also obtained similar results from tensile tests for connec-
tion joints of cell-type tire units (connected by bolt or rope) using
a universal testing machine. Therefore, the stiffness and strength
of connection materials should be considered an important factor
in utilizing waste tires in reinforced soil structures.
4.2.4 Pullout Behavior at Measuring Points
On applying the pullout force, the pullout apparatus shown in
Fig. 2 is moved as a unit. Frontal displacement indicates the
displacement of crossbeam II measured with LVDT, and rear
displacement means the displacement at the end points of the
first and second rows of cell-type tires measured with wires (Fig.
3). The deformation of 2×7 (F) and 2×7 (R) cell-type tires after
the test is respectively shown in Figs. 10 and 11, and each failure
mode of cell-type tires is given in Table 6.
Long (1993), O’Shaughnessy and Garga (2000a), and Gerscovich
et al. (2001) reported that progressive failure was clearly observed
in the tire mats. Usually, on applying the pullout force, the first
row of the tire mats is extended in the direction of the pullout
force. The first row is fully mobilized, and then the force is
transmitted to the next row. Finally, the last row is elongated after
full mobilization of the previous row. After failure of the last
row, the entire tire mat begins to slide along the bottom interface
of the tire mat and to carry the soil mass above it as shown in Fig.
5(b).
This progressive failure also developed in every cell-type tire
of this study; however, connection materials have a slight influ-
ence on the failure. The behavior of 2×7 (F) was generally observed
in other cell-type tires (Fig. 10). At application of the pullout
force, the displacement is observed at only the frontal row of the
cell-type tires. The pullout force is increasingly transferred from
the first row to the next row. Thereafter, middle displacement is
gradually observed and the last displacement is also observed
before or after the peak value. In other words, cell-type tires only
extend before the last displacement. When the pullout force is
greater than the pullout resistance of cell-type tires, cell-type tires
Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011 − 1215 −
Fig. 10. Typical Pullout Behavior of 2×7 (F) Cell-Type Tire at Mea-
suring Points
slide along their lower surface, and the peak value gradually de-
creases. Because of this pullout behavior, pullout failure develops
in most cell-type tires. In 2×7 cell-type tire with a 3.2 m high
surcharge, excessive elongation failure occurred without pullout
failure because the pullout resistance was greater than the pullout
force.
In the field-scale pullout tests carried out by Long (1993),
O’Shaughnessy and Garga (2000a), and Gerscovich et al. (2001),
in addition to the progressive failure of the subsequent rows, it
was observed that the rope knots connecting adjacent tires were
tightened with the pullout force application. It results in the un-
foreseen displacements that range between 0.02 m to 0.04 m.
Also, The tire elements connected with the rope were elongated
in the direction of the pullout force due to transforming from a
circular shape to a pronounced oval form.
As shown in Fig. 6(b), the tightening of rope knots and the
deformation of tires were also observed in 2×7 (R). The middle
parts of 2×7 (R) were usually deformed from an Arabic number
8 shape to a diamond shape. Fig. 11 shows the pullout behavior
of 2×7 (R), which developed more excessive extension than 2×7
(F). Therefore, the middle and last displacement of 2×7 (R) was
observed near the considerable strain of about 20%. This
indicates that excessive elongation failure and pullout failure
developed at almost the same time.
FHWA (2001) classified reinforcement extensibility into two
classes. Inextensible reinforcement and extensible reinforce-
Fig. 11. Pullout Behavior of 2×7 (R) Cell-Type Tire at Measuring
Points
 Keun Soo Kim, Yeo Won Yoon, and Gil Lim Yoon
ment refer to deformation of the reinforcement at failure which is
much less than or greater than the deformability of the soil. BS
8006 (1995) also classified inextensible or extensible reinforce-
ment based on the axial strain to which the design load is
subjected. Axial strain of inextensible reinforcement is less than
1%, whereas it is more than 1% for extensible reinforcement.
Therefore steel reinforcement is included in inextensible rein-
forcement materials, while extensible reinforcement include not
only geosynthetic material but also reinforcement materials
made from tires.
4.2.5 Evaluation Method of the Shear Stress
In evaluation of the interface shear stress of extensible rein-
forcement materials from the pullout test, using the total area of
reinforcement can underestimate the practical shear stress that
develops. Ochiai et al. (1996) discussed methods evaluating the
pullout resistance in terms of shear stress. The shape of tensile
force distribution curves along the geogrid depends on the pulling
force and the vertical stress. Based on this pullout mechanism,
the methods to evaluate pullout resistance are classified into two
types. In the first type, all of the mobilizing processes of the
pullout resistance at any pulling force are used for evaluation.
This is called the mobilizing process method. In the second type,
the distribution curve at the maximum value of the pulling force
is taken into consideration, and the average values are used for
evaluation. This is called the average resistance method.
The average resistance method is classified again into three
methods based on the determination of the average values. The
first one is a total area method, in which the pulling force at the
front and over the whole area of the geogrid in the pullout box is
taken into consideration for the resistance evaluation. The second
is an effective area method which is defined by the effective
force with the related area for evaluating the pullout resistance.
To determine the effective length, the displacement of each grid
junction in the soil has to be measured as well as the pulling
force at the front of the geogrid. The third is a maximum slope
method using the slope of the tangent at the point of maximum
tangent of the slope on the distribution curve.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of the pullout resistance stress with
frontal displacement for cell-type tires. In this figure, pullout
Fig. 12. Comparison of Pullout Resistance Stress (kPa) for Cell-
Type Tires
− 1216 −
resistance stress is calculated as the pullout resistance divided by
the effective area, where the effective area is calculated as the
unit width multiplied by the effective length. Note that the
effective area agrees well with the total area when the entire
reinforcement is completely pulled out. Therefore, the pullout
resistance stresses for 1×7, 2×7 (F), and 4×7 were respectively
26.75 kPa, 22.99 kPa, and 20.12 kPa corresponding to effective
areas of 2.56 m2, 5.12 m2, and 10.24 m2. Therefore, the pullout
resistance stresses of 2×7 (F) and 4×7 were respectively 14.0%
and 24.7% lower than that of 1×7. As the shear area increases,
pullout resistance stress converged to some value. The pullout
resistance stress of 2×7 (H) with an effective area of 2.56 m2 was
24.94 kPa.
4.3 Cell-Type Tire and Geocell
In order to demonstrate the suitability of the cell-type tires for
reinforced soil structures, it is necessary to compare the perfor-
mance of cell-type tires with commercial reinforcement materials.
In this study, geocell was adopted for comparison because of the
similarities between geocell and cell-type tire both in shape and
failure mechanism. As shown in Fig. 13, the pullout resistances
of 2×7 (F), 2×7 (R), and geocell were respectively 73.6 kN/m,
55.2 kN/m, and 58.3 kN/m. The pullout resistance of 2×7 (F) is
approximately 1.26 times that of geocell. Therefore, cell-type
tires can be used in place of geocell in reinforced soil structures.
After testing, it was seen that geocell was broken at the frontal
parts connected with pullout strands. In this study, cell-type tires
showed failure by pullout, elongation, or a combination of both,
while geocell showed failure by breaking.
4.4 Ultimate Tensile Strength of Cell-Type Tire
The ultimate tensile strength of cell-type tires was conserva-
tively determined since the design and construction of cell-type
tire-reinforced soil structures was tried for the first time with this
type, i.e. small cell type tires without both sidewalls. FHWA
(2001) recommended that the minimum anchorage length for
pullout resistance should be more than 1.0 m. Cell-type tires are
an appropriate material for use in reinforced soil structures of 3
m to 5 m in height. High-strength bolts are recommended as a
connecting material for cell-type tire units due to their simplicity
and efficiency. Therefore, this study proposed the ultimate tensile
Fig. 13. Comparison of Cell-Type Tire and Geocell
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Pullout Behavior of Cell-Type Tires in Reinforced Soil Structures
strength of 73.6 kN/m, which corresponds to the ultimate pullout
resistance of 2×7 (F) cell-type tire under a surcharge height of
1.5 m with an effective anchorage length of 1.6 m. Because 4×7
gives too high values of pullout resistance as shown in Fig. 9,
and 1×7 has a shorter length than the minimum anchorage length
of 1.0 m.
5. Conclusions
A series of field-scaled pullout tests were carried out to investi-
gate the pullout characteristics and to determine the ultimate
tensile strength of cell-type tires in reinforced soil structures. The
ultimate pullout resistance of cell-type tires increased with the
increase of surcharge height, effective anchorage length, and the
number of tires. However, as the effective anchorage length
increased the pullout resistance stress with the effective area
decreased. The ultimate pullout resistance of 2×7 (F) cell-type
tire was about 1.25 times larger than those of 2×7 (R) cell-type
tire and geocell. This was mainly due to the high-strength bolts
and the high-strength steel wires inside the tires, respectively.
The pullout resistance normalized by the number of tires and the
surcharge height was 4 kN, in agreement with other research
results. From most test results for cell-type tires, the failure mode
of pullout was observed. The ultimate tensile strength of 73.6
kN/m is conservatively suggested for cell-type tire-reinforced
soil structures, and that corresponds to the ultimate pullout
resistance of 2×7 (F) cell-type tire under a surcharge height of
1.5 m with an anchorage length of 1.6 m.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to INHA University for financial sup-
port. Thanks are extended to INHA University graduate students
Mr. Sung Soo Cho and Mr. Seung Won Lee for their assistance.
References
BS 8006 (1995). Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and
other fills, British Standard Institute, U.K.
Eco-flex (2009). http://www.eco-flex.com
Ecoflex (2009). http://www.ecoflex.com.au
FHWA (2001). Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil
slopes design & construction guidelines, Elias, V., Christopher, B.
R., and Berg, R. R., Publication No. 1, FHWA-NHI-00-043, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
Forsyth, R. A. and Egan, J. P. (1976). “Use of waste materials in em-
bankment construction.” Transportation Research Record No. 593,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Garga, V. K. and O'Shaughnessy, V. (2000). “Tire-reinforced earthfill.
Part 1: Construction of a test fill, performance and retaining wall
Vol. 15, No. 7 / September 2011 − 1217 −
design.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 75-96.
Gerscovich, D. M. S., Medeiros, L. V., and Sayao, A. S. F. J. (2001).
“Field pullout test of scrap tire reinforcement layers under different
soil surcharges.” Proceeding of the 15th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, Vol. 2,
pp. 1587-1590.
Hausmann, M. R. (1990). “Slope remediation, in stability and perfor-
mance of slopes and embankments.” Proceedings of Specialty
Conference, ASCE, Berkeley, California, Edited by R. B., Seed and
R. W. Boulanger, Geotechnical Special Publication Vol. 31, No. 2,
pp. 1274-1317.
Humphrey, D. N. and Katz, L. E. (2000). “Five-year field study of water
quality effects of tire shreds placed above the water table.” Trans-
portation Research Record No.1714, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Humphrey, D. N. and Katz, L. E. (2001). “Field study of water quality
effects of tire shreds placed below the water table.” Proceedings of
the Conference on Beneficial Use of Recycled Materials in Trans-
portation Applications, Air and waste Management Association, pp.
1-10.
Karmokar, A. K., Takeichi, H., Kawaida, M., and Yasuhara, K. (2007).
“Evaluation of load bearing capacity of shredded scrap tire geo-
materials.” International Workshop on Scrap Tire Derived Geoma-
terials, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Yokosuka, Japan, pp. 132.
KECO (2009). http://www.keco.or.kr
Long, N. T. (1993). Le pneusol, recherche-realisations-perspectives,
These de Doctorat, Institut National des Science Appliquees de
Lyon, Lyon, France.
MLTM (2009). http://www.mltm.go.kr
Ochiai, H., Otani, J., Hayashic, S., and Hirai, T. (1996). “The pull-out
resistance of geogrids in reinforced soil.” Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 19-42.
O'Shaughnessy, V. and Garga V. K. (2000a). “Tire-reinforced earthfill.
Part 2: Pull-out behaviour and reinforced slope design.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 97-116.
O'Shaughnessy, V. and Garga V. K. (2000b). “Tire-reinforced earthfill.
Part 3: Environmental assessment.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 117-131.
RMA (2009). Scrap tire markets in the united states-9th biennial report,
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Yoon, Y. W., Cheon, S. H., and Kang, D. S. (2004a). “Bearing capacity
and settlement of tire-reinforced sands.” Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 439-453.
Yoon, Y. W., Cho, S. S., and Kim, K. S. (2007). “Engineering properties
of tire treads for soil reinforcement.” Journal of the Korean Geo-
Environmental Society, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 49-55. (in Korean)
Yoon, Y. W., Heo, S. B., and Kim, K. S. (2008). “Geotechnical per-
formance of waste tires for soil reinforcement from chamber tests.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 100-107.
Yoon, Y. W., Moon, C. M., and Kim, G. H. (2004b). “Utilization of
waste tires as soil reinforcement; (2)Environmental effects.” Journal
of the Korean Geotechnical Society, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 119-128. (in
Korean)