Journal Pre-proof

Geotechnical behaviour of clay soil mixed with rubber waste

Davood Akbarimehr, Abolfazl Eslami, Esmail Aflaki

PII: S0959-6526(20)32679-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122632
Reference: JCLP 122632

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 7 October 2019

Revised Date: 2 February 2020
Accepted Date: 2 June 2020

Please cite this article as: Akbarimehr D, Eslami A, Aflaki E, Geotechnical behaviour of clay soil mixed
with rubber waste, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122632.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Geotechnical behaviour of clay soil mixed with rubber waste

Davood Akbarimehr1, Abolfazl Eslami2, Esmail Aflaki3*

1. PhD in geotechnical engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, AUT, 424 Hafez Ave,
Tehran,15875-4411, Iran
Email: akbarimehr@aut.ac.ir
2. professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir
University of Technology, AUT, 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran,15875-4411, Iran
Email: afslami@aut.ac.ir
3. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, AUT, 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran,15875-
4411, Iran
(Corresponding author)
Email: eaflaki@aut.ac.ir
Tel: +982164543025
 1

Geotechnical behaviour of clay soil mixed with rubber waste 2

Abstract 3

In recent years, many engineering researchers have used waste rubbers for the purpose of soil improvement 4
because of its geotechnical and environmental benefits. Rubber wastes extracted from tire waste and can exist in 5
various forms. Three different forms of rubber including granular, fiber and chips were used in this study for 6
evaluating the shear strength of the clay soil mixed with rubber wastes. Different tests including compaction, 7
uniaxial, direct shear, and triaxial tests were employed for evaluating the geotechnical parameters of the mix, as 8
well as microstructural studies by optical microscopy and binocular examination, for a better understanding of the 9
underlying mechanisms. Rubber content, size, and form were the parameters investigated in this study. The results 10
are suggestive of the increase in the strength and shear strain of the mixture by increasing the rubber size. 11
According to the results, the strength of the mixture containing crumb rubber increased by 10-25% as compared to 12
the mixture containing rubber powder under various confined stresses. Further, it was found that rubber fibers 13
offered a higher strength than the other forms of rubber. The limited drop in the strength after the peak is also 14
significant regarding the soil–rubber waste mixture. The separate study of strength under optimum moisture 15
content and saturation conditions shows that this parameter demonstrates different behaviors under each of the 16
conditions. The volume changes of the soil mix specimens are suggestive of a contraction in the mix. Given the 17
reduced maximum dry density of the mix specimens and the favorable shear strength of the mix, using the waste 18
rubber for various geotechnical engineering applications, such as filler material, is recommended. 19

Keywords: Geotechnical properties, Shear strength, clay, rubber form, rubber size. 20

1.1 Introduction 21

Massive volumes of wastes are generated around the world annually at an increasing rate. Over 1,000,000,000 22
tires are scrapped every year (Thomas, et al., 2014). Tire waste often result in environmental pollution and 23
degradation. Treatment methods are commonly practiced in several countries despite some national limitations. 24
These wastes are managed in various ways, including burning, burying in landfills, or reusing. Reusing wastes is 25
considerably helpful in preserving the environment. Moreover, adding rubber to the soil can be effective in the 26
mechanical properties of fine and coarse-grained soils (Yadav and Tiwari, 2016a; Akbarimehr and Aflaki, 2018; 27
Akbarimehr and Aflaki 2019a, Saberian et al, 2018; Chenari et al., 2019). There are various methods for 1
improving soil and sediments on land and in the see that should be chosen in accordance with the requirements of 2
each project (Akbarimehr and Aflaki, 2019b; Eslami et al. 2019). Given its light weight and appropriate strength 3
along with environmental considerations, waste tire has always been attractive for civil engineering applications, 4
including concrete preparation, landfill liners, water-resistant systems, and asphalt, (Tortum, et al., 2005; Cao, 5
2007; Pacheco, et al., 2012; Shu and Huang, 2014). More over due to its inherent attractive geotechnical 6
properties, such as durability, and low bulk density, waste tires could be mixed with soil and could be used in 7
geotechnical projects such as retaining walls. Durability of soil-rubber mixtures is also of great importance and 8
has been investigated in numerous studies. (Li and kwok, 2019; Anvari et al., 2017). Adding waste tire to the 9
sandy soil in various forms—shredded, chip, crumble, and fiber— are conventional and has been investigated 10
only to reveal improvements in its properties (Edil and Bosscher, 1994; Foose, et al., 1996; Tatlisoz, et al., 1998; 11
Moo, et al., 2003; Zornberg, et al., 2004; Attom, 2006; Rao and Dutta, 2006; Neaz, et al., 2012; Cabalar and 12
Karabash, 2014). Despite its extensive potential applications, limited research has been conducted on the clay and 13
waste tire mix. Some of these studies are reviewed in the following. 14

Researchers have studied geotechnical properties, including the density and strength of the clay–tire mix. The 15
results are suggestive of the change in the density and strength of the mix by increasing the rubber content (Al- 16
Tabbaa, et al., 1997). The clay–crumb rubber mix has also been proposed for the landfill barrier (Al-Tabbaa and 17
Aravinthan, 1998). Previous studies show that adding powdered and crumb tire to the clay improves its strength 18
while reducing its specific weight (Cetin, et al., 2006). According to the literature on improving the shear strength 19
of clay, adding 2% rubber fibers was recommended for maximizing the strength (Akbulut, et al., 2007). Another 20
group of researchers investigated the impact of rubber fibers on the geotechnical properties of the clay. Studies on 21
the incorporation of tire fibers into the clay–lime mixture are indicative of reduced strength, density, and CBR of 22
the mix (Cabalar, et al., 2014). An investigation on the incorporation of crumb rubber into the soil–cement 23
mixture shows that increasing the rubber content brings down the compressive strength while increasing the strain 24
to failure in the specimens (Wang and Song, 2015). The study showed the uniaxial strength of specimens with a 25
crumb rubber content of lower than 4% was the same as unmixed soil. Previous studies on the strength of the 26
clay–tire mixture containing 2% crumb rubber revealed the internal friction angle of the soil to increase by 27
increasing the rubber content by around 10% (Tajdini, et al., 2017). 28
Studies show that rubber powder is another form of rubber that improves the geotechnical properties when mixed 1
with clay (Akbarimehr and Aflaki, 2018). Table 1 summarizes the most notable examples of research on the clay– 2
waste rubber mixtures, listing the soil properties, as well as the amount and type of rubber additives. 3

A review of the literature uncovers the various geotechnical applications of the clay–waste rubber mixture. A 4
notable geotechnical property that the previous studies failed to address adequately is the shear strength. Given 5
the attractiveness of the clay–waste rubber mixtures for various geotechnical applications—as a filler and 6
retaining wall backfill—the shear strength of the clay–waste rubber mixture was investigated in this study. 7
Another subject that was ignored by previous studies is a comparison of the effects of various types of rubber in 8
strength and strain. The present study used three forms of rubber at different contents and sizes. As noted by 9
various researchers (Akbarimehr and Aflaki, 2019), field investigations are essential for the geotechnical 10
evaluation of a site. The Tehran alluvium stretches north–south across the city. Previous research on the alluvium 11
claims the majority of the clay of south Tehran soil (roughly 50%) is of the low-plasticity (CL) type. Figure 1 12
shows a region of Tehran with low-plasticity clay. The properties of clay–rubber waste mixtures for alluvial, low- 13
plasticity clay soils have been hardly investigated. Further, the results obtained from investigations of cases with 14
similar types of soil and waste rubber can be incorporated in engineering applications. In light of the above 15
discussions, the geotechnical properties of the Tehran clay soil and waste rubber mixture was evaluated, which is 16
essential from both practical and experimental viewpoints. To realize this objective, different tests, including 17
compaction, uniaxial, direct shear, and triaxial, were carried out with different waste rubber contents. X-Ray 18
Diffraction (XRD) and X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) were employed to identify the minerals and constituents of the 19
soil and provide a better evaluation of the behavior of the mixture through optical microscopy and binocular 20
examination. 21

2. Materials 22

2.1 Clay 23

Samples were taken of the south Tehran alluvial soil by a core cutter from the location marked in Figure 1. The 24
soil gradation was determined by gradation and hydrometry tests (Figure 2.a). The constituents of the soil were 25
identified by XRF testing. Figure 2.b presents the test results. According to the figures, it is evident that the clay 26
sample contained 52.39% SiO2, 11.83% Al2O3, 7% Fe2O3, 19.6% CaO, and 5% MgO, with traces of other 27
compounds making up the balance. The minerals constituting the soil were identified by XRD testing. Figure 2.b 28
presents the test results. The minerals comprised by the soil include anorthite, quartz, calcite, as well as the clay 1
mineral, kaolinite. The geotechnical properties of the soil, obtained from standard ASTM tests, are presented in 2
Table 2. The soil was classified as CL based on the Casagrande chart. The soil is sand-free, and 80% of the grains 3
pass through the 200-mesh sieve. 4

2.2 Rubber Shreds 5

The crumb rubber used to mix with the soil had a specific gravity of 1.1. Three different forms of rubber, namely 6
crumbs, chips, and fiber, were used in this study according to ASTM (D6270). Given the abundance of crumb 7
rubber on the market and for the study to be practical, two crumb rubber sizes—rubber powder (fine) and granular 8
rubber (coarse)—were studied. The gradation curves of the two rubber additives are presented in Figure 2.a. 9
Figure 3.a demonstrates the different types of rubber used. The rubber powder had a grain size of 0.1–0.5 mm, 10
whereas the granular rubber was between 1 and 5 mm. Chips rubber was a square shape with a side size of 10 mm 11
and fibers rubbers was a rectangular shape with side size of 35 and 3 mm. Two crumb rubber sizes were used in 12
due to the abundance of these two sizes in practice and chips and fiber shapes have been used to evaluate the 13
shape effect. The sizes of chips and fiber rubbers are set to match less than the maximum sample size on our 14
devices. The chemical properties of the rubber (according to the manufacturer) are presented in Table 3. 15
According to the table, carbon is the main constituent of rubber, whereas aluminum is the least abundant. 16
Figures 3.c and 3.d show a microscopic view of the rubber powder. The image was taken by an optical 17
microscope at 100× magnification. Further, the figure shows a magnified view of crumb rubber. The figure 18
indicates that the rubber powder particles have different forms and have a length-to-width ratio of larger than 1. 19
Evidently, despite the treatment aiming to separate tire cords, a small amount of tire cords remains trapped 20
between the crumbs. Tire cords accounted for less than 1% of the total rubber powder sample. An investigation of 21
the coarser granular rubber showed the crumbs have a similar form to the rubber powder with a 1% content of tire 22
cords. 23

2.1.3 Proportion of mixtures 24

A suitable mixture of soil, rubber, and water is required to prepare the test samples. Researchers have been used 25
different proportions to prepare the samples with soil-to-rubber ratios of 0–100%. Considering the difficulties in 26
preparing samples with high tire contents and given that the objective is to investigate the soil–waste rubber 27
mixture at optimal proportions, rubber contents of up to 30% were studied. The mixture was prepared considering 28
the ratio of the weight of rubber to that of dry soil. The mixture must be a uniform and homogeneous blend of 1
different materials. The mixture was prepared by, first, drying the soil in the oven and mixing it with a specific 2
amount of rubber, bringing it to the ratio by adding optimum water content and agitating to form a uniform mix. 3
Table 4 shows the make-up of the different soil–waste rubber mixtures. As will be discussed in the Results 4
section, some of the specimens were used for each set of tests. The names of the samples are composed of two 5
capital English letters, followed by a number. The first letter indicates the material type—soil was denoted S, 6
granular rubber G, rubber powder P, rubber chips S, and rubber fibers F—and the numbers showed the contents 7
of the materials. For example, S94G6 suggests the specimen comprises 94% soil and 6% granular rubber. The table 8
also shows the tests conducted on each specimen. Information about the tests is given in the following section. 9
The test specimens had optimum moisture content and their unit dry weight during preparation in the mold was 10
considered as the maximum dry density obtained by compaction testing. 11

3 Testing and Apparatus 12

Different standard tests, including compaction, uniaxial, direct shear, and triaxial tests, were carried out on 13
different clay–rubber waste mixtures. Further, the optical microscope and binocular were used for a structural 14
investigation of the soil–rubber mix. The testing procedure is discussed in the following section. 15

3.1 Compaction Tests 16

Standard compaction tests (ASTM D1557) were performed for evaluating the compaction properties of the clay– 17
tire mixture. A 4-in compaction mold was used in this study. Specific amounts of water were added to the soil and 18
tire shred mixture, which was stirred and then compacted in three layers with a 600 kN-m.m-3 compaction energy. 19
The test helped find the optimum moisture content and the maximum dry density. The results were used to 20
prepare specimens for strength tests. Table 4 shows the compaction test plan for various specimens to determine 21
the maximum dry density, as well as the optimum moisture content. 22

3.3 Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests 23

Specimens of 10 cm diameter and 20 cm length were prepared from the soil–rubber waste mixture according to 24
the ASTM D 2166 standard for the uniaxial test to determine the undrained strength of the soil. All specimens 25
were prepared with maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The specimens were prepared with a 26
specific volume using a mold and then compacted. A sample extruder was then used to take the specimens out of 27
the mold for testing. The uniaxial test was strain-controlled and was carried out at 1 mm.min-1 strain rate. Table 4 28
presents the uniaxial test plan for various specimens. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the rubber waste 1
form on the axial strength and strain of the mixture. 2

3.4 Direct Shear Tests 3

For its significance, the direct shear test was used to evaluate the strength of the clay–rubber waste mixture. The 4
direct shear test results are indicative of the strength of the specimen under confining stress. In the direct shear 5
test, normal stress can be exerted on the specimens. Shear tests were conducted under both optimum moisture and 6
saturated conditions to study the impact of saturation. The test was conducted in compliance with the ASTM D 7
3080 standard. The specimens were prepared in a 10×10 cm2 mold considering the optimum moisture content and 8
maximum dry density. The test was carried out under both Specimen in saturated condition during test (SD) and 9
Specimen in optimum moisture content condition during test (D). The saturated specimens were immersed and 10
then consolidated under 100, 200, and 300 KPa stresses. After consolidation, the specimens were subjected to 11
direct shearing under the loading rate specified based on 50% of the consolidation time (t50). Table 4 presents the 12
direct shear test plan for various specimens. These tests aimed to evaluate the impact of saturation on the results 13
of the direct shear test. Cohesion, internal friction angle, and the peak shear stress were studied for specimens 14
under optimum moisture content and saturated conditions. 15

3.5 Triaxial Tests 16

For its significance, the triaxial test was used to evaluate the strength of the clay and rubber power mixture. The 17
specimens were formed in a special mold with the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. Given 18
that the objective was to evaluate the strength of the specimens under optimum moisture conditions, the 19
specimens were placed under confining pressure by different normal stresses (100, 200, and 300 KPa). The 20
specimens were then subjected to shear at a rate of 0.008 mm. s-1. The triaxial test results helped evaluate the 21
internal friction angle and cohesion, as well as axial stresses and strains and failure. 22

The preparation of the triaxil specimens is very significant to the results. Few methods have been proposed for 23
preparing remolded clay triaxial specimens (Abbaspour et al., 2019). In this study, a special mold and new 24
method of soil sampling was used for preparing triaxial test specimens. The mold and its components are 25
illustrated in Figure 4.a. As demonstrated in this figure, the sample was prepared in five layers at 100% 26
compaction energy for each layer by the impact compaction method using the cylindrical split mold and a weight. 27
For preparation of specimens, 20% soil was first poured into the mold and compacted. In the next steps, 20% of 28
soil was poured into the mold in each step and compacted by a weight after placing an appropriate ring. 1
Afterward, the cylindrical split mold was separated, taking out the specimen for testing. The S90G10 specimen 2
prepared by this mold is shown in Figure 4.b. 3

3.6 Optical Microscope and Binocular 4

The optical microscope operates by passing visible light through a series of magnifying lenses, revealing the 5
structure of materials. The rubber powder and the mixture of rubber powder, soil, and water were examined by 6
optical microscopy. The microscope displays a thin surface layer of bodies, whereas the specimens have also a 7
third dimension, depth, which cannot be magnified directly. The binocular is a type of microscope used for 8
studying specimens whose depth is also remarkable. The binocular is used to investigate specimens at a larger 9
scale. 10

4 Results and Discussion 11

4.1 Compaction Test 12

The target specimens were prepared with the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content with the help 13
of compaction testing. Drawing on the test results, the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content of 14
the pure clay were obtained at 16 kN.m-3 and 19%, respectively. The different curves obtained by compaction 15
testing of clay mixtures containing rubber waste in various forms are presented in Figure 5. Figure 5.a shows the 16
compaction curves of different specimens. Given the multitude of curves and in order to track changes, the peaks 17
of compaction curves of different mixtures are marked in Figure. 5.b. As evident from the figure, the dry density 18
was reduced, and the optimum moisture content changed in all four mixtures by increasing the rubber content. 19
Other researchers also reported similar changes by increasing the added rubber crumb in clay (Akbarimehr and 20
Aflaki, 2019;) Al-Tabbaa, et al., 1997; Signes, et al. 2016). 21

The lower the density of the backfill materials, the smaller the pressure on the retaining wall, helping save on 22
construction materials. Typical backfill materials have particular specifications. Kim and Kang (2012) compared 23
the density of unmixed clay with mixtures of clay and rubber powder and rubber granules, showing the feasibility 24
of using crumb rubber as filler to reduce the weight of retaining wall backfilling (Cabalar, et al., 2014; 25
Srivastava, et al. (2014), Yadav and Tiwari (2016b). 26
Figure 5.c demonstrates the changes in the maximum dry density of mixtures containing four types of rubber 1
wastes (granular, powder, fiber, and chips) based on the rubber content. 2

For example, the maximum dry density of various specimens indicated that by adding 20% rubber particles of 3
different shapes, the maximum dry density reduced from 16 kN/m3 to 13.8, 14, 14.7 and 15 kN/m3 in specimens 4
containing rubber powder, rubber granules, rubber chips and rubber fibers, respectively. 5

It is evident from the figure that specimens containing rubber powder demonstrated the highest decrease in the 6
maximum dry density by increasing the rubber content, followed by samples containing rubber in granular, chips, 7
and fiber forms. Further, the dry density increases with coarser grains. In this light, the rubber powder can be 8
added to the mixture—taking into account its strength—when low-density fillers are required. The decrease in the 9
density of the clay–rubber waste mixture relative to the unmixed soil can be attributed to three reasons. The first 10
reason is the smaller specific gravity of the rubber than the clay. In this study, the specific gravity of clay and 11
rubber were 2.65 and 1.1, respectively. The second reason is the smaller maximum dry density of the mixture due 12
to the flexibility of the granular rubber, which promotes compaction efficiency, thus reducing the maximum dry 13
density of the clay and crumb rubber mixture compared to the unmixed soil. The third and final reason is the 14
lower optimum moisture content of the clay and crumb rubber as a result of the poor water absorption of rubber 15
compared to clay (Cabalar, et al., 2014; Signes, et al, 2016). Maximum dry density of the mix containing crumb 16
tire samples is less than other shapes. Increasing the specific surface area and increasing the elastic properties of 17
these types of tires compared to the Fiber and chips tires, reduced the energy absorption of the hammer and 18
ultimately decrease the compressibility of these tires and the specific weight loss. Due to the similar specific 19
surface area, maximum dry density had little differences between the two types of fiber and chips. It has been 20
claimed that the optimum moisture content of the mixture does not change considerably with increasing the crumb 21
tire (Al-Tabbaa and Aravinthan, 1998). The reason is the excellent bonding of the clay and tire particles, leading 22
to a limited increase in the moisture content. The results of the present study are consistent with this argument. 23

Figure 5.d plots the changes in optimum moisture content against the rubber content for mixtures containing 24
rubber in various forms. Accordingly, it is evident that specimens containing rubber powder exhibit a more 25
substantial increase in the optimum moisture content relative to the unmixed clay by increasing the rubber 26
content. Further, it is evident that the optimum moisture content increases when finer rubber is used. The increase 27
in the optimum moisture content in mixtures with rubber powder can be attributed to the larger specific area of 28
this form of powder than coarser ones, which improves moisture absorption. In the case of chips and fiber 1
samples, the optimum moisture content did not change significantly for different samples. This is Because of the 2
specific surface area of samples containing fiber and chips is close together. 3
4.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests 4

Figure 6 presents uniaxial test results for mixtures of soil with rubber in various forms. Figure 6.a shows the 5
failure of the S90G10 specimen. The shear plane failure is demonstrated in the figure, along with the failure line 6
and granular rubber. Figure 6.b plots the progress of the peaks of stress–strain curves for specimens with various 7
types of rubber. According to the figures, the uniaxial strength of the mixture specimens was reduced relative to 8
the unmixed soil by increasing the rubber content. What is to note in the stress–strain curves are the lower rate of 9
the drop in stress behind the peak in specimens containing rubber compared to the unmixed clay. 10

The changes in the uniaxial strength are plotted in Figure 6.c against rubber content. A review of the variations of 11
strength shows that adding 10, 20, and 30% rubber powder to the clay reduces the uniaxial strength by 190, 150, 12
and 80 KPa, respectively, from 265 kPa. A review of the variations of strength in specimens containing granular 13
rubber shows that adding 10, 20, and 30% rubber to the clay reduces the uniaxial strength by 230, 190, and 110 14
KPa, respectively, from 265 KPa. In specimens containing rubber chips, the strength is reduced by 120, 95, and 15
45, and in those containing rubber fibers by 140, 220, and 60, respectively. A review of changes in strength by 16
increasing the rubber content—as reported in the literature—reveals an increase in the strength in some cases and 17
a decrease in some other (Srivastava, et al., 2014). One reason for the reduced strength of the mixture is the lower 18
friction and weaker bonding between clay and rubber (Kim and Kang, 2011). Among the additives used, the 19
resistance of fiber and crumb rubber samples were higher than other additives used. The reason for this higher 20
resistance is the reinforcing property of the fiber and crumb rubbers. On the other hand, powder rubber has good 21
resistance to chips rubbers in the mixture. Therefore, the larger the size of the rubber grains, the longer the ratio of 22
length to width and the rougher surface, the greater the resistance were achieved. 23
Figure 6.c shows the variations of uniaxial strength against rubber content for both rubber particle sizes. The 24
strength is undermined by increasing the rubber content in both cases. Further adding to the infused crumb tire 25
compromises the uniaxial strength of the mix. This outcome is a result of more interactions between the crumbs 26
(Cabalar, et al., 2014) and weak interaction at the interface of clay and crumb tire, and the higher void ratio of 27
clay containing rubber particles (Yadav and Tiwari, 2018). The strength of the specimens with rubber powder and 28
granular rubber is indicative of the higher strength of the latter. The strength figures show that rubber fibers and 1
granules offer the highest strength thanks to the increased tensile strength due to the reinforcement of the mixture. 2
Mixtures containing rubber chips have the lowest strength due to the compromised cohesion of the mixture. 3

Figure 6.d plots axial strain against rubber content for both rubber particle sizes. Unlike the strength, the axial 4
strain increases in both rubber-filled specimens by increasing the rubber content. Strain to failure is 4% for clay, 5
which increases to 6, 7, and 9% in specimens containing granular rubber, to 6.8, 8, and 10% in specimens with 6
powdered rubber powder, to 7, 9.5, and 12% in specimens with rubber fibers, and 5.7, 6, and 6.5% in specimens 7
with rubber chips, for 10, 20, and 30% rubber content, respectively. 8
The shear strain is most clearly seen in specimens with larger dimension ratios. This is also due to the tensile 9
strength properties that these elements give to the mix. The decrease in resistance in mixtures containing chips 10
tires is due to the lower adhesion of pure soil in the mixture due to the presence of tire elements and poor soil 11
reinforcement in the mixture. The increase in the shear strain of the mixture can be attributed to the flexibility of 12
the rubber (Tajdini, et al., 2017) and the elastic reaction of rubber during compaction, which prevents crack 13
development (Yoshio, et al., 2008). The elastic compression of rubber particles results in strain hardening after the 14
peak strain (Kim and Kang, 2011). 15

Figure 7 presents a magnified view of failure cracks and granular rubber on the crack axis. The presence of 16
rubber at the crack increased the failure strain and reduced the loss of strength after the peak. 17

4.3 Direct Shear Tests 18

The direct shear test was carried out on the mixture specimens under optimum moisture and saturated conditions 19
to compare the strength-related specifications, including the maximum shear stress, cohesion, and the internal 20
friction angle. Figure 8 presents direct shear test results for the soil and rubber powder mix. Figure 8.a shows 21
shear stress and vertical strain versus displacement. Figures 8.b, c, and d illustrate the changes in the maximum 22
shear stress in specimens under optimum moisture and saturated conditions at various normal stress levels (100, 23
200, and 300 kPa) against rubber content. According to Figure 8.b, by increasing the rubber content in saturated 24
specimens under a 100 kPa normal stress, the shear stress remains relatively constant by increasing the rubber 25
content up to 10%, after which it decreases. In specimens with optimum moisture content, the maximum shear 26
stress consistently decreases by adding rubber. According to Figure 8.c, similar to the case with 100 kPa normal 27
stress, under 200 kPa, the shear stress remains relatively constant in saturated specimens up to 10% rubber 28
content, above which the shear stress declines. The maximum shear stress decreases by adding rubber in 1
specimens with optimum moisture content. According to Figure 8.d, in specimens with an optimum moisture 2
content under a normal stress of 300 kPa, shear slightly increases at first by adding rubber, but then starts to 3
decrease when the rubber content exceeds 10%. The changes in the maximum shear stress in specimens with 4
optimal conditions are similar to changes at normal stresses of 100 and 200 kPa. 5

Variations of cohesion in specimens under optimum moisture and saturated conditions are demonstrated in 6
Figure 8.e. According to the figure, in saturated specimens, cohesion is improved by increasing the rubber 7
content up to 10%, beyond which it remains practically constant. The improvement in cohesion can be attributed 8
to the higher tensile strength thanks to reinforcement provided by the added rubber. Small changes in cohesion 9
with more than 10% rubber is the result of the detrimental impact of rubber on the cohesion of soil particles. 10
Similar variations in cohesion were also reported in other studies (Cetin, et al., 2006). However, the cohesion 11
exhibits a considerably different behavior in specimens with optimum moisture content, in which it decreases by 12
adding rubber. The reason is the high initial cohesion of the unmixed clay, which is gradually reduced by 13
increasing the added rubber and approaching further away from saturation conditions. Increasing the shear stress 14
under saturated conditions and stresses of 100, 200, and 300 kPa up to a rubber content of 10% is a result of the 15
promoted cohesion in mixture specimens. The internal friction angle is plotted in Figure 8.f for saturated 16
specimens. More over failure envelope is plotted in Figure 8.g for D and SD tests. It is evident from the figure 8.f 17
that the internal friction angle remains relatively unchanged up to 10% rubber content, beyond which it starts 18
decreasing. The reduced internal friction angle as a result of the higher rubber content has also been reported in 19
other studies (Cetin, et al., 2006). The internal friction angle for specimens with optimum moisture content 20
indicates that the internal friction angle decreases by adding up to 10% rubber to the mix, but then remains 21
constant when the rubber content is further increased up to 30%. The reduction of the internal friction angle by 22
increasing the rubber content at the start is a result of the lower natural friction of soil due to the compromise of 23
the interparticle friction. Given the friction between rubber particles, after a substantial increase, the internal 24
friction angle of the soil stabilizes at a constant level. 25

4.3 Triaxial Tests 26

Uniaxial and direct shear tests provided vital information for evaluating the strength of the clay–rubber waste 27
mixture. The strength of the clay–rubber waste mixture was evaluated based on the results of accurate triaxial 28
tests for the clay and two clay–rubber waste mixtures as follows. The results and curves obtained from the tests 1
are presented in Figure 9. Figure 9.a shows deviatoric stress and volumetric strain versus axial strain. Figure 9.b 2
plots the progress of the peaks of stress–-strain curves for specimens with fine and coarse rubber. According to 3
the figure, the specimens containing coarser rubber have a higher strength than those with fine rubber. The reason 4
is the better reinforcement efficiency of the coarser granular rubber, which enhances cohesion in the soil by 5
improving the compressive strength. What is important here is that the axial strain increases by adding rubber. 6
The axial strength and stresses indicate that by increasing the rubber content, these parameters become practically 7
convergent under 50, 100, and 200 kPa confining stresses. The reason for such convergence is that the strength is 8
undermined and the axial strain is increased by adding to the rubber content, leading to close stress and strain 9
results under different confining stresses. 10

According to Figure 9.b the deviatoric stress of pure soil specimens reduced from 470, 580 and 710 kPa to 200- 11
250 kPa in specimens containing 30% rubber. Moreover, the failure strain of pure soil specimens increased from 12
5.5, 8.5 and 17.5% respectively at confining pressures of 50, 100 and 200 kPa to 18-22% in specimens containing 13
30% rubber. 14

Figure 9.c plots the changes in cohesion for specimens with fine and coarse rubber. The variations of cohesion in 15
specimens with fine and coarse rubber are suggestive of a reduction in cohesion as a result of adding rubber. 16
Further, the two mixtures exhibit similar variations. The reason for the reduced cohesion in the mixture is the low 17
adhesion between clay and rubber. Direct shear and triaxial tests produced similar results. 18

According to cohesion variations in specimens containing fine- and coarse-grained rubber particles, the cohesion 19
of pure soil specimen decreased from 132 to 100 and 80 kPa for mixtures containing 10% rubber, 80 and 78 kPa 20
for mixtures containing 20% rubber and 70 and 60 kPa in mixtures containing 30% rubber. 21

Figure 9.d plots the changes in the internal friction angle for specimens with fine and coarse rubber. More over 22
failure envelope is plotted in Figure 9.e for D and SD tests. Evidently from the figure 9.d, the internal friction 23
angle of the mixture is lower than that of the unmixed specimens and is further reduced by increasing the rubber 24
content, which is similar to the results of the direct shear test. The reason for the reduced internal friction angle 25
lies in the lower friction between soil particles due to the addition of rubber. 26

According to variations of internal friction angle in specimens containing fine- and coarse-grained rubber 27
particles, the internal friction angle of pure soil specimen decreased from 24.5 ̊ to 14.92 and 15 ̊ for mixtures 28
containing 10% rubber, 15.1 and 15 ̊ for mixtures containing 20% rubber and 14 and 15 ̊ in mixtures containing 1
30% rubber. 2

4.5 Microscopic and Binocular Analysis 3

The clay–rubber waste mixture under optimum moisture content was analyzed by both an optical microscope as 4
well as a binocular (Figure 10). Figure 10.a shows the optical microscope images of the clay–rubber waste 5
mixture at 200× magnification. The figure shows the soil particles accumulating around the rubber, indicating 6
their inclination to adhere to it. This adhesion is due to the fact that both substances are hydrophilic. As a result, 7
the presence of water promotes their adhesion. It must be noted that clay–rubber adhesion needs to be calculated 8
and evaluated accurately and calls for an investigation. 9

Figure 10.b shows binocular images of the clay and granular rubber mixture. The binocular is capable of 10
magnifying objects with volume and can produce high-quality images showing the conditions of the mixture 11
specimen. As illustrated, the rubber particles in the image are larger than rubber particles from Figure 10a. This 12
image, which was also taken by the binocular, shows the excellent adhesion between clay and rubber particles. 13
The strong adhesion between rubber and clay—promoted by water—helps granular rubber reinforce the soil. A 14
comparison of the uniaxial test results for granular rubber and rubber powder mixed with clay supports this 15
conclusion. Sharing a larger surface area with clay in the mixture, coarse rubber particles offer better 16
reinforcement, thus improving the strength of the mixture. 17

As shown in Figs. 3c and d, granular rubber particles have a length-to-width ratio larger than 1. Figures 10a and b 18
show good cohesion of soil and rubber. The length-to-width ratio larger than 1 and good soil-rubber cohesion 19
cause an increase in the tensile strength of specimens containing coarser rubber particles than fine particles. This 20
can be clearly seen in the results of uniaxial and triaxial tests in Section 4.4. 21
Conclusions 22

The evaluation of materials for various geotechnical applications calls for focused studies addressing each subject. 23
The present study confirms the fitness of the mixture of clay and granular rubber as backfill material, thanks to its 24
low specific weight compared to unmixed clay. From an engineering and practical point of view, using the 25
mixture of clay and granular rubber reduces the pressure exerted on the retaining wall, cutting the construction 26
costs of the retaining wall structure and foundation. This study presents a detailed examination of the geotechnical 27
properties of these materials for later applications. Relying on various tests, the present study investigated the 28
geotechnical properties of Tehran clay mixtures containing rubber waste. The results of this study can be 1
summarized as follows: 2

• The microscopic investigation of the unmixed rubber powder revealed it might contain up to 1% tire 3
cords, which was found to have a negligible impact on the strength of the mixture. Further, the rubber 4
particles were found to have irregular forms, which is significant as regards improvements in shear 5
strength and the reinforcement of soil. 6

• Changes in the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density of the different specimens with 7
rubber in various forms shows that an increase in the rubber content leads to a lower maximum dry 8
density and slightly higher optimum moisture content. The maximum dry density in specimens containing 9
rubber powder is lower than the others. Limited variations were seen between the different forms. 10

• The strength of the clay–rubber waste mixture obtained from various tests, namely uniaxial, triaxial, and 11
direct shear, shows the strength of the mixture may be decreases or increase by adding rubber according 12
to mix water content. According to the results of mixtures containing different forms of rubber, using 13
10% rubber in the mixture is optimum for achieving optimal resistance and can be used in practice. 14

• The uniaxial test results indicate that rubber in fiber form offers the highest increase in strength as it 15
reinforces the mixture, thus enhancing the tensile strength. 16

• The uniaxial test results show that the drop in stress after the peak of the curve for rubber-filled mixtures 17
is less than that for unmixed clay specimens, which is of high engineering and practical significance. 18

• The results of the direct shear test under saturated conditions show that using up to 10% rubber powder 19
slightly improves the strength of the mixture, but beyond that, the strength is compromised. The cohesion 20
of the mix is improved by adding up to 10% rubber powder, above which it starts deteriorating. Changes 21
in the internal friction angle of the mixture exhibit a decline by increasing the rubber content. Further, a 22
comparison of the strength of saturated specimens and those with optimal conditions suggests that the 23
changes are not similar in the two types of specimens. 24

• A microstructural investigation of the clay– rubber waste mixture by optical microscope and binocular is 25
suggestive of adhesion between clay and rubber, which improves the function of the mixture. Differences 26
 in the strength of specimens containing rubber in various forms is a result of differences in their 1
geometries. 2

Adding rubber to clay, besides modifying the geotechnical properties of clay to some extent and serving as a 3
filler, is an excellent approach to helping address environmental concerns by way of reducing wastes. 4

References 8
Abbaspour, M., Aflaki, E., and Nejad, F. M., 2019. Reuse of waste tire textile fibers as soil reinforcement. Journal 9
of cleaner production. 207, 1059-1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.253. 10
Akbarimehr, D and E. Aflaki, 2019. Using Empirical Correlations to Evaluate the Compression Index of Tehran 11
Clay. AUT Journal of Civil Engineering. 3(1), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.22060/AJCE.2018.14522.5482 12
Akbarimehr, D. and E. Aflaki, 2018. An Experimental Study on the Effect of Tire Powder on the Geotechnical 13
Properties of Clay Soils. Civil Engineering Journal. 4(3), 594-601. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-0309118 14
Akbarimehr, D., E. Aflaki and A. Eslami, 2019. Experimental Investigation of the Densification Properties of Clay 15
Soil Mixes with Tire Waste. Civil Engineering Journal. 5(2), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019- 16
03091251 17
Akbarimehr, D. and Aflaki, E., 2019. Site investigation and use of artificial neural networks to predict rock 18
permeability at the Siazakh Dam, Iran. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 52(2), 230- 19
239. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2017-048 20
Akbulut, S., S. Arasan and E. Kalkan, 2007. Modification of clayey soils using scrap tire rubber and synthetic 21
fibers. Applied Clay Science, 38(1-2), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2007.02.001 22
Al-Tabbaa, A. and T. Aravinthan, 1998. Natural clay-shredded tire mixtures as landfill barrier materials. Waste 23
Management. 18(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0956-053x(98)00002-6 24
Al-Tabbaa, A., O. Blackwell and S. Porter, 1997. An investigation into the geotechnical properties of soil-tyre 25
mixtures. Environmental technology. 18(8), 855-860. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593331808616605 26
Anvari, S. M., Shooshpasha, I., and Kutanaei, S. S., 2017. Effect of granulated rubber on shear strength of fine- 1
grained sand. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 9(5), 936-944. 2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.03.008 3
Attom, M. F., 2006. The use of shredded waste tires to improve the geotechnical engineering properties of 4
sands. Environmental Geology. 49(4), 497-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-005-0003-5 5
Cabalar, A. and Z. Karabash, 2014. California bearing ratio of a sub-base material modified with tire buffings and 6
cement addition. Journal of Testing and Evaluation. 43(6), 1279-1287. https://doi.org/10.1520/jte20130070 7
Cabalar, A. F., Z. Karabash and W. S. Mustafa, 2014. Stabilising a clay using tyre buffings and lime. Road 8
Materials and Pavement Design. 15(4), 872-891. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2014.939697 9
Cao, W., 2007. Study on properties of recycled tire rubber modified asphalt mixtures usingdry process. 10
Construction and Building Materials. 21(5), 1011-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.02.004 11
Chenari, R. J., Alaie, R., & Fatahi, B., 2019. Constrained compression models for tire-derived aggregate-sand 12
mixtures using enhanced large scale oedometer testing apparatus. Geotechnical and Geological 13
Engineering, 37(4), 2591-2610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-00780-2 14
Cetin, H., M. Fener and O. Gunaydin, 2006. Geotechnical properties of tire-cohesive clayey soil mixtures as a fill 15
material. Engineering geology. 88(1-2), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.002 16
Edil, T. B. and P. J .Bosscher, 1994. Engineering properties of tire chips and soil mixtures. Geotechnical testing 17
journal. 17(4), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1520/gtj10306j 18
Eslami, A., Akbarimehr, D., Aflaki, E., & Hajitaheriha, M. M., 2019. Geotechnical site characterization of the Lake 19
Urmia super-soft sediments using laboratory and CPTu records. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, Nov 25: 20
1-12, https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2019.1672121 21
Foose, G. J., C. H. Benson and P. J. Bosscher, 1996. Sand reinforced with shredded waste tires. Journal of 22
Geotechnical Engineering. 122(9), 760-767. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1996)122:9(760) 23
Kim, Y. and H. Kang, 2011. Engineering characteristics of rubber-added lightweight soil as a flowable backfill 24
material. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 23(9), 1289-1294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943- 25
5533.0000307 26
Li, W., Kwok, C. Y., and Senetakis, K., 2019. Effects of Inclusion of Granulated Rubber Tyres on the Mechanical 1
Behaviour of a Compressive Sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Jun 25(ja). https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2019- 2
0112 3
Neaz Sheikh, M., M. Mashiri, J. Vinod and H.-H. Tsang, 2012. Shear and compressibility behavior of sand–tire 4
crumb mixtures. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 25(10), 1366-1374. 5
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000696 6
Pacheco-Torgal,F., Y. Ding and S. Jalali, 2012. Properties and durability of concrete containing polymeric wastes 7
(tyre rubber and polyethylene terephthalate bottles): An overview. Construction and Building Materials. 30: 714- 8
724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.047 9
Rao, G. V. and R. Dutta, 2006. Compressibility and strength behaviour of sand–tyre chip mixtures. Geotechnical 10
& Geological Engineering. 24(3), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-004-4006-x 11
Saberian, M., Mehrinejad Khotbehsara, M., Jahandari, S., Vali, R., & Li, J., 2018. Experimental and 12
phenomenological study of the effects of adding shredded tire chips on geotechnical properties of 13
peat. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 12(4), 347-356. 14
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1277829 15
Shu, X. and B. Huang, 2014. Recycling of waste tire rubber in asphalt and portland cement concrete: An 16
overview. Construction and Building Materials. 67, 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.027 17
Signes, C. H., J. Garzón-Roca, P. M. Fernández, M. E. G. de la Torre and R. I. Franco, 2016. Swelling potential 18
reduction of Spanish argillaceous marlstone Facies Tap soil through the addition of crumb rubber particles from 19
scrap tyres. Applied Clay Science. 132, 768-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2016.07.027 20
Tajdini, M. ,A. Nabizadeh, H. Taherkhani and H. Zartaj, 2017. Effect of added waste rubber on the properties and 21
failure mode of kaolinite clay. International Journal of Civil Engineering. 15(6), 949-958. 22
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0057-7 23
Tatlisoz, N., T. B. Edil and C. H. Benson, 1998. Interaction between reinforcing geosynthetics and soil-tire chip 24
mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 124(11), 1109-1119. 25
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(1998)124:11(1109) 26
Thomas, B. S., R. C. Gupta, P. Kalla and L. Cseteneyi, 2014. Strength, abrasion and permeation characteristics of 1
cement concrete containing discarded rubber fine aggregates. Construction and Building Materials. 59, 204-212. 2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.074 3
Tortum, A., C. Çelik and A. C. Aydin, 2005. Determination of the optimum conditions for tire rubber in asphalt 4
concrete. Building and Environment. 40(11), 1492-1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.11.013 5
Wang, F. C., and W. Song, 2015, Effects of crumb rubber on compressive strength of cement-treated soil. 6
Archives of civil engineering. 61(4), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1515/ace-2015-0036 7
Yadav, J. S. and S. K. Tiwari, 2016. Behaviour of cement stabilized treated coir fibre-reinforced clay-pond ash 8
mixtures. Journal of Building Engineering. 8, 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.10.006 9
Yadav, J. S .and S. K. Tiwari, 2016. Effect of inclusion of crumb rubber on the unconfined compressive strength 10
and wet-dry durability of cement stabilized clayey soil. Journal of building materials and structures. 3(2), 68-84. 11
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.242643 12
Yadav, J. S., & Tiwari, S. K., 2018. Evaluation of the strength characteristics of cement-stabilized clay–crumb 13
rubber mixtures for its sustainable use in geotechnical applications. Environment, development and 14
sustainability, 20(5), 1961-1985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9972-2 15
Yoshio, M., K. Yoshiaki, Y. Kazuya, O. Jun and T. Nagatome, 2008. The ductility of cement treated clay with added 16
scrape tire chips and the change of its permeability under shear deformation. Japenese Socity of Civil 17
Engineering. 64(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejc.64.181 18
Zornberg, J. G., A. R. Cabral and C. Viratjandr, 2004. Behaviour of tire shred sand mixtures. Canadian 19
Geotechnical Journal. 41(2), 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-086 20
 Table 1: Clay type, types of the tire waste, tire waste percent used by other authors
Authors Type of Soil type Size of the tire waste tire content (%) additives
waste tire
Al-Tabbaa et al. (1997) Shreds Kaolin, bentonite Three size ranges of 1–4 mm, 4–8 2 to 20 Sand-60%
mm, and and lime-5%
8–12 mm
Cokca and Yilmaz (2004) Granular Bentonite 75–850 μm 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 Fly ash-90%
Cetin et al. (2006) Chips CL Two sizes of 4.75–2 mm and passing 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50
-
0.425 mm
Kim and Kang (2011) Crumbles CL 0.1–2 mm 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 Bottom ash-
100%
Cement-
20%
Chan (2012a) Granular CH 6 mm 1,2, and 4 Cement-2 and
4%

Dunham-Friel and Carraro Granular CL 4.8 or 6.7 mm 20 -

(2014)
Afolagboye and Talabi (2014) Ash CH 75 μm 2, 4, 6, and 8 -
Otoko and Pedro (2014) Fibres CI, CH 10-20 mm length and 1.5–2.5 mm 5, 10, and 15 Cement-2,
thickness and 4%
Daud et al. (2015) Shreds Peat, MH 1 to 5 mm thick 10, 20, and 30
Signes et al., 2016 Crumble CH 2 mm maximum size 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, and -
25
Tajdini et al. (2016) Crumbles Kaolinite Two size ranges of 2–5 mm; and 1–3 5, 10, and 15 -
mm
Tafti and Emadi (2016) Fibres CL, SP 10 to 30 mm length 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 3 -
Yadav and Tiwari, (2016) Crumbles CI 2–0.8 mm 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 Cement-3,
and 6%
Mukherjee and Mishra (2017) Chips CH 4.75–2 mm 5, 10, and 15 Sand-90%
Yadav and Tiwari, (2018) Fibbers CL 2-3 mm 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 Cement-
0,3,6%
Saberian et al. (2018) Tire chips Peat 20×15×0.5 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 -
Akbarimeh and Aflaki (2018) Powder CL <1 mm 0,10,20,30 -
Akbarimehr et al. (2019) Granular, CL <1 mm and 1-5 mm 0,2,4,6,8,10,20,30 -
powder
Chenari et al. (2019) Tire aggrigate Sand TDA (2-15 in) 0,10,20,30,40 -
 Table 2: Geotechnical properties of Tehran clay
Geotechnical properties ASTM standard Values
Specific gravity D854 2.67
Liquid limit (%) D4318 33
Plastic limit (%) D4318 17
Plasticity index (%) D4318 16
Soil type D2487 CL
Maximum dry unit weight (KN/m3) D698 17
Optimum moisture content (%) D698 19
Grain sizes (%) D6913
Gravel D6913 0
Sand D6913 20
fines D6913 80
Table 3: Chemical properties of tire shreds
Composition Percentage (%)
Carbone 88
Oxygen 8.82
Zink 1.8
Sulfur 1
Silicon 0.19
Magnesium 0.12
Aluminum 0.07
Table 4:Mix designation, proportions and tests schedule

Mix Clay Rubber Test type Mix Clay Rubber Test type
designation soil content designation soil content
S100G0 100 0 C, U, D,SD,TR S80C20 80 20 U
S98G2 98 2 C, TR S70C30 70 30 U
S96G4 96 4 C,TR S90F10 90 10 U
S94G6 94 6 C, D,SD,TR S80F20 80 20 U
S92G8 92 8 C, TR S70F30 70 30 U
S90G10 90 10 C, U, D,SD,TR S96P4 96 4 C, TR
S85G15 85 15 C, TR S94P6 94 6 C, D,SD, TR
S80G20 80 20 C, U, D,SD,TR S92P8 92 8 C, TR
S75G25 75 25 C, TR S90P10 90 10 C, U, D,SD,TR
S70G30 70 30 C, U, D,SD,TR S85P15 85 15 C, TR
S70S10 90 10 C, U S80P20 80 20 C, U, D,SD,TR
S70S20 80 20 C, U S75P25 75 25 C, TR
S70S30 70 30 C, U S70P30 70 30 C, U, D,SD,TR
S100P0 100 0 C, U, D,SD,TR S70F10 90 10 C, U
S98P2 98 2 C, TR S70F20 80 20 C, U
S90C10 90 10 U S70F30 70 30 C, U
Materials: S: Soil Test types: U: Unconfined compression test
P: Tire powder C: Compaction test
G: Tire granule D: Direct shear test
F: Tire fiber (Specimen in optimum moisture content
C: Tire chips condition during test)
SD: Saturated Direct shear test
(Specimen in optimum moisture content
condition during test)
T: Triaxial test
Figure 1. Map of Iran and position of soil used in Tehran province
a) Grain size distribution curve b) X ray diffraction of the clay
Figure 2. Clay soil
Figure 3. Rubber forms and magnification a) used rubber forms (tire chips, tire granule, tire powder, tire
fibber)View granule and tire powder with magnification b) optical microscope image of tire powder c)
binocular image of granule
a) Sample preparing mold components and sample S90G10

b) Five steps of sample preparing

Figure 4. Sample preparing mold components and steps of sample preparing

 a) Compaction curves b) Compaction curves trends

c) Variation of maximum dry density d) Variation of optimum moisture content

Figure 5. Compaction test results
a) Sample S10G10 after failure b) Maximum shear strength considering axial strain peak
trends

c) Unconfined compressive strength considering tire d) Axial strain considering tire content
content
Figure 6. Unconfined compressive strength test results
Figure 7. Larger view of cracks
 b) Maximum shear strength considering tire content

a)Shear stress and vertical strain versus displacement c) Maximum shear strength considering tire content

d) Maximum shear strength considering tire e) Cohesion versus tire content

content

f) Internal friction angle versus tire content g) failure envelope

Figure 8. Direct shear test results (D: Specimen in optimum moisture content condition during test, SD:
Specimen in saturated condition during test)
 b) Axial stress considering axial strain peak trends

c) Cohesion versus tire content

a) deviator stress and volumetric strain versus axial strain d) Internal friction angle versus tire content

e) failure envelope
Figure 9. Triaxial test results
 a) Microscopic analysis at 200x b) Binocular analysis at 100x magnification
magnification
Figure 10. Optical Microscope image and binocular image analysis