Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste Powder

sustainability
Article
Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste
Powder–Clay Mixtures
Davood Akbarimehr 1, *, Alireza Rahai 1 , Abolfazl Eslami 1 and Moses Karakouzian 2
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 15916, Iran;
rahai@aut.ac.ir (A.R.); afeslami@aut.ac.ir (A.E.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA; mkar@unlv.nevada.edu
* Correspondence: akbarimehr@aut.ac.ir
Abstract: With the increasing accumulation of rubber waste, the potential reuse of rubber fillers offers
a promising solution to enhance the engineering properties of low-plasticity soils while promoting
environmental sustainability. In this study, the effect of rubber waste powders (RWPs) on the
consolidation and deformation properties of low-plasticity clay soil (CS) was investigated using a
fully automated consolidation testing procedure for clay–rubber mixtures. The study involved adding
2% up to 30% RWPs to Tehran clay, and various parameters were evaluated through consolidation,
compaction, and uniaxial strength tests. The results revealed that the consolidation volume of
the mixture differed from that of the CS due to the elastic nature of the rubber wastes (RWs). To
achieve higher precision, a new equation was proposed to determine the void ratio, along with
modified e-log p’ curves for the clay–rubber mixture. Furthermore, the addition of RWPs to the CS
resulted in moderated free swelling of the soil while enhancing ductility, compression index (Cc),
swelling index (Cs), and recompression index (Cr). However, it was observed that the strength and
modulus of elasticity of the mixture decreased with the increase in rubber content. Considering
the variations in geotechnical parameters with different rubber contents, the appropriate rubber
content can be selected based on specific applications in soil and rubber mixtures, considering the
required geotechnical parameters. This study highlights the potential applications of RWPs as a
material in civil and geotechnical engineering projects, providing valuable insights for sustainable
Citation: Akbarimehr, D.; Rahai, A.; and eco-friendly engineering practices.
Eslami, A.; Karakouzian, M.
Deformation Characteristics of
Keywords: deformation characteristics; compressibility; consolidation test; low plasticity Tehran
Rubber Waste Powder–Clay Mixtures.
clay; rubber–clay mixture; sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151612384
Academic Editors: Amro Hassanein 1. Introduction

and Jianbin Guo
Human societies are currently grappling with the challenges posed by rubber waste
Received: 16 July 2023 (RWs), which, despite being recyclable, often ends up in landfills, causing environmental
Revised: 9 August 2023 concerns. To address this issue, various studies have explored the use of RWs to enhance
Accepted: 12 August 2023 the engineering properties of different materials [1–7]. Previous research has highlighted
Published: 15 August 2023 the favorable attributes of RWs, such as high frictional strength, durability, flexibility,
and compressive/tensile strengths, making them suitable for geotechnical engineering
applications [5,8,9]. The unique elasticity and damping properties of rubber make it a
promising candidate for improving the seismic performance of clay soil (CS) [10,11]. Fibers
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
are effective in geotechnical properties of clay soils [12]. Similar to fibers, which have
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
proven effective in enhancing the properties of fine-grained soils, rubber is expected to
This article is an open access article
positively impact the geotechnical properties of soils, much like fiber-reinforced materials
distributed under the terms and
ones [13–16]. Incorporating different materials for soil improvement has been an area
conditions of the Creative Commons
of significant interest, with several methods and studies exploring this avenue [17,18].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
While research on the effect of rubber on geotechnical properties has been explored for
4.0/).
sand–crumb rubber mixtures [19–23], there is limited information on its impact on some
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612384 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384 2 of 18
characteristics of clay soils. Some studies have indicated that the uniaxial strength of clay–
rubber mixtures may decrease with rubber contents exceeding 4% [24]. Nevertheless, the
use of homogenous rubber powder in the soil has shown positive effects on the repeatable
properties of the clay–rubber mixture. Microscopic examination reveals that the rubber
grains are relatively longitudinal and contribute to reinforcing the clay–rubber mixture,
improving its flexibility and ductility. The mixture exhibits a transition from brittle to ductile
failure behavior [25]. Evaluating clay–rubber mixtures through various tests, including
direct shear, uniaxial, and triaxial tests, has demonstrated the promising geotechnical
properties of such mixtures and their suitability for civil engineering projects [10]. Other
studies have also examined the use of triaxial tests to assess the potential of CS–RWs
mixtures for geotechnical engineering applications [9,11].
Clay soils are of great importance in geotechnical engineering and extensive research
has been conducted to investigate their geotechnical properties [26–30]. Few studies have
thus far been completed on the consolidation and the swelling properties of clay–rubber
mixtures. For instance, a study had been conducted on the impact of RWs on the swelling
properties of two different expansive clay soils in Algeria. The swelling properties of the
specimen had been further assessed via the consolidation test under loading and unloading.
According to the study results, the swelling properties, the swelling pressure, and the
time to reach the maximum swelling in highly expansive clay had declined following an
increase in the rubber content. The results were also suggestive of the applicability of this
mixture in civil projects [31]. The consolidation test on expansive clay–rubber mixtures
had comparably indicated that adding 15% rubber could cause a reduction in the swelling
properties of clay. In contrast, the mixtures had shown compaction equal to that of the
pure soil, and additionally, the strength had been slightly boosted by adding rubber to the
soil [13]. Consolidation testing of a high-plasticity clay–crumb rubber mixture had also
established that the compaction of the mixture had decreased by adding 5–10% rubber
to the soil, but it had started to increase at higher contents [32]. The addition of rubber
to clay samples reduces the post-peak loss of strength, making the soil mixture more
flexible, elastic, and less brittle. Different shapes of rubber in the mixture contribute to
controlling cracking. Mixtures containing granular rubber show higher resistance and
achieve the highest modulus of elasticity compared to other rubber shapes at the same
percentage of rubber content. The type of failure in the soil and rubber mixture varies
based on the shape and amount of rubber used, including shear plane failure, shear wedge
failure, shear area failure, multiple vertical cracks, multiple diagonal cracks, and bulging
failure [16]. The damping ratio of the clay–rubber mixture increases with a decrease in
rubber grain size. Up to about 10% rubber content, the damping ratio increases, but with
a further increase in rubber content, the damping ratio decreases. The shear modulus of
the soil–rubber mixture increases with an increase in grain size, but it decreases with an
increase in the amount of rubber content. Reducing the shear strain amplitude in cyclic
tests increases the shear modulus and decreases the damping ratio of the mixture [9].
Increasing rubber content in clay increases the elastic, plastic, and cumulative plastic
strains, particularly when using smaller rubber grains [25]. Table 1 summarizes some
recent studies on clay–rubber mixtures.
A review of the literature here explains that although a major portion of clay in
the nature and civil projects are of low-plasticity type where rubber waste can be used
as filler materials, no comprehensive study has been so far fulfilled on the deformation
behavior of clay–rubber mixtures. It has been mentioned in various studies that the
clay soil in the south of Tehran, Iran is known to be mainly composed of low-plasticity
clay [33,34]. In this study, consolidation tests were accordingly performed on Tehran clay
to characterize the properties of the mixture by adding rubber powder. Considering the
need for understanding the strength properties of the mixture concerned, the uniaxial test
was practiced, and the optimum moisture content (OMC) and the maximum dry density
(MDD) of the mixture were experimentally determined. Accordingly, the aim is to reuse
RWs as filler materials in civil and geotechnical engineering and reduce environmental
problems caused by such wastes.
Table 1. Some recent studies on clay–rubber mixtures.
Reseach Topic References RWs Content (%) RWs Soil RWs Size (mm)
Mechanical
[32] 5, 10 & 15 Chips * CH 4.75–2
properties
Construction
[5] 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10% Granulate and fiber CL 0.8–2 mm, fiber
material
Geotechnical
[10] 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20 & 30 4 forms of rubber CL Different size
properties
Dynamic
[9] <1 mm and 1–5 mm Granular Tehran Clay 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20 and 30%
properties
Strength
[11] 5, 10 and 25% Granular Red clay & Kaolin 0.1–1 mm and 1–5 mm
Characteristics
Failure analysis [16] 10, 20 and 30% 4 forms of rubber CL Different size
Elaspo-plastic
[25] Up to 30% Granular Tehran clay <1 and 1–5
charactristics
* Sand up to 90% is used as an additive; CH: High Plasticity Clay; CL: Low Plasticity Clay.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Tehran Clay (CS)
Tehran is situated at the base of the Alborz Mountains, characterized by young alluvial
deposits formed through extensive erosion from the Alborz Mountains along various fault
lines. The city can be divided into two main regions: the pediment in the north and the
northern plains of central Iran in the south. The alluvial deposits of southern Alborz
extend from north to south and are typically found over impermeable beds, covered with
diverse alluvial sediments. Sedimentological studies of the alluvial deposits in and around
Tehran indicate that they are formed by seasonal river activity and floods originating
from the southern slopes of the Alborz Mountains. As described above, clay lenses are
present throughout most parts of Tehran. Additionally, the soil in the northern regions of
Tehran tends to be more coarse-grained while in the southern parts, it is characterized by
fine-grained alluvium. For this study, experiments have been conducted on soil samples
collected from the southern parts of Tehran.
Local investigations and site studies have always been of interest to researchers [16].
For this study, clay soil (CS) samples were collected from the southern region of Tehran,
which were predominantly of the low-plasticity type [33–35]. The choice of this natural
CS was made with the intention of practical applicability for the results obtained. The
samples were taken using a core cutter from a depth of 2 m, ensuring they were free from
clay loam and made ground. The sampling location and waste tires near the trash bin
in Tehran is also shown in Figure 1. XRD and XRF tests were carried out in the mining
faculty of Amirkabir University of Technology and according to conventional methods.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the Tehran clay (Figure 2) revealed that the dominant
clay mineral in this soil is kaolinite and, along with its chemical properties and constituent
elements obtained from X-ray fluorescence (XRF), revealed that the clay primarily contains
calcium oxide (CaO) and ferric oxide (Fe2 O3 ) (Table 2). Additionally, the grading curve of
the soil was determined using the Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis (ASTM
D422) [36] (Figure 3). The results showed that 65% of the soil passed through sieve #200.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
The physical properties of the CS are presented in Table 2. According to the Unified
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384 TheClassification
Soil physical properties
Systemof(USCS)
the CS are presented
(ASTM D2487)in [37],
Tablethe
2. According to thethe
CS falls under Unified 4 of 18
category of
Soillow-plasticity
Classification soil
System
(CL).(USCS) (ASTM D2487) [37], the CS falls under the category of
low-plasticity soil (CL).
Figure
Figure 1.1.Soil
1. Soil
Figure sampling
sampling
Soil areaarea
sampling in Tehran
in Tehran
area mapwaste
map and
in Tehran map andwaste
and wastetires.
tires. tires.
Figure
Figure 2. XRD
2. XRD analysis
analysis of Tehran
of Tehran clay. clay.
Figure 2. XRD analysis of Tehran clay.
Figure Clayand
3. Clay
Figure 3. andrubber
rubbergrain
grain size
size distribution.
distribution
Table 2. Engineering geological and geotechnical properties of Tehran clay and rubber waste.
Geotechnical Properties of CS
Properties ASTM Standard Values
The physical properties of the CS are presented in Table 2. According to the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487) [37], the CS falls under the category of
low-plasticity soil (CL).
Table 2. Engineering geological and geotechnical properties of Tehran clay and rubber waste.
Geotechnical Properties of CS
Properties ASTM Standard Values
Specific gravity D 854 [38] 2.65
Liquid limit (%) D 4318 [39] 34
Plastic limit (%) D 4318 [39] 14
Plasticity index (%) D 4318 [39] 20
Soil type (USCS) D 2487 [37] CL
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3 ) D698 [40] 16.3
Optimum moisture content (%) D698 [40] 18.5
Fine percent (%) D422 [36] 65%
Chemical Composition of CS
Chemical Components Percentage (%) Test Type
SiO2 55
Al2 O3 10.5
Fe2 O3 8
XRF
CaO 18.6
MgO 5.4
L.O.I (loss of ignition) 2.5
Chemical Composition of RWPs
Components Percentage (%) Test Type
Carbone 86.8
Oxygen 9.3
Zink 1.95
Sulfur 1.4 XRF
Magnesium 0.23
Aluminum 0.12
Silicon 0.2
2.1.2. RWPs
Rubber waste powders (RWPs) obtained from crushing tire waste were used to rein-
force the CS. The grading diagram of the RWPs is shown in Figure 3. According to the
USCS for grain size (ASTM D2487) [37], the rubber powder is classified as poorly graded
sand (SP), with curvature and uniformity coefficients of 2.7 and 3, respectively. The rubber
grain size ranges from 0.1 to 1 mm, approximately similar to that of sandy clay. Table 2
provides the chemical properties of the rubber powder, which mainly consists of carbon
and hydrogen. Additionally, Figure 4a displays waste tires and RWPs, and Figure 4b also
displays a high-resolution image (40×) of the RWPs under an optical microscope. The
elongated shape of the rubber particles, with an approximate length-to-width ratio (aspect
ratio) of 1:1, contributed to the reinforcement of the CS by the rubber powder.
sand (SP), with curvature and uniformity coefficients of 2.7 and 3, respectively. The rubber
grain size ranges from 0.1 to 1 mm, approximately similar to that of sandy clay. Table 2
provides the chemical properties of the rubber powder, which mainly consists of carbon
and hydrogen. Additionally, Figure 4a displays waste tires and RWPs, and Figure 4b also
displays a high-resolution image (40×) of the RWPs under an optical microscope. The elon-
gated shape of the rubber particles, with an approximate length-to-width ratio (aspect
ratio) of 1:1, contributed to the reinforcement of the CS by the rubber powder.
Figure 4. (a)
Figure 4. (a) Waste
Waste tires and RWPs,
tires and RWPs, (b)
(b) Optical
Optical microscopic
microscopic view
view of
of RWPs
RWPs at
at 40
40×× magnification.
magnification.
2.1.3. CS–RWP Mixture Preparation

As test
test results
resultscancanbe beinfluenced
influencedby byspecimen
specimenpreparation
preparation andand rubber
rubber content,
content, vari-
various
rubber contents have been used in the literature [9]. At high rubber
ous rubber contents have been used in the literature [9]. At high rubber contents, the be- contents, the behavior
of the mixture
havior is primarily
of the mixture governed
is primarily by the rubber,
governed resultingresulting
by the rubber, in a significant decreasede-
in a significant in
the geotechnical
crease properties properties
in the geotechnical of the mixture [16].mixture
of the Consequently, this study employed
[16]. Consequently, this study a range
em-
of rubber
ployed contents
a range from 0contents
of rubber to 30 wt% (relative
from 0 to 30towt%the (relative
dry soil) to tothe
investigate
dry soil)the impact on
to investigate
the specimens.
impact on the Considering
specimens.that low percentages
Considering that low of percentages
rubber are more usefulare
of rubber in more
engineering
useful
works [10,25], in RWP contents less than 10%, the steps of increasing
in engineering works [10,25], in RWP contents less than 10%, the steps of increasing RWPs RWPs are 2 by 2 (2,
4, 6, 8 and 10%) and due to the lower use of higher amounts of
are 2 by 2 (2, 4, 6, 8 and 10%) and due to the lower use of higher amounts of RWPs, in RWPs, in rubber contents
more than
rubber 10%, in
contents order
more to investigate
than 10%, in order the to
engineering
investigatebehavior of this mixture,
the engineering behavior 20%of and
this
30% RWPs
mixture, 20% have
and also
30%been usedhave
RWPs in this study.
also beenVarious
used inteststhis were
study. conducted
Various tests to characterize
were con-
the specimens.
ducted Table 3 the
to characterize provides detailsTable
specimens. on the specimendetails
3 provides codes,on including
the specimen soil and rubber
codes, in-
contents, along with the tests performed on each specimen.
cluding soil and rubber contents, along with the tests performed on each specimen. EachEach specimen in Table 3
is identified by two letters and a number. The first letter and number
specimen in Table 3 is identified by two letters and a number. The first letter and number represent the CS
type and content,
represent the CS type respectively,
and content, while the second
respectively, letterthe
while and number
second letterindicate
and numberthe rubber
indi-
content in the mixture. For instance, C90P10 represents a mixture
cate the rubber content in the mixture. For instance, C90P10 represents a mixture contain-containing 90% CS and
10% RWPs.
ing 90% To prepare
CS and 10% RWPs. the specimens,
To prepare the the specimens,
CS and RWPs were
the CS andthoroughly
RWPs were mixed. After
thoroughly
adding the optimum moisture, the mixture was placed in plastic
mixed. After adding the optimum moisture, the mixture was placed in plastic bags for 24 bags for 24 h to ensure
a uniform
h to ensuredistribution
a uniform of moisture. of
distribution Subsequently, the specimensthe
moisture. Subsequently, were constructed
specimens wereincon-
the
consolidation mold considering the maximum dry density (MDD)
structed in the consolidation mold considering the maximum dry density (MDD) of the of the soil.
soil.
Table 3. Mixture designation and proportions.
Sample Number Sample Type Sample Code Test

1 Pure clay soil C100 P0 U.C.S, Com., Con.
2 Clay soil + 2% rubber powder C98 P2 U.C.S, Com., Con.
9 100% rubber C0 R100 Con.
Test Types:
Unconfined compressive strength Standard compaction
U.C.S.: Com.:
(ASTM D2166) [41] test (ASTM D698) [40]
Consolidation test
Con.:
(ASTM D2435) [42]
9 100% rubber C0R100 Con.
Test Types:
U.C.S.: Unconfined compressive Standard compactio
Com.:
strength (ASTM D2166) [41] test (ASTM D698) [4
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384 Con.: Consolidation test (ASTM 7 of 18
D2435) [42]
Observing Observing the clay–rubber

the clay–rubber mixtures
mixtures under under a allowed
a binocular binocular forallowed
capturingfor high-
capturing hig
resolution
resolution images images
of these of these voluminous
voluminous objects.
objects. Figure Figureviews
5 exhibits 5 exhibits
of theviews of the soil–rubb
soil–rubber-
watertaken
water mixtures mixtures taken
using using a binocular,
a binocular, optical microscope,
optical microscope, and SEMand SEM microscope.
microscope. As As d
picted,
depicted, there there is cohesion
is cohesion between
between the CS and the CS and
rubber rubber Itparticles.
particles. is worthItnoting
is worth
thatnoting
clay that cl
minerals,kaolinite,
minerals, including includingalso
kaolinite, also to
contribute contribute to water absorption,
water absorption, fostering goodfostering good cohesi
cohesion
between CS,between CS, water,
water, and rubber,and rubber,
leading leading
to the to thegeotechnical
favorable favorable geotechnical
performance performance
of the of t
mixture. mixture.
(a) Binocular view of CS–RWPs (b) Binocular view of CS–RWPs
(c) Optical microscopic view of CS–RWPs (d) SEM microscopic view of CS–RWPs
Figure 5. Microscopic,
Figure 5. Microscopic, Binocular,
Binocular, and SEM viewandofSEM view of CS–RWPs.
CS–RWPs.
2.2. Laboratory Study

In this study, the deformation characteristics of the soil–rubber mixture were thor-
oughly investigated through consolidation and compaction tests. Additionally, unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) tests were employed for further investigation. Below is a
description of how these tests were performed.
2.2.1. Consolidation Test

Consolidation and swelling (rebound) tests were conducted on the specimens using a
fully automated testing machine in accordance with ASTM D2435 [42] standards. The use
of an automated machine allowed for precise and accurate recordings during each stage,
eliminating manual errors and enhancing the reliability of the results. Figure 6a depicts
the testing machine and the consolidation test samples used in the experiments. Figure 6b
presents test samples containing various rubber contents (from 0 to 30%) following the
consolidation test. As illustrated, the mixture color turns darker once the rubber content is
augmented. The experiments were accordingly carried out at swelling and consolidation
stages. During the swelling stage, the specimen was subjected to a pressure of 5 kPa to
allow for free swelling, and the swelling rate was recorded at different time intervals. The
swelling percentage at various time points and the final swelling percentage after reaching
equilibrium were also calculated. For the consolidation stage, the specimen was subjected
to incremental pressures of 12.5, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 kPa, each for 24 h,
with automatic recordings at specific intervals as per the standard procedure. To assess the
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of

unloading behavior, the unloading steps were conducted from 1600 kPa to 800, 400, 200,
and 100 kPa, respectively, with displacement recordings taken up to 4 h before the next
unloading step.
(a) Fully automatic consolidation test apparatus (Global MTM)
(b) Consolidation test samples

Figure 6. Consolidation test apparatus and samples.
Figure 6. Consolidation test apparatus and samples.
Considering the presence of rubber in the mixture, the compaction behavior of the
specimens differed from that of the pure soil. To evaluate the effect of rubber on the
consolidation and swelling, three consolidation tests were conducted on different specimens.
In the first experiment, the pure soil was tested following saturation (Figure 7a,b). The
second test focused on the consolidation and swelling of the pure rubber, given its high
elasticity (Figure 7c,d). The third experiment involved testing clay–rubber mixtures with
varying clay contents, as specified in Table 3. The rubber waste powders (RWPs) with
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 final
different levels (contents) were mixed accordingly. Figure 7 illustrates the initial and of 19
void ratios obtained from these tests, providing valuable insights into the behavior of the
clay–rubber mixtures.
(a) Initial state of soil sample (b) Rubber sample after consolidation
(c) Initial state of rubber sample (d) Rubber sample after consolidation
(e) Initial state of CS–RWP mixture sample (f) CS–RWP mixture sample after consolidation
Figure 7. Initial and final stage of pure soil, CS–RWP mixture, and pure rubber samples.
Figure 7. Initial and final stage of pure soil, CS–RWP mixture, and pure rubber samples.
2.2.2. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)

To assess
assess the
thestrength
strengthand
andsettlement
settlementcharacteristics
characteristics
of of
thethe specimens
specimens andand facilitate
facilitate the
the design
design of suitable
of suitable mixtures,
mixtures, the the uniaxial
uniaxial testtest
waswas conducted.
conducted. This
This testtest aimed
aimed to to evalu-
evaluate
ate
the the uniaxial
uniaxial strength
strength of of
thethe specimens
specimens withoutapplying
without applyingaaconfined
confinedload,
load, following
following the
ASTM D2166
D2166[41][41]standard
standardforforcohesive
cohesivesoils. The
soils. specimens
The specimenswere loaded
were using
loaded conventional
using conven-
methods
tional at five different
methods layers of equal
at five different layersthickness,
of equal with a strain-loading
thickness, rate of 1 mm/min
with a strain-loading [13].
rate of 1
mm/min [13].
2.2.3. Compaction Test
2.2.3.The compaction
Compaction test was conducted to determine the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)
Test
and the Maximum Dry
The compaction test Density
was (MDD) of thetosoil.
conducted This testthe
determine wasOptimum
essential for practicalContent
Moisture applica-
tions in construction projects. The specimens were prepared under optimal
(OMC) and the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of the soil. This test was essential for prac- conditions and
then subjected
tical to testing.
applications As shown projects.
in construction in Table 3,The
the standard
specimens compaction test was
were prepared performed
under on
optimal
various specimens following the ASTM D698 [40] standard (12,400 ft-lbf/ft 3 [600 kN-m/m3 ]).
conditions and then subjected to testing. As shown in Table 3, the standard compaction
test was performed on various specimens following the ASTM D698 [40] standard (12,400
ft-lbf/ft3 [600 kN-m/m3]).
3. Results and Analysis

3. Results and Analysis
In addition to discussing the effect of rubber on the Optimum Moisture Content
In addition to discussing the effect of rubber on the Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD), the impact of rubber on the consolidation and
(OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD), the impact of rubber on the consolidation and
swelling properties of the CS was also examined. Furthermore, the strength properties of
swelling properties of the CS was also examined. Furthermore, the strength properties of
the specimens were evaluated, and their uniaxial strength is analyzed in this section.
the specimens were evaluated, and their uniaxial strength is analyzed in this section.
3.1.
3.1.RWPs
RWPsEffect Effecton
onMDD
MDDand andOMC
OMC
Figure
Figure88shows showsthe thestandard
standardcompaction
compactiondiagrams
diagramsofofthethespecimens
specimenscontaining
containingdif-
dif-
ferent levels of RWPs. It is evident that the Maximum Dry Density
ferent levels of RWPs. It is evident that the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) of the pure (MDD) of the pure soil
issoil
16.3iskN/m 3, and the
16.3 kN/m Optimum
3 , and Moisture
the Optimum ContentContent
Moisture (OMC) is 18.5%.isAs
(OMC) the rubber
18.5%. As thecontent
rubber
iscontent
increased, the OMC also increases while the MDD decreases. For
is increased, the OMC also increases while the MDD decreases. For instance,instance, at a rubber
at a
content
rubber of 30%, the
content MDDthe
of 30%, andMDDOMCandareOMC
13.2 kN/m 3 and 21%,3respectively. This reduction
are 13.2 kN/m and 21%, respectively. This
inreduction
mixture density
in mixturecandensity
be attributed
can betoattributed
the lowertodensity of the
the lower rubber
density ofpowder compared
the rubber powder
tocompared
the pure to CS.
theAdding
pure CS. rubber to clay
Adding reduces
rubber the
to clay unit weight
reduces of weight
the unit the soil,ofwhich canwhich
the soil, sig-
nificantly reduce the
can significantly pressure
reduce caused by
the pressure embankment
caused in the mixture
by embankment and lower
in the mixture andimple-
lower
mentation
implementationcosts. Similar trends trends
costs. Similar have been
havereported in the literature
been reported for the for
in the literature MDD theand
MDD OMC
and
inOMC
clay–rubber mixtures [3,10,13,35].
in clay–rubber mixtures [3,10,13,35].
Standardcompaction
Figure8.8.Standard
Figure compactiontest
testfor
forCS–RWP
CS–RWPmixtures.
mixtures.
3.2. RWP Effect on Stiffness

3.2. RWP Effect on Stiffness
3.2.1. Swelling Potential
3.2.1. Swelling Potential
After conducting the consolidation tests, the swelling strains were evaluated, and the
results areconducting
After presentedthe consolidation
in Figure 9. As thetests, the swelling
rubber contentstrains were evaluated,
is increased, the mixture andcolor
the
results
becomes aredarker.
presented in Figure
Figure 9. Asthe
9 displays theswelling
rubber content
strains of is increased, the mixture
the specimens color
with different
becomes darker. Figure 9 displays the swelling strains of the specimens
rubber levels. It is evident that the specimens containing rubber powder exhibit lower with different
rubber
swelling levels. It compared
strains is evident to that
thethe specimens
natural containing
CS, indicating rubber powder
a reduction exhibitstrain
in the swelling lowerof
swelling
the mixture. Figure 10 illustrates the changes in the free swelling as a function of the strain
strains compared to the natural CS, indicating a reduction in the swelling rubber
ofcontent.
the mixture. Figure 10
The swelling illustrates
strain the changes
of the pure soil afterin 24the
h isfree
45%swelling
while theassoil
a function of the
containing 2%,
rubber
4%, 6%, content.
8%, 10%,The20%,
swelling
and strain of the pure
30% rubber soilswelling
exhibits after 24 hstrains
is 45%ofwhile
40%,the soil39%,
42%, contain-
45%,
ing
39%,2%,31%,
4%, and
6%, 8%,
31%,10%, 20%, and It
respectively. 30% rubber exhibits
is observed that the swelling strains of
use of rubber 40%,a42%,
causes 39%,
reduction
45%, 39%, 31%, and 31%, respectively. It is observed that the use of rubber
in the free swelling of the natural CS and ultimately improves the geotechnical properties causes a reduc-
tion in the
of the free swelling
mixture inducedof bytheclaynatural CS and
swelling. Thisultimately improvesinthe
reduced swelling thegeotechnical prop-
rubber-containing
erties of the mixture induced by clay swelling. This reduced swelling
mixtures can be attributed to the rubber’s lack of water absorption and, consequently, no in the rubber-con-
taining
swelling.mixtures
Moreover,canthe
be clay
attributed
contenttointhe
the rubber’s lack of water
mixture decreases with absorption
an increase inand,
theconse-
rubber
quently,
content,no swelling. Moreover,
contributing to the overallthe clay
dropcontent
in clay in the mixture decreases with an increase
swelling.
in the rubber content, contributing to the overall drop in clay swelling.
Sustainability
Sustainability2023,
Sustainability 2023, 15,
2023, 15, xx12384
FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12
1211of
ofof19
19
18
Figure
Figure9.
Figure 9.RWP
9. RWPeffect
RWP effecton
effect onswelling
on swellingstrains.
swelling strains.
strains.
Figure10.
Figure
Figure 10. RWPeffect
10.RWP
RWP effecton
effect onfree
on freeswelling.
free swelling.
swelling.
3.2.2. E-Log P’ Curves
3.2.2.
3.2.2. E-Log
E-Log P’ P’ Curves
Curves
The e-log p’ curves were employed to assess the effect of rubber on the consolidation
The
properties e-log
The e-log
of thep’ curves
p’pure
curves were
were
soil. employed
employed
Figure to
to assess
11 presents assess the
the effect
the e-log effect of
of rubber
p’ curves for theon
rubber on the
the consolidation
consolidation
clay–rubber mixture
properties
properties
at differentof of the pure
the pure
rubber soil. Figure
soil. Figure
contents, 11 presents
plotted11according
presents to the e-log
theASTM p’
e-log D2435curves
p’ curves for
[42]for the clay–rubber
the clay–rubber
standards, assuming mix-
mix-
the
ture
ture at
sameatvoid different
different rubber
ratio rubber contents,
for bothcontents, plotted according
plotted according
the clay–rubber mixture and to ASTM
to ASTM D2435
D2435
the natural [42]
CS.[42] standards, assum-
standards, assum-
A downward trend is
ing
ing the
the same
further same void ratio
ratio for
void with
observed for both
both the
increasing clay–rubber
thethe
clay–rubber mixture
mixture
rubber content, andand
andthethe
the natural
ratioCS.
natural
void CS. A
A downward
of the downward
specimens
trend
trend is
is further
further observed
observed
decrease relative to the natural clay. with
with increasing
increasing the
the rubber
rubber content,
content, and
and the
the void
void ratio
ratio of
of the
the
specimens
specimens decrease relative
decrease relative
An interesting to the
questiontoarises: natural
the natural
“Do theclay.
clay.void ratios of the natural clay and the clay–
rubber An interesting
Anmixture
interesting question
followquestion
the samearises:
arises: “Do
“Do the
relations void
thethe
at void ratios
ratios of
beginning the
theatnatural
ofand the endclay
natural clay and the
the clay–
and consolida-
of each clay–
rubber
rubber mixture
tion stage?”mixture follow
followthe
Initially, the same
thevoid
same relations
relations
ratios at the
at the
of both pure beginning
beginning
clay and andand at the
at the end
clay–rubber end of
of each (consoli-
each
mixtures e
consoli-
SO and
e
dation stage?” Initially, the void ratios of both pure clay and clay–rubber mixtures (eeSO and
dation
TO ) follow
stage?” Initially, the void ratios of both pure clay and clay–rubber mixtures ( SO and4
the same relation and can be calculated from Equations (1) and (4) in Table
eebased
TO followthe
on
TO)) follow theGsame
the S (specific
same gravity).
relation
relation and
and can However,
can be there are
be calculated
calculated from
from differences
Equationsin(1)
Equations (1)calculating
and
and (4) inthe
(4) in Table
Tablevoid44
ratios on
based after loading
the G stages.gravity).
(specific During the consolidation
However, there of the
are natural soil,
differences in the appliedthe
calculating pressure
void
based on the GS (specific gravity). However, there are differences in calculating the void
S
primarily removes water from the cavities, and the elastic volume reduction of the soil
on a pure rubber specimen. Figure 12 illustrates the e-log p’ curve for the pure rubber. As
the pure rubber lacks pores, the volume reduction during consolidation loading is at-
tributed to the reduction in the elastic volume of the rubber. These results were utilized
to correct the void ratios of the mixtures. The void ratio was corrected at each applied
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384 stress based on the rubber content and the elastic volume reduction of the rubber,12em- of 18
ploying Equation (6) in Table 4 to calculate the void ratio of the clay–rubber mixture.
Figure 13a displays the new e-log p’ curves obtained from the proposed correlation.
To
grains does the
compare notcurves obtained
significantly with thetonew
contribute correlation
the overall and reduction.
volume those calculated
On theby conven-
other hand,
tional
in the case of rubber-containing specimens, part of the applied pressure results in themodi-
methods, both modified and unmodified curves are shown. As depicted, the elastic
fied curves lieofabove
compaction the unmodified
the rubber particles. curves,
Therefore,andthetheobserved
gap between them
volume widens with
reduction in-
includes
creasing
both therubber
lowered content.
volume It of
should be noted
the pores that
due to if thevolume
elastic curves reduction
are not modified, the void
of the rubber and
ratio might become
the reduction negative
from water at highThis
removal. rubber contents.
distinction By using
needs the new correlation,
to be considered the
in calculations,
void ratio remains
as conventional positive,
methods mayensuring
lead to avoid
more accurate
ratios representation
that are of the
higher than the behavior
actual ones andof
the clay–rubber mixture.
should be corrected.
Figure
Figure11.
11.E-log
E-logp’p’consolidation
consolidationtest
testresults.
results.
Table
Table4.4.Equations
Equationsfor
forvoid
voidratio
ratiocalculation.
calculation.
EquationsEquations for calculation

for calculation of void ratiooffor
void
pureratio
soil for pure soil No. No.
𝑉 𝐻 .𝐴 𝐻 − 𝐻 𝐻 𝐻. 𝐴. 𝐺 . 𝛾
eS0 = V 𝑒Hv ·=A =− HS ==H − 1 ==H · A·G
H −S·1γw=− 1 −1 (1) (1)
= 𝑉
= 𝐻 . 𝐴 𝐻 𝐻 𝑊
V
VS HS · A HS HS WS
𝑉
eSi = V VSi
𝑒 = (2) (2)
VSSi 𝑉
eSi = eS(i−1) 𝑒− ∆e
= Si
𝑒 ( ) − ∆𝑒 (3) (3)
Equations
Equations for calculation
for calculation of void ratiooffor
void
soilratio for soilmix
and rubber and rubber mix No. No.
VVT 𝑉
HvT · A H𝐻 . 𝐴 𝐻HT− 𝐻
T − HST H𝐻· A· GST · γw 𝐻. 𝐴. 𝐺 . 𝛾
eT0 = VST = 𝑒 HST =· A == HST = = HST − 1 == − 1 =− 1 −1 (4) (4)
𝑉 𝐻 .𝐴 𝐻 𝐻 WT 𝑊
e Li = V VL 𝑉 (5)
VSL 𝑒 = (5)
𝑉
eTi = esi − Ni ·e Li (New equation for soil and rubber mixture) (6)
𝑒 = 𝑒 − 𝑁 . 𝑒 (New equation for soil and rubber mixture) (6)
To address this issue, a new correlation was proposed by performing the same test on
a pure rubber specimen. Figure 12 illustrates the e-log p’ curve for the pure rubber. As the
pure rubber lacks pores, the volume reduction during consolidation loading is attributed to
the reduction in the elastic volume of the rubber. These results were utilized to correct the
void ratios of the mixtures. The void ratio was corrected at each applied stress based on the
rubber content and the elastic volume reduction of the rubber, employing Equation (6) in
Table 4 to calculate the void ratio of the clay–rubber mixture.
Figure 13a displays the new e-log p’ curves obtained from the proposed correlation. To
compare the curves obtained with the new correlation and those calculated by conventional
methods, both modified and unmodified curves are shown. As depicted, the modified
curves lie above the unmodified curves, and the gap between them widens with increasing
rubber content. It should be noted that if the curves are not modified, the void ratio
might become negative at high rubber contents. By using the new correlation, the void
ratio remains positive, ensuring a more accurate representation of the behavior of the
clay–rubber mixture.
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 15, 12384 13 of 19
18
Sustainability 2023,
2023, 15,
15, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 14
14 of
of 19
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Void
Void ratio
ratio vs.
vs. pressure
pressure in
in pure rubber.
pure rubber.
rubber.
(a) Comparison
(a) Comparison of
of e-log
e-log p’ and corrected
p’ and corrected e-log
e-log p’
p’ curves
curves (b) RWP
(b) RWP effect
effect on
on Cc
Cc
(c) RWP
(c) RWP effect
effect on
on Cr
Cr (d) RWP
(d) RWP effect
effect on
on Cs
Cs
Figure
Figure 13.
13. RWP
RWP effect
effect on
on consolidation.
consolidation.
Figure 13. RWP effect on consolidation.
3.2.3.
3.2.3. Compression,
Compression, Swelling,
Swelling, and
and Recompression
Recompression Indices
Indices
3.2.3. Compression, Swelling, and Recompression Indices

Various parameters were obtained from the consolidation test, and three of them,
namely the compression index (Cc), the swelling index (Cs), and the recompression index
(Cr), are particularly important. The effect of adding rubber to these parameters was
therefore investigated, and the results are presented in Figure 13. Figure 13a displays the
new e-log p’ curves. Figure 13b illustrates the effect of rubber powder on the Cc. The Cc of
the CS increases slightly as the rubber content is enhanced. The rise in Cc is limited, with
values changing from 0.224 for the pure soil to 0.227, 0.226, and 0.23 for CSs containing 10,
20, and 30% rubber powder, respectively. This increase indicates a slightly larger settlement
of the mixture compared to the pure soil. However, the impact on the CS settlement is not
significant. Interestingly, the mixture containing 2% rubber powder shows the lowest Cc
among the other mixtures. The improvement in Cs with increasing rubber content can be
attributed to the higher flexibility and elasticity introduced by the rubber powder, resulting
in better settlement behavior of the specimen.
Figure 13c shows the effect of rubber powder on the Cr. The rubber powder signifi-
cantly affects this parameter, especially at the beginning of the e-log p’ curve. The impact of
the rubber powder on Cr is more pronounced than on Cc. The Cr of the clay–rubber mixture
increases from 0.009 for the pure soil to 0.017, 0.039, and 0.057 for mixtures containing 10,
20, and 30% rubber powder, respectively. The lowest Cr value of 0.01 was observed for the
mixture containing 2% rubber powder. The increase in Cr in the clay–rubber mixture com-
pared to the pure soil is attributed to the elasticity of the rubber powder, which significantly
influences the consolidation settlement of the soil.
Figure 13d displays the effect of rubber powder on Cs. The Cs increases with a higher
rubber content, indicating greater swelling during the unloading stage. The swelling index
increases from 0.029 for the pure soil to 0.048, 0.07, and 0.082 for mixtures with 10, 20, and
30% rubber powder, respectively. The lowest Cs value of 0.043 was observed for the mixture
containing 2% rubber powder. Similar to Cc and Cr, the upward trend in Cs relative to the
pure soil can be attributed to the elastic properties of the rubber powder.
3.3. RWP Effect on UCS

Understanding the strength and the settlement conditions is of utmost importance in
geotechnical designs. To investigate the strength of the clay–rubber mixtures in this study,
the strength of the specimens was measured through uniaxial tests. Figure 14a shows the
strength of the clay–rubber mixtures containing different rubber levels. As depicted, the
stress decreases while failure strains elevate in the stress–strain diagram with a growth in
the rubber content. In other words, as the rubber content is augmented, the failure behavior
changes from brittle to ductile, leading to improved ductility of the mixture.
Figure 14b displays the changes in the uniaxial strength once the rubber content is
added. As illustrated, the strength decreases linearly as the rubber content is augmented
so that the strength drops from 263 kPa for the CS to 193, 154, and 85 kPa as the rubber
increases to 10, 20, and 30%, respectively. The highest strength of 253 kPa was thus observed
for the mixture containing 2% rubber powder. The observed reduction in the strength of
the CS with increasing the rubber content can be related to the lower compaction of the
clay–rubber mixture than the pure soil, leading to a fall in the strength of the mixture.
Figure 14c shows the modulus of elasticity of the clay–rubber mixture. The modulus
of elasticity decreases whenever the rubber content is enhanced. As the rubber content
increases to 10, 20, and 30%, the modulus of elasticity of the CS similarly declines from
96 kPa to 50, 35, and 27 kPa, respectively. In this respect, the highest modulus of elasticity
of 85 kPa was observed for the mixture containing 2% rubber powder. The argument
presented for the strength reduction also holds for the lower modulus of elasticity of the
mixture.
Figure 14d displays the axial strain diagram based on the percentage of RWPs. It can
be seen that increasing the amount of rubber increases axial strains. This trend is opposite
to the trend of resistance changes with increasing rubber percentage. The failure strain
pure soilsoil
in pure is equal to 4.1%.
is equal TheThe
to 4.1%. amount of failure
amount strains
of failure increases
strains to 6.2,
increases to 8.1
6.2,and 10%,10%,
8.1 and re-
spectively, by increasing the amount of rubber by 10, 20, and 30%.
respectively, by increasing the amount of rubber by 10, 20, and 30%.
(a) RWP effect on stress–strain curves (b) RWP effect on UCS
(c) RWP effect on modulus of elasticity (d) RWP effect on failure strains
Figure
Figure14.
14.RWP
RWPeffect
effecton
onUCS
UCStest
testresults.
results.
4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
Thisstudy
This studyinvestigated
investigatedthe
theimpact
impactofofrubber
rubberpowder
powderon onthe
theone-dimensional
one-dimensionalconsol-
consol-
idation parameters of clay–rubber mixtures. Various geotechnical tests, including
idation parameters of clay–rubber mixtures. Various geotechnical tests, including com- com-
pactionand
paction andunconfined
unconfinedcompressive
compressivestrength
strength(UCS)
(UCS)tests,
tests,were
wereconducted
conductedto todetermine
determine
theproperties
the propertiesof
ofthe
themixtures.
mixtures.The
Themain
mainfindings
findingsofofthis
thisstudy
studyare
aresummarized
summarizedasasfollows:
follows:
1.1. Modifiede-log
Modified e-logp’
p’Curves:
Curves: Modified
Modified e-log
e-log p’
p’ curves
curves were
werepresented
presentedforforthe
theclay–rubber
clay–rub-
ber mixtures, considering the elasticity of the rubber powder and its influencethe
mixtures, considering the elasticity of the rubber powder and its influence on onvoid
the
ratio (e) of the mixture. An equation was proposed to calculate the void
void ratio (e) of the mixture. An equation was proposed to calculate the void ratio ratio for for
the
clay–rubber mixture, and the initial and modified e-log p’ curves were
the clay–rubber mixture, and the initial and modified e-log p’ curves were plotted; plotted;
2.2. SwellingPotential
Swelling Potentialand
andfree
freeswelling:
swelling:The Theswelling
swellingpotential
potentialofofspecimens
specimenscontaining
containing
rubber powder was lower than that of the natural clay, indicating a
rubber powder was lower than that of the natural clay, indicating a reduction in reduction inthe
the
swelling strain of the mixture. Free swelling also decreased with an increase
swelling strain of the mixture. Free swelling also decreased with an increase in rubber in rubber
content.For
content. Forrubber
rubbercontents
contentsabove
above20%,20%,free
freeswelling
swellingremained
remainedalmost
almostconstant;
constant;
3.3. Consolidation Parameters: The consolidation parameters Cc, Cs,
Consolidation Parameters: The consolidation parameters Cc, Cs, and Cr increasedand Cr increased
with the rise in rubber content. The lowest values of Cs, Cc, and Cr were observed for
with the rise in rubber content. The lowest values of Cs, Cc, and Cr were observed
specimens with lower rubber content, equal to 0.043, 0.01, and 0.225, respectively;
for specimens with lower rubber content, equal to 0.043, 0.01, and 0.225, respectively;
4. Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density: The optimum moisture
4. Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density: The optimum moisture
content (OMC) increased while the maximum dry density (MDD) decreased with
content (OMC) increased while the maximum dry density (MDD) decreased with
increasing rubber content. For rubber contents of 2% and 30%, the MDD and OMC
were 16.3 kN/m3 , 19.1%, and 13.2 kN/m3 , 21%, respectively;
5. Uniaxial Test Results: The uniaxial test revealed that lower rubber content provided
the highest strength and modulus of elasticity, as well as the lowest soil settlement.
Failure strains increased with higher rubber content, indicating the need for higher
rubber content when greater flexibility in the mixture is required;
6. Overall Impact of Rubber Content: Increasing the rubber content caused changes
in soil parameters, such as increased failure strains and OMC and decreased free
swelling, compression index, recompression index, swelling index, UCS, modulus of
elasticity, and MDD.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.A., A.R. and A.E.; Methodology, D.A.; Validation, D.A.;
Writing—original draft, D.A.; Writing—review & editing, D.A., A.R., A.E. and M.K.; Supervision,
A.R., A.E. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available by the corresponding author after reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
eS0 Initial void ratio of the soil

eT0 Initial void ratio of the soil and rubber mix
eSi Void ratio of the soil in stage ‘i’
e Li Void ratio of pure rubber in stage ‘i’
eTi Corrected void ratio in rubber and clay mix in stage ‘i’
∆eSi Change of void ratio in stage ‘i’
GS Specific gravity of the soil
GST Specific gravity of the soil and rubber mix
WS Weight of the soil
WT Weight of the soil and rubber mix
VVSi Volume of the voids in soil sample in stage ‘i’
VSSi Volume of the grains in soil sample in stage ‘i’
VVL Volume of the voids in rubber sample in stage ‘i’
VSL Volume of the rubber grains in rubber sample in stage ‘i’
eTi Void ratio of the soil and rubber mix in stage ‘i’
Ni Percent of rubber in soil-rubber mix
H Initial height of the soil
HS Initial height of the grains
HT Initial height of the soil and rubber mix
HST Initial height of the soil and rubber mix grains
References
1. McCartney, J.S.; Ghaaowd, I.; Fox, P.J.; Sanders, M.J.; Thielmann, S.S.; Sander, A.C. Shearing behavior of tire-derived aggregate
with large particle size. II: Cyclic simple shear. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2017, 143, 04017078. [CrossRef]
2. Foose, G.J.; Benson, C.H.; Bosscher, P.J. Sand reinforced with shredded waste tires. J. Geotech. Eng. 1996, 122, 760–767. [CrossRef]
3. Al-Tabbaa, A.; Aravinthan, T. Natural clay-shredded tire mixtures as landfill barrier materials. Waste Manag. 1998, 18, 9–16.
[CrossRef]
4. Cao, W. Study on properties of recycled tire rubber modified asphalt mixtures usingdry process. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21,
1011–1015. [CrossRef]
5. Yadav, J.S. Feasibility study on utilisation of clay–waste tyre rubber mix as construction material. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Constr.
Mater. 2020, 176, 49–61. [CrossRef]
6. Ghasemzadeh, Z.; Sadeghieh, A.; Shishebori, D. A stochastic multi-objective closed-loop global supply chain concerning waste
management: A case study of the tire industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 5794–5821. [CrossRef]
7. Cui, M.J.; Zheng, J.J.; Dahal, B.K.; Lai, H.J.; Huang, Z.F.; Wu, C.C. Effect of waste rubber particles on the shear behaviour of
bio-cemented calcareous sand. Acta Geotech. 2021, 16, 1429–1439. [CrossRef]
8. Saberian, M.; Mehrinejad Khotbehsara, M.; Jahandari, S.; Vali, R.; Li, J. Experimental and phenomenological study of the effects of
adding shredded tire chips on geotechnical properties of peat. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2018, 12, 347–356. [CrossRef]
9. Akbarimehr, D.; Fakharian, K. Dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of clay mixed with waste rubber using cyclic triaxial
apparatus. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 140, 106435. [CrossRef]
10. Akbarimehr, D.; Eslami, A.; Aflaki, E. Geotechnical behaviour of clay soil mixed with rubber waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271,
122632. [CrossRef]
11. Jastrz˛ebska, M.; Tokarz, K. Strength Characteristics of Clay–Rubber Waste Mixtures in Low-Frequency Cyclic Triaxial Tests.
Minerals 2021, 11, 315. [CrossRef]
12. Cai, Y.; Shi, B.; Ng, C.; Tang, C. Effect of polypropylene fibre and lime admixture on engineering properties of clayey soil. Eng.
Geol. 2006, 87, 230–240. [CrossRef]
13. Signes, C.H.; Garzón-Roca, J.; Fernández, P.M.; Torre, M.E.G.; Franco, R.I. Swelling potential reduction of Spanish argillaceous
marlstone Facies Tap soil through the addition of crumb rubber particles from scrap tyres. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016, 132, 768–773.
[CrossRef]
14. Attom, M.F. The use of shredded waste tires to improve the geotechnical engineering properties of sands. Environ. Geol. 2006, 49,
497–503. [CrossRef]
15. Cetin, H.; Fener, M.; Gunaydin, O. Geotechnical properties of tire cohesive clayey soil mixtures as a fill material. Eng. Geol. 2006,
88, 110–120. [CrossRef]
16. Eslami, A.; Akbarimehr, D. Failure Analysis of Clay Soil-Rubber Waste Mixture as a Sustainable Construction Material. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2021, 310, 125274. [CrossRef]
17. Eslami, A.; Akbarimehr, D.; Aflaki, E.; Hajitaheriha, M.M. Geotechnical site characterization of the Lake Urmia super-soft
sediments using laboratory and CPTu records. Mar. Georesources Geotechnol. 2020, 38, 1223–1234. [CrossRef]
18. Hajitaheriha, M.M.; Akbarimehr, D.; Motlagh, A.H.; Damerchilou, H. Bearing capacity improvement of shallow foundations
using a trench filled with granular materials and reinforced with geogrids. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1–14. [CrossRef]
19. Xiao, Y.; Nan, B.; McCartney, J.S. Thermal Conductivity of Sand–Tire Shred Mixtures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2019, 145,
06019012. [CrossRef]
20. Zornberg, J.G.; Cabral, A.R.; Viratjandr, C. Behaviour of tire shred sand mixtures. Can. Geotech. J. 2004, 41, 227–241. [CrossRef]
21. Rao, G.V.; Dutta, R. Compressibility and strength behaviour of sand–tyre chip mixtures. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2006, 24, 711–724.
[CrossRef]
22. Neaz Sheikh, M.; Mashiri, M.; Vinod, J.; Tsang, H.H. Shear and compressibility behavior of sand–tire crumb mixtures. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2012, 25, 1366–1374. [CrossRef]
23. Sharifi, M.; Meftahi, M.; Naeini, S.A. Influence of waste tire chips on steady state behavior of sand. J. Eng. Geol. 2019, 12, 189–212.
[CrossRef]
24. Tajdini, M.; Nabizadeh, A.; Taherkhani, H.; Zartaj, H. Effect of added waste rubber on the properties and failure mode of kaolinite
clay. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 15, 949–958. [CrossRef]
25. Akbarimehr, D.; Hosseini, S.M.M.M. Elasto-plastic characteristics of the clay soil mixed with rubber waste using cyclic triaxial
test results. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022, 15, 1280. [CrossRef]
26. Zhou, J.; Luo, L.H.; Yu, L.G.; Nangulama, H. Experimental study about the influence of cyclic load on the hydraulic conductivity
of clay. Acta Geotech. 2020, 15, 3357–3370. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, J.; Guo, Z.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, P.; Fang, H. Effects of ages on the ITZ microstructure of crumb rubber concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2020, 254, 119329. [CrossRef]
28. Ou, C.Y.; Lin, C.Y.; Chien, S.C. On the behavior of the cured electroosmotic chemical treated clay. Acta Geotech. 2020, 15, 2341–2354.
[CrossRef]
29. Kong, L.; Yao, Y.; Qi, J. Modeling the combined effect of time and temperature on normally consolidated and overconsolidated
clays. Acta Geotech. 2020, 15, 2451–2471. [CrossRef]
30. Han, J.; Yin, Z.Y.; Dano, C.; Hicher, P.Y. Cyclic and creep combination effects on the long-term undrained behavior of overconsoli-
dated clay. Acta Geotech. 2021, 16, 1027–1041. [CrossRef]
31. Trouzine, H.; Asroun, A.; Bekhiti, M. Effects of scrap tyre rubber fibre on swelling behaviour of two clayey soils in Algeria.
Geosynth 2012, 19, 124–132. [CrossRef]
32. Mukherjee, K.; Mishra, A.K. The impact of scrapped tyre chips on the mechanical properties of liner materials. Environ. Process
2017, 4, 219–233. [CrossRef]
33. Akbarimehr, D.; Eslami, A.; Aflaki, E.; Imam, R. Using empirical correlations and artificial neural network to estimate compress-
ibility of low plasticity clays. Arab. J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 1–11. [CrossRef]
34. Akbarimehr, D.; Eslami, A.; Imam, R. Correlations between Compression Index and Index Properties of Undisturbed and
Disturbed Tehran clay. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2021, 39, 5387–5393. [CrossRef]
35. Akbarimehr, D.; Eslami, A.; Aflaki, E.; Hajitaheriha, M.M. Investigating the effect of waste rubber in granular form on strength
behavior of Tehran clay. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1–12. [CrossRef]
36. ASTM D422; Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007;
Volume 63, pp. 1–8.
37. ASTM D2487; Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
38. ASTM D854; Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
39. ASTM D4318; Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM International: West
40. ASTM D698; Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort. ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
41. ASTM D2166; Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. ASTM International: West
42. ASTM D2435; Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading. ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste Powder

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste Powder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editors: Amro Hassanein 1. Introduction

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612384 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. Some recent studies on clay–rubber mixtures.

2. Materials and Methods

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

2.1.3. CS–RWP Mixture Preparation

Sample Number Sample Type Sample Code Test

Observing Observing the clay–rubber

(a) Binocular view of CS–RWPs (b) Binocular view of CS–RWPs

2.2. Laboratory Study

2.2.1. Consolidation Test

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of

(a) Fully automatic consolidation test apparatus (Global MTM)

(b) Consolidation test samples

2.2.2. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)

3. Results and Analysis

3.2. RWP Effect on Stiffness

EquationsEquations for calculation

3.2.3. Compression, Swelling, and Recompression Indices

3.3. RWP Effect on UCS

(a) RWP effect on stress–strain curves (b) RWP effect on UCS

eS0 Initial void ratio of the soil

You might also like