Physical and Mechanical Properties of Granulated Rubber Mixed With Granular Soils-A Literature Review

sustainability
Review
Physical and Mechanical Properties of Granulated Rubber
Mixed with Granular Soils—A Literature Review
Ali Tasalloti 1, *, Gabriele Chiaro 1 , Arjun Murali 1 and Laura Banasiak 2
1 Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; [email protected] (G.C.);
[email protected] (A.M.)
2 Environmental Science and Research Institute Ltd., Christchurch 8041, New Zealand;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: End-of-life tires (ELTs) represent a great source of readily available, low-cost and sustainable
construction materials having excellent engineering properties. Their reuse (in the form of granulated
rubber mixed with soils) in large-volume recycling civil (geotechnical) engineering applications
would be beneficial and should be encouraged. It is estimated that at present worldwide only less
than 10% of ELTs are reused in geotechnical applications, while nearly 40% are recycled as tire-derived
fuel. Although many studies have focused on the material characterization of soil-rubber mixtures
(SRMs), it appears that the results of such investigations have not been properly compiled and
compared, making it difficult to fully understand the potential applicability of SRMs. In an attempt
to provide useful insights facilitating the use of SRMs as geotechnical construction materials, this
review paper presents a comprehensive review of published research on the engineering properties

of granular soils (i.e., mainly sand and gravel) blended with various recycled rubber inclusions.
Available experimental data are scrutinized, and the results of the analyses are presented and
Citation: Tasalloti, A.; Chiaro, G.;
Murali, A.; Banasiak, L. Physical and
discussed primarily in terms of effects of rubber content and aspect ratio (ratio of rubber to gravel
Mechanical Properties of Granulated median particle sizes) on compaction, permeability, strength and compression properties along with
Rubber Mixed with Granular dynamic and cyclic deformation characteristics of SRMs. This review paper may help to alleviate the
Soils—A Literature Review. concerns of designers and consumers and encourage and further promote the use of recycled rubber
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309. tires on a larger scale in civil engineering projects.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084309
Keywords: soil-rubber mixtures; compressibility; compaction; permeability; shear strength; dynamic
Academic Editor: Antonio Cavallaro properties; cyclic response
Received: 19 March 2021

Accepted: 9 April 2021
Published: 13 April 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

End-of-life tires (ELTs) are non-reusable tires in their original form. They enter a
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
waste management system based on product/material recycling, energy recovery or go
published maps and institutional affil- to disposal [1]. The current rate of ELT production worldwide is over 1 billion per year,
iations. including passenger vehicle tires and truck tires [2], and is expected to grow over time
with increased population and number of vehicles on roads. Annually, more than half of
one billion ELTs is estimated to be discarded and destined in landfills worldwide without
any treatment [2]. For the sake of completeness, Table 1 provides some statistics about
the production of ELTs (in terms of quantity and per capita), the recovery rate and main
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
application in different countries.
This article is an open access article
In many countries, ELTs are a controlled waste under environmental regulations,
distributed under the terms and
which places a duty of care on waste producers to ensure safe disposal through licensed
conditions of the Creative Commons carriers to approved sites. For instance, since 2003 in Europe, under the European Union
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Landfill Directive, waste tires are prohibited from being used for landfill [3]. Even shredded
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tires are not accepted by landfill facilities. However, in many other countries, at present no
4.0/). national regulations are in place to efficiently manage waste tire recycling, and with the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084309 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309 2 of 27
ever-growing volume of ELTs, environmental and health concerns are urging the reuse of
waste tires through large-scale recycling engineering projects.
Waste tire recycling may be challenging, but it is not impossible to achieve. In Europe,
Canada, USA, Japan and many other countries where strategic waste marketing, collection
and management procedures have been put in place to effectively make use of recycled
ELTs, the disposal of waste tires has been reduced to 20% or less [1,3,4]. While ELTs
have excellent engineering properties (i.e., strength, dynamic properties, durability, etc.)
making them ideal construction materials, the majority of ELTs is currently used as tire-
derived fuel, which is arguably the most environmentally friendly way to reuse tires, and
only 10% or less is sheared into various sizes to be used in different civil (geotechnical)
engineering applications.
Table 1. Generation and recovery rate of ELTs in different countries.
ELTs Generation per Year Recovery

Main
Country By Weight By Number Rate Reference
ELTs/Person 1 Application
(Million Tons) (Million) (%)
Tire-derived
US 4.2 250 0.77 84 [4]
Fuel
Europe 3.3 270 0.53 92 Energy generation [5]
Japan 1.034 97 0.77 93 Thermal recycling [6]
UK 0.436 40 0.62 98 Energy generation [5]
Australia 0.41 20 0.80 38 Export (Energy generation) [7]
Canada 0.42 28 0.74 98 Tire crumbs and molded [8]
New Zealand 0.04 5 1.25 30 Energy generation [9]
1 Population data (Source: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ accessed on 25 March 2020).
The reuse of granulated rubber derived from ELTs on its own or to be mixed with soil
has been found suitable in applications such as light-weight embankment fill, drainage
layer, conventional fill, retaining wall back-fill, etc. [10–12]. However, statistics suggest that
to date only less than 10% of ELTs-derived rubber is currently being used for this purpose
worldwide. More in-depth and coordinated investigations are certainly required to be
carried out to broaden the available database that could include a wider range of soil types,
rubber type and sizes and also refer to new promising applications such as geotechnical
seismic isolation systems for residential buildings [13–19], countermeasures against soil
liquefaction [20,21] and railways applications [22,23].
In an attempt to provide useful insights facilitating the use of soil-rubber mixtures
(SRMs), this paper presents a comprehensive review of published research studies on the
geotechnical engineering properties of ELT inclusions blended with different granular soils
(i.e., sand and gravel), the main focus being on the effects of rubber content and relative
rubber/soil size on compaction and permeability properties, compressibility and strength
behavior, as well as dynamic and cyclic deformation characteristics.
2. Geotechnical Properties of Soil-Rubber Mixtures (SRMs)

Tires have a mixed composition of carbon black, elastomer compounds and steel
wire, in addition to several other organic and inorganic components (Table 2). From a
geotechnical engineering viewpoint, ELTs can be recycled under the form of granulated
rubber and mixed with granular soils and, therefore, represent a great source of low-
cost, environmentally friendly and sustainable construction materials having excellent
engineering properties. As shown in Figure 1, according to the American Standard for
Testing and Material ASTM D6270-17 [24], granulated tires can be categorized based on
their sizes.
When mixed with soils, the relative grain size between rubber particles and soil grains
(i.e., aspect ratio or the ratio of median particle sizes; D50R /D50S ) plays an important role
in the overall mechanical behavior of SRMs [25–27]. Hence, various scrap tire sizes and
and soil mixtures have been considered in previous studies as summarized in Figu
is evident that the majority of research is focused on the use of fine-medium sand b
with various rubber sizes, mainly 1 < D50R/D50S < 100. Granulated rubber-gravel m
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309 on the other hand, have been poorly characterized. 3 of 27
Table 2. Typical composition of tires as reported by US Tires [4] and ETRMA [5].
soil mixtures have been considered in previous studies as summarized in TruckFigure 2. It is
Car T
Car tire sand blended
evident that the majority of research is focused on the use of fine-medium
mainly 1 < D50R /D50S < 100. Granulated(%)
with various rubber sizes, Material Tiremixtures,
rubber-gravel Tire
on the other hand, have been poorly characterized. (%) (%)
[4]
[4] [5]
Table 2. Typical composition of tires as reported by US Tires [4] and ETRMA [5].
Natural 19 34
Rubber Car Truck Car11 Truck
47
Synthetic 24
Tire Tire Tire Tire
Material black, silica)
Fillers (carbon 26
(%) (%) (%)24 (%) 21.5
Plasticizer (oil and resin), chemical additives and [4] [4] [5] [5]
14 10 9.5
Rubber others Natural 19 34
47 45
Synthetic 24 11
Steel
Fillers (carbon black, silica) 26 1224 21.525 22 16.5
Reinforcement
Textile
Plasticizer (oil and resin), chemical additives and others 14 510 9.5--- 7 5.5
Steel 12 25 16.5 23
Reinforcement
Textile 5 — 5.5 3
rubber size (mm)

0.1 1 10 100 1000
rough shreds
125 mm*
tire shreds
Rounded Angular
tire derived aggregate (TDA) gravel gravel
tire chips
10 mm**
R1 R2 R3 R4
granulated rubber Rounded Angular
gravel gravel
ground rubber particulate rubber 10 mm

R1 R2 R3 R4
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW buffing rubber 4 of 2

10 mm
Figure 1. Granulated tire sizes according to ASTM D6270-17 [24]. * Balunaini [28], ** Mashiri [29].
Figure 1. Granulated tire sizes according to ASTM D6270-17 [24]. * Balunaini [28], ** Mashi
100
sand fine gravel medium gravel
Median particle size of rubber, D50R
10
(mm)
(a)
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Median particle size of soil, D50S (mm)
Figure 2. Rubber and soil mixtures investigated in previous studies: (a) relationship between median particle size of rubber
Figure and soil andand
2. Rubber (b) aspect ratio against
soil mixtures median particle
investigated size of soil
in previous (Data (a)
studies: points from: [11,25–27,30–47]).
relationship between median particle size of rubber
and soil and (b) aspect ratio against median particle size of soil (Data points from: [11,25–27,30–47]).
Hereafter, findings from previous relevant studies are summarized and experimenta
data available from the literature are scrutinized. The results of the analyses focusing o
the compaction and permeability properties, mechanical behavior, dynamic and cyclic de
formation characteristics of SRMs are presented and discussed primarily in terms of ef
Hereafter, findings from previous relevant studies are summarized and experimental
data available from the literature are scrutinized. The results of the analyses focusing on
the compaction and permeability properties, mechanical behavior, dynamic and cyclic
deformation characteristics of SRMs are presented and discussed primarily in terms of
effects of gravimetric (GRC) or volumetric (VRC) rubber content and aspect ratio of rubber
to gravel median particle sizes. It is worth noticing that in this study GRC and VRC are
defined as follows:
MRubber
GRC = (1)
MSoil + MRubber
VRubber
VRC = (2)
VSoil + VRubber
where MRubber and VRubber are the mass and the volume of the rubber particle fraction in
the mixture, respectively; and MSoil and VSoil are the mass and the volume of soil fraction
in the mixture.
2.1. Packing States and Matrix Materials for SRMs

SRMs are essentially binary granular mixtures consisting of rigid and soft particles of
different sizes and shapes. Their packing density (i.e., void ratio) and mechanical behavior
(i.e., compressibility and strength) are influenced by the inherent properties of the materials
(i.e., size and shape), the proportion of large/small and soft/rigid particles in the total
volume of solids as well as the size ratio of large/small (D50large /D50small ) and soft/rigid
(D50R /D50S ) particles.
Previous studies [33,40,48,49] have indicated that three packing states exist for a
binary mixture of two-size particles. These states reflect the amount of small and large
particles present in the mixture: floating state (large-particle dominated), non-floating
state (small-particle dominated) and transitional state. In the floating state, small particles
inhibit contact between large particles. In the non-floating state, the large particles are in
contact with each other and the small particles mainly fill the voids between large particles.
In the transitional state, small particles partially fill the gaps between large particles and
large particles are only partially disconnected. It has been shown that the densest state
possible, where there is the minimum number of voids in the binary mixture, is obtained
in the transitional state [16,40].
The packing properties of the SRMs described earlier may provide useful information
regarding the expected mechanical behavior of the mixtures. However, the way the load
is transferred within the mixtures depends primarily on the skeleton material [25,50].
According to the concept of skeleton material, a skeleton is formed when particles of the
same material are in contact with each other and are able to transfer loads. The material
forming the skeleton becomes the matrix material that governs the overall mechanical
behavior of a mixture. In the case of SRMs, two well-defined matrix materials can be
expected: (i) a soil matrix characterized by stiff soil-like behavior for mixtures with low
VRC; and (ii) a rubber matrix that will produce a soft rubber-like response for mixtures
with higher VRC. Depending on the aspect ratio, however, transition matrixes can also
be formed as described later. In Table 3, a schematic summary of rubber-soil interaction
in mixtures with different VRC and aspect ratios is reported. Distinct skeleton materials,
particle level phenomena and macroscale responses are identified.
In the case of D50R << D50S mixtures (i.e., soil grains larger than rubber particles),
rubber particles tend to fill the voids between soil grains in mixtures with low VRC, but
then eventually separate and replace soil particles as VRC increases [50]. Mixtures with
intermediate VRC values may experience the development of soil-to-soil contacts as the
confining pressure increases, so that transition mixtures behave like rubber-like at low
confining pressure and soil-like at high confining pressure.
In the case of D50R >> D50S mixtures (i.e., soil grains smaller than rubber particles),
rubber particles tend to float within the soil skeleton in mixtures with low VRC. For
with
with with
with
with
with
formed higher
higher
higher
higher
higher
higher
asas VRC.
VRC.VRC.
VRC.
VRC.
VRC.
described Depending
Depending
Depending
Depending
Depending
Depending
later. Inon
onon
on on
the
the
on
Table the
the
the aspect
aspect
the aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect
3, ratio,
ratio,
ratio,
ratio,
ratio,
ratio, however,
however,
however,
however,
however,
however, transition
transition
transition
transition
transition
transition matrixes
matrixes
matrixes
matrixes
matrixes
matrixes can
can can
can
can
can alsoalso
also
also be
be
also
also bebe
inbe
be
formed
with formed
with
with
formed
formed
formed
formed
formed
formed
as
higher
higher
asas
as as
described
as
higher described
VRC.
VRC.
VRC.
described
described
described
as described
described
described
later.
Depending
Depending
later.
later.
later.
Depending
later.
later.
later.
later.
In
InIn
In In
Table
In
on
In
In
on
Table
Table
the
on the
Table
Table
TableTable
Table
3,
3,
3, 3,
3,
aa3,
aspect
the
a
3,
3,aaaschematic
aspect
aspect schematic
schematic
aaaschematic
schematic
ratio,
ratio,
ratio,
schematic
schematic
schematic
schematic
summary
summary
however,summary
however,
however,
summary
summary
summary
summary
summary
summary
of
of
of
ofof
of
of
of
transition
of
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
transition rubber-soil
transition matrixes
matrixes
matrixes
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
interaction
interaction
interaction
cancan
canalso
interaction
interaction
interaction
interaction
interaction
interaction
also
alsoin
be
inbe
inin
in
in
be
in
in
formed
formed
formed
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
formed
formed
formed asasdescribed
as
with
asasas described
described
with
with different
different
described
describeddifferent
described later.
later.later.
later.
VRC
VRC
later. In
VRC
later. In
InIn Table
In
and
and Table
Table
and
Table
In aspect
Table
Table 3,3,
aspect a
aspect 3, aschematic
a
ratios
3,3,a3,ratios schematic
schematic
ratios
ratios
aschematic is
aschematicis
schematic summary
reported.
is summary
summary
reported.
reported.
summary
summary
summary of
Distinctof
Distinctrubber-soil
of
Distinct
ofofof rubber-soil
rubber-soil
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
rubber-soil interaction
interaction
interaction
materials,
materials,
materials,
interaction
interaction
interaction par-in
par-inin
par-
ininin
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures with
withwith
with
with
with different
different
different
different
different
different VRC
VRC
VRC
VRC VRC
VRC and
and
and
and and
and aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect ratios
ratios
ratios
ratios
ratios isis
is is reported.
reported.
reported.
isare
reported.
isreported.
reported. Distinct
Distinct
Distinct
Distinct
Distinct
Distinct skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton materials,
materials,
materials,
materials,
materials,
materials, par-
par-
par-par-
par-
par-
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
ticle
ticleticle
mixtures
mixtures level
level
mixtures with
level with
with different
phenomena
with different
different
phenomena
phenomena
with
withdifferent
different
different andVRC
VRC
and
VRC VRC
and
VRC and and
and
macroscale
VRC aspect
macroscale
macroscale
and
andand aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect ratios
responses
ratios ratios
ratios
responses is
responses
ratios
ratios isreported.
isis is reported.
reported.
are
reported. Distinct
identified.
are
reported.
isare
reported. Distinct
Distinct
identified.
identified.
Distinct
Distinct
Distinct skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton materials,
materials,
materials,
materials,
materials,
materials, par-
par-par-
par-
par-
par-
ticle
ticleticle
ticle
ticle
ticle level
level
level
level
level
level phenomena
phenomena
phenomena
phenomena
phenomena
phenomena and
andand
andand
and macroscale
macroscale
macroscale
macroscale
macroscale responses
responses
responses
responses
responses are
are
are identified.
identified.
identified.
are identified.
identified.
ticle
ticle
ticle
ticle
ticle level
In
Inlevel
Inlevel
the
level
ticle level
Inlevel
In
phenomena
the
the case
phenomena
phenomena
case
case
phenomena
phenomena
the
the phenomena
case
case ofD
ofof ofD
of D
D
50R
D
and
<<and
50R
and
50R <<
and
50R Dmacroscale
<<
and
and
<<<<
macroscale
D
D
D
50S
D
50S
macroscale
50S mixtures
macroscale
macroscale
mixtures
mixtures
macroscale
macroscale
50S
mixtures
mixtures
responses
responses
responses (i.e.,
responses
responses
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
responses
responses
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
soil
soil
soilsoil
soil
are
are
are
are
are
identified.
identified.
grains
are
grains
grains identified.
are larger
identified.
identified.
larger
larger
identified.
grains
grains identified.
larger
larger than than
than
than
than
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
particles),
particles),
particles),
particles),
particles), rub- rub-
rub-
rub-
rub-
In
InInthe
In
thethe case
the case
case
case of
of of D
of
D D50R
D
50R
50R
50R
<<
50R
<<
50R << D
<<
D D50S
D
50S
mixtures
50S
50S
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
50S
50S
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
(i.e., soil
(i.e., soil
soil
soil grains
grains
grains
grains larger
larger
larger
larger than than
than
than rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber particles),
particles),
particles),
particles), rub- rub-
rub-
rub-
ber
ber ber InInthe
In
particles
InInthe
In the
particles
the case
particles
the
the case
case
tend
case
case
caseof
tend
tend of
ofoftoD
of
D
of D
to
D to
D
fill
50R
D50R<<
fill
fill <<
the
50R
<< << D
<<
the
D
<<the
D D
voids
D50S
D mixtures
voids
voids
50S
50S between
mixtures
mixtures
between
between
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures (i.e.,
(i.e., soil
soil
(i.e., soil
(i.e.,
(i.e.,soil
(i.e., soil
soil
soil grains
grains
soil grains
grains
grains
grains
grains
soil in
grains
grains larger
in in larger
larger than
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
larger
larger
largerthan than
than
than
thanrubber
with
with
with rubber
rubber
rubberlow
rubber low
rubber particles),
low VRC,
particles),
particles),
VRC,
VRC, 5but
particles),
particles),but
particles), rub-
but then
rub-
rub-
then
27then
rub-
rub-
rub-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309 ber
ber
ber
ber ber
ber particles
particles
particles
particles
particles
particles tend
tend tend
tend
tend
tend to
to toto
fill
50R50R
toand
toand
fill fill
fillthe
50R
fill
fillthe the
the
the voids
the
50S voids
voids
50S
voids
50S
voids
voids between
between
between
between
between
between soilsoil
soil
soil
soil
soil grains
grains
grainsgrains
grains
grains inin
in in in
in mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures with
with
withwith
with
with low
low low
low
lowlow VRC,
VRC,
VRC,VRC,
VRC,
VRC, but
but but
ofbut
but but then
then
thenthen
then
then
ber
ber ber
ber
ber particles
particles
particles
eventually
eventually
eventually
particles
ber particles
particles tendtend
tend
separate
separate
separate
tend
tend
tend to
to to
tofill
to
fill
to fillthe
fill
and
fillthe
fill the
the
the voids voids
voids
replace
replace
replace
voids
the voids
voids between
between
between
soil
soil soil
between particles
particles
between
between particlessoil
soil
soil as
soil grains
soil
soil grains
grains
as VRC
as
grains VRC
grains VRC
grainsin in mixtures
in
increases
in in mixtures
mixtures
increases
increases
mixtures
in mixtures
mixtures with
[50].
withwith
with
[50]. low
Mixtures
[50].
with
with low
low
Mixtures VRC,
Mixtures
lowlow VRC,
low VRC,
VRC,
with
VRC,
VRC, but
withbut
with
but
but then
but
inter-then
then
inter-
inter-
then
but then
then
eventually
eventually
eventually
eventually
eventually
eventually separate
separate
separate
separate
separate
separate and
andand
andand
and replace
replace
replace
replace
replace
replace soil
soil soil
soil
soil
soil particles
particles
particles
particles
particles
particles as asas
asas VRC
as
VRC VRC
VRC
VRC
VRC increases
increases
increases
increases
increases
increases [50].
[50].
[50].[50].
[50].
[50]. Mixtures
Mixtures
Mixtures
Mixtures
Mixtures
Mixtures with
with
with with
with
with inter-
inter-
inter-
inter-
inter-
inter-
eventually
eventually
eventually
mediate
mediate
mediate
eventually
eventually
eventually separate
VRC
VRC VRC separate
separate
values
values
separate values
separate
separate and
andand
may
andand
may replace
may
and replace
replace
experience
experience
replace soil
experience
replace
replace soil soil
soil
soil
soilparticles
the particles
particles
the
particlesthe
particles as
asas
development
development
particles VRC
asas
development
VRC
as VRC
VRC
VRC
VRC increases
of increases
increases
ofof [50].
soil-to-soil
of
increases
increases [50].
soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
increases [50].
[50]. Mixtures
[50]. Mixtures
Mixtures
contacts
contacts
contacts
Mixtures
[50]. Mixtures
Mixtures with
as
with with
with
as the
as
with
with inter-
the inter-
inter-
con-
con-
the
inter-con-
inter-
inter-
mediate
mediate
mediate
mediate
mediate
mediate VRC
VRC VRC
VRC
VRC
VRC values
values
values
values
values
values may
maymay
maymay
may experience
experience
experience
experience
experience
experience the
thethe
the the
the development
development
development
development
development
development of
of of
ofof soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil contacts
contacts
contacts
contacts
contacts
contacts as
as as
asas
the
as
the the
the
the
the con-
con-
con-con-
con-
con-
mediate
mediate
mediate
fining
fining
fining
mediate
mediate VRC
pressureVRC
VRC
pressure values
pressure
VRC
VRC values
values
increases,
values
values may
increases, may
increases,
maymaymay experience
so experience
experience
so that
that
so
experience that the
transition the
transition
transition
the the development
development
development
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
development of
behave
of of
behave soil-to-soil
of
behave soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
like
like like
soil-to-soil contacts
contacts
contacts
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
contacts as
at
as as
at the
as
atlow
low
the the
the
low con-
con-
con-
mediate
fining
fining
fining
fining
fining
fining
VRC
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
values
increases,
increases,
increases,
increases,
increases,
increases,
may soexperience
so so
so
experience
so
that
so that
that
that
that
that transition the
transition
transition
transition
transition
transition
the development
development
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures behave ofof
behave
behave
behave
behave
behave
soil-to-soil
soil-to-soil
like like
like
like
like
contacts
contacts
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
like rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like at
at
as
at as
at
low the
low
atand
atlow
low
the
low
lowcon-con-
con-
con-
con-
con-
intermediate
fining
fining
fining
fining
fining
fining valuesand
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure of
andandVRC,
increases,
increases,
increases,
increases,
increases,soil-like
soil-like
increases, mixtures
so
soil-like
so so
so that
so
at
so at
thatat
that
that
thathigh
high
that exhibit
transition
high confining
transition
transition
confining
confining
transition
transition
transition consistent
mixtures
pressure.
pressure.
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures behavior
behave
pressure.
mixtures
mixtures behavebehave
behave
behave
behave atlike
like
like
like
like all stress levels
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
like rubber-like
rubber-like at
at at
atlow
atlow
low
atlowlow
lowcon-
con-con-
con-
con-
con-
fining
fining
fining
fining pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure and
andand
andand
and soil-like
soil-like
soil-like
soil-like
soil-like
soil-like at
atat
atat
high
at high
high
high
high
high confining
confining
confining
confining
confining
confining pressure.
pressure.
pressure.
pressure.
pressure.
pressure.
there isfining
fining
fining
fining no
InIntransition
pressure
In
the the
pressure
pressure
the
pressurecase
caseand
caseof
and from
andand
of of
D D D rubber-like
soil-like
soil-like
soil-like
50R >>
50R
soil-like >> >>
D at
D
at Dhigh
atathighto
mixtures
50S
high
50S soil-like
confining
mixtures
high
mixtures confining
confining
confining (i.e., with
(i.e.,
(i.e., increasing
pressure.
soil
pressure.
soil
soil
pressure. grains
pressure.
grains
grains confining
smaller
smaller
smaller thanthan
than pressure
rubber
rubber
rubber [25].
particles),
particles),
particles),
fining
fining
InIn pressure
In pressure
the
the
the case
case
case andand
ofof of
DD soil-like
50R
D
50R soil-like
50R
50R
>>>>
50R >>
DD at
50S
D at
50S
50S high
50S high
mixtures
mixtures
50S confining
mixtures confining (i.e.,
(i.e., pressure.
(i.e., pressure.
soil
soil soil grains
grains
grains smaller
smaller
smaller than
than
than rubber
rubber
rubber particles),
particles),
particles),
In
rubber
rubber In
the
In
rubberInIn
the
case
the
In the
Inparticles
the case
the
the case
particles case
case
case
particles of
Dtend
ofcase of
50Rof of
oftend
D
D
of
tend ≈DDtoD
50R
D
50R
50R >>
50R
>>
to50R
50R
>>
>>
float
to
50S >>
D
>>
float
floatD
D D
mixtures
D 50S
50S
D 50S
within
within
50S within
50S50S
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures(i.e.,
mixtures
mixtures
the
the soil
the soil (i.e.,
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
(i.e.,
soil soil
soil
grains
soil
skeleton
soil soil
soil
soil
skeleton
skeleton grains
grains
grains
the
grains same
grains
grains
ininmixtures
in smaller
smaller
smaller
sizewith
smaller
smaller
smaller
mixtures
mixtures than
as
with than
than
rubber
thanthan
than
withlow rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
lowlowrubber
rubber
VRC.
VRC.
VRC. particles),
particles),
particles),
particles),
particles),
particles),
particles),
For
For For inter-
inter-
inter-
rubber
rubber InIn
rubber the
In the
thecase
case
particles
particles case
particles oftend
of
tend DD
of
tend D
to
50Rto
50R >>
to >>
float
float
50R DD
>>
float D mixtures
mixtures
within
within
within
50S
50S50S mixtures
the
the the soil (i.e.,
(i.e.,
soil
soil soil
(i.e.,soil
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton grains
soilgrains
grains
inin in smaller
smaller
smaller
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures than
with than
than
with
with low rubber
low rubber
lowrubber
VRC.
VRC.
VRC. particles),
particles),
particles),
For
For For inter-
inter-
inter-
mixtures rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
mediate
mediate behave
mediate particles
particles
particles
particles like
particles
particles
values
values
values oftend
tend
of D tend
tend
tend
tend to
to
VRC,
VRC,
of 50R to
to
VRC, to
>>
float
to float
float
float D
float
float
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
50S within
within
within
within
within
within the
the
mixtures
the
the
exhibit
exhibit the
soil
the
exhibit soil soil
soil
for
soil
soil skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
VRC
skeleton
skeleton
skeleton
consistent
consistent
consistent ≤ inin
in in
in
behavior
behavior mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
50%,
in where
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
behavior atat with
all
at allwith
with
rubber
withwith
with low
lowlow
stress
stress
all low
low
low
stress VRC.
VRC.
VRC.
forms
VRC.
VRC.
VRC.
levels
levels
levels For
For
pecu-
For
For
and
and For
and inter-
inter-
inter-
inter-
For inter-
inter-
there
there
there
rubber
rubber
rubber
mediate
mediate particles
particles
particles
values
values tend
oftend
tend
of totofloat
VRC,
VRC, tofloat
float within
mixtures
mixtures within
within the
the
exhibit the
exhibit soilsoil skeleton
soil skeleton
skeleton
consistent
consistent inin mixtures
inmixtures
mixtures
behavior
behavior atatatwith
with
with
all lowlow
stresslowVRC.
VRC.
VRC.
levels For
For inter-
For
and inter-
inter-
there
mediate
isis mediate
mediate
mediate
lated structures
mediate
mediate
mediate
no
isno
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
transition
transition
no transition
of
of
andfrom
ofof
from
VRC,
of
offrom
VRC,
soil-soil
VRC,
of VRC,
VRC,
VRC,
VRC,
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
grain
mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like to
exhibit
exhibit
exhibit
exhibit
interaction
exhibit
to exhibit
exhibit
soil-like
soil-like
to soil-like
consistent
consistent
consistent
consistent
exists.
consistent
consistent
consistent
with
withwith On behavior
behavior
behavior
behavior
the
behavior other
behavior
behavior
increasing
increasing
increasing at
atatatall
all
athand,
all
all
at
confining
confining all
all stress
stress
stress
stress
stress
for
stress
all
all
confining stress
stress
levels
levels
levels
levels
levels
VRC
levels
pressure levels
levels
pressure
pressure andand
and
and and
and
>[25].
50%,
and
and
[25].
[25].
there
there
there
there
there
there
there
there
mediate
mediate
isis mediate
is no values
values
values
transition offromVRC,
offrom
of VRC,
VRC, mixtures
mixtures
mixtures
rubber-like toexhibit
exhibit
toexhibit
soil-like consistent
consistent
consistent
with behavior
behavior
behavior
increasing atconfining
atall
atall stress
allstress
stress levels
levels
levels
pressure and
and
and
[25].there
there
there
D50Ris
isis
≈ isno
no
no no
Dno transition
transition
transition
transition
transition
mixtures from from
from
from behave rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like like Dto totosoil-like
soil-like
soil-like
tosoil-like
soil-like
<< D50S with
withwith
with
with increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing
mixtures, confining
confining
confining
confining
confining
where soil forms pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure [25].
[25].
[25].
[25].
[25].
peculated
isno
isisis
isno
no no transition
no
no50Stransition
transition
transition
transition
transition from
from from
from
from
from rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like
rubber-like to soil-like
toto
to
to50R soil-like
tosoil-like
soil-like
soil-like
soil-like with
withwith
with
with
with increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing
increasing confining
confining
confining
confining
confining
confining pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure
pressure [25].
[25].
[25].
[25].
[25].
[25].
Table
Table 3.3.Schematic
Table 3.Schematic structures
summary
summary
Schematic summary and
ofofrubber-soilrubber-rubber
ofrubber-soil
interaction
interaction particle
in inmixtures
inmixtures interaction
mixtures with
with with takesVRC
different
different
different place.
VRC
VRC andand aspect
aspect
and aspect ratios
ratios (modified
(modified
ratios (modified from
from from
Table
Table
Table
Table 3.3.
Table
Table 3. 3. Schematic
3.Schematic
Schematic
Schematic
3.Schematic
Schematic summary
summary
summary ofof
summary
summary
summary of of rubber-soil
ofrubber-soil
rubber-soil
rubber-soil
ofrubber-soil
interaction
interaction inin
interaction
interaction
interaction in in mixtures
inmixtures
mixtures
mixtures
inmixtures
mixtures with
with
with
with
with
with different
different
different
different
different
different VRC
VRC
VRCVRC
VRC
VRC and
and
and
and
and
and aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect
aspect ratios
ratios
ratios
ratios
ratios (modified
(modified
(modified
ratios(modified
(modified from
(modified from
from
from
from
from
[25]).
Table
[25]).
Table
Table
Table
Table 3.
Table 3.Schematic
3.3.
[25]). 3.
Schematic
Schematicsummary
Schematic
3.Schematic
summary
Schematic of
summary
summary
summary
summaryofrubber-soil
ofofof
rubber-soil
ofrubber-soil
interaction
rubber-soil
rubber-soilinteractionin
interaction
interaction
interactioninmixtures
ininin
mixtures with
mixtures
inmixtures
with
mixtures
mixtures different
with
with
different
with
with VRC
different
different
different
differentVRC
VRC
VRCand
VRC
VRCand
and
andaspect
and
andaspect
aspect
aspectratios
aspect
aspectratios
ratios
ratios(modified
ratios(modified
(modified
(modified
ratios from
(modified
(modified from
from
from
from
from
[25]).
[25]).
[25]).
[25]).
[25]).
[25]).
Table Schematic summary of rubber-soil interaction in mixtures with different VRC and aspect ratios (modified from [25]).
3.[25]).
[25]).
[25]).
[25]).
VRC [25]).
[25]). Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton Material
Material
Material
VRCVRC
VRC
VRC
VRC
VRC
VRC Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton Material
Material
Material
Material
Material
Material
VRCVRC
VRC
VRC Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton Material
Material
Material Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
VRCVRC
VRC
(%)
(%)
(%) D
DD D <<<<<<
DD D Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton
Skeleton
D D D
Skeleton ≈ Material
≈ D ≈Material
Material
Material
DD DDDD >>>>
>>>> D
DD D Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
VRC
VRC
VRC Skeleton
Skeleton ≈Material
Material
Material Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
50R 50R
50R
50R 50S 50S
50S
50S 50R 50R
50R
50R 50S 50S
50S
50S 50R 50R
50R
50R 50S 50S
50S
50S
VRC (%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%) DD
D D
50R
D
50R
<<<<
50R
50R
<<<<
50R
50R
<<
DD
<<
DD D
D 50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S DDD
D D
D
50R ≈ ≈≈D
50R
50R
50R
50R
50R
D≈≈D
DD
D 50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
DD
D D
D >>>>>>
50R
50R
50R
>>
50R
50R
50R
DD
>>
D D
D 50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
Remarks
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%) DD
DDDD
50R
D <<
50R
50R
50R50R
50R
50R
D
<<<<
<<<<DD
<<
D
<< D
D
50S
D 50S
50S
50S 50S
50S
50S
D
D
DD
D D
50R
D ≈≈≈
50R
50R
50R
50R
50R
50R
≈≈D
D≈≈D
D
DD
50S
D 50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
D
D DD
50R
D50R
DD >>
>>>>
50R
50R
50R
50R
50R
D
>>>>
DD
D
>> D
50S
D
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
000 Rigid
Rigid Rigid soil
soil soil skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
000 000000 Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
skeleton. skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton. skeleton.
skeleton.
00 0 0 RigidRigid
RigidRigid
soil soil
soilsoil
skeleton. skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled stiffness;
stiffness;stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness; rubber rubber
rubberrubber
rubber maymay
may
may
may prevent
preventprevent
prevent
prevent buck-
buck-
buck-
buck-
buck-
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled stiffness;stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness; rubber
rubber rubberrubber may
may may
may preventprevent
prevent
prevent buck-
buck-
buck-
buck-
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlledstiffness;
Soil-controlled
Soil-controlled stiffness;
ling stiffness;
stiffness;
ling lingof
stiffness; of
stiffness;
stiffness; of
soil rubber
soilsoil
rubber
rubber rubber
rubber
columns;
rubber columns;
columns;
rubber may
may
may may
may
may
mayprevent
preventprevent
prevent
prevent
prevent prevent buck-
buck-
buck-
buck-
buck-
buck-
202020
20 ling
ling ling
ling ling
lingofof
of ofofof
of soil
soil
soil
soil soil
soil columns;
columns;
columns; columns;
columns;
columns;
2020
202020 D D D <<D
50R
50R <<D
50R
50R <<D50S :
50S 50S
50S:
segregation
:
buckling ling
segregation ling
segregation
ling ling ling
lingof
of of
of
of soil
soil
if
soil
soil
of soilsoil
if
soil columns;
rubber
if
columns;
columns; columns;
columns;
rubber
rubber
columns;
columns; can
can pass
can pass
pass through
through
through
20
202020
2020 DD D <<D
50R
50R
D 50R <<D
<<D
<<D 50S
:::D
50S : segregation
:: segregation
segregation
50S ifif if
rubber rubber
rubber can can
can pass pass
pass through
through
through
20 DD
DD
D
D D
50R
<<D
50R
50R
50R
D <<D
<<D
50R
<<D<<D
50R
50R
<<D <<
<<D
<<D
50S
50S
50S
50S
50S
:50S ::50S::: segregation
segregation
segregation segregation
segregation
: segregation
segregation
segregation
segregation
segregation soil
soil
if
if if
ifpores.
soil
ifif
ifpores.
rubber
rubber
if
rubber
ifpores.
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
pores.
rubber
ifpores. rubber can
can
can
can
cancan
can
can
can
pass
pass
pass
can
pass
pass
pass
pass
pass
pass
pass
through
through
through
through
through
through
through
through
through
50R
50R50R 50S50S 50S
through soil
soil soil
soil
soil
soil
soil pores.
pores.
pores. pores.
pores.
D D D <<D
50R
50R <<D
50R
50R <<D 50S :
50S Transaction
:
50S
50S Transaction
: Transaction soil
soil soil
soil
soil
soil pores.
mixture. pores.
pores.
mixture.
pores. mixture.
pores.pores. Rubber
Rubber
Rubber separates
separates
separates
DDDD D <<D
50R
50R
D 50R
D<<D
50R
50R
<<D
<<D
<<D
<<D
50R
50S
<<
50S :::50S
50S
50S D
50S
:: Transaction
:: Transaction
Transaction
50S
Transaction
Transaction
Transaction : Transaction mixture.
mixture. mixture.
mixture.
mixture.
mixture. mixture. Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber separates
separates
separates
separates
separates
separates
D D
D D
50R
D <<D
soil
Dsoil
50R
soil
50R50R
<<D <<D
<<D
contacts
contacts
<<D
<<Dcontacts
50S50S Transaction
:50S :50S
: Transaction
:: Transaction
Transaction at
Transaction atlow
atlow
Transaction low
low mixture.
pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
mixture. mixture.
mixture.
mixture.
mixture. Rubber
Rubber
Rubber
soil
soil contacts
contacts
soil
Rubber
Rubber
Rubber contactsseparates
separates
separates
may
may
separatesmay
separates
separates
soil
50R
soil soil
soil
50R
soil
soil contacts
contacts
contacts
50R
separates 50S50S
contacts
contacts
contacts soil at
at at at
low
contacts
at at
low low
low
low pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
at
pressures;
pressures;
pressures; low soil
pressures; soil
soil
soil
soil
soil contacts
contacts
contactssoil
contacts
contacts
contacts may may
may
maymay
may
404040 soil
soil
soil
soil contacts
soil contacts
contacts
contacts
soil contacts
contacts
contacts
at
form
at
may at
form
at low
at
form
low
atlow low
low
at
low
formatpressures;
at
large pressures;
pressures;
large
large
pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
at pressures;
large
soil
soil
pressures;
pressures; soil
soilcontacts
soil contacts
contacts
contacts
soil
pressures; contacts
contacts may
maymay
may
may
may
4040
40
40 40
40
4040 form
formform
form form
form at
at at
at at large
atlarge
large large
large
large pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
pressures;
4040
404040 D D D >>D
50R
50R >>D
50R
50R >>D
>>
50S D
50S and
50S
50S and form
and
formform
D
and
form form
D
form
50R D50Rat
≈D
D
at
50R
50Rat
≈D
at large
at
≈D
large
at
50S large
large
:
≈
large
50S :
Rubber
large
50S
50S D pressures;
Rubber
: Rubberpressures;
pressures;
pressures;: Rubber
pressures;
pressures; forms
forms
forms forms percolating
percolating
percolating
DD D >>D
50R
50R
D
50R
50R >>D
>>D
>>D50S 50S and
50S and
50S and
and DD 50R D
D50R≈D
50R≈D
50R≈D
50S
≈D 50S 50S : Rubber
:: Rubber
:::50S
Rubber 50S forms
forms
forms percolating
percolating
percolating
D
D
DD
D
D
50R
D
50R
>>D
50R
>>D>>D
50R
>>D
>>D 50S
percolating
50R
D skeleton.
skeleton.
50R
>>D
50S
skeleton.
>>D
>>D50S
and
50S
50S
50S and
and
and
and
and and
There
DD D
D
skeleton.
andThere
D
50R
There
D50R D
D
50R
50R
≈D
50R
≈D
is
50R
≈D
≈D
≈D
50S
is≈D
≈D 50S
isThere
≈D
Rubber
50S
Rubber
soil-soil
soil-soil
50S50S ::: Rubber
Rubber
:: Rubber
soil-soil
:soil-soil
Rubber Rubber
Rubber
is grain
Rubber soil-soil
grain
grain
forms
forms
forms
forms
forms
forms
forms
formsgrain
interaction.
interaction.
forms
percolating
percolating
percolating
percolating
percolating
percolating
interaction.
percolating
percolating
percolating
50R
50R50R skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
50S 50S
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
50S
There There
There
ThereThere
50R
There
50Ris
50R
is is
is is
issoil-soil
soil-soil
50S50S 50S
soil-soil
soil-soil
soil-soil
interaction. grain grain
grain
grain
grain
grain interaction.
interaction.
interaction.
interaction.
interaction.
interaction.
DDDskeleton.
D skeleton.
skeleton.
<<D
<<D
skeleton.
50R <<D
skeleton.
skeleton.
50R
50R
50R 50S 50S and
50S
50SThere
and
There There
There
and
There D
There D is
D
is
50R is
≈D
is
50R soil-soil
is
≈D ≈D soil-soil
soil-soil
soil-soil
is
50R
50R soil-soil
50S :
soil-soil
50S :
Soil
50S
50S grain
: Soil
Soil grain
grain
forms
grain
grain
grain interaction.
forms
forms interaction.
interaction.
percolating
percolating
percolating
interaction.
interaction.
interaction.
DD D
50R
D <<D
<<D
50R
50R <<D
<<D 50S 50S and
50S and and
and DD D
50R
D ≈D
50R ≈D
50R ≈D
50S
≈D 50S
:::50S
50SSoil : Soil
::DSoil forms forms
: forms percolating
percolating
percolating
D
D D
D
D
50R
D
D
<<D
50R
50R
<<D
50R
skeleton.
skeleton.
<<D
skeleton.
50R 50R
50R
Dskeleton.
<<D<<D
<<
<<D
<<D
<<D
50S
50S
50S
There
50S
Dand
50S
and
There
50S
and
and
and
50S
There
and and
and
D
and
D
Dis
D
D50R
is
D D
D
D≈D
50R
≈D
50R
≈D
50R
≈D
50R 50S
≈D 50S
rubber-rubber
rubber-rubber
is
50R
≈
rubber-rubber
50R
≈D ≈D 50S
≈D 50S
Soil
50S
:50SSoil::: 50S
Soil
:: is
SoilSoil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
forms
forms forms
forms
Soil
forms
forms
forms
formsparticle
particle
forms
percolating
percolating
percolating
forms
percolating
percolating
percolating
particle
percolating
percolatinginterac-
interac-
interac-
percolating
606060
606060
60 skeleton.
skeleton.
50R50R
50R
percolating
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
50S There
50S
There There
50S
ThereThere
skeleton.
There is
is is
isis
is rubber-rubber
rubber-rubber
rubber-rubber
50R50R50R 50S
There 50S
rubber-rubber
rubber-rubber
rubber-rubber rubber-rubberparticle
particle
particle
particle
particle
particle interac-
interac-
interac-
interac-
interac-
interac-
6060
60
606060 skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton. There
There There
ThereThere
There is isrubber-rubber
is rubber-rubber
rubber-rubber
isisrubber-rubber tion;
tion;
isrubber-rubber
rubber-rubbertion; particle
particle
particle
particle
particle
particle interac-
interac-
interac-
interac-
interac-
interac-
606060 particle interaction;
tion;
tion; tion;
606060 tion;tion;
tion;
tion;tion;
tion;
D50RD
DDD D
50R
D>>>>D
50R >>D
50R
50R
>>D>>D >>D
D
>>D 50S :
50S Soil
:
50S
50S Soil
: Soil
: Soil
:: Soil separates
separates
separates
separates
tion;
tion;
separates
separates tion; rubber
rubber rubber
rubber contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
rubber
rubber contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
:::50S
Soil separates rubber contacts.
50R50R50R 50S
50S 50S 50S
D
D D D
50R
D >>D
50R >>D
50R
>>D >>D
>>D 50S 50S Soil
50S
Soil ::: Soil
Soil Soil separates
separates
separates
separates
separates rubber rubber
rubber
rubberrubber contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
DDD50R
D
50R
50R
50R
>>D
50R
>>D>>D
50R >>D 50S
50S
50S
50S:50S:: Soil
SoilSoil Soil separates
separates
separates
separates rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
contacts.
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness; D D
DD D
50R
D50R>>D>>D
50R
50R >>D
>>
>>D
>>D D::50S
50S
50S : Segregation
50S
50S
: Segregation
Segregation
::: :Segregation
Segregation
8080
8080
80 Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness;
stiffness; DD D50R
D50R>>D
50R
50R
>>D >>D
>>D 50S
50S Segregation
50S
:pores.
::50S Segregation
Segregation
Segregation
80 80
808080 Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Rubber-controlled
Segregation if if
Rubber-controlledsoil
Rubber-controlled if
Rubber-controlledsoil soilifcan can
soil can pass stiffness;
pass
can pass stiffness;
stiffness;
pass through
through
stiffness;
stiffness; through
through
stiffness; D
DD D50R
D 50R50R
>>D
rubber
50R
D 50R
50R
>>D >>D
>>D
rubber
rubber
rubber
>>D
50S
50S
50S
>>D
50S
Segregation
:
pores.
50S
:50S : Segregation
Segregation
pores.
pores.
Segregation
: pores.
Segregation
: Segregation
808080
808080 ifif
if if
ifsoil
soil
ifsoil
soilsoil
soil can
can can
can can
can pass
pass pass
pass
pass
pass throughthrough
through
through
through
through
50R rubber
rubber
rubber
50R50R 50S
rubber
rubber
rubber pores.
pores.
50S
pores.
pores.
pores.
if ifsoil
ifif if
ifsoil
soil
soilsoil
soil can
can can
can can
can pass
pass pass
pass
pass
pass through
throughthrough
through
through
through rubberrubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber pores. pores.
pores.
pores.
pores.
pores.
100
100100
100 Soft
Soft Soft
Soft rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
100
100
100
100
100
100 Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber
rubber skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
100
100
100
100
100
100 Soft
Soft
Soft
Softrubber
Soft
rubber
Softrubberskeleton.
rubber
rubber skeleton.
skeleton.
skeleton.
rubberskeleton.
skeleton.
2.2. Maximum and Minimum Void Ratios of SMRs

Typical values of maximum and minimum void ratios (emax and emin , respectively) for
pure sand, gravel and granulated rubber are shown in Figure 3. For completeness, typical
values for SRMs are also reported. It is evident that the void ratio values of rubber are
higher than those of granular soils. This is due mainly to the higher angularity of rubber
particles and the lower specific gravity (Gs ). It is worth mentioning that the smaller the
rubber particles are, the higher the emax value of the pure rubber is.
Typical values of maximum and minimum void ratios (emax and emin, respectively) for
2.2. Maximum and Minimum Void Ratios of SMRs
pure sand, gravel and granulated rubber are shown in Figure 3. For completeness, typica
Typical
values values are
for SRMs of maximum and minimum
also reported. void ratios
It is evident that (e max and emin, respectively) for
the void ratio values of rubber are
pure sand, gravel and granulated rubber are shown in Figure 3. For completeness, typical
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309 values for SRMs are also reported. It is evident that the void ratio values of rubber6 of are27
particles and the lower specific gravity (Gs). It is worth mentioning that the smaller the
rubber particles
particles are, the
and the lower higher
specific the emax
gravity (Gs).value of the mentioning
It is worth pure rubber is. the smaller the
that
rubber particles are, the higher the emax value of the pure rubber is.
2.0
2.0
max
ine
yl
e lit
e
1.5
emax
linua
Rubber lityEq
ratio,
1.5
ua
Rubber Eq
voidratio, 1.0
1.0
Maximumvoid
Gravel
Maximum
Gravel
0.5 SRMs
0.5 SRMs
Rubber
Rubber
Sand Sand
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.50.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0
Minimum
Minimum voidvoid ratio,
ratio, emin emin
Figure
Figure3.3.3.Typical
Figure Typical
Typicalmaximum
maximumand
maximumandminimum
minimum
and void
void
minimum ratios forfor
ratios
void rubber,
ratios sand
rubber, and
sand
for rubber, rubber
and
sand and([Data
rubber points
([Data
rubber points points
([Data
form:
form:[27,40,51]).
form: [27,40,51]).
[27,40,51]).
Thevariation
The e and
variationofofemax andemine of SRMs
of SRMs canbetter
can be be better described
described by looking
by looking at the at the
pack-
The variation of max emax and emin min of SRMs can be better described by looking at the pack
packing
ing density density that depends
that depends on theon the aspect
aspect ratio.
ratio. As As shown
shown in 4a,
in Figure Figure
in the4a,case
in the
of Dcase of
50R >>
D
ing
D density
>> D50Sthat depends
mixtures, on the aspect
the minimum
values ofvalues
ratio.
theAs
ofand shown
emax in Figure
and emin (densest 4a, in the
states) case of D50R >>
typically
50Rmixtures,
50S the minimum the emax min (densest states) typically occur at
D 50S mixtures,
occur
VRC ≈at50%
VRC the [25,40,41,52].
≈ 50% minimum
[25,40,41,52]. values of mixtures
the efor
Alternatively,
Alternatively, for and
witheaspect
maxmixtures (densest
minwith aspect
ratio Dstates)
ratio
50R ≈ D
typically
D50S
50R ≈ De50S
, the max ,
occur a
VRC
the eemax
and ≈ values
min 50%
and e[25,40,41,52].
valueswith
increase
min Alternatively,
increase VRCfor
with increasing
increasing mixtures
VRC4b).
(Figure with
(Figure 4b).aspect
Because Because
rubber ratio D
rubber
and ≈ Dsoil
50Rand
soil have a , the ema
50S
similar particle size, no packing phenomenon takes place [40,41,53]. On the other hand, as have a
and
have ea values
similar
min increase
particle size,with
no increasing
packing VRC
phenomenon (Figure
takes 4b).
placeBecause rubber
[40,41,53]. On and
the soil
other
hand, as
similar
shown shown
Figurein
inparticle Figure
size,
4c, the4c,
in no in the
packing
case of Dcase
phenomenon
50R << D50S
of D D50S mixtures,
<<takes
50Rmixtures, place the minimum
[40,41,53].
the minimum values ofvalues
On the other
the ofhand, as
emax
the
and
showne
emax and
min takes eplace
in Figure takes
min 4c, place
for VRC for VRC
in the≈ 10-30% ≈ 10-30%
case of[40,41,53,54]. [40,41,53,54].
D50R << D50S mixtures, the minimum values of the ema
and emin takes place for VRC ≈ 10-30% [40,41,53,54].
2.0 2.0 2.0
2.0 D50R/D50S>> 1
2.0 D50R/D50S 1 D50R/D50S 1
2.0
1.5 D50R/D50S>> 1 1.5 D50R/D50S 1 1.5 D50R/D50S 1
emax
Void ratio, e
1.5 1.5 1.5

emax emax
1.0 1.0 1.0
emax
Void ratio, e
emax emax emin

1.0 1.0 emin 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
emin
emin
emin
0.5 (a) 0.5 (b) 0.5 (c)
0.0 emin 0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
(a)Volumetric rubber content, VRC(b) (%) (c)
0.0 0.0 0.0
0
Figure 4. Variation 25maximum
of 50 and75 100 void0ratios for
minimum 25 SRMs50with different
75 100
VRC and0 aspect25 50D50R >>
ratios (a) 75 D50S100
,
(b) D50R ≈ D50S , and (c) D50R << D50S (Data points
Volumetric rubber content, VRC (%)
from: [26,40,54]).
2.3. Specific Gravity for SRMs

Granulated rubber is a lightweight material. Its specific gravity (Gs ) may vary between
1.02 and 1.27 [10,11,55] (the higher Gs being for rubber inclusive of steel wires and textile
reinforcement), which is half of that of typical soils (Gs = 2.5–2.8).
In the case of SRMs, experimental evidence has shown that, generally, the Gs decreases
linearly with increasing VRC. For the sake of completeness, an example of Gs for gravel-
rubber mixtures is reported in Figure 5 [26,27].
2.3. Specific Gravity for SRMs
Granulated rubber is a lightweight material. Its specific gravity (Gs) may vary be-
tween 1.02 and 1.27 [10,11,55] (the higher Gs being for rubber inclusive of steel wires and
textile reinforcement), which is half of that of typical soils (Gs = 2.5–2.8).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309
In the case of SRMs, experimental evidence has shown that, generally, the G7sofde- 27
creases linearly with increasing VRC. For the sake of completeness, an example of Gs for
gravel-rubber mixtures is reported in Figure 5 [26,27].
4
Specific gravity SMRs
Specific gravity, Gs (-)

3
Gravel-rubber mixtures
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Volumetric rubber content, VRC (%)
Figure 5.
Figure Specific gravity
5. Specific gravity of
of gravel-rubber
gravel-rubber mixtures (Data points from: [26,27]).
2.4. Compaction
2.4. Compaction Properties
Properties of
of SRMs
SRMs
For the satisfactory performance of SRM structures, it is necessary to properly control
For the satisfactory performance of SRM structures, it is necessary to properly control
the compaction and correctly evaluate the physical properties of compacted SRMs. Similar
the compaction and correctly evaluate the physical properties of compacted SRMs. Similar
to conventional soils, laboratory compaction tests represent the best method to understand
to conventional soils, laboratory compaction tests represent the best method to under-
the sensitivity of compaction to the properties of SRMs (shape and distribution of grains,
stand the sensitivity of compaction to the properties of SRMs (shape and distribution of
mineralogy, water content, etc.) and to the given actions (compaction methodology and
grains, mineralogy, water content, etc.) and to the given actions (compaction methodology
energy). Hereafter, therefore, a summary of key findings from previous studies on the
and energy). Hereafter, therefore, a summary of key findings from previous studies on
compaction properties of SRMs is reported.
the compaction properties of SRMs is reported.
2.4.1. Compactability of Pure Granulated Rubber
2.4.1. Compactability of Pure Granulated Rubber
The dry unit weight (γdry ) of different types of compacted granulated rubber ranges
The dry unit weight
from approximately 4 to (γ dry) of different
9 kN/m types of compacted
3 [25–27,37,42,47,50,56,57] andgranulated rubber ranges
typically increases with
from approximately 4 to 9 kN/m 3 [25–27,37,42,47,50,56,57] and typically increases with in-
increasing rubber size and steel wire content in the rubber [57]. Experimental investigations,
creasing
however,rubber size andthat
have shown steelmoisture
wire content in the
content rubber
[55] [57]. Experimental
and energy level [55,57]investigations,
have little or
however, have shown that moisture content [55] and energy
negligible effects on the compactibility of granulated rubber evaluated level [55,57] have little or
by conventional
negligible effects on tests.
Proctor compaction the compactibility
On the other of granulated
hand, rubberthat
[42] reported evaluated
vibratorybycompaction
conventionalis
Proctor compaction tests. On the
not suitable for pure granulated rubber.other hand, [42] reported that vibratory compaction is
not suitable for pure granulated rubber.
2.4.2. Compactability of Granular Soil-Rubber Mixtures
2.4.2.Much
Compactability
research hasof Granular Soil-Rubber
been conducted Mixtures
on sand-rubber mixtures to assess their com-
Much research
pactibility. has been
The addition conducted
of rubber oninsand-rubber
results a decrease inmixtures to assess their
γdry proportional compact-
to the added
ibility. The of
percentage addition
rubber of rubber
[11,56], results
which in a decrease
provides in γdry proportional
the lightweight to the added
advantage compared per-
to using
pure soils [58].
centage of rubber [11,56], which provides the lightweight advantage compared to using
pure Edil
soilsand
[58].Bosscher [10] reported that the rubber content is the main factor influencing
the γEdil
dry of sand-tire
and chip
Bosscher mixtures,
[10] reportedwhereas
that the water
rubbercontent
contentand compaction
is the main factorenergy effects
influencing
are γ
the insignificant. Also,
dry of sand-tire vibratory
chip mixtures, compaction is mostly
whereas water ineffective
content for compacting
and compaction energysand-tire
effects
chipinsignificant.
are mixtures [10,42].
Also,Lee et al. [56]
vibratory pointed out
compaction is that the γ
mostly dry values for
ineffective maycompacting
differ depending
sand-
on the aspect ratio D50R /D50S . Specifically, for any given VRC, the minimum value of
γdry is attained for the D50R /D50S = 1 because for other values of the aspect ratio, smaller
particles can easily fill the voids between larger particles resulting in a higher density [56].
Lee et al. [50] and Kim and Santamarina [25] showed that for the case of D50R /D50S = 4 and
10, the γdry decreases almost linearly with the increasing of the rubber content. Similar
trends were recently reported by Tasalloti et al. [27] for gravel-rubber mixtures with
D50R /D50S = 4.
largely scattered across the entire range of VRC (Figure 6a) reflecting the fact that both the
soil and the rubber may have different intrinsic properties (e.g., specific gravity, particle
size and shape, etc.). However, it can be seen that the addition of rubber to soil results in
a decrease of γdry proportional to the added percentage of rubber.
In Figure 6b, the same data points are replotted as the ratio of γdry of SRMs (γdry,SRM)
to γdry of the parent soil (γdry,soil) vs. VRC relationship. The normalized data are much less
scattered, regardless of the type and size of rubber used in the investigations. If a linear
mixing model is superimposed on the data, it can be seen that for VRC > 60% the data
pointsDry
2.4.3. areUnit
mostly coincident;
Weight of SRMs while, for rubber fractions with 20% < VRC < 60%, some of
the data
A compilation of compactionbelow
are slightly above or the linear
test results model
reported because,
by various in the
studies case of SRMs with
[25,27,37,42,47,50,56,59]
showing the effect of the VRC and aspect ratio on the γ and void [25,41,50].
higher aspect ratio, small particles fill the gaps between large particles ratio of SRMs, is
dry
presented in Figure 6.
25 1.2
sand/gravel-rubber mixtures 𝑆𝑅
= 𝑉𝑅𝐶
𝑆
Dry unit weightm, γd (kN/m3)
20 1
𝑆𝑅 /γd,S 𝑆
15 0.8
γd,SRM
10 0.6
5 0.4
(a) (b)
0 0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
VRC (%) VRC (%)
Figure 6. Effect of rubber content on (a) dry unit weight and (b) normalized unit weight of SRMs (Data points
Figure 6. Effect of rubber content on (a) dry unit weight and (b) normalized unit weight of SRMs(Data points from:
from: [25,27,37,42,47,50,56,59]).
[25,27,37,42,47,50,56,59]).
The γdry of pure soils (γdry,soil ) typically varies between 14 to 21 kN/m3 , while that of
2.5. Permeability of SRMs
pure rubber (γdry,rubber ) ranges between 4 and 9 kN/m3 . The γdry of SRMs (γdry,SRM ) has
Many geotechnical
intermediate values and and geo-environmental
decreases problems
with increasing may require
VRC. Overall, consideration
the data of
points appear
water
to flow through
be largely SRMs.
scattered This
across theinvolves the evaluation
entire range of the 6a)
of VRC (Figure coefficient of permeability
reflecting the fact that
within the SRMs, which due to the granular nature of SRMs is usually determined
both the soil and the rubber may have different intrinsic properties (e.g., specific gravity, by
constant head permeability test.
particle size and shape, etc.). However, it can be seen that the addition of rubber to soil
results in a decrease of γdry proportional to the added percentage of rubber.
In Figure 6b, the same data points are replotted as the ratio of γdry of SRMs (γdry,SRM )
to γdry of the parent soil (γdry,soil ) vs. VRC relationship. The normalized data are much less
scattered, regardless of the type and size of rubber used in the investigations. If a linear
mixing model is superimposed on the data, it can be seen that for VRC > 60% the data
points are mostly coincident; while, for rubber fractions with 20% < VRC < 60%, some of
the data are slightly above or below the linear model because, in the case of SRMs with
higher aspect ratio, small particles fill the gaps between large particles [25,41,50].
2.5. Permeability of SRMs

Many geotechnical and geo-environmental problems may require consideration of
water flow through SRMs. This involves the evaluation of the coefficient of permeability
within the SRMs, which due to the granular nature of SRMs is usually determined by
constant head permeability test.
2.5.1. Permeability of Granulated Rubber

Humphrey and Sandford [55] performed large scale permeability test on various tire
chips (particle size in a range of 13 to 76 mm) at different applied deformation. The result
showed that permeability decreased by increasing deformation (i.e., decreasing volume
or void ratio). Also, the permeability of pure tire chips was in the range of 1.5 to 15 cm/s
which is similar to that of clean gravels.
Moo-Young et al. [57] conducted permeability tests on various pure tire shred sizes
compacted at modified proctor energy and results showed that the hydraulic conductivity
increased with the tire shred size. The permeability was reported to be 0.2 cm/s and
0.82 cm/s for tire shred sizes of <50 mm and 200–300 mm, respectively. In similar studies,
Ahmed and Lovell [42] reported the permeability of pure rubber in the order of 0.54 to
or void ratio). Also, the permeability of pure tire chips was in the range of 1.5 to 15 cm/s
which is similar to that of clean gravels.
Moo-Young et al. [57] conducted permeability tests on various pure tire shred sizes
compacted at modified proctor energy and results showed that the hydraulic conductivity
increased with the tire shred size. The permeability was reported to be 0.2 cm/s and9 0.82 of 27
cm/s for tire shred sizes of <50 mm and 200–300 mm, respectively. In similar studies, Ah-
med and Lovell [42] reported the permeability of pure rubber in the order of 0.54 to 0.65
cm/s for rubber size of 25.4 mm, while Edinçliler et al. [60] found the permeability of com-
0.65 cm/s
pacted tirefor rubber
shreds sizerange
in the of 25.4 mm,0.75
from while Edinçliler
to 2.0 et al. [60]
cm/s (similar found the
to gravelly permeability of
soil).
compacted tire shreds in the range from 0.75 to 2.0 cm/s (similar to gravelly soil).
2.5.2. Permeability of Sand-Rubber Mixtures
2.5.2. Permeability of Sand-Rubber Mixtures
Masad et al. [11] performed permeability tests on pure Ottawa sand, pure tire chips
Masad
(< 4.75 et al.SRMs
mm) and [11] performed
with VRC permeability tests on samples
= 50% on compacted pure Ottawato 90% sand, puredensity
relative tire chipsat
(<4.75 mm) and SRMs with VRC = 50% on compacted samples to 90% relative
various confining pressures. The experimental results showed that by increasing the con- density at
various confining pressures. The experimental results showed that by
fining pressure, the permeability of pure tire chips decreased more rapidly than pure sand increasing the
confining
and SRMs.pressure,
Also, at anythegiven
permeability
confiningofpressure
pure tire
(σ3chips decreased more
), the permeability rapidly
of pure than
tire chips
pure sand and SRMs. Also, at any given confining pressure (σ 3 ), the
was lower than other tested materials. For instance, the permeability at σ3 = 200 kPa for permeability of
pure tire chips was lower than other tested materials. For instance, the permeability at
pure sand, pure tire chips and SRMs was 2.7 × 10−3, 1.5 × 10−3 and 2.4 −×310−3 cm/s, respec-
σ3 = 200 kPa for pure sand, pure tire chips and SRMs was 2.7 × 10 , 1.5 × 10−3 and
tively. −3
2.4 × 10 cm/s, respectively.
According to Edil and Bosscher [10], the permeability of pure tire chips, pure sand,
According to Edil and Bosscher [10], the permeability of pure tire chips, pure sand,
and VRC = 50% at a hydraulic gradient of 0.6 was 0.8, 0.07 and 0.05 cm/s, respectively.
and VRC = 50% at a hydraulic gradient of 0.6 was 0.8, 0.07 and 0.05 cm/s, respectively.
They also mentioned that permeability decreased by increasing applied normal stress on
They also mentioned that permeability decreased by increasing applied normal stress on
the specimen. This is, under larger stresses, due to the high compressibility of the rubber,
the specimen. This is, under larger stresses, due to the high compressibility of the rubber,
smaller voids between particles are expected leading to a reduced hydraulic conductivity.
smaller voids between particles are expected leading to a reduced hydraulic conductivity.
Figure 7 presents a summary of permeability values for SRMs reported in various
Figure 7 presents a summary of permeability values for SRMs reported in various
studies. It is evident that for the majority of mixtures (i.e., 0 < VRC < 60%), the effect of
studies. It is evident that for the majority of mixtures (i.e., 0 < VRC < 60%), the effect of VRC
VRC on permeability is minimal and the permeability is similar to that of sandy soil. How-
on permeability is minimal and the permeability is similar to that of sandy soil. However,
ever, for pure
for pure rubber,
rubber, the permeability
the permeability is much
is much higher
higher andand typically
typically is comparable
is comparable to that
to that of
of gravelly
gravelly soil.soil.
Figure 7.
Figure Variation of SRM permeability with VRC and normal stress (Data points from: [10,53,55]).
7. Variation
[10,53,55]).
2.6. Compressibility Characteristics of SRMs
Compressibility or the capability of SRMs to decrease in volume when subjected to an
applied load is one of the most important parameters required in design considerations.
For conventional soils having rigid particles such as sand and gravel, any change in volume
is due to the movement, rotation and rearrangement of non-compressible particles [56].
The compressibility of SRMs, however, is completely different than that of granular soils,
due to significant differences in the elastic modulus of the rigid particles of the host soil
and that of the soft rubber particles. Moreover, under normal stress, not much volume
change is associated with individual particles of rubber (Poisson’s ratio of pure rubber
ν ≈ 0.5; for comparison, that of granulated rubber is found to be between 0.20 and 0.32 [55])
and distortion is the main phenomenon that occurs in pure rubber specimens while being
loaded [55,57,61].
cles [56]. The compressibility of SRMs, however, is completely different than that of gran-
ular soils, due to significant differences in the elastic modulus of the rigid particles of the
host soil and that of the soft rubber particles. Moreover, under normal stress, not much
volume change is associated with individual particles of rubber (Poisson’s ratio of pure
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309 rubber ν ≈ 0.5; for comparison, that of granulated rubber is found to be between 0.2010and of 27
0.32 [55]) and distortion is the main phenomenon that occurs in pure rubber specimens
while being loaded [55,57,61].
Pure rubber. Humphrey and Sandford [55] investigated the one-dimensional com-
Pure
pression rubber.
(1DC) Humphrey
of pure tire chipsand Sandford
with [55] investigated
and without steel wires andthe one-dimensional
reported higher com-com-
pressibility for tire chips with steel wires. Moo-Young et al. [57] also performed 1DC com-
pression (1DC) of pure tire chips with and without steel wires and reported higher and
pressibility
indicated thatforthe
tirecompressibility
chips with steelofwires.
pure Moo-Young et al. [57] also
tire shreds increased withperformed
increasing1DC and
rubber
indicated that the compressibility of pure tire shreds increased with increasing
size. For instance, the vertical settlement at 100 kPa stress for tire shred <50 mm and 200– rubber size.
Formm
300 instance,
was 22%the vertical
and 45%, settlement at 100 kPa stress for tire shred <50 mm and 200–300 mm
respectively.
wasYang
22% and
et al.45%, respectively.
[61] conducted 1DC and isotropic compression (IC) tests on pure tire chips
Yang et al. [61] conducted
(poorly graded with grain size of 1DC2–10and isotropic
mm). Both compression
tests showed(IC) tests
strain on pure tire
hardening chips
against
(poorly graded with grain size of 2–10 mm). Both tests showed strain
increasing stress, and more volumetric strain was observed in IC because the average hardening against
increasing
stress stress, and
was greater thanmore
1DC.volumetric strain was observed in IC because the average stress
wasSand-rubber
greater than 1DC.mixtures. 1DC tests on sand-rubber mixtures have indicated that typi-
cally Sand-rubber
the compressibilitymixtures. 1DC tests
increases on increasing
with sand-rubberGRC mixtures have indicated that typi-
[10,25,34,35,42,50,56,62,63]—
cally the compressibility increases with increasing GRC [10,25,34,35,42,50,56,62,63]—which
which is due to the more rubber-rubber contact and higher compressibility of tire chips
is due to the more rubber-rubber contact and higher compressibility of tire chips compared
compared to sand grains, but it could be reduced by increasing the confining and over-
to sand grains, but it could be reduced by increasing the confining and overburden pres-
burden pressures [42]. Moreover, in such mixtures, the majority of strain accumulation
sures [42]. Moreover, in such mixtures, the majority of strain accumulation happens within
happens within the first cycle of load [10,35]. As shown in Figure 8, an increase in com-
the first cycle of load [10,35]. As shown in Figure 8, an increase in compression index (C )
pression index (Cc) and swelling index (Cs) is detected for mixtures with rubber inclusionsc
and swelling index (C ) is detected for mixtures with rubber inclusions compared to pure
compared to pure sands due to the lower shear modulus of rubber [35,46,64].
sand due to the lower shear modulus of rubber [35,46,64].
Effectofofrubber
Figure8.8.Effect
Figure rubbercontent
contenton
onthe
thecompression
compression index
index (C
(Ccc)) and
and swelling
swelling index
index (C
(Css)) (Data
(Data points
from: [10,25,34,35,42,46,50,55,56,61,63]).
points from: [10,25,34,35,42,46,50,55,56,61,63]).
It has been reported by Rao and Dutta [62] that under repetitive loading between 0 and
It has been reported by Rao and Dutta [62] that under repetitive loading between 0
225 kPa, permanent deformation for pure sand and sand with 20% rubber at 1000 load-
and 225 kPa, permanent deformation for pure sand and sand with 20% rubber at 1000
cycles was 0.45% and 2.04%, respectively. Further load-cycles did not increase permanent
load-cycles was 0.45% and 2.04%, respectively. Further load-cycles did not increase per-
deformation. In addition, rubber size had no influence on the compressibility of mixtures
manent deformation. In addition, rubber size had no influence on the compressibility of
in repeated loading.
mixtures in repeated loading.
Ngo and Valdes [65] investigated the creep behavior of sand-rubber mixture in 1DC
apparatus and reported that both the initial strain and the creep strain increased with
increasing VRC. More importantly, the strain rate did not decrease noticeably after 55 days
of applied stress, thus, the time-dependent behavior of sand-rubber mixtures is required
to be considered in practical application. They also reported that the creep behavior of
sand-rubber mixtures was temperature independent.
Comparison between 1DC and IC tests on sand blended with granulated tire rubber
indicated that residual strain increased as VRC increased, and it was greater in 1DC
compared to IC. This is mainly due to the interlocking effect and side-wall friction with
rubber particles and rigid boundary in 1DC [63].
Lee et al. [56] reported that in 1DC tests, by increasing D50R /D50S , the compressibility
of the mixture decreased for a given rubber content and applied stress because generally
larger rubber particles have less angularity and irregularity compared to the smaller size.
Nevertheless, no effect of D50R /D50S was observed for the mixture with VRC < 20%.
to a maximum value for pure rubber). At lower vertical stress levels (i.e., 10 kPa) the effect
of VRC on 1DC volumetric strain is marginal, while at higher vertical stresses (i.e., 100 and
200 kPa) is more pronounced. Trends for volumetric strains of 3%, 5% and 10% for various
VRC and vertical tress are reported in Figure 9b for completeness.
Figures 10 and 11 present the constrained modulus (M) calculated from 1DC tests
available in the literature for pure soil, pure rubber and SRMs with VRC = 40%. The dif-
ference between the constrained modulus of pure soil and pure rubber is in the order of
1000 times. By increasing rubber in the mixture, constraint modulus decreases. In addi-
tion, the effect
Volumetric Strainof vertical effective stress
and Constrained Modulus (𝜎𝑣′ )of
onSRMs
constrained modulus is more significant
for mixtures with higher VRC. Moreover,
The effect of the VRC on the 1DC volumetric behaviorit appears that the aspect ratio
reported in thealso plays an
literature is
illustrated in Figure 9a. It is evident that at any given vertical stress, by increasingshown
important part. The higher the aspect ratio, the lower the constrained modulus as VRC,
by the
the 1DCdata points reported
volumetric for VRC
strain increases = 40%from
linearly and D 50R/D50G = 4.7 and 0.5. Yet, as shown in
a minimum value for pure granular soils
this paper, if the constraint modulus of SRMs
to a maximum value for pure rubber). At lower vertical at any 𝜎𝑣′ stress
is normalized
levels (i.e.,with the constraint
10 kPa) the effect
′
modulus
of VRC on at
1DC 𝜎𝑣 volumetric
= 100 kPa strain
(M100),is itmarginal,
appearswhile that the
at normalized
higher verticalconstrained
stresses (i.e.,modulus
100 and
40
′
200 𝑀100 )isyields
(𝑀 kPa) more apronounced. with 𝜎for
linear trendTrends 𝑣 for various VRC
volumetric in of
strains
Vertical stress (σv ), kPa a log-log
3%, 5%scale (Figure
and 10% 10b).
for various
1-D volumetric strain, Δv1-D, % 10 50
VRC and 100
vertical
200 tress are reported in Figure 9b for completeness.
30
20
40 300
εv,1-D, % (a) sand-rubber mixtures (b)
Vertical stress (σv ), kPa εv,1-D = 3%
10
1-D volumetric strain, εv,1-D (%)
10 50 A
250 εv,1-D = 5%
Vertical stress, σv (kPa)

30 100 200 0
σv, kPa
B 0 20 40 60 80 100
A B VRC, % 200 εv,1-D = 10%
10 0.036 0.80
50 0.140 1.50
20 150
100 0.210 1.70
200 0.270 2.45
100
10
50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
VRC, % VRC, %
Figure 9. 1-D compressibility of SRMs (a) effect of VRC on 1-D volumetric strain and (b) variation of vertical stress against
Figure 9. 1-D compressibility of SRMs (a) effect of VRC on 1-D volumetric strain and (b) variation of vertical stress against
VRC at different level of volumetric strain (Data points from: [46]).
VRC at different level of volumetric strain (Data points from: [46]).
Figures 10 and 11 present the constrained modulus (M) calculated from 1DC tests
available in the literature for pure soil, pure rubber and SRMs with VRC = 40%. The
difference between the constrained modulus of pure soil and pure rubber is in the order of
1000 times. By increasing rubber in the mixture, constraint modulus decreases. In addition,
the effect of vertical effective stress (σv0 ) on constrained modulus is more significant for
mixtures with higher VRC. Moreover, it appears that the aspect ratio also plays an important
part. The higher the aspect ratio, the lower the constrained modulus as shown by the data
points reported for VRC = 40% and D50R /D50G = 4.7 and 0.5. Yet, as shown in this 12
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
paper,
of 28
if the constraint modulus of SRMs at any σv0 is normalized with the constraint modulus
at σv0 = 100 kPa (M100 ), it appears that the normalized constrained modulus (M/M100 )
yields a linear trend with σv0 for various VRC in a log-log scale (Figure 10b).
10
y𝑀
= 0.0647x0.6051 ′0
= 𝜎
Normalised constrained modulus,
R²= 0.9102 𝑣
𝑀100
M/M100 (MPa)
(b)
0.1
1 10 100 1000
Vertical effective stress, σ'v (kPa)
Figure 10. Effect of VRC and σv0 on′ (a) constrained modulus for pure soil, pure rubber and SRM (VRC = 40%) and
Figure 10. Effect of VRC and 𝜎𝑣 on (a) constrained modulus for pure soil, pure rubber and SRM (VRC = 40%) and (b)
(b) normalized constrained
normalized modulus
constrained (Data
modulus points
(Data from:
points [25,50,56]).
from: [25,50,56])
VRC = 20-40% VRC = 40-60% VRC = 100%

100 100 100
modulus,
sand-rubber mixtures
10 10 10
N
(b)
0.1
1 10 100 1000
Vertical effective stress, σ'v (kPa)

Figure 10. Effect of VRC and 𝜎𝑣′ on (a) constrained modulus for pure soil, pure rubber and SRM (VRC = 40%) and (b)
normalized constrained modulus (Data points from: [25,50,56])
VRC = 20-40% VRC = 40-60% VRC = 100%

100 100 100
Normalised constrained modulus,
sand-rubber mixtures
10 10 10
M/M100
1 1 1
0.1 0.1 0.1
(a) (b) (c)

0.01 0.01 0.01
1 100 10,000 1 100 10,000 1 100 10,000
Vertical effective stress, σ’v (kPa)
Effect VRC
of of 0 VRC==20–40% VRC
Figure 11. 11.
Figure Effect VRCand
andσv𝜎𝑣on
′
onnormalized
normalizedconstrained
constrainedmodulus
modulus for (a) VRC
for (a) 20–40%(b)(b)
VRC = 40–60%
= 40–60% andand
(c) VRC
(c) VRC = 100%
= 100% (Data(Data points
points from:from: [10,25,34,35,42,46,50,55,56,61–64]).
[10,25,34,35,42,46,50,55,56,61–64])
2.7. Shear Strength Characteristics

The shear
shear strength
strengthof ofany
anysoil
soilisisthe
theresult
result ofof
friction and
friction interlocking
and interlocking between
betweenparticles,
parti-
and possibly cementation or bonding at particle contacts. Due to interlocking,
cles, and possibly cementation or bonding at particle contacts. Due to interlocking, partic- particulate
materials may may
ulate materials expand or contract
expand in volume
or contract in volume as they areare
as they subject
subject totoshear
shearstrains.
strains. Alike
Alike
conventional
conventional soils,
soils, shear
shear strength
strength is is one
one of the most
of the most important
important characteristics
characteristics contributing
contributing
to
to the
the performance
performance also also for
for SRMs.
SRMs. Various
Various parameters
parameters influence
influence the the overall
overall mechanical
mechanical
behavior
behavior of ofSRMs
SRMswhich
whichcan canbebedivided
divided into
intothree
threemain categories:
main categories: (i) parameters
(i) parametersassociated
associ-
with the parent soil such as particle mineralogy, size, shape, etc. (ii)
ated with the parent soil such as particle mineralogy, size, shape, etc. (ii) parameters re- parameters related
to theto
lated granulated rubber
the granulated including
rubber size, size,
including shape, content
shape, by volume
content by volumeor mass, etc. and
or mass, (iii)
etc. and
test conditions such as confining pressure, strain rate, specimen
(iii) test conditions such as confining pressure, strain rate, specimen density, mode ofdensity, mode of shear,
etc.
shear,Any combination
etc. of theseof
Any combination parameters affects the
these parameters mechanical
affects behavior behavior
the mechanical of the mixtures.
of the
Previous
mixtures. Previous studies mainly focused on mixtures of sand with scrap tires (inshapes).
studies mainly focused on mixtures of sand with scrap tires (in various various
Different percentages
shapes). Different of scrap tires
percentages of scrap(either
tiresby(either
weight byor volume)
weight were added
or volume) weretoadded
sand to to
assess the shear behavior of sand-rubber mixtures using various
sand to assess the shear behavior of sand-rubber mixtures using various apparatus, apparatus, including direct
in-
shear
cluding devices
direct and
sheartriaxial
devices cells,
andeither
triaxial oncells,
dry or fullyon
either saturated specimens.
dry or fully saturatedThe majority
specimens.
of previous studies focused on a maximum rubber content of 40% by weight. Within this
The majority of previous studies focused on a maximum rubber content of 40% by weight.
threshold, the behavior of SRMs is mainly governed by rigid particles (i.e., hard-grained
Within this threshold, the behavior of SRMs is mainly governed by rigid particles (i.e.,
parent soil particles), and the overall behavior of mixtures is known as soil-like behavior. In
hard-grained parent soil particles), and the overall behavior of mixtures is known as soil-
this section, the mechanical behavior of SRMs is described based on reported experimental
results of either direct shear or triaxial tests.
2.7.1. Evaluation by Direct Shear Tests

Most of the studies on the shear strength of sand and granulated rubber mixtures
have been conducted using direct shear box apparatus.
Pure rubber. Humphrey and Sandford [55] carried out a large-scale direct shear test
(square shear box with dimensions of 286 × 286 × 228 mm) on pure tire chips (particle size
in the range of 13 to 76 mm). They noticed that even at a 30 mm horizontal displacement,
no peak in shear stress was detected, so the friction angle and cohesion were calculated
based on the deformation equal to 10% of the length of the shear box. The friction angle
and cohesion were reported to be in the range of 19◦ to 26◦ and 8 to 11 kPa, respectively.
Typically, the shear strength of cubic-shaped tire chips was higher than the flat-shaped ones
because better packaging and particle interlocking are associated with cubic-shaped rubber.
Yang et al. [61] also performed a direct shear test on pure tire chips (particle size in
the range of 2–10 mm) at normal stress in the range of 0 to 82.7 kPa. Results indicated
that most of the tests exhibited no well-defined peak shear stress, thus friction angle and
cohesion corresponding to 10, 20 and 30% of horizontal displacement was 32◦ and 0, 42◦
and 5.7 kPa and 45◦ and 8.1 kPa, respectively. Moreover, they suggested that shear strength
is independent of the tire chip size.
In a similar study by Moo-Young et al. [57], results of a large direct shear test (610 mm
by 610 mm by 305 mm) on various pure tire shred sizes (i.e., from <50 mm to 300 mm)
indicated that, generally, shear strength increased with tire shred size. However, tire shred
size of 50–100 mm exhibited the highest shear strength that could be due to the steel wire
within tire shreds and the highest density (lowest void ratio) among other tire shred sizes.
The friction angle for pure tire shred was between 15◦ to 29◦ , while cohesion was nearly
12 kPa.
Sand-rubber mixtures. Foose et al. [66] performed a direct shear test (diameter of
279 mm and height of 157 mm) on sand blended with three types of shredded tires (i.e.,
based on length: <50 mm, 50–100 mm and 100–150 mm) at various VRC equal to 0, 10,
30 and 100%. They mentioned that five factors influenced the sand-shredded tire mixtures
including (i) normal stress, (ii) sand matrix density, (iii) rubber shred content, (iv) rubber
shred length and v) rubber shred orientation, in which the first three factors had the most
effect. A bilinear shear failure envelope was observed for mixtures (φ1 for initial friction
angle and φ2 for the latter portion of failure envelope). By increasing VRC, φ1 increased
and all mixtures showed higher φ1 than pure sand. For instance, φ1 for pure sand and
VRC = 30% was 35◦ and 63◦ , respectively. It was also mentioned that no peak in the
shear stress was reached even at a 25 mm horizontal displacement for sand-shredded
tire mixtures.
Edil and Bosscher [10] also carried out a direct shear test (shear ring with a diameter
of 305 mm) on sand-tire chips mixtures. The shear strength of all mixtures was higher than
pure dense sand. However, at elevated normal stress (e.g., σn > 80 kPa), the influence of tire
chips was lessened. They mentioned that the orientation and tire chip content especially
at the shearing zone were the main factors involved in increasing the shear strength of
the mixtures.
The experimental investigation reported by Tatlisoz et al. [36] on mixtures of tire chips
(particle size in the range of 30 to 110 mm) and two types of soil (i.e., sand and sandy silt)
in a large direct shear ring (280 mm in diameter and 300 mm in height) showed that by
increasing tire chip content (up to 30%), the shear strength for both types of sand increased.
Friction angle for sand-tire chip increased with increasing VRC, while no change in friction
angle was detected for sandy silt-tire chip mixtures. For the latter, the apparent cohesion
increased, which resulted in an increase in the shear strength of mixtures.
Ghazavi and Sakhi [30] emphasized that not only normal stress, tire shred content,
and density influence the shear strength of sand-rubber mixtures, but also the rubber aspect
ratio plays an important role. They conducted extensive tests on various shredded tire
sizes (2, 3 and 4 mm in width) and content (15, 30 and 50% by volume) in a large-scale
direct shear (300 mm by 300 mm). Results showed that for any given shred width, there is
a particular shred length (optimum rubber aspect ratio) that provides the highest shear
strength regardless of mixture density and rubber content. The increment in the friction
angle at the optimum rubber aspect ratio was approximately 25%. An apparent cohesion
was also detected in sand-rubber mixtures. They explained that there would be a possibility
of sand grains penetrating the shred tire, thus during shearing, a sand-rubber bridge could
form and result in apparent cohesion. Ghazavi [47] also reported similar observations on
the shear strength of sand-rubber mixtures tested in a direct shear apparatus (63 mm in
diameter and 20 mm in height). It was mentioned that a marginal enhancement of shear
strength could be associated with sand-rubber mixtures having up to 20% rubber content.
Beyond this threshold, the shear strength was lower than pure sand. The highest shear
strength was reported for an optimum GRC = 15%.
Shear strength characteristics of sand blended with one type of tire crumb and two
types of rubber buffing (with an aspect ratio of 3 and 7) were assessed through a series of
standard direct shear tests (60 mm × 60 mm) by Edinçliler and Ayhan [44]. The GRC varied
between 0% and 100% and normal stresses of 25, 50 and 100 kPa were applied. Although
the shear strength of sand-rubber mixtures increased with the increasing GRC, the friction
angle exhibited a declining trend. The optimum GRC was reported to be 15% and any GRC
beyond 30% resulted in a decrease in the shear strength compared to the sand alone.
In a similar study by Edinçliler et al. [60], large-scale direct shear tests (300 mm × 300 mm)
were carried out on uniform well-graded medium sand mixed with tire crumb and two
types of rubber buffing (with an aspect ratio of 3 and 7) under three different normal
stress levels of 20, 40 and 80 kPa. The GRC varied from 0% to 100%. Results showed
that the shear strength of sand was enhanced by adding rubber inclusions. In particular,
the maximum peak friction angle achieved with GRC = 20% rubber was 42.6◦ for tire
crumb and 45◦ for tire buffing with a higher aspect ratio. Generally, a higher aspect ratio
of rubber particles showed higher shear strength. This could be justified by the greater
contact area between tire buffing and sand particles. The apparent cohesion was insensitive
to the rubber type and it was in a range of 8 to 14 kPa. Also, the initial slope of shear
stress-horizontal displacement increased with the inclusion of rubber to sand. The effect of
tire crumb inclusion on the shear strength of sand decreased with increasing normal stress.
For mixtures consisting of the same particle sizes of sand and rubber (i.e., D50R /D50S = 1.0),
a continuous reduction of the friction angle (or shear strength) with increasing GRC was
observed in direct shear tests by Lee et al. [64]. Also, a higher volumetric contraction was
reported and associated with mixtures with higher rubber content. However, opposite
trends were reported by Attom (2006) performed a direct shear test on mixtures of three
types of sand with shredded tires with GRCs of 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40% [67]. The results
showed an increase in friction angle with increasing shredded tire content. For example,
the friction angle for 100% sand and sand with 40% shredded tire at 100 kPa was 36◦ and
49◦ , respectively (i.e., 36% increase in shear strength). This was justified by the contribution
of the shredded tires to the shearing zone in which some of the shredded tires may resist
the shearing. It was also shown that by increasing the initial dry density, the friction
angle increased.
Gravel-rubber mixtures. Tasalloti et al. [27] and Chiaro et al. [17] reported results
of medium-size direct shear tests (100 mm × 100 mm × 53 mm) on several mixtures
made of angular gravel (D50 = 4), rounded gravels (D50 = 4) mixed with two rubber sizes
(D50 = 5 and 2 mm). The VRC was 0, 10, 25, 40 and 100% and the vertical stress level was 6.5,
30, 60 and 100. In all cases, a continuous reduction of the friction angle (or shear strength)
with increasing VRC was observed, similar to what was observed by Lee et al. [64] for
sand-rubber mixtures with AR = D50R /D50S = 1.0. Moreover, higher volumetric contraction
was reported with mixtures with higher rubber content. Also, it was reported that the
small-size rubber particles produced slightly smaller friction angle values as well as a
higher volumetric contraction compared to the large-size rubber particles when mixed
with either the angular or the rounded gravels.
Summary. The friction angle and shear stress at failure in direct shear tests for
various SRMs reported in literature are summarized and presented in Figures 12 and 13,
respectively. Although the friction angle of pure rubber is generally lower than pure soil,
there is a range of VRC (i.e., 20% < VRC < 50%) in which the friction angle of sand-rubber
mixtures seems to be higher than pure sand. This means that the shear strength of pure
sand can be enhanced by mixing it with rubber. For these mixtures, the friction angle is
between 26◦ and 62◦ .
Compared to sand-rubber mixtures, tests on gravel-rubber mixtures are still very
limited. Yet, the available data to date suggest that the friction angle of gravel-rubber
mixtures generally decreases with increasing rubber content, so that the addition of rubber
does not enhance the strength of gravelly soils. Yet, on the other hand, it can be argued
that the use of gravelly soils can enhance the mechanical properties of highly compressible
and low-strength pure rubber as compared to sand.
Compared to sand-rubber mixtures, tests on gravel-rubber mixtures are still very
limited. Yet, the available data to date suggest that the friction angle of gravel-rubber mix-
tures generally decreases with increasing rubber content, so that the addition of rubber
does not enhance the strength of gravelly soils. Yet, on the other hand, it can be argued
that the use of gravelly soils can enhance the mechanical properties of highly compressible
15 of 27
and low-strength pure rubber as compared to sand.
sand + rubber
60 gravel + rubber
Friction angle, φ ( )
40
20
the friction angle required for common geotechnical

engineering applications is > 30 , Chiaro et al 2015).
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
VRC (%)
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 28
Figure 12.
Figure Variation of
12. Variation of friction
friction angle
angle of
of SRMs
SRMs form
form direct
direct shear
shear tests
tests (Data
(Data points
points from:
from: [11,27,30,35,
36,44,47,54,55,57,60–62,64,66–71]).
[11,27,30,35,36,44,47,54,55,57,60–62,64,66–71]).
pure soil SRM pure rubber

160
VRC=0 % VRC=20-40 % VRC=100 %
Shear stress at failure (kPa)
ϕ = tan-1 (τ/σn) sand

120
sand gravel
gravel
80
40
(a) (b) (c)

0
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 13. Shear
Figure 13. Shearstrength
strength
forfor (a) pure
(a) pure soil,
soil, (b) SRM(b)(VRC
SRM= (VRC = and
20–24%) 20–24%) andrubber
(c) pure (c) pure
(Datarubber (Data [10,17,27,44,47,
points from: points from:
[10,17,27,44,47,55,57,61,66,67,72]).
55,57,61,66,67,72]).
2.7.2.
2.7.2.Evaluation
Evaluationby
byTriaxial
Triaxial Tests
Tests
In addition totodirect
In addition direct shear,
shear, many
many otherother relevant
relevant studies studies
dealingdealing
with thewith
shearthe shear
strength
strength
of soil and of granulated
soil and granulated rubber mixtures
rubber mixtures have beenhave been
carried outcarried out triaxial
using the using the triaxial
apparatus,
apparatus,
as summarized as summarized
hereafter. hereafter.
Pure rubber.
Pure rubber. Wu Wu etet al.
al. [73]
[73] investigated
investigated thethe shear
shear strength
strength ofof five
five different
different sizes
sizes of
of
pure tire
pure tire chips
chips (grain
(grain size
size between
between 22 mm mm toto 38
38 mm)
mm) in triaxial
triaxial by applying
applying a constant
constant σ11
stress path.
stress path. The
Thefriction
frictionangle
angleandandYoung’s
Young’s modulus
modulusfor for pure
pure tire
tire chips
chips were
were reported
reported to to
bein
be inthe
therange
range of 45◦ to
of 45° 57◦and
to57° and430
430toto820
820kPa,
kPa,respectively.
respectively. All
All tire
tire chip
chip sizes
sizes illustrated
illustrated
dilativebehavior,
dilative behavior,and andnonocohesion
cohesion waswas detected.
detected. They
They alsoalso separated
separated the interparticle
the interparticle fric-
friction angle and the dilation angle in order to eliminate the effect of particle
tion angle and the dilation angle in order to eliminate the effect of particle size on shear size on shear
strength using
strength using the
the method
method proposed
proposed by by Rowe
Rowe andand Taylor
Taylor [74]
[74] and Taylor [75]. Results
Results
indicated thatthat the
the interparticle
interparticle friction
friction angle
angle was ◦
was 44°–56°.
44 –56 . ◦
indicated
Triaxial tests
Triaxial tests onon pure
pure tire
tire chips
chips (2–10
(2–10 mm
mm grain
grain size)
size) showed
showedalmost
almostaalinear
linearstress-
stress-
strainbehavior
strain behaviorwithwithup uptoto15%
15%axial
axialstrain
strainand
andthen
thenstrain
strainsoftening
softening was
was observed.
observed. Vol-
Volu-
metric contraction was detected during shearing because, at a small strain, tire chip parti-
cles move into available voids and then, at large strain, particles start to slide and move
over each other (where dilation occurs). The initial modulus within the linear portion was
between 720 to 920 kPa for confining pressures in the range of 20 to 60 kPa [61].
umetric contraction was detected during shearing because, at a small strain, tire chip
particles move into available voids and then, at large strain, particles start to slide and
move over each other (where dilation occurs). The initial modulus within the linear portion
was between 720 to 920 kPa for confining pressures in the range of 20 to 60 kPa [61].
Sand-rubber mixtures. Masad et al. [11] performed consolidated drained triaxial tests
on pure sand, pure tire chips (<4.75 mm) and SRMs with GRC = 50% at confining pressures
between 150 to 350 kPa. Three different behaviors were reported for each specimen. For
sand, a distinct peak and strain softening along with dilatation were detected, while a linear
deviatoric stress-axial strain was observed for 100% tire chips without any peak (i.e., no
failure) and an excessive volumetric contraction. For GRC = 50%, an intermediate behavior
was reported. Opposite to natural soils, volume contraction increased with a decrease in
confining pressure, and the effect of confining pressure was more pronounced for pure
sand. Unlike other studies, a high cohesion (i.e., 82 kPa at 20% axial strain) was reported
for pure tire chips, while the friction angle was just 15◦ . In addition, the elastic modulus
decreased drastically for 100% tire chips compared to pure sand from nearly 50 MPa to less
than 5 MPa. Lee et al. [31] also performed large-scale triaxial tests (150 mm in diameter by
300 mm in height) on pure tire chips (particle size in the range of 5 to 30 mm) and sand-tire
chips (GRC = 40%) at various confining pressures. Linear stress-strain and linear volume
contraction behavior were observed for pure tire chips, while an intermediate behavior
between pure sand and pure rubber resulted in sand-tire chip mixtures.
Zornberg et al. [76] investigated the effect of tire shred aspect ratio, content and sand
matrix relative density on the behavior of sand-tire shred mixtures. A large-scale triaxial
apparatus (153 mm in diameter to 305 mm in height) was used. Tire shreds with widths of
12.7 mm and 25.4 mm and aspect ratios of 1, 2, 4 and 8 were mixed with sand at varying
GRC between 0% and 100% and confining pressures of 48.3, 103.5 and 200 kPa. Linear stress-
strain and contractive behavior were observed for rubber sand while dilative behavior was
detected for pure sand. Also, axial strain at peak increased with increasing shred content.
The effect of tire shred aspect ratio was minimal at low axial strain (<5%), but its effect
at large strain was significant. They mentioned that the peak shear strength of mixtures
increased with increasing tire shred up to GRC = 35% (optimum tire shred content) and
decreased beyond that. Varying tire shred aspect ratio showed that the increase in shear
strength of mixtures was more significant for aspect ratios greater than 4. In addition, no
major effect was reported due to the sand matrix relative density on the shear behavior of
sand-tire shreds. A shear mechanism for sand-tire shred was proposed, which was mainly
composed of (i) shear strength contribution from individual sand and tire shred particles
and (ii) reinforcement mechanism due to the tensile strength within tire shred, with the
latter being more pronounced at low confining pressure.
Large-scale triaxial tests (300 mm by 600 mm) were conducted on flat rubber tire chips
and sand by Bergado et al. [68]. GRC varied from 0 to 100% and σ0 3 = 50, 100, 200 kPa.
Unlike other studies, the shear strength decreased with increasing GRC, and the axial strain
at peak increased significantly for mixture with 30% rubber (from 3% for pure sand to 16%
for GRC = 30%). Minimum and maximum shear strengths were identified for pure rubber
and pure sand, respectively. Similar results were reported by Youwai and Bergado [37] for
sand-rubber mixtures (D50R /D50S ≈ 12) tested in triaxial apparatus. Isotropic consolidated
drained tests on sand-rubber mixtures (GRC = 0 to 100%) showed that with increasing GRC,
shear strength at the peak decreased, shear strain at the peak and also initial dilatancy
increased (due to the higher deformability of rubber compared to sand). The peak friction
angle decreased from 34◦ for pure sand to 30◦ for pure rubber. Almost a linear increase in
shear strength was observed with increasing confining pressure.
Gotteland et al. [70] performed large-scale triaxial tests (150 mm by 300 mm) on
sand and rubber (disk shape with a diameter of 28.1 mm and thickness of 10.4 mm with
exposed steel wire) and investigated the effect of rubber disk orientation and GRC on the
shear strength. Results indicated that the optimum rubber percentage was in the range
of 20% to 40% with maximum shear strength at 34% and the horizontal orientation of
rubber disks provides the highest shear strength followed by mixtures with alternately
horizontal and vertical orientations. The behavior of mixtures was sand-like for specimens
with GRC < 34% and rubber-like for GRC > 34%. Also, in terms of volumetric strain,
similar to other studies, less dilation and more contractive behavior were observed with
increasing GRC.
Sheikh et al. [35] carried out monotonic triaxial tests on sand mixed with 0% to 40% (by
mass) of two types of rubber crumbs (D50R /D50S = 4.0 and 6.5). The test results indicated
that peak deviatoric stress (qpeak ) decreased by increasing rubber content (RC), while the
axial strain corresponding to qpeak increased with increasing RC irrespective of the confining
pressures applied. For instance, at the confining pressure of 207 kPa, qpeak decreased by
22% and 45% for RC = 10% and 30% (D50R /D50S = 4.0), respectively. Similar results were
observed by Lee et al. (2007) for D50R /D50S = 0.25 in which the friction angle increased
with decreasing VRC. Also, no peak and softening behavior was detected for mixtures
with VRC > 40% [50]. On the other hand, Rao and Dutta [62] reported an almost marginal
effect on the shear strength of sand-tire chips tested in triaxial apparatus. They used three
sizes of tire chips (i.e., 10 mm × 20 mm, 20 mm × 20 mm and 20 mm × 10 mm) with up to
20% content by mass and indicated that friction angle remained almost constant while a
small increase in cohesion was observed with rubber inclusion (around 14–19 kPa with
20% tire chips). However, initial tangent modulus and secant modulus decreased with the
increase in RC (the reduction was minor at low confining pressure and substantial at a high
confining pressure of around 270 kPa).
Fu et al. [77] also carried out monotonic triaxial tests on sand-rubber mixtures. Two
types of rubber (i.e., granules and fibers) with 10% and 30% by mass were mixed with crush-
able sand (completely decomposed granite). Results showed that negligible improvement
in the shear strength was observed by adding 10% rubber in the form of either granules or
fibers. However, 30% rubber in the form of fibers increased the shear strength noticeably
and decreased dilation. Later, Fu et al. [46] conducted triaxial tests on mixtures of rubber
and sand and observed that the stiffness of sand decreases with the inclusion of rubber.
In addition, a large strain (nearly 40%) was required for the ultimate strength of mixtures
to be fully mobilized. More importantly, the effect of rubber type (rubber granules or
buffing) was pronounced in shear strength since rubber buffing provided a reinforcing
effect on the mixture. In a series of monotonic triaxial tests reported by Mashiri et al. [33] on
sand-rubber mixtures with GRC between 0% and 40%, the peak deviator stress increased
with the increase in GRC up to 35% and then decreased with further increase in GRC.
However, the axial strain corresponding to peak deviatoric stress constantly increased with
increasing GRC. The dilation of sand was also reduced by rubber inclusions. Based on
the void ratio of mixture, Mashiri et al. [33] suggested three behavioral zones, including
sand-like (GRC < 18%), sand-rubber-like (18% < GRC < 35%) and rubber-like (GRC > 35%).
A dilatancy model was also proposed for rubber-sand mixtures. The model is based on
the three-phase behavior including minimum volumetric strain, peak deviatoric stress and
constant stress ratio.
Gravel-rubber mixtures. More recently, the effect of various rubber sizes on the
mechanical behavior of gravel-rubber mixtures was studied by Pasha et al. [40]. Two
types of gravel (i.e., sub-angular and sub-rounded) were mixed with three tire chips
(D50R /D50S = 0.35, 1.2, 3.35). Results showed that irrespective of types of rubber or gravel,
by increasing VRC shear strength decreased. However, mixtures with D50R /D50S = 3.35 ex-
hibited greater shear strength at failure compared to the other aspect ratios because more
gravel-gravel contact was formed, which resulted in higher shear strength. In addition,
various rubber sizes yielded approximately the same shear strength for VRC = 100%.
Effect of relative density of specimens on the mechanical behavior of gravel-rubber mix-
tures decreased with the increasing VRC, and no relative density effect was observed for
VRC = 100%.
= 0.35, 1.2, 3.35). Results showed that irrespective of types of rubber or gravel, by increas-
ing VRC shear strength decreased. However, mixtures with D50R/D50S = 3.35 exhibited
greater shear strength at failure compared to the other aspect ratios because more gravel-
gravel contact was formed, which resulted in higher shear strength. In addition, various
rubber sizes yielded approximately the same shear strength for VRC = 100%. Effect of rel-
ative density of specimens on the mechanical behavior of gravel-rubber mixtures de-
creased with the increasing VRC, and no relative density effect was observed for VRC =
100%.
Summary.
Summary. AAsummarysummary of of
previous
previous research on the
research on strength properties
the strength of SRMs
properties eval-
of SRMs
uated by triaxial tests is given in Figure 14 for pure soil, pure rubber and SRMs
evaluated by triaxial tests is given in Figure 14 for pure soil, pure rubber and SRMs with with VRC
=VRC
20–40%. Results
= 20–40%. indicated
Results that the
indicated thatfriction angleangle
the friction of SRMs is in is
of SRMs the
inrange to 45◦ .
of 25ofto2545°.
the range
pure soil SRM pure rubber

1000
Peak deviatoric stress, qpeak (kPa)
VRC=0 % VRC=20-40 % VRC=100 %

800 soil type soil type
sand sand
600 gravel gravel
400
200
(a) (b) (c)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effective mean stress (kPa)
Figure 14. Shear

Shear strength
strength from triaxial tests for (a) pure soil, (b) SRMs (VRC == 20–40%)
20–40%) and
and (c)
(c) pure
pure rubber
rubber in triaxial tests
(Data points from: [33,35,37,40,50,68,77]).
[33,35,37,40,50,68,77].
2.8. Dynamic Behaviour

The design of many geotechnical structures such as retaining walls, foundations and
slopes subjected to cyclic shear loading conditions (e.g., earthquake or traffic loads) require
the evaluation of the dynamic and cyclic response of SRMs, such as the small-strain shear
stiffness (Gmax ), shear modulus (G) degradation with increasing shear strain and damping
ratio (D).
Small-strain shear stiffness. An experimental investigation was carried out on sand-
rubber mixtures with D50R /D50S = 10 by Kim and Santamarina [25] using an oedometer
cell equipped with bender element sensors. VRC varied between 0% and 100%. Results
showed that due to the arching effect and incompressibility of rubber particles, the mean
stress in sand particles increased for VRC = 20% compared to the pure sand; therefore,
the shear velocity (V s ) was maximum for VRC = 20%. A significant reduction in V s was
observed for mixtures with VRC > 40%. In a similar study conducted by Lee et al. [50] on
sand-rubber mixtures with D50R /D50S = 0.25, two distinct behaviors were observed for
Gmax in k0 condition which were (1) rubber-like behavior for VRC > 60% and (2) sand-like
behavior for VRC < 30%. For VRC = 40%, at low stress and high stress, the overall behavior
was rubber-like and sand-like, respectively. At low confinement, sand particles are not
in contact with each other, and rubber particles form the primary chain to transfer shear
waves, while at high stress, rubber particles deform and consequently, sand particles form
a chain which resulted an increase in Gmax .
The effect of D50R /D50S on Gmax in k0 -loading condition (i.e., oedometer cell with
bender elements) was discussed in detail by Lee et al. [56]. Six types of rubber were mixed
with a uniform sand to consider a variety of aspect ratios (i.e., D50R /D50S = 0.35, 0.5, 0.7,
1.0, 2.0 and 4.7) with VRC of 0% to 100%. Results indicated that Gmax showed no change
with D50R /D50S for VRC > 80% because these mixtures reproduce a rubber-like behavior.
In addition, Gmax reached a minimum value for D50R /D50S = 1.0 (for any given normal
stress) because, under this condition, the density was minimum.
Senetakis et al. [78] and Senetakis and Anastasiadis [79] reported that the initial
moisture content of sand-rubber (i.e., dry, moist, or fully saturated) influenced damping
ratio but not Gmax . More water content resulted in a higher damping ratio because water
acts as a viscous damping component compared to the fully dried specimens. They carried
out various tests using a resonant column apparatus on two types of sand and three types
of rubber (GRC = 0 to 35% and D50R /D50S = 0.7, 5, 6) and observed that an increase in GRC
results in a decrease in Gmax and an increase in damping ratio. In this investigation, a wide
range of shear strain (γ) were considered (from 5 × 10−4 % to 6 × 10−1 ). They observed
that a more linear-like trend of G/Gmax -log γ curves was associated with the higher GRC.
Moreover, at a larger shear strain, G/Gmax increased with GRC. Additionally, a model to
predict Gmax based on void ratio and confining pressure was proposed. In this model, the
volume of rubber was considered as an addition to the volume of voids, which is referred to
as equivalent void ratio (i.e., eeq = (VRubber + VVoids )/VSoil ). Also, two models to predict
G/G0 and damping ratio as a function of shear strain amplitude, confining pressure, GRC
and D50R /D50S were proposed for sand-rubber and gravel-rubber mixtures.
Anastasiadis et al. [43], Anastasiadis et al. [59] and Senetakis et al. [80] evaluated the
effect of rubber type and content and confining pressure on the Gmax and D for different
soils (i.e., sand and gravel) using a torsional resonant column apparatus. Seven granular
soils with various particle size distributions and four uniform-sized rubbers were used
to create synthetic blends. The test results showed that generally, by increasing RC and
confining pressure, a more linear trend of G/Gmax -log γ curves was attained. By increasing
the confining pressure (σ3 ), the normal stress at soil-soil and soil-rubber particle contacts
increased yielding to higher shear moduli. The damping ratio of mixtures increased with
increasing RC. They also showed that the variation both in G and D can be better explained
by eeq . In a study by Lee et al. [64], for sand-rubber mixtures with the same particle size
(i.e., D50R /D50S = 1.0), it was found that the degradation of G/Gmax against shear strain
decreased by increasing VRC. Moreover, for mixtures with VRC > 80% a constant G was
observed up to shear strain of 0.1% which is mainly due to the high elasticity and low
stiffness of rubber particles.
Experimental results conducted by Li et al. [53] on sand-rubber mixtures using reso-
nant column and cyclic triaxial tests showed that not only does the rubber content influence
the small strain shear modulus, but also rubber size (in comparison to sand size) affects the
behavior. In this investigation, two types of rubber (i.e., D50R /D50S = 0.25 and 1.0) were
mixed with uniform sand at different VRC (0% to 20%). For the case of D50R /D50S = 0.25,
Gmax increased with VRC and reached the peak for VRC = 10%. This is mainly due to the
voids being filled by rubber particles that can provide higher lateral support. Also, the
damping ratio generally increased with the inclusion of rubber in sand but the effect was
insignificant for VRC < 20%.
Shear modulus and damping ratio. Feng and Sutter [81] performed the torsional
resonant column test on sand-granulated rubber (D50R /D50S = 5.0) with VRC between
0 and 100% and σ0 3 = 69, 207, 345 and 483 kPa. Two sample preparation methods were
used: (1) hand spooning (fully dried) and (2) under-compaction (moist specimen). Results
showed that by increasing VRC, the shear modulus decreased, the damping ratio increased
and more elastic behavior was observed because granulated rubber is highly elastic. For
instance, at a confining pressure of 345 kPa, the shear modulus at a shear strain of 0.01%
decreased from 205 MPa for pure sand to less than 10 MPa for pure rubber, while the
damping ratio increased from 1% to 6%, respectively. Unlike natural soil, the damping ratio
of pure rubber increased slightly with increasing confining pressure. This was justified
with the energy dissipation of rubber associated with particle deformation and more
particle interaction in elevated confining pressure. Due to the presence of water in sample
preparation using the under-compaction method, the shear modulus was slightly lower
than the hand spooning method. However, no effect of the preparation method was
observed on the damping ratio.
A large-scale undrained cyclic triaxial test (150 mm in diameter by 300 mm in height)
was employed to evaluate the effect of rubber and confining pressure on shear modulus
and damping ratio of gravel-rubber mixtures by Nakhaei et al. [39]. Specifically, well-
graded gravel was mixed with granulated rubber with D50R /D50S ≈ 0.4 and GRC of 0%
to 14%. Results illustrated that by increasing GRC, the shear modulus decreased, while
by increasing confining pressure, the shear modulus increased. This behavior is due to
the soft nature of rubber particles relative to hard gravel. Also, interparticle frictional
forces increased with increasing confining pressure. The effect of rubber on shear modulus
gradually decreased with increasing confining pressure. In terms of damping ratio, a higher
GRC resulted in a decrease of the damping ratio at low confining pressures (σ3 < 100 kPa)
and an increase of the damping ratio at σ3 < 200 kPa. At confining great than > 200 kPa,
the damping ratio increased for gravel-rubber mixtures but decreased for pure gravel.
Mashiri et al. [29] presented the results of bender element tests on various sand-tire
chip mixtures at different confining pressures. The shear modulus of sand-tire chips
decreased with the increase in tire chip content, but elevated confining pressure resulted in
higher shear modulus. Mashiri et al. [52] also performed undrained cyclic triaxial tests on
sand-tire chip mixtures and indicated that rubber content, shear strain amplitude and the
number of cycles were the main factors influencing the shear modulus and damping ratio
of sand-tire chips mixtures. Generally, increasing rubber content decreased shear modulus
and increased the damping ratio of the mixtures.
Summary. Normalized shear modulus (G/Gmax ) and damping ratio of SRMs against
shear strain from previous research are presented in Figure 15. It appears that at any
given shear strain level, G/Gmax increases with increasing VRC (Figure 15a). In contrast,
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 ofas28
shown in Figure 15b, the experimental results indicate that the damping ratio decreases
by increasing VRC at any shear strain amplitude. This behavior is mainly due to the
high elastic deformation capacity of rubber particles especially at low confining pressure
kPa). Therefore, more rubber in SRMs results in higher elastic strains that decrease the
(σ0 3 < 100 kPa). Therefore, more rubber in SRMs results in higher elastic strains that
damping ratio. However, at higher confining pressure, rubber particles exhibited less elas-
decrease the damping ratio. However, at higher confining pressure, rubber particles
tic deformation, hence a higher damping ratio is attained at higher VRC [39].
exhibited less elastic deformation, hence a higher damping ratio is attained at higher
VRC [39].
1 30
VRC = 0%
25 0 < VRC < 20%
0.8
Damping ratio, D (%)
20% < VRC < 50%

20
0.6
G/G0
15
0.4
10
VRC = 0%
0.2 0 < VRC < 20% 5
20% < VRC < 50% (a) (b)

0 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shear strain, γ (%) Shear strain, γ (%)
Figure 15. Dynamic behavior of SRM (a) normalized shear modulus degradation versus strain and (b) damping ratio versus
Figure 15. Dynamic behavior of SRM (a) normalized shear modulus degradation versus strain and (b) damping ratio
strain
versus σ0 3 = 100
at strain at σ’kPa (Data points from [78]).
3 = 100 kPa (Data points from [78].
2.9. Cyclic Response and Liquefaction Characteristics

2.9. Cyclic Response and Liquefaction Characteristics
As discussed so far, diverse practical applications may be considered for SRMs. There-
As discussed so far, diverse practical applications may be considered for SRMs.
fore, not only the dynamic response of SRMs is important, but also the behavior of these
Therefore, not only the dynamic response of SRMs is important, but also the behavior of
mixtures under cyclic undrained and drained loading should be evaluated. The resilient
these mixtures under cyclic undrained and drained loading should be evaluated. The re-
modulus, permanent settlement (or plastic deformations), the effect of shear strain ampli-
silient modulus, permanent settlement (or plastic deformations), the effect of shear strain
tude against the number of cycles and liquefaction potential are among the most important
amplitude against the number of cycles and liquefaction potential are among the most
characteristics that have been previously studied.
important characteristics that have been previously studied.
Resilient modulus. A series of strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests on crushed rock
Resilient modulus. A series of strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests on crushed rock
and granulated rubber mixtures by Arulrajah et al. [38] indicated that the addition of
and granulated
1% and 2% of rubber rubber mixtures
resulted in by
an Arulrajah et al.
insignificant [38] on
effect indicated that the
the resilient additionwhile
modulus, of 1%
3% of rubber caused a decrease of the resilient modulus. Also, larger rubber aggregatesof
and 2% of rubber resulted in an insignificant effect on the resilient modulus, while 3%
rubber caused
influenced morea significantly
decrease of the
the resilient
behaviormodulus. Also, larger
of the mixtures. rubber
This is due toaggregates influ-
the changes in
enced more significantly the behavior of the mixtures. This is due to the changes
the load-bearing mechanism from more rigid particles (i.e., crushed rock) to relatively soft in the
load-bearing mechanism from more rigid particles (i.e., crushed rock) to relatively soft
particles (i.e., rubber). Therefore, an optimum mixture consists of 2% rubber mixed with
crushed rock was suggested to be suitable for pavement base/subbase layers. Edil and
Bosscher [10] also indicated that the resilient modulus of sand-tire chips decreased with
an increase in VRC. The reduction of resilient modulus was pronounced for the mixture
particles (i.e., rubber). Therefore, an optimum mixture consists of 2% rubber mixed with
crushed rock was suggested to be suitable for pavement base/subbase layers. Edil and
Bosscher [10] also indicated that the resilient modulus of sand-tire chips decreased with an
increase in VRC. The reduction of resilient modulus was pronounced for the mixture with
VRC > 30%. At 100 kPa bulk stress, the resilient modulus of pure sand, VRC = 30% and
VRC = 50% was 60, 10 and 5 MPa, respectively.
Liquefaction resistance. Promputthangkoon and Hyde [34] performed an undrained
cyclic triaxial test with sand-rubber mixtures (D50R /D50S ≈ 1.7) and VRC of 0, 1, 2.5, 5 and
15%. They mentioned that the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) for all sand-rubber mixture at
20 cycles were lower than pure sand except for VRC = 1% at 10 and 15 cycles. This means
minor liquefaction improvement was observed by mixing sand with rubber but only a
particular rubber size and shape were considered in their investigation and these findings
cannot be generalized.
Mashiri et al. [52] carried out undrained cyclic triaxial tests on sand-tire chips mixtures
and the results indicated that the liquefaction potential decreases significantly by the
inclusion of tire chips in the sand and the optimum rubber content was reported to be
30% to 33% by mass. Kaneko et al. [32] also mentioned that the inclusion of rubber chips
in sand significantly influenced the seismic response of the specimen due to the lower
stiffness and higher deformability of tire chips. Results of simple shear test on sand-
rubber chips (D50R /D50S ≈ 2.0) with VRC of 30% and 50% showed that by increasing VRC,
the liquefaction resistance and ground acceleration decreased remarkably. The effect is
more pronounced if the rubber is placed as a full layer compared to be mixed with sand,
especially if the rubber layer was placed at deeper location. However, static settlement
would be greater for the later situation.
3. Discussions
3.1. Gravel-Rubber Mixtures vs. Sand-Rubber Mixtures: What to Use and Why?
Hazarika and Adbullah [82] pointed out that in the selection of the soil and recycled
rubber to form soil-rubber mixtures for use in geotechnical applications, the availability
and the cost efficiency of both materials should be carefully considered. In actual fact,
to avoid segregation, the recycled rubber should be cut into smaller pieces when mixed
with sandy soils, which will inevitably increase the implementation costs. To address
this issue, it was therefore proposed to replace the gravel with sand. A following study
by Hazarika et al. [20] demonstrated that using gravel-rubber layers underneath the
foundation of residential buildings may provide sufficient bearing capacity and reduce
earthquake-induced settlements. Furthermore, due to a high permeability compared to
sand-rubber mixtures, gravel-rubber mixtures are able to confine the development of
pore water pressure during cyclic loading, hence improving the structural stability of the
foundation and the superstructure.
Gravel-rubber mixtures appear to be a promising replacement for sand-rubber mix-
tures in many geotechnical engineering applications and understanding their physical
and mechanical properties is essential to correctly evaluate their performance. To date,
however, very limited studies have focused on the geotechnical characterization of gravel-
rubber mixtures [20,40,78,82], making their physical properties and mechanical behavior
largely unknown.
3.2. Environmental Aspects

The introduction of new or alternative (recycled waste) materials in geotechnical
engineering applications may have benefits in terms of cost reductions and increased
mechanical performance. However, it is essential to ensure that such innovations do
not result in long-term negative impacts on the environment, for example, through the
leaching of toxic chemicals into the surrounding soil environment, groundwater and surface
water [83].
While tire rubber itself, which makes up 75–80% of the weight of car and truck
tires [84], can be considered inert under ambient foundation conditions [85], tires contain
~1.5% by weight of hazardous compounds. Additives used in the manufacture of tires are
potentially harmful to the environment (e.g., organohalogen compounds, acidic solutions)
and the steel fibers within the tires can leach heavy metals (e.g., zinc, manganese, lead,
cadmium) [84]. A review of the leachate characteristics of tires [86] showed that depending
on if the steel components of the tires are exposed, there may be elevated manganese and
iron levels within the leachate and in groundwater (although at levels below relevant envi-
ronmental standards). Levels of aluminum, zinc and organic compounds may be elevated
in groundwater; however, the majority of the studies reported negligible levels. While
these results were based on field and laboratory investigations, the risk of groundwater
and soil contamination through tire leachate is related to a number of different factors (tire
size, amount of exposed steel, distance to groundwater, permeability and chemistry of the
soil, contact time with water, vertical water flow through soil, horizontal groundwater flow,
leachate control systems [86] and these results cannot be directly related to specific sites.
As far as the authors are aware, no previous test results are available from the literature
on the leaching properties of tire rubber mixed with gravelly soils. These issues should be
addressed by in-depth investigations.
4. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

To date, many studies have focused on the geotechnical characterization of soil-rubber
mixtures (SRMs). Yet, because the results of such studies have not been properly compiled
and compared, it is still difficult to fully understand the potential applicability of SRMs in
many geotechnical applications. In an attempt to provide useful insights facilitating the
use of SRMs as geotechnical materials, this paper presents a detailed review of published
research studies on the geotechnical engineering properties of SRMs. Available experi-
mental data were scrutinized in terms of effects of rubber content (by mass or volume) on
the key engineering properties of SRMs, including (i) dry density, compaction and perme-
ability, (ii) compressibility and shear strength and (iii) dynamic and cyclic deformation
characteristics. The following main conclusions can be drawn from this review:
• The geotechnical characteristics of SRMs depend not only on the rubber content
(by mass or volume) in the mixtures but also on host soil type (i.e., sand or gravel),
rubber particle size and shape, aspect ratio between rubber particles and soil grains
(AR = D50R /D50S ), as well as density state (packing) and applied stress level.
• Due to the smaller specific gravity values of rubber (Gs = 1.14–1.27) compared to
granular soils (Gs = 2.5–2.7) the addition of rubber in the mixtures produces materials
with lower dry density (or higher void ratios). Different from granulated soils, the
maximum dry density of SRMs is better evaluated by Proctor impact compaction
tests rather than the vibratory compaction technique. This is due to the elastic and
damping properties of the rubber particles. In other words, vibratory compaction is
mostly ineffective for compacting SMRs.
• For SRMs consisting of two different particle sizes (either D50R /D50S < 1 or D50R /D50S > 1)
three packaging states can be defined during compaction depending on the percent-
age of smaller-sized material in the mixture: floating state, non-floating state and
transitional state. This also greatly affects the mechanical response of SRMs.
• The inclusion of rubber particles in the SRMs drastically increases the compressibility
of the compound materials. At any given vertical stress, a linear increase of 1-D
volumetric strain can be observed with increasing VRC.
• The permeability of SRMs reported in previous investigations is almost constant up
to VRC = 50% (similar to the permeability of sandy soil) and then increases with
further increase in VRC. The permeability of pure rubber is usually similar to that of
gravely soils.
• The majority of studies on sand-rubber mixtures indicated that there is a range of
rubber content (VRC ≈ 20–50%) that enhance the shear strength of SRMs, and further
rubber inclusion will result in a reduction in shear strength. In contrast, for gravel-
rubber mixtures, a continuous reduction in shear strength (friction angle) can be
observed by increasing rubber content.
• The main beneficial aspect of adding rubber particles in granular soil is the improve-
ment of the dynamic properties and cyclic characteristics of the parent soil. Some
investigations showed that even a small amount of rubber (for instance VRC < 10%)
could increase Gmax especially for D50R /D50S < 1 as rubber fills the voids between
soil particles. However, higher VRC values usually result in a reduction of Gmax (due
to the soft nature of rubber), as well as an increase in the damping ratio (due to the
energy absorption nature of the rubber).
• While strength and compressibility of SRMs have been characterized in many studies,
further research on the dynamic and cyclic behavior of SMRs is still necessary (in
particular gravel-rubber mixtures).
• The load-transmission concept between hard and soft grains is still poorly understood
and studies focusing on the micro-scale mechanical behavior of SRMs (e.g., using
DEM software) are encouraged.
• Previous studies on SRMs have mainly focused on sandy soils mixed with various
rubber sizes. Yet, recent studies, have pointed out that to avoid inherent segregation
of two-size sand-rubber mixtures, AR = 1 should be used, resulting in high costs from
a practical viewpoint. Thus, gravel-rubber mixtures should be considered as a more
suitable host soil to create more cost-effective SRMs. Yet, more studies are deemed nec-
essary to facilitate the use of grave-rubber mixtures in many geotechnical applications.
• Finally, while SRMs are excellent construction materials from a geotechnical viewpoint,
their ultimate adoption should be based also on environmental investigations to make
sure that any harm to the environment is prevented.
Funding: This research was funded by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment of New
Zealand (MBIE Smart Ideas Research Grant No. 56289). This study was also (partially) supported by
QuakeCoRE (Research Grant No. QC53), a New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission-funded Centre.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for discussion and support of Alessandro Palermo,
Gabriele Granello and Kevin Chew in the course of presented research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no
role in the collec-tion, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the
decision to publish the results.
Abbreviations
Cc compression index
Cs swelling index
CSR cyclic stress ratio
D damping ratio
D50R median particle size of rubber
D50S median particle size of soil
DEM discrete element model
ELTs end-of-life tires
eSRM void ratio of soil-rubber mixture
eS void ratio of soil
eeq equivalent void ratio
G small-strain shear modulus
Gmax maximum shear modulus
GRC Gravimetric Rubber Content
Gs specific gravity
k permeability
M constraint modulus
M100 constraint modulus at vertical effective stress of 100 kPa
MDD maximum dry density
OMC optimum moisture content
q deviatoric stress
qpeak peak deviatoric stress
RC rubber content
SRMs soil-rubber mixtures
VRC Volumetric Rubber Content
Vs shear wave velocity
εv,1-D one dimensional volumetric strain
ϕ friction angle
γ shear strain
γd,SRM dry unit weight of soil-rubber mixture
γd,S dry unit weight of soil
σn normal stress
σv0 vertical effective stress
σv vertical stress
σ3 confining pressure
σ0 3 effective confining pressure
References
1. Pehlken, A.; Essadiqi, E. Scrap Tire Recycling in Canada; CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2005.
2. WBCSD. Managing End-of-Life Tires; WBCSD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
3. Torretta, V.; Rada, E.C.; Ragazzi, M.; Trulli, E.; Istrate, I.A.; Cioca, L.I. Treatment and disposal of tyres: Two EU approaches. A
review. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 152–160. [CrossRef]
4. USTMA. 2017 U.S. Scrap Tire Management Summary; U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
5. ETRMA. Annual Report 2017, Moving Innovation that Cares; ETRMA: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
6. JATMA. Tyre Industry of Japan; JATMA: Tokyo, Japan, 2018.
7. Mountjoy, E.; Hasthanayake, D.; Freeman, T. Stocks and Fate of End-of-Life Tyres-2013–14 Study; National Environmental Protection
Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
8. CATRA. Annual Report; CATRA: Rixheim, France, 2018.
9. Ministry for the Environment. Environement New Zealand 2007; Ministry for the Environment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2015.
10. Pincus, H.; Edil, T.; Bosscher, P. Engineering Properties of Tire Chips and Soil Mixtures. Geotech. Test. J. 1994, 17, 453. [CrossRef]
11. Chaney, R.; Demars, K.; Masad, E.; Taha, R.; Ho, C.; Papagiannakis, T. Engineering Properties of Tire/Soil Mixtures as a
Lightweight Fill Material. Geotech. Test. J. 1996, 19, 297–304. [CrossRef]
12. Bosscher, P.J.; Edil, T.B.; Kuraoka, S. Design of Highway Embankments Using Tire Chips. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997, 123,
295–304. [CrossRef]
13. Tsang, H.-H. Seismic isolation by rubber–soil mixtures for developing countries. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007, 37, 283–303.
[CrossRef]
14. Tsang, H.-H.; Lo, S.H.; Xu, X.; Sheikh, M.N. Seismic isolation for low-to-medium-rise buildings using granulated rubber-soil
mixtures: Numerical study. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2012, 41, 2009–2024. [CrossRef]
15. Hernández, E.; Palermo, A.; Granello, G.; Chiaro, G.; Banasiak, L.J. Eco-rubber Seismic-Isolation Foundation Systems: A
Sustainable Solution for the New Zealand Context. Struct. Eng. Int. 2020, 30, 192–200. [CrossRef]
16. Chiaro, G.; Palermo, A.; Granello, G.; Tasalloti, A.; Stratford, C.; Banasiak, L.J. Eco-rubber seismic-isolation foundation systems:
A cost-effective way to build resilience. In Proceedings of the 2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
New Zealand, 4–6 April 2019; pp. 1–8.
17. Chiaro, G.; Tasalloti, A.; Palermo, A.; Granello, G.; Banasiak, L. Reuse of Waste Tires to Develop Eco-Rubber Seismic-Isolation Foundation
Systems: Preliminary Results-Advances in Sustainable Construction and Resource Management; Hazarika, H., Madabhushi, G.S.P.,
Yasuhara, K., Bergado, D.T., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 159–169.
18. Tsiavos, A.; Alexander, N.A.; Diambra, A.; Ibraim, E.; Vardanega, P.J.; Gonzalez-Buelga, A.; Sextos, A. A sand-rubber deformable
granular layer as a low-cost seismic isolation strategy in developing countries: Experimental investigation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2019, 125, 105731. [CrossRef]
19. Pitilakis, D.; Anastasiadis, A.; Vratsikidis, A.; Kapouniaris, A.; Massimino, M.; Abate, G.; Corsico, S. Large-Scale Field Testing of
Geotechnical Seismic Isolation of Structures Using Gravel-Rubber Mixtures; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2021.
20. Hazarika, H.; Pasha, S.M.K.; Ishibashi, I.; Yoshimoto, N.; Kinoshita, T.; Endo, S.; Karmokar, A.K.; Hitosugi, T. Tire-chip reinforced
foundation as liquefaction countermeasure for residential buildings. Soils Found. 2020, 60, 315–326. [CrossRef]
21. Paramasivam, B.; Dashti, S.; Liel, A.B. In-Ground Gravel–Rubber Panel Walls to Mitigate and Base Isolate Shallow-Founded
Structures on Liquefiable Ground. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020087. [CrossRef]
22. Yujie, Q.; Buddhima, I. Energy-Based Approach to Assess the Performance of a Granular Matrix Consisting of Recycled Rubber,
Steel-Furnace Slag, and Coal Wash. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020169. [CrossRef]
23. Indraratna, B.; Qi, Y.; Ngo, T.N.; Rujikiatkamjorn, C.; Neville, T.; Ferreira, F.B.; Shahkolahi, A. Use of Geogrids and Recycled
Rubber in Railroad Infrastructure for Enhanced Performance. Geosciences 2019, 9, 30. [CrossRef]
24. ASTM. Standard Practice for Use of Scrap Tires in Civil Engineering Applications; American Society for Testing and Materials: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
25. Kim, H.-K.; Santamarina, J.C. Sand-rubber mixtures (large rubber chips). Can. Geotech. J. 2008, 45, 1457–1466. [CrossRef]
26. Tasalloti, A.; Chiaro, G.; Palermo, A.; Banasiak, L. Effect of Rubber Crumbs Volumetric Content on the Shear Strength of Gravelly
Soil in Direct Shear Apparatus. Geo-Congress 2020, 259–266. [CrossRef]
27. Tasalloti, A.; Chiaro, G.; Banasiak, L.; Palermo, A. Experimental investigation of the mechanical behaviour of gravel-granulated
tyre rubber mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 273, 121749. [CrossRef]
28. Balunaini, U.; Mohan, V.K.D.; Prezzi, M.; Salgado, R. Shear strength of tyre chip-sand and tyre shred-sand mixtures. Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 167, 585–595. [CrossRef]
29. Mashiri, M.S.; Vinod, J.S.; Sheikh, M.N.; Carraro, J.A.H. Shear modulus of sand-tyre chip mixtures. Environ. Geotech. 2018, 5,
30. Ghazavi, M.; Sakhi, M.A. Influence of Optimized Tire Shreds on Shear Strength Parameters of Sand. Int. J. Géoméch. 2005, 5, 58–65.
[CrossRef]
31. Lee, J.H.; Salgado, R.; Bernal, A.; Lovell, C.W. Shredded Tires and Rubber-Sand as Lightweight Backfill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 1999, 125, 132–141. [CrossRef]
32. Kaneko, T.; Orense, R.P.; Hyodo, M.; Yoshimoto, N. Seismic Response Characteristics of Saturated Sand Deposits Mixed with Tire
Chips. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013, 139, 633–643. [CrossRef]
33. Mashiri, M.; Vinod, J.; Sheikh, M.N.; Tsang, H.-H. Shear strength and dilatancy behaviour of sand-tyre chip mixtures. Soils Found.
2015, 55, 517–528. [CrossRef]
34. Promputthangkoon, P.; Hyde, A.F.L. Compressibility and liquefaction potential of rubber composite soils. In Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials—Opportunities and Challenges, Yokosuka, Japan, 23–24 March
2007; pp. 161–170.
35. Sheikh, M.N.; Mashiri, M.S.; Vinod, J.S.; Tsang, H.-H. Shear and Compressibility Behavior of Sand–Tire Crumb Mixtures. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1366–1374. [CrossRef]
36. Tatlisoz, N.; Edil, T.B.; Benson, C.H. Interaction between Reinforcing Geosynthetics and Soil-Tire Chip Mixtures. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 1998, 124, 1109–1119. [CrossRef]
37. Youwai, S.; Bergado, D.T. Strength and deformation characteristics of shredded rubber tire-sand mixtures. Can. Geotech. J. 2003,
40, 254–264. [CrossRef]
38. Arulrajah, A.; Mohammadinia, A.; Maghool, F.; Horpibulsuk, S. Tyre derived aggregates and waste rock blends: Resilient moduli
characteristics. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 207–217. [CrossRef]
39. Nakhaei, A.; Marandi, S.; Kermani, S.S.; Bagheripour, M. Dynamic properties of granular soils mixed with granulated rubber. Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 43, 124–132. [CrossRef]
40. Pasha, S.M.K.; Hazarika, H.; Yoshimoto, N. Physical and mechanical properties of Gravel-Tire Chips Mixture (GTCM). Geosynth.
Int. 2019, 26, 92–110. [CrossRef]
41. Chiaro, G.; Tasalloti, A.; Banasiak, L.; Palermo, A.; Granello, G.; Rees, S. Sustainable recycling of end-of-life tyres in civil
(geotechnical) engineering applications: Turning issues into opportunities in the New Zealand context. NZ Geomech. News 2020,
99, 38–47.
42. Ahmed, I.; Lovell, C.W. Rubber soils as lightweight geomaterials. Transp. Res. Rec. 1993, 1422, 61–70.
43. Anastasiadis, A.; Senetakis, K.; Pitilakis, K. Small-Strain Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio of Sand-Rubber and Gravel-Rubber
Mixtures. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2012, 30, 363–382. [CrossRef]
44. Edinçliler, A.; Ayhan, V. Influence of tire fiber inclusions on shear strength of sand. Geosynth. Int. 2010, 17, 183–192. [CrossRef]
45. Edinçliler, A.; Cagatay, A. Weak subgrade improvement with rubber fibre inclusions. Geosynth. Int. 2013, 20, 39–46. [CrossRef]
46. Fu, R.; Coop, M.R.; Li, X.Q. Influence of Particle Type on the Mechanics of Sand-Rubber Mixtures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
2017, 143, 4017059. [CrossRef]
47. Ghazavi, M. Shear strength characteristics of sand-mixed with granular rubber. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2004, 22, 401–416. [CrossRef]
48. Zhou, W.; Xu, K.; Ma, G.; Yang, L.; Chang, X. Effects of particle size ratio on the macro- and microscopic behaviors of binary
mixtures at the maximum packing efficiency state. Granul. Matter 2016, 18, 81. [CrossRef]
49. Chang, C.S.; Meidani, M. Dominant grains network and behavior of sand-silt mixtures: Stress-strain modeling. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Géoméch. 2012, 37, 2563–2589. [CrossRef]
50. Lee, J.-S.; Dodds, J.; Santamarina, J.C. Behavior of Rigid-Soft Particle Mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007, 19, 179–184. [CrossRef]
51. Salvatore, I.; Giuseppe, M.; Gabriele, C.; Erminio, S. Predictive correlations for the compaction of clean sands. Transp. Geotech.
2015, 4, 38–49. [CrossRef]
52. Mashiri, M.S.; Vinod, J.S.; Sheikh, M.N. Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Properties of Sand-Tyre Chip (STCh) Mixtures.
Geotech. Test. J. 2016, 39, 69–79. [CrossRef]
53. Li, B.; Huang, M.; Zeng, X. Dynamic Behavior and Liquefaction Analysis of Recycled-Rubber Sand Mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
2016, 28, 4016122. [CrossRef]
54. Chiaro, G.; Palermo, A.; Granello, G.; Banasiak, L. Direct shear behaviour of gravel-granulated tyre rubber mixtures. In
Proceedings of the 13th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Perth, Australia, 1–3 April 2019.
55. Humphrey, D.N.; Sandford, T.C. Tire chips as lightweight subgrade fill and retaining wall backfill. In Proceedings of the
Symposium on Recovery and Effective Reuse of Discarded Materials and By-Products for Construction of Highway Facilities,
Denver, CO, USA, 19–22 October 1993; pp. 5–87.
56. Lee, C.; Truong, Q.H.; Lee, W.; Lee, J.-S. Characteristics of Rubber-Sand Particle Mixtures according to Size Ratio. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2010, 22, 323–331. [CrossRef]
57. Moo-Young, H.; Sellasie, K.; Zeroka, D.; Sabnis, G. Physical and Chemical Properties of Recycled Tire Shreds for Use in
Construction. J. Environ. Eng. 2003, 129, 921–929. [CrossRef]
58. Abdelrazek, A.; El-Sherbiny, R.M.; Lotfi, H.A. Mechanical properties and time-dependent behaviour of sand-granulated rubber
mixtures. Géoméch. Geoengin. 2018, 13, 288–300. [CrossRef]
59. Anastasiadis, A.; Senetakis, K.; Pitilakis, K.; Gargala, C.; Karakasi, I.; Edil, T.; Dean, S.W. Dynamic Behavior of Sand/Rubber
Mixtures. Part I: Effect of Rubber Content and Duration of Confinement on Small-Strain Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio. In
Testing and Specification of Recycled Materials for Sustainable Geotechnical Construction; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2012.
60. Edinçliler, A.; Baykal, G.; Saygılı, A. Influence of different processing techniques on the mechanical properties of used tires in
embankment construction. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1073–1080. [CrossRef]
61. Suits, L.D.; Sheahan, T.; Yang, S.; Lohnes, R.; Kjartanson, B. Mechanical Properties of Shredded Tires. Geotech. Test. J. 2002, 25, 44.
[CrossRef]
62. Rao, G.V.; Dutta, R.K. Compressibility and Strength Behaviour of Sand-tyre Chip Mixtures. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2006, 24, 711–724.
[CrossRef]
63. Valdes, J.R.; Evans, T.M. Sand-rubber mixtures: Experiments and numerical simulations. Can. Geotech. J. 2008, 45, 588–595.
[CrossRef]
64. Lee, C.; Shin, H.; Lee, J.-S. Behavior of sand-rubber particle mixtures: Experimental observations and numerical simulations. Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Géoméch. 2014, 38, 1651–1663. [CrossRef]
65. Ngo, A.T.; Valdes, J.R. Creep of Sand-Rubber Mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007, 19, 1101–1105. [CrossRef]
66. Foose, G.J.; Benson, C.H.; Bosscher, P.J. Sand Reinforced with Shredded Waste Tires. J. Geotech. Eng. 1996, 122, 760–767. [CrossRef]
67. Attom, M.F. The use of shredded waste tires to improve the geotechnical engineering properties of sands. Environ. Earth Sci. 2005,
49, 497–503. [CrossRef]
68. Bergado, D.T.; Youwai, S.; Rittirong, A. Strength and deformation characteristics of flat and cubical rubber tyre chip-sand mixtures.
Géotechnique 2005, 55, 603–606. [CrossRef]
69. Edinçliler, A.; Baykal, G.; Dengili, K. Determination of static and dynamic behavior of recycled materials for highways. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 42, 223–237. [CrossRef]
70. Gotteland, P.; Lambert, S.; Balachowski, L. Strength characteristics of tyre chips-sand mixtures. Stud. Geotech. Mech. 2005, 27,
55–66.
71. Zornberg, J.G.; Christopher, B.R.; Larocque, C.J. Applications of Tire Bales in Transportation Projects. Recycl. Mater. Geotech. 2004,
42–60. [CrossRef]
72. Suits, L.D.; Sheahan, T.; Ghazavi, M.; Sakhi, M. Optimization of Aspect Ratio of Waste Tire Shreds in Sand-Shred Mixtures Using
CBR Tests. Geotech. Test. J. 2005, 28, 564–569. [CrossRef]
73. Wu, W.Y.; Benda, C.C.; Cauley, R.F. Triaxial Determination of Shear Strength of Tire Chips. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997, 123,
74. Rowe, P.W. The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A
Math. Phys. Sci. 1962, 269, 500–527. [CrossRef]
75. Taylor, D.W. Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1948.
76. Zornberg, J.G.; Cabral, A.R.; Viratjandr, C. Behaviour of tire shred-sand mixtures. Can. Geotech. J. 2004, 41, 227–241. [CrossRef]
77. Fu, R.; Coop, M.R.; Li, X.Q. The mechanics of a compressive sand mixed with tyre rubber. Géotech. Lett. 2014, 4, 238–243.
[CrossRef]
78. Senetakis, K.; Anastasiadis, A.; Pitilakis, K. Dynamic properties of dry sand/rubber (SRM) and gravel/rubber (GRM) mixtures in
a wide range of shearing strain amplitudes. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 33, 38–53. [CrossRef]
79. Senetakis, K.; Anastasiadis, A. Effects of state of test sample, specimen geometry and sample preparation on dynamic properties
of rubber-sand mixtures. Geosynth. Int. 2015, 22, 301–310. [CrossRef]
80. Senetakis, K.; Anastasiadis, A.; Pitilakis, K.; Souli, A. Dynamic behavior of sand/rubber mixtures, part II: Effect of rubber content
on G/G o-γ-DT curves and volumetric threshold strain. In Testing and Specification of Recycled Materials for Sustainable Geotechnical
Construction; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
81. Chaney, R.; Demars, K.; Feng, Z.-Y.; Sutter, K. Dynamic Properties of Granulated Rubber/Sand Mixtures. Geotech. Test. J. 2000,
23, 338. [CrossRef]
82. Hazarika, H.; Abdullah, A. Improvement effects of two and three dimensional geosynthetics used in liquefaction countermeasures.
Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spéc. Publ. 2016, 2, 2336–2341. [CrossRef]
83. Banasiak, L.; Chiaro, G.; Palermo, A.; Granello, G. Environmental Implications of the Recycling of End-of-Life Tires in Seismic
Isolation Foundation Systems BT-Advances in Sustainable Construction and Resource Management; Hazarika, H., Madabhushi, G.S.P.,
Yasuhara, K., Bergado, D.T., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 43–52.
84. UNEP. Basel Convention Working Group Technical Guidelines on the Identification and Management of Used Tyres; Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Document No. 10; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 1999.
85. Ministry for the Environment. Waste Tyres Economic Research; Report 3; Ministry for the Environment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2015.
86. MWH. End-of-Life Tyre Management: Storage Options; Final Report for the Ministry for the Environment; MWH: London, UK, 2004.

Physical and Mechanical Properties of Granulated Rubber Mixed With Granular Soils-A Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical and Mechanical Properties of Granulated Rubber Mixed With Granular Soils-A Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Physical and Mechanical Properties of Granulated Rubber Mixed With Granular Soils-A Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Received: 19 March 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084309 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. Generation and recovery rate of ELTs in different countries.

ELTs Generation per Year Recovery

2. Geotechnical Properties of Soil-Rubber Mixtures (SRMs)

rubber size (mm)

ground rubber particulate rubber 10 mm

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW buffing rubber 4 of 2

2.1. Packing States and Matrix Materials for SRMs

2.2. Maximum and Minimum Void Ratios of SMRs

1.5 1.5 1.5

emax emax emin

2.3. Specific Gravity for SRMs

Specific gravity, Gs (-)

2.5. Permeability of SRMs

2.5.1. Permeability of Granulated Rubber

Vertical stress, σv (kPa)

VRC = 20-40% VRC = 40-60% VRC = 100%

Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309 12 of 27

VRC = 20-40% VRC = 40-60% VRC = 100%

0.1 0.1 0.1

(a) (b) (c)

2.7. Shear Strength Characteristics

2.7.1. Evaluation by Direct Shear Tests

the friction angle required for common geotechnical

pure soil SRM pure rubber

ϕ = tan-1 (τ/σn) sand

(a) (b) (c)

pure soil SRM pure rubber

VRC=0 % VRC=20-40 % VRC=100 %

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 14. Shear

2.8. Dynamic Behaviour

20% < VRC < 50%

20% < VRC < 50% (a) (b)

Shear strain, γ (%) Shear strain, γ (%)

2.9. Cyclic Response and Liquefaction Characteristics

3.2. Environmental Aspects

4. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

You might also like