0% found this document useful (0 votes)
194 views48 pages

Bca Full Project

This document provides an introduction to soil reinforcement and the use of waste tires in construction. It discusses how soil is one of the oldest construction materials and how reinforcement can improve its properties. Specifically, it examines using crumb rubber from waste tires as a soil binder or additive to improve the strength and stability of subgrade soil. The growing problem of waste tire disposal and the need to find cost-effective and environmentally friendly reuse options is also addressed. Global and local waste tire generation statistics are presented to emphasize the scale of the issue.

Uploaded by

Prints Bindings
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
194 views48 pages

Bca Full Project

This document provides an introduction to soil reinforcement and the use of waste tires in construction. It discusses how soil is one of the oldest construction materials and how reinforcement can improve its properties. Specifically, it examines using crumb rubber from waste tires as a soil binder or additive to improve the strength and stability of subgrade soil. The growing problem of waste tire disposal and the need to find cost-effective and environmentally friendly reuse options is also addressed. Global and local waste tire generation statistics are presented to emphasize the scale of the issue.

Uploaded by

Prints Bindings
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 48

CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION

Soil is the smallest natural element which exists on the earth’s crust and it is one the oldest
natural mortars that has been used in the construction industries. The world’s architecture and the
ruins of its work are indebted to this element and its attributes. Despite all the new materials we
have now a day, large amount of soil is still being used directly or indirectly in the construction
industries. As of the creation view, soil is the final production of weathering, result of physical
destruction and chemical degradation of stones along with aggregation of leftovers of the
organisms in decay by nature (biodegrades). All along the history, mankind has been trying to
find a better use of soil in different matters. We can find the origin of this idea in natural models
and examples. Lots of species specially birds, they mix soil and tiny branches to build their nests
or the hillsides will be stabilized by the plant growth and their roots. The idea of mixing straw
and clay to build mortar or recently the use of shredded tyres and polymer fibers to reinforce
the materials and soil structures are the samples of this idea. Soil reinforcement is one of the
geotechnical branches which has been reinforcing and improving the soil engineering
specifications and mechanical properties like strength, plasticity, bearing capacity and elasticity
modules by the use of new technologies and suitable materials (Craig,
2004). Soil reinforcement is a reliable and effective method to improve the soil strength and
stabilization which has always been the human interest. Around 3000 years ago Babylonian
used reinforced soil with thatch to build their temples (Mwasha, 2009).
At the present times, the elements which are used in soil reinforcement are made of
metal or polymeric materials or even herbal like jute and Coir fiber geotextiles. Friction
phenomena between the soil and its reinforcement materials play an important role in
mechanism of action and behavior in soil.
One of the methods of soil reinforcement is integration of soil with fibers like natural,
glass, polymer or other synthetic materials. Mixture of these elements with soil creates a
complex environment in which the involvement of the elastic parts (reinforcement elements)
and soil particles improves the soil strength and plasticity in many ways like increase in peak

1
Strength , reduction in post-peak loss of strength and axial strain at failure (Haeri et al., 2000).
There have been many elements like metal fibers or fiber glass or polymeric fibers and etc.,
which have been applied to soils as soil reinforcement (Haeri et. al., 2000) and (Jewell &
Greenwood, 1988) studied the mechanical effects of geotextile reinforcement (Prabakar &
Sridhar, 2000) investigated addition of sisal fiber (Yeung et. al., 2007) studied the glass-fiber
reinforcement. We can categorize the methods of soil reinforcements into three categories of
mechanical, physical and chemical processes. For example, as mechanical processes we can
name compaction, consolidation and drainage and as chemical processes, addition of natural or
industrial cementite’s materials and after all as physical processes applying the reinforcing
elements like geotextiles and fibers, heating or freezing (Al-khanbashi & Abdalla, 2006).
According to (Billong et. Al., 2009)
Chemical stabilization consists in adding to the soil, other materials or chemicals which
modify its properties either by a physicochemical reaction, or by creating a matrix which binds
or coats soil particles together‖. The physical stabilization involves the physical condition of
soil and mechanically stabilization leads to increase in density of soil through subjecting the
soil to mechanical forces like surface compaction (Al-khanbashi & Abdalla, 2006).
Population growth, industries, increasing developments, changing consumption patterns and
environmental protection on one hand and material and energy constraints on the other hand
have rendered the efficient use of natural resources and protection of them by the industries a
priority (Neville, 2012). Considering the annual production of tyre around the globe and the
raising issue of old cars that increases the worn tyres disposal, the management of this kind of
waste become more important. Obviously, the best solution in this area is to recycle the worn
tyres biodegradability, their flammability and their chemical composition that leads
to leaching of toxic substances into the ground on dumping and hazardous fumes
on incineration. Since they are hefty, thick, and made of multiple materials, scrap tyres present
distinct challenges in recycling and disposal. In 2007, around 300 million ELTs (end of life
tyre) had been produced in the United States. In 2008 around one billion ELTs were being
produced globally each year with an estimated further four billion already in stockpiles and
landfills. Global production in 2008 was about 1.5 billion new tyres. The U.S. as the largest
producer of Unrecycled tyre waste is an enormous global problem because of their non
ELTs alone produced generated 291.8 million tyres in 2009 as estimated by the U.S. Rubber
Manufacturer

2
Association . In 2013, 3824 thousand tonnes of tyres were generated in the U.S. Newer figures
(2015) talk about 450 million scrap tyres generated annually in the U.S.

Table 1.1: Waste tyre generation in the world

S. No. Country Waste tyre generation Reference


(MTY-1)
1 United kingdom 475 Reschner Kurt 2006

2 USA 290 Fikselet.al ,2009

3 Canada 240 Pehlken et. al, 2005

4 France 398 ETRMA, 2006

5 Germany 585 Reschner kurt, 2006

6 Italy 380 ETRMA, 2006

7 Spain 305 Reschner kurt, 2006

8 China 239 Zhao shulanet.al,2009

9 Shri Lanka 190 Mathews, 2003

3
Waste rubber tyre generation ( Indian scenario)

India’s waste tyres account for about 6-7% of the global total. With the local tyre
industry growing at 12% per annum, waste volumes are rising. India has been recycling and
reusing waste tyres for four decades, although it is estimated that 60% are disposed of
through illegal dumping. Despite this, India is the second largest producer of reclaimed
rubber after China. In 2012, India produced 90,000 metric tonnes of reclaimed rubber from
waste tyres.
By 2016, some 100000 kms of Indian roads had been laid with asphalt blended with
recycled rubber, and over 500000 tonnes of crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB) is used
annually in road construction. New regulations introduced in 2016 allow for import of waste
tyres for recycling. The sector wise annual rubber consumption in India is presented in table
1.2

Table 1.2: Rubber consumption in Indian sector wise (quantity in Metric Tonnes)

Sector rubber 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Tyre natural 443921 472081 495526 508223 576315


Sector
synthetic 151580 171809 190993 185126 238253

Reclaim 21984 24714 28318 29296 34986

Grand total 617485 668611 714837 722645 849554

1.2 Need of Present Study


Tyres are often deposited in an uncontrolled manner, because of the noticeable rapid
depletion in sites available for waste disposal, causing major environmental problems. Water
accumulation inside the tyres provides ideal temperature and moisture conditions for the

4
spread of mosquitoes, mice, rats and at the same time, the quantity of oxygen that exists in
the interior of the tyres is enough to cause fire in appropriate conditions, because of their
inflammable components, with resulting negative impacts on the atmosphere and on human
health. Tyres consist of synthetic and natural rubber, sulphure and sulphure compounds,
silica, phenolic resin, oil (aromatic, naphthenic, paraffinic), fabric (polyester, nylon),
petroleum waxes, pigments (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide), carbon black, fatty acids, inert
materials and steel wires when placed in landfills with municipal solid waste do not get
compacted thereby reducing landfill capacity , whole tyres can rise to the surface of landfills ,
causing damage to the final cover of the closed landfill. Burial of sliced tyre in landfills is
still permitted. It is hazardous to open burning of tyre cause air pollution, particulates, odour,
visual impact and other harmful contaminates such as fumes, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon, furans, dioxin and oxide of nitrogen. So there must be cost effective &
environmentally sound alternative to utilize the waste tyre. Therefore an attempt is made to
use crumb rubber tyre in subgrade soil as soil binder as to utilize it for a safe and useful
purpose.

Crumb Tyre
Tyres can be used in geotechnical works alone or mixed with soil. In the form of shreds
tyres provide a lightweight construction material often with improved engineering properties,
such as strength, compared with those of the soils alone. Shredded tyres exhibit very good
frictional properties alone or mixed with soils by enhancing the strength of soils internally,
providing them with stability and inducing negligible differential settlement. Tyre chips are
known to leach some organic and inorganic contaminants, such as manganese and iron, but
this is not at a level whereby they could be classified as hazardous wastes. This can be used
in the form of the powder, shredded and as a whole. The processing basically includes
shredding , removing of metal reinforcement and further shredding until the desired materials
are achieved. Tyre rubber perhaps rank among the most extensively researched and
implemented recycled materials in recent years.

5
1.3 Stabilization
Soil Stabilization is the alteration of soils to enhance their physical properties.
Stabilization can increase the shear strength of a soil and/or control the shrink-swell
properties of a soil, thus improving the load bearing capacity of a sub-grade to support
pavements and foundations. Soil Stabilization can be utilized on roadways, parking areas,
site development projects, airports and many other situations where sub-soils are not suitable
for construction. Stabilization can be used to treat a wide range of sub-grade materials,
varying from expansive clays to granular materials. This process is accomplished using a
wide variety of additives, including lime, fly-ash, and Portland cement.

1.3.1 Principles of Stabilization


Properties of soil may be altered in many ways, among which are included chemical,
thermal, mechanical and other means. The chief properties of a soil with which the
construction engineer is concerned are: volume stability, strength, permeability, and
durability.
It may be grouped under two main types:
i) Modification or improvement of a soil property of the existing soil without any admixture.
ii) Modification of the properties with the help of admixtures.
Compaction and drainage are the examples of the first type, which improve the inherent
shear strength of soil.
Examples of the second type are: Stabilization with cement, lime, bitumen and chemicals etc

1.3.2Methods of soil Stabilization


The properties of soil can improve by the following soil stabilization technique:
1. Mechanical Stabilization
2. Chemical Stabilization
3. Drainage Method
4. Consolidation Methods
5. Vibration Methods
6. Electro-osmosis

6
7. Grouting
8. Thermal treatment
9. Soil reinforcement
10. Geo-synthetics

Mechanical stabilization of soil is oldest type of stabilization. This can be done by


mixing two soils to have a well graded soil of dense packing or by dynamic compaction in
which a heavy weight is dropped repeatedly to ensure a uniformly packed surface. Chemical
stabilization is another major type of stabilization which include addition of certain
chemicals to the soil which will change its properties. In drainage method sand drains, sand
wicks, rope drain are commonly used. In consolidation pre loading is done either by
surcharge or by water depending upon the construction. Stabilization by vibration can be
done either by vibro-compaction or vibro-displacement or vibro-replacement method. In
electro-osmosis direct current is supplied through the clay soil to migrate pore water to
negative electrode i.e. cathode. Such soils have increased strength as water is removed from
it. In grouting a low flow cementitious grout is injected into the soil which displace the soil
particles and compact in the process and forms the grout blub. Thermal treatment mainly
involves change in soil properties by heating or cooling. However, among the recent
development soil reinforcement in different forms is been used to improve the soils. The
reinforcement in forms of bar, girds, sheets etc.Are used to improve the engineering
properties of soil. This proves to be very effective technique of soil improvement especially
in case of embankments, retaining structures and sub grade beneath the footing. Stabilization
of soil using geo-synthetic is latest development in the field of stabilization. Geo-synthetics
are generally referred as polymeric products which are used to solve civil engineering
problems. It mainly includes eight main products: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets,
geomembrane, geosynthetic clay liner, geofoams, geocells and geo-composite. Polymeric
nature of these compound make them suitable at places where high durability is required.
Application of geosynthetic can be find in the field of geotechnical, transportation, Geo-
environmental, hydraulics including erosion control in hilly area, embankments, sediment
control in channels, roads, landfill covers, retaining structures, mining etc.

7
Objectives of the study
Objective of present study are:
1. To study the compaction parameter i.e. OMC and MDD of soil treated with different
proportions of rubber and soil combination.
2. To study the strength of soil treated with different proportions of tyre rubber and soil
combination.
3. To determine the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values with different percentage of
rubber
4. Analysis and interpretation of result.

8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1GENERAL
Being the most available material, soil has always been used in construction of
different structure like buildings, roads and dams. Due to weak mechanical properties, the
structures made of soil are much bulkier, heavier and dimensionally larger. Because of these
weaknesses, there many researches aimed at enhancing the mechanical properties of soil and
increasing its strength via adding different materials.
Reinforced earth is one type of enhanced soil that its tensile strength is increased.
Although the addition of tensile resistant fibers to soil have been practiced by ancient
civilizations but, the new technologies and advances in this field made the use of soil
economically and technically much more justified and feasible.
There many method and technologies in used for increasing the tensile strength of the soil
through mixing various additive or fibers to soil. Since the introduction of these methods,
comprehensive theoretical and practical researches have been under way and some codes and
standards developed for these methods.
The reinforcement of the soil is not new concept and its first applications goes back to
4 to 5 thousand years B.S when, hey or straw were used to reinforce the clay or bricks. There
are other evidences indicating use of reinforced soil in china wall and also ancient African
and South Asian people used bamboo sheets, straw and date leaf in their buildings. One of
the materials used for enhancing the properties of soil is tyre derived products like tyre
shreds, crumbs or powder. For this study a comprehensive literature review has been carried
out that is summarized in this chapter. It covers the material properties of recycled tyre,
related tests and geotechnical applications of this material
The beginning of modern soil stabilization started in the united state in the 1920’s, a
time in which regulations were being imposed on man businesses during the expending
industrial era. Paper mill that once discarded their by product into their neighborhood river
had to discover a creative way of disposal of their highly toxic, liquid waste. One solution

9
was to promote the use of their waste as a dust palliative on dirt roads. Surprisingly, some of
the treated roads developed a hardened surface, other roads did not. It was only decades later
after significant private and government research, and the development of the better
technology during the 1940’s- 1960’s that the reason for this change had begun to be
understood as being caused by a chemical reaction between the waste solution and the clay
particle with in the soil. Thus traditional soil stabilizers came into existence now a days
researchers are trying to find out various combination of different waste materials that can
enhance the engineering property of soil and can work as an alternative to the traditional soil
stabilizers. Out of these significant advances have been made by using waste like rubber tyre
chips, shredded tyre and crumb tyre etc for improving the soil properties in many
investigative studies.

2.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Scrap tyres and scrap tyre products such as tyre bales, tyre shreds, tyre chips, and
granulated rubber have been used in a variety of engineering applications including highway
subgrade, embankments, backfills, asphalt mixture designs, leach fields or as erosion control
and sportive media (Ahmed and Lovell 1993; Upton and Machan 1993; Newcomb and
Drescher 1994; Kershaw and Pamukcu 1997; Edil 2005; Zornberg et al. 2005; Ashmanwy et
al. 2006). Some of the desirable properties of STR in backfill and embankment applications
are due to the light weight of rubber (Edil and Bosscher 1994). The dampening
characteristics of STR also have been used to advantage in railroad track beds to minimize
disturbance to nearby residents (Feng and Sutter 2000). Although many STR products are
currently available for beneficial use.
The literature available on field construction of mixtures of soil with tyre shreds or
tyre chips appears to be limited to embankment fills in highway construction (Siddiki et. al.
2004, Zornberg et. al. 2004, Yoon et. al. 2005). Siddiki et. al. (2004) constructed a 3-m high
highway embankment using a 50:50 sand-tyre shred mixture. Special consideration was
taken to minimize infiltration of water through the sand-tyre shred mixture to eliminate the
potential for groundwater contamination. Construction using a 50:50 sand to tyre shred ratio
was chosen to eliminate the potential for exothermic reaction in the tyre shreds. Zornberg et.

10
al. (2004) evaluated three embankment sections in Colorado. Their first embankment section
was constructed using native soil (silt sand with SM classification and standard Proctor
maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content of 18.6 kN/m3 and 12.6%,
respectively), the second consisted of successive layers of soil and tyre shreds, and the third
section was constructed using 10% (by weight) of tyre shreds mixed with the native soil.
Construction of the embankment sections evaluated six methods for mixing soil and rubber,
and a 6.7-ton (6078-kg) sheep foot roller was used to compact the embankment lifts. The 15-
cm lifts used were shown to have minimal increases in dry unit weight after two passes of the
sheep foot roller for all three embankment lift types.

Bressette (1984), Ahmed (1993), Benda (1995), Masad etal. (1996), Wu at al. (1997) and
Lee et al. (1999) conducted independent triaxial tests on tyre chips. The sizes of the materials
they tested were from 2mm to 38mm. All the tests were conducted at a compression loading
mode except Wu et al. (1997), which conducted compression unloading tests. A linear stress-
strain response was observed from all compression loading tests. Due to the variation of
confining pressure and the difference of testing mode (compression loading or unloading),
the results from these studies varied significantly. The friction angle ranges from 6° to 57°,
and the cohesion intercept varies from 0 to 82 kPa.

Ahmed (1993) conducted triaxial tests on tyre shred-soil mixtures (tyre shred size = 25 mm)
with various mixing ratios. A tyre shred-soil mixture ratio of approximately 40:60 by dry
weight (65:35 by volume) was reported to produce maximum shear strength values at low to
medium confining stresses. Although the mixing ratio that produces the maximum shear
strength varies depending on the size of the tyre shreds, the mixture ratio mentioned above
can be used as a reference in the selection of the tyre shred-soil mixture ratio to be used in
the construction of embankments

Various studies that were conducted on field test embankments with tyre shred as fill
material have shown that tyre shreds have only a negligible impact on the environment and
on the groundwater quality (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1990; Bosscher et al. 1992;
Humphrey et al. 2000). However, in severe conditions, leaching of metals can occur due to

11
exposure of the metal reinforcements present in the tyre shreds (O'Shaughnessy and Garga
2000). Under such conditions, zinc is often used as an indicator to ascertain if leaching has
occurred (Collins et al. 1995; Vashisth et al. 1998).
Gary J. Foose/Craig H. Benson/ and Peter J. Bosscher (1996) investigated shear strength of
sand – tyre shred mixture in this study. Three factor were found to significantly affect their
shear strength : normal stress, shred content and sand matrix unit weight. Furthermore in all
cases, sand containing shredded tyre had higher shear strength than sand alone. Several
conclusion are made based on the test results. Strength envelope for mixture containing
dense sand are nonlinear. Envelope for the loose and medium density are approximately linear
in the range of normal stresses applied. Addition of shredded tyre waste to portage sand
increased its shear strength. Initial friction angle is as large as 67° were obtained when the
sand matrix was dense. The friction angle for unreinforced portage sand at the same unit
weight is 34°. The initial friction angle increased as the shred content was increased. Sand
matrix unit weight is important parameter affecting the initial friction angle. Mixture with a
Sand matrix unit weight of 16.8 kN/m3 an initial friction angle that is 15° higher (on average)
Than the friction angle for reinforced specimens having a sand matrix unit
weight=14.7
KN/m3 or 15.7kN/m3. The friction angle for Portage sand alone increases only 9° for a similar
change in unit weight. A nearly strength envelope having β= 30° was obtained from direct
shear test performed on specimen consisting solely of shredded tyres. β was obtained
regardless of shred length that was used. A model proposed by Maher and Gray (1990) was
used to predict initial friction angle for sand- tyre shred mixtures. On average the measured
and predicted β differ by 2°. However, in some cases the difference in β is as much as 10° the
fitting parameter is the most significant factor in the model, which suggest the crucial
phenomena of reinforcing sand with shredded tyres are not accounted for in the model.
Nevertheless, such a model may be useful during design for evaluating the benefits of
different mixtures. Shredded waste tyre and mixture of sand and shredded waste tyres may be
useful as soil reinforcement in highway fills, leach ate collection system on steep slope, and
other application where strong and lightweight fill is needed. However, further study is
needed to assess other important factors such as the importance of shredded length, the
economic aspects of suits shredded waste tyre as soil reinforcement, the effectiveness of

12
Shredded waste tyre as reinforcement in cohesive fine grained soils , and to see if results
obtained in the laboratory are representative of field applications.
Rafidah Robani and B. Chee-Ming Chan (2007) Unconfined compression tests were
performed to determine the stress-strain o f soft soil treated with cement and rubber chips.
The experiment were conducted with 5 % cement content varying from 5 to 15 % with
rubber chips having curing periods of 7 and 14 days. The stress-strain behavior of treated soil
for 5% cement content with different percentage of rubber chips after 7 and 14 days curing
period, respectively. Based on UCS test result for 7 days, the strength of the soil has been
increased by adding the rubber chips compared to the soil-cement samples. It obviously that
the addition of rubber chips in cement increase the elasticity of the soil. The stress-strain
curve was plotted closed one with another for 14 days cured compared to 7 days. The
samples exhibits strain softening behavior when subjected to further shearing with presence
of rubber chips. The natural elasticity of rubber enhanced elastic properties of the samples
due to curing period of time. Small quantities of rubber chips in the soil-cement mix, help
lowered the stiffness of the stabilized material and introduce more flexibility in the final
stabilized columnar system In the results of the unconfined compression strength, the
highest strength of samples was 38.22 kPa with addition of 5% rubber chips. 7 days
sample drawn similar pattern of graph which the treated soil with cement plotted at the
lowers strength which were 17.1 3 kPa and 21.35kPa respectively. It then increased
tremendously to 34.62 kPa and 38.22 kPa respectively wit h addition o f 5% rubber chips.
The line dropped to 23.72 kPa and 29.73 kPa and increased at 15 % presence of rubber
chips. While for 14 days strength, it presented linear pattern of graph. The graph increased
according to the increasing of the rubber chips. While the strength o f the soil treated cement
on 1 4 days cured were 30.4 kPa and 32.04 kPa compared with addition of 15 % rubber chips
that were 35.48 kPa and 34.92 kPa. These results showed that the presence of the rubber
chips is an alternative material i n cement stabilization and practical to apply for improving
the strength o f soil.
Prasad, D.S.V., Prasad Raju. G.V.R. and Anjan, M Kumar (2009) Direct shear tests and
CBR tests were conducted by using different percentages of waste plastics mixed with gravel
material for finding the optimum percentage of waste plastics. Based on the laboratory test
results, it is observed that, for gravel reinforced with waste plastics, the angle of internal
Friction values are increased from 360 to 440 with 0.3 % of waste plastics and thereafter
decreased with further additions. The cohesion values are increased from 14.72 to 27.76
kN/m2 with 0.3 % of waste plastics and thereafter decreased. It is also observed that
cohesion and angle of internal friction values for gravel materials are increased from 11.77 to

13
.
26.48 kN/m2 and 360 to 430 respectively with 5.0 % of waste tyre rubber chips and
thereafter decreased. For gravel reinforced with waste plastic strips, soaked CBR values are
increased from 8.0 to 16.42 for 0.30 % of waste plastics and from 8.0 to 13.32 for 5.0 % of
waste tyre rubber respectively. From the results of direct shear and California bearing ratio
tests, the optimum percentage of waste plastics and waste tyre rubber for gravel materials are
equal to 0.3% and 5.0% respectively.
Ayothiraman R. and Abilash M. (2011) Shredded rubber tyre was cut into different sizes
ranges from 15mm to 25mm (Width) and 30mm to 50mm (Length). Added amount of rubber
tyre had been varied in proportions of 2.5%, 5%, 7.5% and 10%. Classification of soil as per
BIS is sandy soil which is clay with intermediate compressibility. The 5% of size 25 mm×50
mm of tyre content is the specific value where the CBR has got the improvement of 66.28%
than in comparison of the plain soil (26.01%). An improvement in CBR value of 8.9% can
considerably trim down the overall thickness of the pavement and hence the total cost
involved in the project.
Soil reinforced with Waste tyre pieces showing improvement in CBR value with its
addition upto 5% and there onwards decreased with further increase in tyre content in
unsoaked conditions. The optimum moisture content as well as maximum dry density is
found to decrease with the increase of the percentage of rubber tyre content. This might be
due to light weight nature of tyre waste. Shredded rubber tyre mixed with soil showed
enhancement in CBR value with adding up to 8 % and there beyond decreased with
additional increment in tyre content in unsoaked condition. Hence the optimal value of
shredded rubber tyre is 5 % of size 25 mm×50 mm in unsoaked conditions. The percentage
enhancement in CBR value of stabilized soil is 8.9 % in unsoaked condition whereas an
increase in CBR value can considerably trim down the total thickness of the pavement and
hence the total cost concerned in the project.
Purushotham G. Sarvade and Prashant R Shet (2012)The experimental investigation was
carried out in two phases. In the first phase, study was done on the problem clay with varied

14
percentages (5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%) of CRP. The samples (untreated & treated) were
tested for specific gravity (IS: 2720 part-3, 1980) [4], grain size analysis (IS: 2720 part-4,
1985) [5] and Atterberg limits (IS: 2720 part- 5 & 6, 1985) [6] [7]. The standard proctor
compaction tests (IS: 2720 part 7-1980) [8] were performed on untreated and treated samples
to get the water content-dry density relation. The standard proctor compaction results were
used to prepare test samples for the unconfined compressive strength (IS: 2720 part 10-1973)
[9]. The test samples were carefully prepared by maintaining uniformity in density, moisture
content and curing time in order to ensure a fair assessment of the effects of the admixture on
the geotechnical properties. The testing for stabilized soils was being done by giving a
specific period for enhancing the stabilization reaction, which is literally termed as curing
period. This investigation was carried out to study the variation of the properties of the
problem clay after blending with CRP. Based on the results problem clay + 5% CRP was
chosen as the optimum blended mix. For this optimum blended mix (5% CRP + problem
clay) with varying proportions of cement / lime (1%, 3%, and 5%) all the above mentioned
geotechnical properties have been carried out.
The percentage reduction in liquid limit and plasticity index was about 6% & 58%
when 5% CRP was added. There was decrease in maximum dry density as the percentage of
CRP was increased from 5% to 25% (1.73kN/m3 to 1.53kN/m3 ). There was decrease in
optimum moisture content up to 10% addition of CRP (from 16.2% to 17.6%) and further
addition of CRP increases the optimum moisture content. Improvement in the unconfined
compressive strength (40%) was observed for an addition of 5% CRP. The percentage
reduction in liquid limit was about 28% when 5% cement and about 6.5% reduction when
5% lime was added to 5% CRP + problem clay mix. There was decrease in plasticity index of
about 22% when 3% cement was added and 38% reduction when for 3% addition in lime and
then there was decrease. There was decrease in maximum dry density as the percentage of
cement and lime was increased from 1% to 5% (1.73 kN/m3 to1.68 kN/m3) and (1.73 kN/m
3 to 1.67 kN/m3), but 1% addition of lime has max dry density of 1.76 kN/m3 . There was
increase in optimum moisture content of about 16% addition of cement (from 16.2% to
19.3%) and increase of about 7% as lime proportion increased (from 16.2% to 17.4%).
George Rowland Otoko& Pere Preye Pedro (2014) studies the cement stabilization of
laterite and Chikoko soils using waste shredded rubber tyre chips as the reinforcement

15
material at 5%, 10%, and 15% fiber content by weight. In comparison with the unreinforced
samples, the result obtained show considerable improvement in shear strength and bearing
capacity parameter of the soils. It was therefore concluded that waste shredded rubber fiber
was good earth reinforcement material, and which reinforcement can be substituted for deep or
raft foundation to save the cost.
In case of roads, the increase in CBR value will considerably reduce the total thickness of the
pavement and hence the total cost of the project. Waste shredded rubber tyre chips is
therefore a good soil reinforcement material.

16
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

3.1General
Experimental investigation include material collection, sampling method and the test
conducted on them. Various samples were prepared with varying proportion of soil and
rubber tyre. Effort has been made to find out the optimum value for the mixed samples by
conducting a series of tests.

3.2 Material collection and its properties

3.2.1 Soil
The soil used in this experimental work has been collected from Bhola village Meerut (U.P).
The soil is classified as low plasticity silt ( ML) as per IS : 1498 (1970). The liquid limit of
the soil is determined by reading the water content corresponding to 25 blows on the flow
curve. The specific gravity of the soil was calculated using Pycnometer as per IS: 2720(1980).
Various index properties of the soil under the investigation are reported in table 3.1

Table 3.1: Index Properties of Parent Soil

S. No. Parameters Results


1 MDD(gm/cc) 1.76
2 OMC(%) 18.4
3 Liquid limit(%) 19
4 Plastic limit (%) 14
5 Plasticity index(%) 5
6 Specific gravity 2.47
7 Indian soil classification ML

17
3.2.2Crumb Rubber
Tyre rubber used for the practical work was obtained from Continental tyre
company (Daurala)

3.3Experimental procedure
Following are the test which have been conducted out in laboratory test
 Characteristics Test
1. Moisture content Determination
2. Atterberg Limits Determination
3. Specific Gravity Test by Pycnometer
 Strength Test
1. Standard proctor Test
2. California Bearing ratio

3.4 Methodology
3.4. Standard Proctor test
In this phase of study a detailed investigation of the compaction characteristics of the
parent soil and the blended sample containing different crumb rubber percentage, in order to
obtain the optimum moisture content and maximum dry densities. The optimum moisture
content thus obtained was used in preparing samples for CBR test. This test confirms to IS:
2720 (part7) 1980.

3.4.1.1Sample preparation
For parent soil 3 kg of oven dried soil sample was taken on tray and thoroughly mixed
with water. For the blended mixtures the quantity of soil depends upon the ratio at which it
is desired to be mixed with others additives. The amount of water mixed at first trial may
vary according to the soil sample composition.

18
3.4.1.2 . Procedure
1. Obtain 2500g of oven soil passed through the 4.75mm sieve
2. Weigh a compaction mould (m1g).
3. Add enough water to your sample (6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, 14%) to obtain moisture content.
4. Fill the mould in three layer and each layer should be compacted with 25 numbers of
blow,
5. Remove the collar and trimmed off the access soil.
6. Weigh the sample (mould + compact soil) that is weight (m2g).
7. Find out the bulk density by formula( m2-m1)/v(1000)
8. Take a small amount of soil from the compacted mould and weigh that sample with box
that weight is w1.
9. Put this sample in oven for the purpose of drying the soil for about 24hrs.
10. Take out the sample and weigh that is w2
Calculation
Bulk density of soil, ϒ = (m2-m1)/1000
Dry density of soil, ϒd =ϒ/(1+w)
Where w= moisture content present in soil
W=w1-w2/w2

3.4.2 California Bearing Ratio Test


It was developed by California Department of Transportation. The CBR test is penetration
test meant for the evaluation of subgrade strength of road and pavements.The result obtained by
these tests are used with the empirical curves to determine the thickness of pavement and its
components layers. This is the most widely used method for the design of the flexible pavement.

3.4.3.1 Sample preparation


Take about 5 kg of soil which depends upon the desired density we want to achieve and mix
it thoroughly with the required water. Fix the extension collar and the base plate of the mould. Insert
the spacer disc over the base. While preparing samples for soaked CBR, place the filter paper on the
top of the spacer disc. Compact the mix soil in the mould using either light compaction or heavy
compaction. For light compaction, compact the soil in 3 layers the water and remove the extension
collar, perforated disc, surcharge weight and filter paper.Each layer given 56 blows by 2.6 kg
19
rammer. For heavy compaction compact soil in 5 layers, 56 blows to each layer by the 2.6 kg
rammer. Remove the collar and trim of the soil. Turn the mould upside down and remove the base
plate and the displacer disc. Put filter paper on the top of the compacted soil (collar side) and clamp
the perforated base plate on it. Place the adjustable stem and perforated plate on the compacted soil
specimen in the mould. Place the weights to produce a surcharge equal to the weight of base material
and pavement to the nearest 2.5 kg on the perforated plate. Immerse the whole mould and weight in
a tank of water allowing free access of water to the top and bottom of specimen for 96 hours for
soaked conditions. After 96 hours of soaking take out the specimen for 5 minutes.

3.4.3.2 Procedure
Place the mould on the lower plate of the testing machine with top phase exposed. To prevent
upheaval of soil in to the hole of surcharge weights, place 2.5 kg annular weights on the soil surface
prior to seating the penetration plunger after which place the surcharge weights. Set the stress and
strain gauge to zero. Apply the load at the rate of 1.25mm/ min. take the reading of the load at a
penetration of 0, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5. CBR values are usually, calculated for
penetration of 2.5mm and 5mm. Generally the CBR values at 2.5mm penetration will be greater than
5mm penetration and in such a case the former is taken as the CBR value for design purposes. If the
CBR value corresponding to a penetration 5mm exceed that for 2.5mm, the test is repeated. If
identical results follow, the bearing ratio corresponding to 5mm penetration is taken for design.

3.4.3.3 Calculations

Corresponding
CBR% = × 100
penetration load
Standard load

20
Table3.3: Standard load adopted for different penetrations for the standard materials
with a CBR value of 100%
Penetration of plunger Standard load Penetration of Standard load
(inch) (lb) Plunger(mm) (kg)

0.1 3000 2.5 1370

0.2 4500 5 2055

0.3 5700 7.5 2630

0.4 6900 10 3180

0.5 7800 12.5 3600

21
CHAPTER: 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS
4.1.1 Standard Proctor Test
Results obtained from experiments are listed below in table 4.1

Table 4.1: Standard Proctor Test value for different percentage of rubber
% rubber 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

MDD(gm/cc) 1.76 1.72 1.70 1.69 1.64 1.61 1.55 1.54

OMC 18.4 18.2 17.9 17.6 17.1 17 16.7 16.2

4.1.1.1 Standard Proctor Test on parent soil


The test was done on the parent soil first. The maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content was found to be 1.76 gm/cc and 18.4 respectively. The process of
testing was followed as discussed earlier.

0% rubber
1.78
1.76
dry density(gm/cc)

1.74
1.72
1.7
dry density(gm/cc)
1.68
1.66
1.64
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
moisture content (%)

Graph 4.1 Compaction curve for parent soil


22
4.1.1.2 Standard proctor test on blended soil
The process described earlier was repeated for all the samples

2% rubber
1.73
1.72
1.71
dry density(gm/cc)

1.7
1.69
1.68 dry density(gm/cc)
1.67
1.66
1.65
1.64
1.63
1.62
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
moisture content (%)

Graph 4.2 Compaction curve for parent soil + 2% rubber

4% rubber
1.72
1.7
1.68
dry density (gm/cc)

1.66
1.64
1.62 dry density
1.6
1.58
1.56
1.54 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
moisture content
(%)

Graph 4.3 Compaction curve for parent soil + 4% rubber


23
6% rubber
1.7
1.68
dry density(gm/cc)

1.66
1.64
1.62
1.6 dry density(gm/cc)
1.58
1.56
1.54
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
moisture content(%)

Graph 4.4 Compaction curve for parent soil + 6% rubber

8% rubber
1.66
1.64
dry density(gm/cc)

1.62
1.6
1.58
1.56 dry density(gm/cc)
1.54
1.52
1.5
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Moisture content (%)

Graph 4.5 Compaction curve for parent soil + 8% rubber

24
10% rubber
1.64
1.62
1.6
dry density(gm/cc)

1.58
1.56
1.54
1.52 dry density (gm/cc)
1.5
1.48
1.46
1.44
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
moisture content(%)

Graph 4.6 Compaction curve for parent soil + 10% rubber

12% rubber
1.56
1.54
dry density(gm/cc)

1.52
1.5
1.48
1.46 dry ensity(gm/cc)

1.44
1.42
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
moisture content(%)

Graph 4.7 Compaction curve for parent soil + 12% rubber

25
1.65
14% rubber

1.6
dry density(gm/cc)

1.55
1.5 dry density(gm/cc)

1.45
1.4
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
moisture content (%)

Graph 4.8 Compaction curve for parent soil + 14% rubber

1.78
1.76 parent soil
1.74 2% RUBBER
1.72
1.7 4% RUBBER
1.68
1.66 6% RUBBER
dry density (gm/cc)

1.64 8% RUBBER
1.62
1.6 10% RUBBER
1.58
1.56 12% RUBBER
1.54
1.52 14% RUBBER
1.5
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.4
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Moisture content (%)

Graph 4.9 compaction curve for different blended samples

26
Omc vs rubber %
optimum moisture content (%) 19

18.5

18
17.5

17 optimum moisture content(%)

16.5

16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
rubber content(%)

Graph 4.10 Variation of Optimum moisture content with rubber content

Mdd vs Rubber %
1.8
maximum dry density(gm/cc)

1.75

1.7
1.65
maximum dry density(gm/cc)
1.6

1.55
1.5
0 5 10 15
Rubber content
(%)

Graph 4.11 variation of maximum dry density with rubber content

27
4.1.2 California Bearing Ratio test
CBR test was carried out on parent soil as well as blended soil sample. The
proportion of rubber remained same as in the compaction test. Samples were prepared for
both unsoaked and soaked condition. Unsoaked test were conducted right after the preparation of
sample mould, subjected to a strain rate of 1.25 mm per minute. Reading on proving ring were
noted for the standard penetration of 2.5mm and 5mm. proving ring constant was used to convert
the values into load applied in kg . Obtained values were compared with the standard values at
2.5mm and 5mm penetration, thus giving the CBR values for the samples, the higher value
should be designated as design CBR. Generally the CBR values at 2.5 mm will be greater than at
5mm and in such a case the former shall be taken as CBR for design purpose. If CBR for 5mm
exceed that for 2.5 m, the test should be repeated. If identical results follow, the CBR
corresponding to 5mm penetration should be taken for design.
Soaked test were performed to check the strength of material in worst
conditions. 4 days soaked specimen were tested. The procedure was same as for the unsoaked
specimen.
Proving ring consent = 1.728kg
Standard load at 2.5 penetration = 1370kg
Standard load at 5mm penetration = 2055kg
Load vs penetration curve was plotted for parent and each blended soil samples. Result obtained
for samples with different CRB percentage under soaked and unsoaked condition were compared
separately in graphs. The variation in the strength for each group with different rubber
percentage and the comparative study between each group is as follows

28
4.1.3.1 CBR on parent soil ( unsoaked)

0% rubber

120

100

80
Load(kg)

60
load (kg)

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration (mm)

Graph4.22: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil (unsoaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 60.1 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 87.5 kg
CBR2.5 = 4.38
CBR5 = 4.25
Design value for CBR ( unsoaked) = 4.38

29
CBR on blended soil ( unsoaked)

2% rubber

120

100

80
load (kg)

60
Load (kg)

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration (mm)

Graph4.23: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+ 2% rubber (unsoaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 59.3 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 84.3 kg
CBR2.5 = 4.32
CBR5 = 4.10
Design value for CBR ( unsoaked) = 4.32

30
4% rubber
120

100

80
load (kg)

60
load (kg)

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration (mm)

Graph4.24: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+4% rubber (unsoaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 60.2 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm = 88.5 kg
CBR2.5 = 4.39
CBR5 = 4.30
Design value for CBR ( unsoaked) = 4.39

31
6%rubber
120

100

80
load (kg)

60
load(kg)

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration (mm)

Graph4.25: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+6% rubber (unsoaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 61.3 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 91.6 kg
CBR2.5 = 4.48
CBR5 = 4.45
Design value for CBR ( unsoaked) = 4.48

32
8% rubber
100

90

80

70

60
load(kg)

50
load(kg)
40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration(mm)

Graph4.26: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+8% (unsoaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 57 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 84.8 kg
CBR2.5 = 4.16
CBR5 = 4.12
Design value for CBR ( unsoaked) = 4.16

33
10% rubber
80

70

60

50
load(kg)

40
load(kg)
30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration(mm)

Graph4.27: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+10%rubber (unsoaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 41.5 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 58.7 kg
CBR2.5 = 3
CBR5 = 2.85
Design value for CBR ( unsoaked) = 3

34
4.1.3.1 CBR on parent soil ( soaked)

0% rubber
80

70

60

50
load(kg)

40
load(kg)
30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

Graph4.28: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil (soaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 43 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 58.7 kg
CBR2.5 = 3.15
CBR5 = 2.85
Design value for CBR ( soaked) = 3.15

35
2% rubber
70

60

50

40
load(kg)

30 load(kg)

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

Graph4.29: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+2%rubber (soaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 39.7 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 54.4 kg
CBR2.5 = 2.9
CBR5 = 2.6
Design value for CBR ( soaked) = 2.9

36
4% rubber
80

70

60

50
load(kg)

40
load(kg)
30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration (mm

Graph4.30: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+4%rubber (soaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration


= 42 kg
Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 58 kg
CBR2.5 = 3.1
CBR5 = 2.8
Design value for CBR ( soaked) = 3.1

37
6% rubber
80

70

60

50
load(kg)

40
load(kg)
30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
penetration(mm)

Graph4.31: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+6%rubber (soaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 49.1 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 60.5 kg
CBR2.5 = 3.5
CBR5 = 2.9
Design value for CBR ( soaked) = 3.5

38
8% rubber
70

60

50

40
load (kg)

30 load (kg)

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
penetration (mm

Graph4.32: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+8%rubber (soaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 40.6 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 55.3 kg
CBR2.5 = 2.96
CBR5 = 2.69
Design value for CBR ( soaked) = 2.96

39
10% rubber
45

40

35

30

25
load(kg)

20 load(kg)

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

Graph4.33: load v/s penetration curve for parent soil+10%rubber (soaked)

Load carried by soil sample at 2.5 mm penetration = 26 kg


Load carried by soil sample at 5 mm penetration = 35.3 kg
CBR2.5 = 1.9
CBR5 = 1.7
Design value for CBR ( soaked) = 1.9

40
120
100
0% rubber
80 2% rubber
Load(kg)

4% rubber
60
6%rubber
40 8% rubber
10%rubber
20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Penetration (mm)

Graph 4.34: combined load v/s penetration curve for unsoaked condition

80

70

60

50 0% rubber
load(kg)

2% rubber
40
4% rubber
30 6%rubber

20 8%rubber
10%rubber
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Penetration (mm)

Graph 4.35: combined load v/s penetration curve for soaked condition

41
unsoaked condition
5
4.5
4
3.5
cbr value

3
2.5
2 CBR
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% rubber

Graph4.36: variation of CBR with % rubber for unsoaked condition

soaked condition
4
3.5
3
2.5
cbr value

2
1.5 cbr value
1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% rubber

Graph4.37: variation of CBR with % rubber for soaked condition

42
4. DISCUSSION
4.2.1 Standard Proctor
Test
Standard Proctor Test on parent soil shows maximum dry density (MDD) of 1.76gm/cc at
optimum moisture content (OMC) of 18.4% with addition of 2% rubber , MDD decrease
to 1.72gm/cc and OMC decrease to 18.2%. Further observation were made at 4%, 6%,
8%,10%, 12% and 14% addition of rubber and MDD were found to be 170 gm/cc, 169
gm/cc, 164 gm/cc, 161 gm/cc, 155 gm/cc, 154 gm/cc respectively while the OMC
decreased to 17.9%, 17.6%, 17.1%, 17%, 16.7%, 16.2% respectively.

4.2.3 California Bearing Ratio Test


There are few studies on use of crumb rubber in subgrade soil according to which crumb
rubber and fly ash mix has the best performance at 6% (Prasad S. 2009) the present study
revealed that the addition of 10% rubber with soil has shown better performance with CBR
value. There is further scope of this kind of research to be carried out with various type of
soil and rubber combinations or varying the particle size of rubber. Test were performed on
soil samples with same ratio of rubber as in case of standard proctor test at respective OMC.
The result have shown CBR values for parent soil under unsoaked condition as 4.38 and
under soaked conditions (4days) as 3.15 . addition of 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% rubber to soil
caused CBR values of 4.32, 4.39, 4.48, 4.16, 3 and 2.9, 3.1, 3.5, 2.96 and 1.9 under

43
unsoaked and soaked condition respectively. CBR values were obtained from comparing the
load required for 2.5mm and 5mm penetration on soil to the standard load.

44
CHAPTER: 5
CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE OF FURTHER
STUDIES

5.1CONCLUSION
Following conclusions can be drawn from the results obtained through experimental
investigation.
1. It has been observed that the OMC and maximum dry density of soil decrease with
increase in rubber. Since it does not absorb water OMC decrease for the mix.
2. As the compaction was carried out immediately after mixing and rubber is inert
material which does not react with soil, so no chemical reaction is expected in this process
of hydration. The reduction in maximum dry density with increasing rubber content
might be the result of the replacement of soil particles by rubber particle in a given
volume, they partially filled the voids between the soil particles and prevented them from
coming into a closer state of packing, and their lower specific gravity resulted in less
density of soil rubber mix.
3. Unconfined compressive strength of virgin soil increased significantly when mixed
with rubber at different percentage.
4. The study shows an improvement in soil sample when mixed with rubber buffing
causes change in the strength. There is a particular ratio at which maximum benefit can be
obtained. From UCS test the optimum value for rubber buffing is found to be 10% and
corresponding increase in strength was recorded as 44.82%.
5. CBR tests have shown increasing trend till 10% of rubber buffing and decrease as
the percentage of rubber was increased to 12% and 14%. The CBR value at 10% for
soaked condition is 3.5 which is highest and also higher to the control CBR (3.15) without
rubber. Therefore it is concluded that addition of rubber in soil has the characteristics of
increased strength values, and also solve the problem associated with disposal of waste
rubber tyre to some extent which otherwise cause environmental degradation.
6. The application of this will be for both rural and urban roads with moderate speed of
vehicle.

45
5.2 Scope of further studies
Improving properties of soil has become a matter of paramount importance today. Here an
effort has been made to study the effect of tyre buffing in strength of soil. There are many
alternative available for doing the same.
Here are some suggestion made for further research in the area.
1. The en tyre exercise may be done on various soils for arriving at conclusions having
wider applications.
2. Other materials such as cement, rish husk ash, may be mixed in the mixture of rubber
and soil for further reasearch.
3. Other geotechnical parameters such as hydraulic conductivity , consolidation parameters
can be investigated
4. Durability aspects of rubber treated soil like drying and wetting, freezing and thawing
action and response to various chemicals like alkalis, chlorides, sulphides may also be
investigated.

46
REFERENCES

1. IS: 2720 (Part 3/Section 1)-1980, “Methods of Test for Soil: Determination of Specific
gravity
2 IS: 2720 (Part 5)-1985 “Methods of Test for Soil: Determination of Liquid and Plastic
limits.”
3. IS: 2720 (Part 10)-1991 “Methods of Test for Soil: Determination of Unconfine
“Compressive Strength.”
4. IS 2720 (part 7) – 1980 – Methods of test for soil Determination of water content – Dry
density relation using light compaction
5 IS: 2720-Part XVI (1987) Laboratory determination of CBR, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi, India
6. Gary J. Foose. Craig H. Benson, and Peter J Bosscher. (1996) “Sand Reinforced with
shredded waste Tyres”. Journals of Geotechnical Engineering, pp 760-767.
7 Humphrey, D. N., and Nickels, W. L. (1997) “Effect of tyre chips as lightweight fills on
pavement performance”. Proc. 14th Int .Conf. On Soil Mech. and Found. Engg, 3,
Balke Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp.1617-1620.
8 Peter J. Bosscher., Thncer B. Edil., and Senro Kuraoka.(1997) “Design of Highway
embankment using tyre chips”. Journals of Geo-technical, Geo environmental
Engineering, pp.295-304.
9. Venkatappa Rao, G., and Dutta, R.K, (2006)“Compressibility and strength behavior
sand–tyre chip mixtures”. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, pp.711–724
10. Prasad, D.S.V., and Prasad Raju, G.V.R. (2009) “Performance of waste tyre rubber on
model flexible pavement”. Asian Research Publishing Network Journal on Applied
Science,Vol.4, pp.89–92
11. Prasad, D.S.V., Prasad Raju, G.V.R. and Anjan, M Kumar.(2009) “Utilization of
Industrial Waste in Flexible Pavement Construction ”.Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 13
12 Ayothiraman, R., and Abilash, M. (2011) “Improvement of subgrade soil with shredded

47
Waste tyre chips”. Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference Kochi, Paper no H –
033, pp.365–368.
13. Ghatge Sandeep Hambirao., and Rakaraddi, P.G. (2014) “Soil Stabilization Using
Waste Shredded Rubber Tyre Chips”. Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
(JMCE), Vol. 11, pp. 20-27.
14. Shiva Prasad. A, P. T. Ravichandran, R. Annadurai, P. R. Kannan Rajkumar “Study on
Effect of Crumb Rubber on Behavior of Soil” International Journal of Geomatics and
Geosciences” ISSN 0976 – 4380, Volume 4, No 3, 2014, PP 579-584.
15. Venkara, P. Muthyalu., Ramu, K and Prasada Raju, G.V.R, (2012) “Study on
Performance of Chemically Stabilized Expansive Soil” International Journal of
Advances in Engineering & Technology, ISSN: 2231-1963, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 139-
148
16. Lee, J. H., Salgado, R., Bernal, A., and Lovell, C. W. (1999), “Shredded tyres and
rubber-sand as lightweight backfill”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental
Engineering ..,125(2), pp.-132–141.
17. G.V and Dutta R.K (2001), “Utilisation of shredded tyres in highway engineering”,
Proceedings of the International seminar on sustainable development in road transport,
New Delhi, pp 257-268.
18. Swarna Surya Teja, Paleru Siddhartha(2015), “stabilization of Subgrade soil of
Highway Pavement using Waste Tyre Pieces” International Journal of Innovative
Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified
Organization),Vol. 4, Issue 5, May 2015

48

You might also like