Shear Strength and Stiffness of Expansiv PDF

Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 1111
Shear Strength and Stiffness of Expansive Soil and Rubber (ESR)

Mixtures in Undrained Axisymmetric Compression
Jesse Dunham-Friel1, A.M. ASCE; and J. Antonio H. Carraro2, A.M. ASCE
1
Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Eng. Dept., Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
2
Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Eng. Dept., Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, carraro@colostate.edu, Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT
The shear strength and stiffness of expansive soil and rubber (ESR) mixtures
were evaluated systematically in this study in undrained axisymmetric compression.
The materials tested included the Pierre shale residual soil from the Front Range of
Colorado and granulated rubber with 6.7-mm nominal maximum particle size. The
three mass-based rubber contents used were 0, 10 and 20%. All specimens subjected
to element testing were consistently prepared at soil states defined for a single level
of relative compaction equal to 95% and optimum water content, based on the
standard Proctor compaction curves of each mixture. The effects of the rubber
content and mean effective stress were systematically evaluated by performing
isotropically consolidated undrained triaxial tests at mean effective stresses equal to
50, 100 and 200 kPa. Bender element tests were used to determine the small-strain
stiffness of the Pierre shale residual soil and its ESR mixtures at mean effective
stresses of 50, 100 and 200 kPa. The critical-state friction angle increased with
increasing rubber content for specimens compacted to and tested at similar initial
states. Conversely, the stiffness of the ESR mixtures decreased with increasing rubber
content for all three levels of mean effective stress used in the tests. The drop in
stiffness was more significant at low mean effective stresses.
KEYWORDS
Scrap tire rubber, expansive soil, soil stabilization, stiffness, shear strength,
bender elements, triaxial test.
INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils are geomaterials with high potential to undergo significant

volume changes upon variations in soil water content. The shrink-swell cycles
experienced by expansive soils are typically nonuniform and can result in large
ground movements, which often leads to significant financial loss and damage to the
Downloaded 09 May 2011 to 129.82.228.247. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
public infrastructure and households every year in the United States (Nelson and
Miller 1992). Damages from expansive soils result in more monetary losses than all
other natural hazards combined (prior to hurricane Katrina), including floods,
hurricanes, tornados and earthquakes (Jones and Holtz 1973). The estimation of
annual losses due to expansive soils in the United States is difficult because damages
do not take place in a concentrated area like in the case of other natural disasters.
Estimates of annual damages are in the $2.3-13 billion range depending on the source
and year of the survey with the $13 billion being the most recent figure (Jones and
Holtz 1973; Puppala and Cerato 2009).
Traditional treatments for expansive soil include chemical stabilization using
lime, Portland cement or fly ash (TRB 1997), and physical stabilization by wetting,
compaction, or removal-replacement techniques (Mowafy et. al. 1985). Chemical
stabilization may be ineffective in soil deposits containing soluble sulfates because of
the chemical reactions that may develop between sulfates and the calcium-rich
additives, which often results in increased volumetric swell (Hunter 1988). Thus,
physical stabilization of expansive soils may be a more convenient solution for
sulfate-rich soil deposits than conventional chemical stabilization techniques.
The most common physical stabilization techniques are removal and
replacement or prewetting (Nelson and Miller 1992). Due to transportation costs,
removal and replacement may be costly in areas where local nonexpansive fills are
not readily available. Prewetting is known to be ineffective in soils with low
permeability such as the expansive shale residual soils from Colorado. Another
physical stabilization technique that has been proven to be effective involves the
admixing of sand with expansive soils (Mowafy et al. 1985). The admixing of scrap
tire rubber (STR) in place of traditional geomaterials such as clean sand or gravel also
has been shown to be effective to reduce the swell percent and swell pressure of an
expansive soil from Colorado (Seda et al. 2007). This approach may be particularly
convenient in Colorado, where one of the largest numbers of scrap tires are currently
stockpiled in the United States (CDPHE 2008, RMA 2009). Early studies on sand-
rubber mixtures have shown that STR addition does alter the shear strength
(Humphrey et al. 1993), stiffness and compressibility (Ahmed and Lovell 1993;
Humphrey et al. 1993) of the host soil. Accordingly, it might be reasonable to expect
that the strength and stiffness parameters of expansive soil-rubber (ESR) mixtures
would be different than the strength and stiffness parameters of the host expansive
soil. However, no systematic studies have been carried out to date to assess the
strength and stiffness parameters of expansive soil-rubber (ESR) mixtures.
The use of ESR mixtures to stabilize expansive soils may offer economical
and environmental benefits as compared to traditional methods. There is potential to
use ESR mixtures in several geotechnical engineering applications in areas where
expansive soil deposits and stockpiles of scrap tires exist including foundation
subgrades, retaining wall backfill and backfill of foundation walls. The typical
stiffness reduction due to rubber addition reported in earlier studies may be critical
for the potential consideration of using ESR mixtures in geotechnical applications
were geomaterial stiffness may constitute an important aspect of the design such as
for road or foundation subgrades. Thus, it is critical to thoroughly understand the
strength and stiffness characteristics of ESR mixtures relative to expansive soil alone
if these materials are to be considered in geotechnical engineering applications.
This study evaluated the effect of STR addition to an expansive soil from
Colorado. The mechanical response of the soil and its ESR mixtures was
characterized in undrained axisymmetric compression due to changes in two
variables: rubber content (RC) and mean effective confining stress (p′). The
compaction water content and relative compaction (CR) were kept constant in order to
provide a normalized condition on which to compare the soil state of the specimens.
While the dry densities of the various mixtures are clearly different, a constant CR
provides a basis on which to compare the response of the mixtures at similar states.
RUBBER STABILIZATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Limited systematic studies have been conducted on the mechanical response

of mixtures of fine-grained soils and STR. Most studies that have been conducted to
date on this topic rely upon either unsaturated unconfined compression (UC) or direct
shear (DS) tests. Limited triaxial testing has been carried out to examine the
mechanical response of mixtures of fine-grained soils with STR, and the work done
to date has focused on the addition of rubber fibers (Ozkul and Baykal 2007), instead
of granulated rubber.
There is a need for a fundamental study of the mechanical behavior of clay-
rubber mixtures that examines systematically the effect of rubber content, effective
confining stress and compaction conditions on the response of these mixtures. More
importantly, no studies have been found on the mechanical response of expansive
soils and their mixtures with STR. The existing literature involves mostly native clay
soils of low plasticity mixed with rubber. There is a need to carefully investigate the
effect of mixing rubber with high plasticity clay on the shear strength and stiffness
parameters of these ESR mixtures if they are to be used in geotechnical applications.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The expansive soil used in this study is a residual soil from the Pierre Shale
formation in the Front Range of Northern Colorado (Abshire 2002). Disturbed soil
samples were collected from depths between 0.5 and 1.0 m below the ground surface,
at the Colorado State University’s Expansive Soil Test Site. The liquid limit,
plasticity index (determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318) and specific gravity
(determined in accordance with ASTM D 854) of the soil are 56%, 34%, and 2.72,
respectively. The soil is classified as fat or highly plastic inorganic clay (CH)
according to the USCS. The STR used in this study is a granulated rubber with
nominal maximum particle size of 6.7 mm with no steel, supplied by Caliber
Recycled Products, Commerce City, Colorado. Based on its particle size distribution,
the STR would be classified as poorly graded sand (SP) according to the Unified Soil
Classification System, and it has a specific gravity (determined in accordance with
ASTM D 854) of 1.16.
The rubber content (RC) parameter used in this study to quantify the amount
of rubber present in the ESR mixtures is defined as the ratio of the dry mass of rubber
(mR) to the total dry mass of solids in the mixture:
mR
RC (%) = × 100
m R + mS
where mS is the dry mass of soil. Soil and ESR specimens were statically compacted
according to the AASHTO Designation P 307-99 (AASHTO 2003) at the optimum
water content and relative compaction equal to about 95% of the standard Proctor
maximum density defined for each mixture (Dunham-Friel 2009). Compacted
specimens were isotropically consolidated to one of the three levels of mean effective
stress used (50, 100 and 200 kPa) and sheared in undrained axisymmetric
compression to axial strains of approximately 27%. Triaxial specimens bulged during
shearing and failed following a typical barreling mechanism (i.e., not clear shear
bands were observed during shearing). Bender element tests were conducted prior to
consolidation and at the end of each isotropic consolidation stage. Dunham-Friel
(2009) discusses in detail the material classification, compaction properties, specimen
preparation and experimental methods including saturation, consolidation, shearing
and bender element testing.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Typical undrained axisymmetric compression responses of the soil and two

ESR mixtures are discussed next based on the variations of the deviator stress q
(=σ′1-σ′3) and excess pore pressure (Δu) with axial strain (εa) and their effective
stress paths (where p′= (σ′1+2σ′3)/3, and σ′1 and σ′3 are the effective major and minor
principal stresses, respectively). These fundamental responses are presented in Figure
1 for the untreated Pierre shale soil and the 10 and 20 % ESR mixtures.
Figure 1. Consolidated undrained triaxial test results for the soil and ESR
mixtures tested.
A gradual strain hardening (Fig. 1a) with phase transformation (Fig. 1c)
response was generally observed for these specimens. Undrained instability (Murthy
et al. 2007) was observed only for the Pierre Shale soil specimen tested under the
lowest p′. All specimens generated positive excess pore pressures with the excess
pore pressure magnitude tending to decrease after phase transformation (Fig. 1b).
The Pierre Shale soil specimens exhibited phase transformation before the
peak q/p′ ratio was achieved with the exception of the specimen at p′ = 50 kPa, which
developed undrained instability. In general, STR addition made the phase
transformation response more gradual and eliminated the undrained instability
observed for the Pierre Shale soil at p′ = 50 kPa.
While addition of STR to the soil did not change drastically the overall
axisymmetric response of the mixtures, it eliminated undrained stability and reduced
phase transformation (before the peak q/p′ ratio is achieved) and excess pore
pressures at large strains.
Table 1 presents the CR values measured during various stages of the CIU
triaxial tests. All specimens were initially compacted at a target CR of 95% prior to
their removal from the mold, according to the AASHTO T 307 procedure. Then, the
unsaturated specimens were confined to p′ = 30 kPa, back-pressure saturated to B-
values higher than 0.98, and consolidated isotropically to the p′ levels shown in Table
1. Table 1 also shows the peak (φp) and critical-state (φc) friction angles for each
specimen and mixture, respectively.
Table 1. Summary of consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test results.

RC p′ Relative Compaction, CR (%)
φp (°) φc (°)
(%) (kPa) Compacted Confined Saturated Consolidated
0 50 95.1 95.7 97.9 98.2 35.0
100 95.7 96.4 102.2 103.3 35.3 28.9
200 95.9 96.5 99.7 109.5 31.7
50 94.9 97.0 101.3 102.2 38.3
10 100 95.3 97.4 100.1 103.5 34.5 29.8
200 95.3 96.7 99.4 106.4 30.1
50 94.0 98.5 102.8 104.7 38.4
20 100 92.0 93.5 97.9 109.0 36.8 32.0
200 93.2 98.1 103.9 116.5 32.0
The effect of RC on the critical state of the specimens tested was also
examined by comparing their critical state line (CSL) loci. The stress invariants p′
and q at critical state (defined in this study at the largest strain achieved during the
test) are plotted for the 0, 10 and 20 % RC levels in Figure 2. The best-fit regression
lines adjusted to these data sets suggest that, as RC increases, so does the CSL slope
and the critical-state strength of the ESR mixtures. This may be due to the improved
frictional characteristics of the ESR mixtures imparted by the relatively larger
granulated rubber inclusions. Fig. 2 also includes critical-state strength data for
mixtures prepared and tested under different compaction conditions (Dunham-Friel
and Carraro 2010) that are not discussed in this paper. A more detailed discussion on
the strength parameters of the materials tested is presented in Dunham-Friel and
Carraro (2010).
Figure 2. Critical state lines of the soil and ESR mixtures tested.
The effect of rubber addition on the stiffness degradation curves for the
materials tested is shown in Figure 3 for p′ levels equal to 50, 100 and 200 kPa. The
shear stiffness plotted in Fig. 3 is a combination of large strain results from triaxial
compression tests (secant shear moduli) and very small strain results from bender
element tests (maximum shear moduli) performed on the same specimens. The small
strain trend of the stiffness degradation curves appears to fit well with their large
strain trend counterparts. In general, the untreated soil has a larger stiffness than any
of the ESR mixtures, regardless of the p′ level considered. While both small and large
strain stiffness clearly decrease as the RC is increased, the variation in stiffness is
much more obvious at small strains.
The typical range of shear strains in geotechnical applications such as
retaining walls, foundations and tunnels varies from 0.01 to 1.0 % (Atkinson 2000).
Foundation applications have strains typically ranging from 0.02 to 0.35 % (Atkinson
2000), which is on the lower end of the stiffness degradation curves obtained from
the triaxial tests. Thus, the decrease in stiffness shown in Fig. 3 due to STR addition
is significant given the strain ranges expected to occur in practice. Considering a
shear strain of 0.35 % for foundation analyses, the addition of 10 and 20 % of STR to
the Pierre shale soil reduces the stiffness of the ESR mixtures to about 62 and 42 %
of the stiffness of the untreated Pierre shale soil, respectively, for p′ = 50 kPa. For p′
= 100 kPa and 200 kPa those percentages were 86 and 54 %, and 88 and 70 %,
respectively.
The decrease in the maximum shear modulus due to STR addition is reduced
with increasing p′ and is greatest for p′ = 50 kPa, the lowest level used in the tests.
Addition of 10 and 20 % of STR to the Pierre shale soil reduces the maximum shear
modulus of the ESR mixtures to about 61 and 44 % of the stiffness of the untreated
Pierre shale soil, respectively, for p′ = 50 kPa. For p′ = 200 kPa, those percentages
were 63 and 53 %, respectively. Thus, the effect of effective confinement on the
stiffness is twofold: at larger confinement, the stiffness is greater regardless of the

mixture RC and as the confinement decreases, the rubber has a more significant effect
on the reduction of the specimen stiffness.
Figure 3. Stiffness degradation response for the soil and ESR mixtures tested.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The systematic study of the effect of rubber addition on the mechanical response
of an expansive soil under undrained axisymmetric compression indicates that:
1. The rubber appears to reduce the amount of phase transformation and/or
eliminate undrained stability.
2. The slope of the critical-state lines and the critical-state friction angles
increase with increasing rubber content for specimens compacted to and tested
at similar states. The critical state line slope was increased by about 6-8% per
each 10% increase in rubber content for the range of rubber contents tested.
3. The large strain stiffness of the ESR mixtures decreased as the rubber content
increased for all three levels of mean effective stress. The drop in large strain
stiffness due to STR addition is more significant at lower confining stresses.
STR addition reduced soil stiffness by approximately 12 to 58 % for the strain
range associated with foundation applications and the range of mean effective
stresses used in this experimental program.
4. Small strain stiffness is affected by the addition of STR to the Pierre shale
soil. Similarly to the large-strain response, the small-strain stiffness decreases
as the rubber content is increased. STR addition reduced the maximum shear
modulus of the ESR mixtures to approximately 44 to 63 % of the maximum
shear modulus of the soil alone, for the range of mean effective stresses used
in this experimental program.
5. ESR mixtures are stronger than the expansive soil and may be used in
applications where material stiffness is not a primary concern such as
backfills behind retaining or foundation walls. ESR mixtures may also be
considered as an alternative backfill material in over-excavation and removal
and replacement applications involving foundations on expansive soils as long
as the initial compression is properly taken into account. If ESR mixtures are
to be used in applications where material stiffness is critical, the material
stiffness may have to be improved using other stabilization techniques.
The research results presented in this systematic study help to understand the
effect of STR addition on the shear strength and stiffness of ESR mixtures for typical
geotechnical applications. Additional studies on the constructability and durability of
ESR mixtures in the field are out of the scope of this paper but are already underway
at Colorado State University.
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2003).

“Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of Soils and Aggregate
Materials.” Designation: T 307-99
Abshire, M.S. (2002). “Differential Moisture Migration and Heave Beneath Slabs
over Dripping Expansive Shale.” MS thesis, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, CO.
Atkinson, J. (2000). “Non-Linear Soil Stiffness in Routine Design.” Géotechnique,
50(5), 487-508.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2009) “Fourth Annual
Report to the Transportation Legislation Review Committee on the Status of
Waste Tire Recycling In Colorado for Calendar Year 2008.
Dunham-Friel, J.S. (2009). “Shear Strength and Stiffness of Expansive Soil and
Rubber (ESR) Mixtures in Undrained Axisymmetric Compression.” MS
thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Dunham-Friel, J.S. and Carraro, J.A.H. (2010). “Undrained Axisymmetric
Compression of Expansive Soil and Rubber (ESR) Mixtures.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Accepted for
Publication.
Humphrey, D.N., Sandford, T.C., Cribbs, M.M. and Manion, W.P. (1993). “Shear
Strength and Compressibility of Tire Chips for use as Retaining Wall
Backfill.” TRB, (1442), NAP, Washington, DC, 29-35.
Hunter, D. (1988). “Lime-induced heave in sulfate-bearing clay soils.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 114(2), 150-167.
Jones, D.E. and Holtz, W.G. (1973). “Expansive Soils-the Hidden Disaster.” Civil
Engineering, 43(8), 49-51.
Mowafy, Y.M., Bauer, G.E. and Sakeb, F.H. (1985). “Treatment of Expansive Soils:
A Laboratory Study.” TRB, (1032), NAP, Washington, DC, 34-39.
Murthy, T.G., Loukidis, D., Carraro, J.A.H., Prezzi, M. and Salgado, R. (2007).
“Undrained monotonic response of clean and silty sands.” Géotechnique,
57(3), 273-288.
Nelson, J. D., Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive Soils: Problems and practice in
foundation and pavement engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Ozkul, Z.H. and Baykal, G. (2007). “Shear Behavior of Compacted Rubber Fiber-
Clay Composite in Drained and Undrained Loading.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7), 767-781.
Puppala, A. and Cerato, A. (2009). “Heave Distress Problems in Chemically-Treated
Sulfate-Laden Materials.” Geo-Strata, March/April, 28-32.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. (2009). “Scrap Tire Markets in the United
States.” http://www.rma.org/scrap_tires/ (May).
Seda, J.H., Lee, J.C. and Carraro, J.A.H. (2007). “Beneficial use of waste tire rubber
for swelling potential mitigation in expansive soils.” Geo-Denver Conference.
ASCE, GSP No. 172, 1-9.
TRB. (1987). “Lime Stabilization. Reactions, Properties, Design and Construction.”
Transportation Research Board. 5, 64.

Shear Strength and Stiffness of Expansiv PDF

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

Shear Strength and Stiffness of Expansiv PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 1111

Shear Strength and Stiffness of Expansive Soil and Rubber (ESR)

Jesse Dunham-Friel1, A.M. ASCE; and J. Antonio H. Carraro2, A.M. ASCE

Expansive soils are geomaterials with high potential to undergo significant

RUBBER STABILIZATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Limited systematic studies have been conducted on the mechanical response

Typical undrained axisymmetric compression responses of the soil and two

Table 1. Summary of consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test results.

stiffness is twofold: at larger confinement, the stiffness is greater regardless of the

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2003).

You might also like