HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Examination of earth pressure reduction mechanism using

tire-chip inclusion in sandy backfill via numerical simulation
K. Kaneda a,⇑, H. Hazarika b, H. Yamazaki c
a
Takenaka Research & Development Institute, Takenaka Corporation, Japan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan
c
Port & Airport Research Institute, Japan

Received 31 December 2015; received in revised form 11 May 2018; accepted 7 June 2018
Available online 4 August 2018

Abstract

Tire chips have special features as geomaterials, as they are lighter than soil particles, highly compressible, and softer than sand. In
this study, the effect of tire chips used as a compressible inclusion in backfill on the load reduction against retaining walls is numerically
investigated. It is known that a reduction in earth pressure in backfill is realized by achieving a quasi-active or intermediate active state;
and thus, a field test of this behavior is herein numerically simulated. The influence of the Poisson’s ratio and elastic modulus of tire chips
on the reduction in earth pressure against retaining walls is examined by assuming that tire chips can be modeled as an elastic body. The
numerical simulation reveals that the attainment of the active state in sandy backfill is primarily due to the light-weight nature of tire
chips, along with their low Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. Furthermore, the influence of friction at the bottom of the backfill
mass is also considered, and the earth pressure reduction mechanism incorporating this factor is also numerically investigated.
Ó 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Keywords: Earth pressure reduction; Tire chips; Compressible inclusion; Numerical simulation

1. Introduction have certain advantages as geomaterials: (1) They are

Recently, in the construction industry, the promotion of
waste recycling has been prioritized. Among the applica-
tions, the use of tire chips (tire-derived recycled waste) to
reduce the earth pressure against geotechnical structures
has been investigated. At the present time, tire chips are
being used as light embankment material in Europe and
the USA. In the USA, in particular, approximately 25%
of the entire volume of recycled tire material is used in con-
struction. In Japan, approximately one million waste tires
are generated per year; and therefore, the effective usage
of these tires is highly anticipated. Furthermore, tire chips
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kaneda.kazuhiro@takenaka.co.jp (K. Kaneda).
lighter than soil particles; (2) Their bodies are almost elas-
tic; (3) They can act as insulating materials. Due to their
advantageous characteristics, tire chips have been referred
to as ‘‘smart geomaterials” (Hazarika, 2007). In addition,
various other material properties (including the non-
dilatant property) of tire chips have been described
(Hazarika, 2013). Many other studies have also been con-
ducted on tire recycling in Japan (Hazarika et al., 2010;
Yasuhara, 2007; Yasuhara et al., 2008).
One potential application of tire chips is to use them as a
compressible inclusion between retaining walls and back-
fill. That is, the static earth pressure on a retaining wall,
exerted by the backfill sand, can be reduced by placing a
highly compressible material (for example, tire chips)
between the retaining wall and the backfill. In a prior
study, reinforcement using both tire chips and sand was

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.06.002
0038-0806/Ó 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281
reported by Bergado et al. (2007); tire chips have also been
applied to an embankment and a retaining wall by
Humphrey (2007). Previously, Hazarika et al. (2005) per-
formed a field experiment to evaluate the performance of
this cushioning technique. Subsequently, Hazarika et al.
(2008) extended the cushioning technique to reduce the
dynamic earth pressure against a retaining wall, validating
this approach by conducting a shaking table test for
gravity-type retaining structures. Hence, it was found that,
under static loading, the soil in the vicinity of the wall
enters an active state, or what is called a ‘‘quasi-active
state,” in which it is deformed by the tire-chip buffer. The
concept of the quasi-active state was first introduced by
Hazarika and Okuzono (2004) in a study in which
expanded polystyrene (EPS) was used as a compressible
inclusion to reduce the dynamic earth pressure against a
retaining wall. However, as for the use of tire chips as a
compressible inclusion, the effects of the backfill density
or the tire-chip characteristics (e.g., elastic modulus E0
and Poisson’s ratio t) on the earth pressure reduction are
unclear. Furthermore, the effect of the friction at the bot-
tom of the backfill mass is also unclear. Thus, for the effec-
tive design of retaining walls in such scenarios, it is
necessary to clarify the mechanism through which the
quasi-active state is achieved.
The purpose of this study is to simulate a field test using
tire chips as a compressible inclusion in backfill via a
numerical analysis, so as to clarify the earth pressure reduc-
tion mechanism. The numerical simulation reveals that the
attainment of the active state in a sandy backfill is primar-
ily due to the light-weight nature of the tire chips, along
Fig. 1. Tire chips.
Table 1
Material properties of tire chips.
Particle density Minimum dry density Maximum dry density
qs (g/cm3) qdmin (g/cm3) qdmax (g/cm3)
1.15 0.347 0.442
1273
with their low E0 and t. Furthermore, the effect of the fric-
tion at the bottom of the backfill deposit is also considered,
and the influence of this factor on the earth pressure reduc-
tion mechanism is numerically investigated. Hence, it is
found that this friction is essential for earth pressure
reduction.
2. Drained triaxial compression tests on tire chips
Drained triaxial tests were conducted to determine the
tire-chip parameters to be used in the numerical simulation.
A tire-chip mass is an aggregate of cut portions of scrap
tires, as shown in Fig. 1. Tire-chip aggregates are highly
compressive, as there are large numbers of voids between
the component chips. Tire-chip aggregate compression is
achieved by reducing the gaps between the tire-chip parti-
cles. Tire-chip aggregates with a maximum particle size of
2 mm were used in the experiment, and the physical prop-
erties of a tire-chip mass under unconfined conditions are
listed in Table 1 (Okamoto et al., 2007). The tests were con-
ducted using three confining pressures: 33, 66, and 100 kPa.
It should be noted that the initial void ratio cannot be
taken as an index, because the tire-chip compressibility
depends on the confining pressure. Typically, the compress-
ibility is controlled by the compaction energy. In this study,
however, the initial tire-chip weight (112 g) was kept con-
stant at each confining pressure. Therefore, the sample
height and volume after consolidation differed for each
confining pressure value, as shown by the values listed in
Table 2. The density is that of the tire-chip mass as an over-
all aggregate.
Fig. 2 shows the results of the drained triaxial compres-
sion tests on the tire chips under the three different constant
confining stress values. It is apparent that nonlinear behav-
ior was obtained for the tire chips. However, it could be
assumed here that the tire-chip behavior was linear below
10% strain for each confining stress, as shown by the
straight line in Fig. 2. Then, t was calculated by the follow-
ing Eq. (1):
 
1 ev
m¼ 1 ; when r2 ¼ r3 ¼ 0 ð1Þ
2 e1
Here, ev is the volumetric strain,e1 is the axial strain,
andr2 andr3 are the second and third principal stress val-
ues, respectively. The value of t was calculated to be 0.1–
0.2 below 10% strain. Fig. 3 shows the relationship between
the secant elastic modulus and the confining pressure for
different values of e1. It is apparent that the elastic modulus
differs according to the confining pressure, and it is smaller
for larger e1.
Minimum void ratio Maximum void ratio
emin emax
1.60 2.32
1274 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281

Table 2
Height, volume, and density at each confining pressure.
Confining pressure (kN/m2) Height (cm) Volume (cm3) Density (g/cm3)
Before After Before After Before After Before After
consolidation consolidation consolidation consolidation consolidation consolidation consolidation consolidation
10 33 9.168 8.95 154.97 143.29 0.723 0.782
10 66 9.142 8.70 155.68 130.38 0.719 0.859
10 100 9.15 8.48 153.29 118.79 0.731 0.943

2 8.3 kN/m2 Earth pressure

Deviator stress q (kN/m )

33 kN/m
2

2 0.4
200 66 kN/m cells 8.3 kN/m2
2
100 kN/m
0.2
Poisson ratio

100
1.4m
0
1:1
-0.2 1.5m
Sand Sand
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Axial strain a( ) Axial strain a( ) Retaining wall
(a) Sand only
)
v(

8.3 kN/m2
Volumetric strain

10

Tire chips 8.3 kN/m2

1.4m

0 10 20 30
Axial strain a( )
Sand Sand
Fig. 2. Drained triaxial compression test results for tire chips.
30cm
(b) Tire chips and sand
Secant modulous of elasticity (kN/m 2)

1400
Fig. 4. Overview of experimental setup (after Hazarika et al., 2005).
1200

1000
800
600
400
200
0 side of the wall was partly replaced by a tire-chip inclusion
0 20
Confining pressure (kN/m2)
Fig. 3. Relationship between secant modulus of elasticity and confining
pressure; the symbols indicate different axial strain values.
3. Earth pressure reduction experiment
Hazarika et al. (2005) conducted a series of field tests to
evaluate the effect of using a tire-chip cushion as a com-
pressible inclusion between a rigid non-yielding retaining
wall and backfill on the at-rest pressure reduction against
the wall. The tests were conducted under two conditions:
without (Case A) and with (Case B) the compressible cush-
ion, as shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively. In Case A, a
1.5-m-high wall was installed and Soma No. 6 sand (dry
density qd = 1.696 t/m3; internal friction angle: 40°) was
backfilled on each side of the wall to a void ratio of 0.53.
20% A load of 8.3 kN/m2 was then applied to the sand from
10% above and the earth pressure on the wall was measured
5% using earth pressure cells (10 cm in diameter) that were
placed at 30-cm intervals. In Case B, a similar wall and
backfill were constructed, except that the backfill on one
40 60 80 100 120
30 cm in thickness. The backfill was constructed to the
same void ratio and loaded with a surcharge of
8.3 kN/m2 to allow the measurement of the resulting earth
pressure on the wall. Fig. 5 provides the experimental
results, where the unfilled circles represent the earth pres-
sures in the case of the conventional backfill condition,
while the filled circles show those with the cushion
installed. It is apparent that the combination of sand and
tire chips lowered the earth pressure. Thus, the earth pres-
sure on the retaining wall exerted by the backfill sand could
be reduced through the placement of a highly compressible
material (i.e., the tire chips) between the retaining wall and
the backfill. In general, when a buffer material with high
compressibility is inserted between a wall and the backfill,
the soil in the vicinity of the wall enters an active state
(or quasi-active state), in which it is deformed by the buffer.

1.5
Sand only
Sand + tire chips
1 Dilatancy angle (degree)
Wall height (m)
0.5
0 5
Earth pressure (kN/m )
Fig. 5. Experimental results for sand only and for sand with tire chips
(after Hazarika et al., 2005).
4. Numerical simulation of earth pressure reduction
A numerical simulation was performed in order to sim-
ulate the test conditions. The finite element method (FEM)
program code MuDIAN, developed by the Takenaka
Corporation (Shiomi et al., 1993), was used in this simula-
tion. The numerical mesh and boundary conditions are
shown in Fig. 6. A sandy backfill, 1.5 m in height and
5 m in width, was constructed under a plane strain condi-
tion. A mesh refinement analysis is shown in Appendix A
(M1). A 0.5-m-high embankment was constructed with a
slope of 1:1. Furthermore, a 30-cm-thick zone of sand
behind the wall was set as the tire-chip cushion. The bot-
tom ground level was kept fixed. The nodal forces on the
left side of the model shown in Fig. 6 represent the earth
pressures acting on the wall. In fact, this setup is identical
to the experimental conditions shown on the left side of
both parts of Fig. 4. It should be noted that, in the simula-
tion, the lateral displacement was fixed on the left side of
Earthpressure measure at fixed
horizontal displacement boundary.
0.5m 1.43m
0.3m 8.3kN/m2
Joint element
Sand
1.5m
Tire chips
5m
Horizontal displacement
Fig. 6. Numerical mesh and boundary conditions for numerical
simulation.
K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281 1275
Table 3
Material constants of sand.
Elastic modulus E (kN/m2) 56,000
Poisson’s ratio m 0.3
Internal fiction angle (degree) 40
Cohesion c (kN/m2) 1
10
Unit weight c (kN/m3) 16.6
Longitudinal stiffness (kN/m2) 1.000E+05
Transverse stiffness (kN/m2) 1.0000E+0
Cohesion of joint element c (kN/m2) 1.0
Friction angle of joint element (degree) 40.0
the model to simplify the verification of the earth pressure
reduction mechanism. In fact, the horizontal behavior of
the retaining wall was not observed in the experiment.
Finally, the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion for an elastic,
10
perfectly plastic model is indicated by the results shown in
2
Fig. 2 and was used as the constitutive model in this study.
Table 3 shows the material constants of the sand used in
the simulation. The internal friction angle and density of
the sand were identical to those of the experiment. In this
case, the internal friction angle was 40° and the sand was
assumed to be in a dense state. The elastic modulus of
the sand was calculated using the following empirical equa-
tion (Japan Road Association, 2002):


E0;sand ¼ 2800 N kN=m2 ð2Þ
where N is the standard penetration value of the sand. The
N value used here was not a measured value, but was
assumed to be 20 considering the compacted state of the
sand. In the simulation, a very small value was introduced
for cohesion c in order to stabilize the calculation. At first,
the calculation was conducted considering only the self-
weight of the soil; then, the surcharge load of 8.3 kN/m2
was applied on top of the mass (see Fig. 6).
In addition, joint elements were introduced between the
sand and the tire chips. In this case, the longitudinal stiff-
ness of the joint elements was set to a large value, whereas
the transverse stiffness was set to a small value in order to
allow slippage to occur. It should be noted that the joint
element parameters could not be measured directly. Thus,
parameters were selected that could reproduce the experi-
mental results through trial and error under a large longi-
tudinal stiffness. Table 4 lists the elastic parameters of the
0.5m
tire-chip mass. It was assumed that the confining pressure
on the tire chips was small. The tire-chip E0 was calculated
to be 200 kN/m2 based on the results shown in Fig. 3.
When K0 = 0.25 and ct (tire chips) = 11 kN/m3, the mean
effective stress at the center height is 4.125 kN/m2. These
results are insensitive to the tire-chip E0, as will be dis-
cussed below (M2). The effect of the constraint pressure
of the tire chips is shown in Appendix B (M3). In addition,
t was set to 0.25, assuming a safe margin of error. The
setup featuring these conditions was labeled Case 1. For
comparison, parametric studies were also conducted using
1276 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281

Table 4
Material constants of tire chips.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
2
Elastic modulus E0 (kN/m ) 200 200 100 1000 200
Poisson’s ratio m 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.49
Unit weight c (kN/m3) 8.8 16.7 8.8 8.8 8.8
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.96

four different parameter sets with different E0 and t values
(Cases 2–5; see Table 4).
5. Comparison between numerical results and experiments
Fig. 7(a) shows the relationship between the earth pres-
sure and the wall height according to both the numerical
and the test results. Fig. 7(b) shows the horizontal displace-
ment distribution results 0.3 m from the left side of the
model shown in Fig. 6, as indicated by the numerical
results only. The filled, unfilled, triangular, and circular
symbols indicate the results of the tire-chip case, the
sand-only case, the experiments, and the simulation,
respectively. The earth pressure distribution at rest was cal-
culated using the initial void ratio, and Rankine’s active
earth pressure was calculated using the internal friction
angle (40°) of the backfill sand. Only the backfill sand that
dominates the earth pressure applied to the retaining wall
Exp.-sand
Sim.-sand
Exp.-tire
Sim.-tire
Earth pressure at rest
Active pressure
1.6
1.4
1.2
Wall height (m)
was considered. This active earth pressure was calculated
by considering a 0.5-m-high embankment, but without
considering the embankment slope. In the case that incor-
porates the tire chips, the earth pressure reduction along
the entire soil depth is more apparent than the sand-only
case. For the sand-only case, the experimental results are
slightly lower than the simulation results; however, both
cases are close to the earth pressure at rest. On the other
hand, in the tire chip case, the earth pressure distribution
measured in the experiment is lower than the active earth
pressure. In addition, the experimental results are smaller
than the numerical results. Regarding the deformation,
there was no displacement in the horizontal direction in
the pure-sand case, as is apparent from Fig. 7(b). However,
a maximum displacement of 1.5 mm was required to
achieve the active state in the tire-chip case.
Fig. 8 shows the contours of the degrees of failure in the
backfill sand. The degree of failure is an indication of the
extent to which the sand is approaching the Mohr Cou-
lomb failure surface, where a value of 1.0 indicates failure.
In the sand-only case, the degree of failure was below 1.0.
On the other hand, in the tire-chip case, the degree of fail-
Sim.-sand
ure approached 1.0, because of the occurrence of horizon-
Sim.-tire tal deformation, which induces the development of the
1.6
active state. Fig. 9 shows the contours of the equivalent
1.4 shear strain during the at-rest state in the sand-only and
1.2 tire-chip cases. In the sand-only case, a small shear strain
develops from the bottom left to the top of the backfill

1 1
Wall height (m)

mass. However, in the tire-chip case, a large shear strain

0.8 0.8
develops on the top part of the tire-chip cushion. In addi-
0.6 0.6 tion, the shear strain zone from the bottom left to the
0.4 0.4 top of the backfill mass is apparent and the active state
0.2
of the backfill sand can be observed (indicated by the circle
0.2
in the figure).
0 0
0 10 20 -2 -1 0
Earth pressure (kN/m2) Horizontal displacement (mm) 6. Influence of various tire-chip parameters on active state
(a) Earth pressure distribution (b) Horizontal displacement
The influence of the various tire-chip parameters on the
Fig. 7. Earth pressure experimental and simulation results. achievement of the active state is verified here. Fig. 10

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0

(a) Sand only (b) Sand with tire chips

Fig. 8. Distributions of degrees of failure.

 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281 1277

0.02% 4.0%

0.0% 0.0%

(a) Sand only (b) Sand with tire chips

Fig. 9. Distributions of equivalent shear strain.

Sand Case1 Case2 Sand Case1 Case2 7. Earth pressure reduction mechanism
Case3 Case4 Case5 Case3 Case4 Case5
1.6 1.6
The earth pressure reduction mechanism has been
1.4
1.4
explained previously by Kaneda et al. (2011). Fig. 11 shows
1.2 1.2 the force directions when the tire-chip cushion is inserted
between the backfill and the retaining wall, considering

Wall height (m)

1 1
Wall height (m)

0.8
the instantaneous formation of the tire and sand in this
0.8
area. Fsand is the force acting from the sand at the interface
0.6 0.6
between the sand and the tire chips. Using the earth pres-
0.4 0.4 sure coefficient at rest of the sand, K0sand, the unit weight
0.2 0.2 of the sand, csand, and the wall height, H, the force per unit
0 0
length on the wall, Fsand, is given by
0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0

Earth pressure (kN/m2) Horizontal displacement (mm) F sand ¼ 0:5K 0 sand csand H
2
ð3Þ
(a) Earth pressure distribution (b) Horizontal displacement
On the other hand, Ftire, which is the force per unit
Fig. 10. Influence of tire-chip elastic material parameters (see Table 4 for length acting from the tire chips towards the sand, can be
parameter lists). calculated using the earth pressure coefficient at rest of
the tire-chips, K0tire, and the tire-chip unit weight, ctire, such
that
shows the results obtained for the parameter sets (Cases 2–
5) listed in Table 4. In order to investigate the influence of F tire ¼ 0:5K 0 tire ctire H
2
ð4Þ
each parameter, extreme values were set; these parameters
do not correspond to actual physical values. For compar- Furthermore, for K0tire = m/(1  m), with m = 0.25,
ison, the results from the sand-only case and Case 1 are K 0sand ¼ 0:5 > K 0tire ¼ 0:2 ð5Þ
also shown. Hence, it is apparent that a reduction in earth
pressure occurred for Case 2, for which the tire-chip and Therefore, it is clear that
sand unit weights are identical. For Case 3, where E0 was
reduced from 200 to 100 kN/m2, a reduction in earth pres- csand ¼ 16:6 kN=m3 > ctire ¼ 8:8 kN=m3
sure also occurred. When E0 was set to 1000 kN/m2 (Case
and thus,
4), a reduction in earth pressure occurred; however, the
earth pressure was slightly larger than that for Case 1. A F sand > F tire ð6Þ
little reduction in earth pressure occurred for Case 5, for
which t was set at 0.49. From Fig. 10(b), it is apparent that
a remarkable horizontal displacement occurred for Case 3.
Case 4, however, exhibited a relatively small horizontal dis-
placement, although a reduction in earth pressure did
occur for this case. This is because the active earth pressure
yielded a small horizontal displacement. In Case 5, no such
displacements occurred and the earth pressure reductions
were also small. From these results, it can be stated that
the variations in earth pressure reductions are due to the
differences in the active state in the backfill brought about
by the tire-chip deformation characteristics. It seems that
the earth pressure is small when the horizontal displace-
ment is large. The mechanism behind this behavior will
be explained in the next section. Fig. 11. Force directions.
1278 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281

Therefore, the force acting from the sand towards the
tire chips is larger than that acting from the tire chips
towards the sand. The conditions that satisfy Eq. (6) are
as follows: (1) The tire-chip t is small and (2) The tire-
chip unit weight is small.
Next, let us consider the variation in earth pressure with
the horizontal displacement. When the sand mass moves
towards the tire chips, active and passive earth pressures
develop in the sand and the tire chips, respectively.
Fig. 12 shows the conceptual relationship between the
earth pressure and the displacement in the sand and the tire
chips for Cases 1, 4, and 5. In each part of this figure, the
bold solid line indicates the active earth pressure on the
sand, rsand sand;sand, and the other lines indicate the passive
earth pressure on the tire chips, tiretire, for the examined
cases. The point at which rsand sand sand intersects tiretire is
interpreted as the equilibrium state, and sand sand corre-
sponds to the earth pressure acting on the retaining wall.
When the tire-chip E0 is large (Case 4), a larger stress-
strain curve slope is obtained, because a large force is
required to displace each elastic body (Fig. 12(b)). In addi-
tion, when the tire-chip t is larger (Case 5), the at-rest earth
Stress
Earth pressure reduction
σtire
Case1
σsand
Strain
(a) Case 1
Stress Case4(E:larger)
σtire
Earth pressure reduction
σtire
Case1
σsand
pressure coefficient of the sand increases (Fig. 12(c)). In
these cases, the equilibrium state is achieved under small
strain; thus, the effect of the earth pressure reduction is
small. When both the sand and the tire chips are held in
place by the friction at the bottom of the mass, the earth
pressure acting on the retaining wall is reduced. This
behavior occurs because the earth pressure at rest of the
tire chips becomes smaller than that of the sand, in accor-
dance with equation (4). Therefore, it is clear that the effec-
tive reduction of the earth pressure occurs as a result of the
low unit weight, low t, and small E0 of the tire chips.
8. Influence of friction at mass bottom
In general, both the experimental and the simulation
results indicate that there is friction on the bottom of the
mass, and this friction is also thought to affect the earth
pressure. In this section, the effect of zero friction on the
mass bottom on the earth pressure reduction is investi-
gated. To investigate the friction at the bottom of the mass,
the bottom boundary condition is changed to a free condi-
tion in the x-direction, as an extreme example. Fig. 13(a)
shows the numerical results of the relationship between
the earth pressure and the height for both the sand-only
case and Case 1. Fig. 13(b) shows the numerical results
for the horizontal displacement distribution 0.3 m from
the left side of the model shown in Fig. 6. In the sand-
only case, the earth pressures in both the friction and the
zero-friction (free) cases are almost identical; however,
the earth pressure in the frictionless Case 1 is larger than
that for Case 1 with friction. Similarly, the horizontal dis-
placement in the frictionless Case 1 is larger than that for
Case 1 with friction. Fig. 14 shows the distribution of the
horizontal forces at the bottom of the mass in the x direc-
tion. In the frictionless bottom case (Fig. 14(b)), the hori-
zontal force is 0 kPa, except at x = 0 and 5 m, because of
slippage at the bottom. On the other hand, in the case of
the bottom with friction (Fig. 14(a)), the horizontal force

Sand Sand
Case1 Case1
Sand without friction Sand without friction
Strain Case1 without friction Case1 without friction
1.6 1.6
(b) Cases 1 and 4
1.4 1.4

σtire 1.2 1.2

Case5
Wall height (m)

1 1
Wall height (m)

Stress
Earth pressure reduction 0.8 0.8
σtire
0.6 0.6
Case1
ν:larger σsand 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 -6 -4 -2 0
Strain
Earth pressure (kN/m2) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(c) Cases 1 and 5 (a) Earth pressure distribution (b) Horizontal displacement

Fig. 12. Conceptual relationship between earth pressure and strain. Fig. 13. Influence of friction at mass bottom.
 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281 1279

2.5 strength of tire chips under low confining pressure should

Horizontal force (kN)

Sand
2
1.5
Case1 be considered.
1
0.5
0
-0.5 Appendix A. Effect of numerical area and mesh size on mesh
-1 refinement
0 1 2 3 4 5
X direction (m)
(a) Fixed (with friction) bottom Figs. A1 and A2 show the numerical mesh for the
1
numerical area and the mesh size. Fig. A1 takes account
Horizontal force (kN)

Sand
Case1
0.5 of the analysis area three times in the horizontal direction,
0 while Fig. A2 has the same mesh area but sets the mesh
-0.5 interval to 1/2. Fig. A3(a) and (b) show the relationship
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5
X direction (m) Earth pressure measure at fixed
(b) Free (frictionless) bottom horizontal displacement boundary.
Horizontal displacement
Fig. 14. Distribution of horizontal forces at mass bottom (a) with and (b)
1.43m
without friction. 8.3kN/m2
0.5m
Joint element
1.5m Sand
exists in regions other than x = 0 and 5 m. The reduction in Tire chips
earth pressure against the retaining wall in the case of tire-
chip inclusion is caused by this force. In other words, in the 0.3m 0.5m
15m
case of a mass bottom with friction, the horizontal force is
transferred to the ground under the backfill (not shown in Fig. A1. Boundary conditions for numerical simulation (wide area).
the Fig. 6). Furthermore, it should be noted that the exper-
imentally measured earth pressure is smaller than the active
pressure because of the transfer of the force to the lower Earth pressure measure at fixed
ground. horizontal displacement boundary.
0.5m 1.43m
0.3m 8.3kN/m2

0.5m
9. Concluding remarks
Joint element

A numerical simulation of the earth pressure reduction Sand

1.5m
from a sandy backfill against retaining walls was per-
Tire chips
formed, in which tire chips were used as a cushion against
the retaining structure. The following are some of the
major conclusions of this study: 5m
Horizontal displacement

(1) When a tire-chip inclusion is incorporated, a reduc- Fig. A2. Boundary conditions for numerical simulation (fine mesh).
tion in earth pressure occurs as a result of the transi-
tioning of the backfill to the active state. When the
three beneficial properties of the tire chips are incor- Case1 Case1
Case1 (wide mesh) Case1 (wide mesh)
porated (i.e., their light unit weight, small E0, and 1.6 1.6
small t), a reduction in earth pressure against the wall
1.4 1.4
can be observed.
1.2
(2) The friction on the bottom of the mass is essential for 1.2

the earth pressure reduction. As the horizontal force 1 1

Wall height (m)

Wall height (m)

is transferred to the ground beneath the mass, in 0.8 0.8

the case of friction on the mass bottom, the earth 0.6 0.6
pressure is reduced.
0.4 0.4

In regards to future research, underwater construction 0.2 0.2

applications of tire chips should also be considered. Tire 0 0

0 2 4 -2 -1 0
chips have a very small unit weight, and in underwater con-
Earth pressure (kN/m2) Horizontal displacement (mm)
struction, the effective unit weight is further reduced. The
(a) Earth pressure distribution (b) Horizontal displacement
difference in effective confining pressure between tire chips
and sand increases as the depth increases. In the future, the Fig. A3. Results of earth pressure simulation (wide area).
1280 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281

Case1
Case1 1.6
Case1 (fine mesh) Case1 (fine mesh)
1.6 1.6
1.4
1.4 1.4
1.2

Wall Height (m)

1.2 1.2

1
1
1
Wall height (m)

Wall height (m)

0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2

0
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 -3 -2 -1 0
Earth pressure (kN/m2) Horizontal displacement (mm)
0
(a) Earth pressure distribution (b) Horizontal displacement
190 195 200 205 210
Elastic modulus (kN/m2)
Fig. A4. Results of earth pressure simulation (fine mesh).
Fig. B1. Distribution of elastic modulus.

2.0% Case1
Case1
Case1 (distribution) Case1 (distribution)
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

0.0% 1.2 1.2

1 1
Wall height (m)

Fig. A5. Distribution of equivalent shear strain (fine mesh).

Wall height (m)

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
between the earth pressure and the wall height according to
the numerical results, and the horizontal displacement dis- 0.4 0.4

tribution results 0.3 m from the left side of the model, com- 0.2 0.2
paring Case 1 alone and Case 1 with mesh A1. The results
0 0
were almost the same as those for Case 1, and the numer- 0 2 4 -2 -1 0

ical area was shown to be appropriate in Fig. 6. Fig. A4(a) Earth pressure (kN/m2) Horizontal displacement (mm)

and (b) show the relationship between the earth pressure (a) Earth pressure distribution (b) Horizontal displacement
and the wall height according to the numerical results, Fig. B2. Results of earth pressure simulation (distribution).
and the horizontal displacement distribution results 0.3 m
from the left side of the model, comparing Case 1 alone of Case 1, and it is thought that the assumed influence of
with Case 1 using mesh A2. In the fine mesh, the earth pres- the constraint pressure of the tire chips is small.
sure increased slightly and the horizontal displacement
increased a little. Fig. A5 shows the equivalent shear strain References
contours during the at-rest state. The shear zone seen in
Fig. 9(b) is seen more clearly. It is known that strain local- Japan Road Association, 2002. Specifications for Highway Bridges. Part
ization occurs when the mesh becomes finer. It is thought 4: Substructures (in Japanese).
that this has an influence, but it is out of the scope of this Bergado D.T., Tanchaisawat T., Voottipruex P., Kajananak T., 2007.
research. Although the numerical results are slightly differ- Reinforced Lightweight Tire Chip-Sand Mixture for Bridge Approach
Utilization. Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials  Opportunities and
ent, we believe that no difference exists in terms of the Challenges. In: Hazarika, Yasuhara (Eds.). Taylor & Francis, London,
essence of the manuscript. pp. 4558.
Hazarika, H., Okuzono, S., 2004. Modeling the behavior of a hybrid
interactive system involving soil structure and EPS geofoam. Soils
Appendix B. Effect of confining pressure of tire chips
Found., Jpn. Geotech. Soc. 44 (5), 149–162.
Hazarika, H., Sugano, T., Yasui, K., Mae, Y., Ejiri, A., 2005. Rigid
Fig. 3 shows that even if the constraint pressure is 0 kN/ Retaining Structure with Artificial and Recycled Geomaterials as
m2, the secant modulus of elasticity is about 200 kN/m2. Sandwiched Cushion. Symposium on Artificial Geomaterials,
Although this value is used in the text, in the simulation, Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 77–82.
Hazarika, H., Kohama, E., Sugano, T., 2008. Underwater shaking table
it was distributed so that the center of the retaining wall
tests on waterfront structures protected with tire chips cushion. J.
was 200 kN/m2, as shown in Fig. B1. The results of Geotech. GeoEnviron. Eng., ASCE 134 (12), 1706–1719.
distributing the constraint pressure of the tire chips are Hazarika, H., Yasuhara, K., Karmokar, A.K., Kikuchi, Y., Mitarai, Y.,
shown in Fig. B2. They were almost the same as the results 2010. Multifaceted potentials of tire derived three dimensional
 K. Kaneda et al. / Soils and Foundations 58 (2018) 1272–1281
geosynthetics in geotechnical application and their evaluation. Geo-
text. Geomembr.Spec. 28, 303–315, Special Volume.
Hazarika, H., 2007. Structural Stability and Flexibility during Earth-
quakes using Tyres (SAFETY): A Novel Application for Seismic
Disaster Mitigation. Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials – Opportunities
and Challenges. In: Hazarika, Yasuhara (Eds.). Taylor & Francis,
London, pp. 115126.
Hazarika, H., 2013. Paradigm Shift in Earthquake Induced Geohazards
Mitigation  Emergence of Nondilatant Geomaterials, Invited Key-
note Lecture for the Annual Conference of the Indian Geotechnical
Society, Roorkee, India, CD-ROM.
Humphrey D.N., 2007. Tire Derived Aggregate as Lightweight Fill for
Embankments and Retaining Walls, Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials
 Opportunities and Challenges. In: Hazarika, Yasuhara (Eds.).
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 5981.
Kaneda, K., Hazarika, H., Yamazaki, H., 2011. Mechanism of Earth
Pressure Reduction Using Tire Chips in Sand Backfill. In: The 14th
1281
Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Hong Kong, CD-ROM.
Okamoto, S., Hyodo, M., Orense, P., Hazarika, H., 2007. Undrained and
drained shear behaviour of sand and tire chips composite material. In:
Hazarika, Yasuhara (Eds.), Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials –
Opportunities and Challenges. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 187–196.
Shiomi, T., Shigeno, Y. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1993): Numerical
Prediction for Model No. 1, Verification of Numerical Procedures
for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems (Arulanandan and
Scott, Eds.), Balkema, pp. 213219.
Yasuhara, K., Hazarika, H., Mitarai, Y., Karmokar, A. K., 2008. Tire-
chips for Geotechnical Applications, in New Horizons in Earth
Reinforcement. In: Otani et al. (Eds.). pp. 231237.
Yasuhara, K., 2007. Recent Japanese experiences on scrapped tires for
geotechnical applications, Scrap Tire Derived Geomaterials  Oppor-
tunities and Challenges. In: Hazarika, Yasuhara (Eds.). Taylor &
Francis, London, pp. 1740.