International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Sand–scrap tyre chip mixtures for improving the

dynamic behaviour of retaining walls

S. Bali Reddy & A. Murali Krishna

To cite this article: S. Bali Reddy & A. Murali Krishna (2021) Sand–scrap tyre chip mixtures
for improving the dynamic behaviour of retaining walls, International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 15:9, 1093-1105, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2019.1652969

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1652969

Published online: 07 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 136

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
2021, VOL. 15, NO. 9, 1093–1105
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1652969

Sand–scrap tyre chip mixtures for improving the dynamic behaviour of retaining
walls
a
S. Bali Reddy and A. Murali Krishnab
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science, Madanapalle, India; bCivil & Environmental Engineering, IIT
Tirupati, Tirupati, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper presents the dynamic response of retaining wall models backfilled with different types of Received 16 October 2018
sand–tyre chips (STC) mixtures using shaking table tests. The STC mixtures with different tyre chips Accepted 2 August 2019
proportions, such as STC10, STC20, STC30, STC40, STC50 and STC0 (control test) were considered as KEYWORDS
backfill materials. A 600 mm retaining wall that is produced in a box this is certainly anchored on Recycled tyre chips;
a shaking table that will produce dynamic excitations. According to the tyre chips content in sand, up to retaining wall; sand –tyre
50% to 65% reduction in wall displacements and 70% to 80% lowering of dynamic earth pressures were chips (STC) mixture; shaking
observed. The exploratory study reveals the seismic actions of a retaining wall with STC30 backfill over table tests; lateral earth
an retaining wall using conventional backfill. pressure reduction

Introduction further model preparation, STC mixture properties, testing

methodology, results and discussion are presented.
Retaining walls are an integral part of most of the infrastructure
projects, to support vertical or near vertical backfills. Lateral
earth pressures from the retaining walls and wall displacements Literature on scrap tyre derived geomaterials
would be the important aspects impacting the sectional specifi-
Scrap tyre derived geomaterials are now being utilized in various
cations of this wall. Consequently, by reducing lateral earth
civil engineering applications. The product range of specific
pressure and displacements, sectional specifications of retaining
gravity values for shredded tyre chips was reported to be
wall along with cost of project may be substantially reduced.
1.02–1.24 (Ahmed 1993; Humphrey et al. 1993; Sheikh et al.
Researchers are using different techniques to reduce the lateral
2013; Reddy, Kumar, and Krishna 2016). They also provide
earth pressure like use of geosynthetics, lightweight fill, com-
better drainage characteristics, which enhance the stability of
pressible inclusions, to name a few. Assorted waste products
retaining structures under saturated conditions (Reddy, Stark,
(waste tyres, plastic containers) generating every each year, and
and Marella 2010). The shear strength of tyre-derived materials
their amount is increasing day by day as a result of an escalating
determined using triaxial and direct shear tests was reported by
world population and consumption of raw materials. Among
Ahmed (1993), Humphrey et al. (1993), Yang, Lohnes, and
them, disposal of waste tyres has become a big problem in
Kjartanson (2002) and Pando and Garcia (2011). Friction
worldwide. It had been estimated that about 200–300 million
angle values inside the range of 15–38° and cohesion values as
tyres were scrapped annually in america (Ahn and Cheng
much as approximately 20 kPa were reported. The mechanical
2014). One possible means for this issue will be finding new
properties of sand – scarp tyre derived materials (different sizes)
and beneficial how to recycle and reuse the big volumes of scrap
mixtures were studied by Ahmed 1993; Foose, Benson, and
tyres. Reuse of waste materials can save natural resources and
Bosscher (1996); Ghazavi (2004); Zornberg, Viratjandr, and
helps to build sustainable infrastructures. The scrap tyre derived
Cabral 2004; Rao and Dutta 2006; Balunaini et al. 2009; Vinot
materials could be offered several benefits in geotechnical appli-
and Singh 2013; Sheikh et al ., 2013; Reddy, Kumar, and
cations due to the reduction of environmental health hazard,
Krishna 2016. Based on previous studies, the optimum mixing
saving huge spaces, saving natural soil, soil reinforcement
ratio of STC mixture is in the range of 30%–40% by weight.
(Vinot and Singh 2013; Reddy, Kumar, and Krishna 2016)
Various laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate the
and the exhibition of a higher capacity to absorb and to dissipate
improvement of this bearing capacity of soil with scrap tyre
energy than soil alone (Tsang 2008; Anbazhagan and Manohar
derived materials. Hataf and Rahimi (2005) studied the bear-
2013; Pitilakis, Karapetrou, and Tsagdi 2015). In this paper,
ing capacity with various mixtures of sand and sand tyre
dynamic response of retaining wall model backfilled with dif-
shreds. The outcomes of sand combined with shredded tyre
ferent sand – tyre chips (STC) mixtures are investigated through
obtained by revealed that the bearing capacity ratio (ratio of
shaking table tests. The following sections are given the details
bearing capacity of improved to unimproved soil) increases as
about the past studies on scrap tyre derived geomaterials and
tyre shreds content and aspect ratio increase. They observed

CONTACT S. Bali Reddy drbalireddys@mits.ac.in; balireddy23@gmail.com Department of Civil Engineering, Madanapalle Institute of Technology & Science,
Madanapalle, India
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1094 S. B. REDDY AND A. M. KRISHNA
that optimum tyre shreds content after which it the bearing
capacity ratio begins to decrease was found to be 40%.
A research carried out by Cecich et al. (1996) explained the
applicability of pure tyre chips in retaining wall backfill by
attaining the higher factors of safety against sliding, over-
turning when compared to sand as backfill under static load-
ing conditions. Lee and Roh (2006) proved that the dynamic
earth pressures behind a retaining wall were reduced on using
a backfill material having lesser elastic modulus and higher
damping ratio and demonstrated that tyre chips possesses
these reliable properties. Xiao et al. (2012) conducted reduced
scale model tests on retaining walls of height 1.6 m backfilled
with Tyre Derived Aggregate (TDA) under static and seismic
loading conditions and compared the outcome with this of
conventional sand as backfill. It is often unearthed that the
displacements regarding the wall, accelerations within the
backfill soil, static and dynamic stresses when you look at
the backfill were reduced through the use of TDA because of
the lesser unit weights and higher damping ratios of rubber
materials. Numerical analysis on retaining walls backfilled
with pure tyre chips and pure sand carried out by Huggins
and Ravichandran (2011) and Ravichandran and Huggins
(2014) revealed that the bending moments, shear forces
together with displacements associated with the walls back-
filled with tyre chips were reduced significantly than com-
pared to walls backfilled with sand considered. Shaking table
tests on gravity type model caisson with tyre chips (Hazarika,
Kohama, and Sugano 2008) demonstrated that the tyre chips
acted as cushioning material and substantially reduced the
seismic load contrary to the caisson wall. Dammala, Reddy,
and Krishna 2015 and Reddy and Krishna (2015) studied the
behaviour of retaining wall models backfilled with different
STC mixtures laden with different surcharge pressures under
static loading. The retaining wall types of 600 mm height
were prepared for static and shaking table tests. Using
STC30 backfill, about 50%–60% lowering of earth pressures
and displacements were observed.
The above literature indicates that few researchers have been
reported the behaviour and properties of rubber/fibre reinforced
soil mixture. However, very few studies available on retaining wall
backfilled with shredded rubber–soil mixture. The soil mixed with
tyre shreds is anticipated to work as reinforced soil. To advertise
the recycling of tyre wastes on a large scale in geotechnical appli-
cations where bulk utilization of waste products can be done, in
today’s study, experiments planned to investigate the dynamic
response of retaining wall constructed on different sand –
shredded tyre chips (STC) mixtures using a table that is shaking.
The wall displacements, acceleration and earth that is lateral
regarding the model wall are monitored at different elevations
during testing and discussed in the next sections.
Laboratory model tests
A computer-controlled servo-hydraulic shaking table facility
with just one degree of freedom (horizontal) was used to
simulate the horizontal shaking action, associated with seis-
mic as well as other vibration conditions. The table that is
shaking be operated upto acceleration 2 g and frequency upto
10 Hz because of the amplitude of 250 mm. A dedicated
control room housing the control system includes a host
computer to facilitate testing under both constant amplitude
and random conditions. The problems that are major with
laboratory model studies are scaling as well as the boundary
effects, especially in studies associated with earthquake engi-
neering. Types of retaining walls have already been built in
a Perspex box with foam as back boundary to reduce the
effect that is boundary some extent.
The wall surface that is keeping of 600 mm height had been
prepared for shaking dining table tests. The model wall was built
in a Perspex container of 1200 mm × 600 mm in plan and
1000 mm height (Figure 1). The model container consists of
Perspex sheets of 10 mm thickness and braced by way of a steel
frame made from metal angle parts which also facilitates for easy
managing and lifting. The wall surface of 600 mm high and
580 mm wide was beautifully made with eight hollow rectangu-
lar (2 mm dense) metal sections, each 580 mm number of
25 mm wide and 75 mm height cross part, which were joined
steel that is utilizing of 12 mm diameter. These metal rods had
been further connected to a base plywood board base of 12 mm
depth, forming a connexion that is rigid. The backfill was filled
in stages using a falling that is free, to the backfill after which
compacting manually to attain the target thickness. Figure 2
shows the diagram that is schematic of wall setup with location
of several instruments.
For all tests in this study that is scholarly one accelerometer,
A1, was fixed to the container base to record the base acceleration
in addition to other two accelerometers A2 and A3 were put at
elevations 300 and 590 mm, correspondingly. Four pressure sen-
sors every one of 50 capacity that is kPa, P1, P2, P3 and P4 were
put in the wall, in touch with the facing at different elevations 487,
337, 187 and 37 mm, respectively, over the top in purchase to see
horizontal soil pressures on the facing. Three L1 that is LVDTs,
and L3 were positioned at elevations 125, 380, and 580 mm
correspondingly along the facing. To compare the acceleration,
lateral pressures and horizontal displacements acquired from
different tests, accelerometers, force sensors and LVDTs were
Figure 1. Model wall placed on shaking table.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1095

Perspex Sheet

Accelerometer
Displacement transducer
Pressure sensor
Wall
Flexible boundary

A3
L3
P4
1000
P3
A2 Backfill
600 L2
P2

Shaking Table
L1 P1 Plywood base
A1

800
25 1200 All dimensions are in mm

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of model wall configuration with instrumentations.

Table 1. Properties of sand.

placed at identical areas in most tests. After completing the model Property Value
preparation, the model was placed on the shake table followed by Specific gravity 2.62
removal of temporary support of facing. Each model wall was Maximum void ratio 0.94
Minimum void ratio 0.64
subjected to 20 cycles of sinusoidal motion of shaking at frequency Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 16.1
and acceleration as mentioned in Table 3. The dynamic reaction of Minimum dry unit weight (kN/3) 13.6
each model wall, with regards to acceleration and backfill this is Angle of internal friction (º) 48
USCS classification symbol SP
certainly horizontal reaction at various elevations and also the
displacement at facing, is supervised using a data-acquisition
system. Table 2. Index and engineering properties of STC mixtures.
Angle of
Mixture Specific Dry unit weight internal Void
Materials used Proportions Gravity (G) (kN/m3) friction (°) ratio
STC10 2.25 14.62 51 0.55
Sand STC20 1.94 14.12 52 0.44
STC30 1.82 13.17 56 0.38
Sand is collected from the river in this research. Particle size STC40 1.71 12.29 51 0.35
distribution curve for sand shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4, STC50 1.53 10.42 44- 0.39
it is classified that poorly graded sand. The sand attained
maximum dry unit weight of 16.1 kN/m3 in a vibration
ensure that you the minimum dry unit weight observed in mixtures (0% to 100% of tyre chips by weight) have
the loosest state was 13.26 kN/m3. Unit weight for the sand been considered to find the index and engineering prop-
for the control case model wall was maintained at 15.57 kN/ erties. Properties of STC mixtures, i.e. specific gravity,
m3. Large size (shear box of 300 × 300 × 300 mm) direct shear dry unit weight and angle of friction value of STC mix-
tests were conducted for sand with various normal stresses to tures are shown in Table2. From the table, it can be
locating the shear strength parameters. The properties of sand inferred that the optimum mixing ratio of STC mixture
are shown in Table 1. is in 30%–40% range, where higher friction angle value
and lower void ratio are observed. Further, it can also be
seen from the table that at the optimum mixing ratio of
Sand – tyre chips (STC) mixtures the STC mixture, the dry unit weight was reduced by
Tyre chips used for the study were of 10 mm square and nearly 20%. These observations show that STC mixtures
about 20 mm length (Figure 3). Specific gravity and unit can effectively works as lightweight material as well as
weight of the tyre chips were determined as 1.08 and 6.45 high load-carrying behaviour (due to high shear strength)
kN/m3, respectively. Particle size analysis has been as per for geo-engineering applications.
IS 2720 (Part 4). Figure 4 shows the particle size distri- STC mixture weight ratios were converted to volume ratios
bution of sand and STC mixtures used in this study. using the weights of sand and tyre-chip contents in each
Reddy, Kumar, and Krishna (2016) reported the char- mixture, along with specific gravity values of the individual
acterization of different STC mixtures. Different STC materials. The weight/volume ratios are shown in graphical
1096 S. B. REDDY AND A. M. KRISHNA

Table 3. Test parameters. 100

Sand tyre Chips Acceleration, Frequency, STC0 (pure sand)
Backfill type (by weight) (by weight) g Hz
STC10
STC0_0.1_3 100 0 0.1 3 80 STC20
STC10_0.1_3 90 10 STC30
STC20_0.1_3 80 20
STC40
STC30_0.1_3. 70 30
STC40_0.1_3 60 40 STC50

Percentage finer
60
STC50_0.1_3 50 50
STC0_0.2_3 100 0 0.2 3
STC10_0.2_3 90 10
STC20_0.2_3 80 20 40
STC30_0.2_3. 70 30
STC40_0.2_3 60 40
STC50_0.2_3 50 50
STC0_0.3_3 100 0 0.3 3 20
STC10_0.3_3 90 10
STC20_0.3_3 80 20
STC30_0.3_3. 70 30
STC40_0.3_3 60 40 0
STC50_0.3_3 50 50 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
STC0_0.3_5 100 0 0.3 5 Particle size, mm
STC10_0.3_5 90 10
STC20_0.3_5 80 20 Figure 4. Particle size distribution curves of sand and STC mixtures.
STC30_0.3_5. 70 30
STC40_0.3_5 60 40
STC50_0.3_5 50 50 100

Percentage of tire chips (By volume)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage of tire chips (By weight)

Figure 5. Relationship between weight and volume of tyre chips.

shaking were selected between 3 Hz and 5 Hz based on the

Figure 3. Typical tyre chips used in this study.
form in Figure 5
Preparation of the model test and testing
programme
STC mixtures were prepared by manual mixing to maintain
the selected TC percentage levels (10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and
50% that are represented as STC10, STC20, STC30, STC40
and STC50, respectively). Figure 6 shows the photographs of
different STC mixtures. The STC mixtures were filled in
stages using a free falling technique, in the backfill and then
compacting manually to achieve the target density. After
completing the construction, external support of wall was
removed, each model wall was subjected to 20 cycles of
sinusoidal motion of shaking table at selected frequency and
acceleration as mentioned in Table 3. The duration of each
range of frequency within which most earthquakes normally
occur. The dynamic response of each model wall is monitored
in terms of acceleration and horizontal soil pressure response
at different elevations and the displacement at facing is mon-
itored during tests using a data-acquisition system.
Results and discussion
Twenty four different shaking table tests on retaining wall
models were performed to study the effect of backfill mate-
rials, acceleration and frequency of base motion as pre-
sented in Table 3. Typical variations of displacements
with number of cycles of dynamic loading at different
elevations for the test (STC0_0.3_3) on the pure sand is
shown in Figure 7. The displacements measured by L1, L2
and L3 correspond to the elevations of 125, 380 and
580 mm from the base, respectively. The figure depicts
increasing trend of displacements with increasing number
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1097

(a) Pure sand (STC0) (b) STC10

(c) STC30 (d) STC40

Figure 6. Different STC mixtures.

5 elevations. In Figure 8, acceleration amplification factor at loca-

L3 tion A2 is 1.16 and the factor at locations A3 is 1.32, respectively.
L2 Figure 9 shows the typical variation of the lateral incremental
4
L1
earth pressures at different elevations of wall with number of
Horizonatal displacement, mm

cycles for the test STC0_0.1_3. Incremental earth pressure is

3 measured increment in lateral pressure over the pressure that is
after support removal. From the figure, it is observed that the
2
incremental pressures were increasing with number of cycles
along the depth. However, the incremental pressure-changing
pattern along the depth was not consistent in all the tests. This
1 may be due to pressures behind the walls were very low (0–2 kPa)
in comparison with the measuring range of the sensors used (0–
50 kPa).
0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Comparison of model wall response with different

Number of cycles
Figure 7. Typical displacement histories at different elevations for the test
STC0_0.3_3.
of cycles and greater displacements at higher elevations.
The maximum displacement recorded at the end of 20
cycles of shaking was about 4.32, 2.72 and 0.93 mm at
elevations of 580, 380 and 125 mm, respectively.
Typical variation of accelerations with number of cycles, at
different elevations for the model test wall backfilled with only
sand (STC0_0.1_3) is shown in Figure 8. To cheque the accel-
eration response at different elevations of retaining model walls,
acceleration amplification factors were used to represent the
acceleration. These acceleration amplification factors were eval-
uated by the ratio of peak acceleration value of the backfill soil/
STC mixture to the corresponding base peak acceleration value.
It can be seen that the accelerations were amplified at higher
accelerations of base motion
Acceleration is one of the parameter of the dynamic
motion that affects the performance of any structure
against any dynamic motion. Here, three base accelerations
(0.1 g, 0.2 g, and 03 g) applied on model walls through
shaking table tests. The effect of base acceleration on the
response of model walls for the tests STC0_0.1_3,
STC0_0.2_3 and STC0_0.3_3 is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10(a) shows the displacement profiles observed for
tests STC0_0.1_3, STC0_0.2_3, and STC0_0.3_3 with base
accelerations 0.1 g, 0.2 g, and 0.3 g, respectively. Here the
elevation (z) is represented in non-dimensional form after
normalizing by the full wall height (H) and horizontal
displacements (δh) are presented in non-dimensional form
after normalizing them by the total height of the wall (H).
From Figure 10(a), it is observed that, displacements are
higher at higher acceleration among the three (0.1 g, 0.2 g,
1098 S. B. REDDY AND A. M. KRISHNA

0.2
A3
0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2
0.2
A2

Acceleration, g
0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2
0.2
A1
0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2
0 5 10 15 20
Number of cycles
Figure 8. Typical variation acceleration histories at different elevations for the test STC0_0.1_3.

0.50
P4

0.25

0.00
0.50
Dynamic induced lateral pressure, kPa

P3

0.25

0.00
0.50
P2

0.25

0.00
0.50
P1

0.25

0.00

0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of cycles

Figure 9. Typical variation of lateral earth pressure histories at different elevations for the test STC0_0.1_3.

and 0.3 g) accelerations. The maximum normalized displa-
cement of 0.102% is observed for 0.1 g base acceleration
and the corresponding values for 0.2 and 0.3 g base accel-
erations are 0.537% and 0.72%, respectively. Figure 10(b)
shows the incremental lateral earth pressure profiles
observed for tests STC0_0.1_3, STC0_0.2_3, and
STC0_0.3_3 with base accelerations 0.1 g, 0.2 g, and 0.3
g, respectively. Here the elevation (z) is represented in non-
dimensional form after normalizing by the full wall height
(H) and incremental lateral earth pressure (σhinc) are pre-
sented in non-dimensional form after normalizing them by
the vertical earth pressure (ᵞH). Figure 10(c) shows the
acceleration amplification factor profiles observed for tests
STC0_0.1_3, STC0_0.2_3, and STC0_0.3_3 with base accel-
erations 0.1 g, 0.2 g, and 0.3 g, respectively. From Figure 10
(b), it is observed that, incremental earth pressures are
higher at higher acceleration among the three (0.1 g, 0.2
g, and 0.3 g) accelerations. The maximum normalized earth
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1099

pressure of 4.06% is observed for 0.1 g base acceleration
and the corresponding values for 0.2 and 0.3 g base accel-
erations are 7.97% and 10.66%, respectively.
Comparison of model wall response with two
frequencies
Frequency is one of the parameter of the dynamic motion
that affects the performance of any structure against any
dynamic event. Here, two frequencies (3 Hz and 5 Hz)
with same base acceleration (0.3 g) applied on model wall
through shaking table tests. The effect of frequencies on
the response of model walls for tests STC0_0.3_3 and
STC0_3_5 is shown in Figure 11. In Figure 11, it is
observed that, model wall response in terms of wall dis-
placements, incremental earth pressures, and acceleration
amplification factor is lesser for 5 Hz compared to 3 Hz.
The maximum normalized displacement of 0.72% is
observed for 3 Hz frequency and the corresponding
value for 5 Hz frequency is 0.51%. The maximum nor-
malized earth pressure of 10.66% is observed for 3 Hz
frequency; the corresponding value for 5 Hz frequency is
6.25%. The acceleration amplification factor of 1.53 and
1.39 for 3 Hz and 5 Hz frequencies, respectively.

Figure 10. Effect of base acceleration on model response; (a) Normalized displacement profile, (b) Normalized earth pressure profile, (c) Acceleration amplification
factor profile.

Figure 11. Effect of frequency of base motion on model wall response; (a) Normalized displacement profile, (b) Normalized earth pressure profile, (c) Acceleration
amplification factor profile.
1100 S. B. REDDY AND A. M. KRISHNA

Comparison of dynamic response of model walls 1.0

with different STC mixtures

The model walls were constructed with different sand – tyre chips 0.8
(STC) mixtures and pure sand (for comparison) used as backfill

Normalised elevation, z/H

materials in model walls. Dynamic response of retaining wall
models compared with different backfill materials (different STC
mixtures) through shaking table tests. Model tests are done at
three accelerations (0.1 g, 0.2 g and 0.3 g) with frequency of 3 Hz
and 5 Hz. Figure 12 shows displacement profiles from measured
for tests, STC0_0.1_3, STC10_0.1_3, STC20_0.1_3, STC30_0.1_3,
STC40_0.1_3 and STC50_0.1_3. Here the elevation (z) is repre-
sented in non-dimensional form after normalizing by the full wall
height (H). The higher displacement is observed to be about
1.75 mm in the case of wall backfilled with pure sand
(STC0_0.1_3) and lower displacement (0.27 mm) is observed in
the case of backfilled with STC30_0.1_3 (30% of tyre chips by
weight mixed with sand and 0.1 g acceleration and 3 Hz frequency
of base motion). Further, maximum displacements and percen-
tage reduction varying with percentage tyre chips is shown in
Figure 13 As seen from the figure, the displacements are reduced
Figure 12. Effect of STC mixtures on displacement profile for 0.1_3.
STC0_0.1_3
STC10_0.1_3
0.6
STC20_0.1_3
STC30_0.1_3
STC40_0.1_3
0.4 STC50_0.1_3
0.2
0.0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Incremental lateral pressure, kPa
Figure 14. Effect of STC mixture on lateral earth pressure profile at dynamic
excitation of 0.1_3.
within the range of 50% to 60% compared to control test
(STC0_0.1_3).
Further, dynamic incremental pressures and acceleration
amplification factor distribution along the height of the wall
measured during shaking. Figure 14 shows the incremental
earth pressures along the height of wall with different backfill
materials (different STC mixtures) for a base excitation of 0.1
g at frequency of 3 Hz. This figure provides the comparison of
dynamic incremental earth pressures with different STC mix-
tures as backfill materials. As seen from the figure, the lateral
earth pressures are reduced with increase in tyre chips con-
tents upto 30% by weight in sand. Incremental earth pressures
are nonlinear trend for STC0, STC10, STC20, STC40. There is
an important point, when STC30 and STC40 mixture back-
fills, incremental lateral earth pressures are almost identical
along the height of wall. Further, the variation of maximum
earth pressure with different STC mixtures (%TC) and per-
centage reduction are shown in Figure 15. The maximum
incremental lateral earth pressures are decreased by

0.5 100
Maximum incremental lateral pressure, kPa

Incremental lateral pressure, kPa

% Reduction
0.4 80
Percentage reduction

0.3 60

0.2 40

0.1 20

0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of tire chips (by weight)
Figure 13. Maximum displacement and percentage reduction at dynamic exci- Figure 15. Maximum lateral earth pressure and percentage reduction at
tation of 0.1_3. dynamic excitation of 0.1_3.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1101

increasing tyre chips content up to STC30 and STC40. The
percentage reduction in pressure is about 80% for STC 30. It
may conclude that STC30 and STC40 mixture backfills shows
lesser earth pressures. It can be more beneficial using STC30
mixture backfill in earthquake prone areas.
Acceleration response of model wall with different STC
mixtures represented in terms of acceleration amplification
factor. All the accelerometers were placed at the same eleva-
tion for comparison Figure 16 shows the effect of STC mix-
tures on acceleration amplification of backfill. From the
figure, it is observed that maximum acceleration amplification
at top of the wall in all STC mixtures. Further it is observed
that acceleration amplification at top of the wall decreased
with increasing STC mixtures, with values of 1.32, 1.19, and
1.25 for STC0, STC30, and STC50, respectively. Maximum
amplification was observed for sand and lower amplification
1.0
0.8
STC0_0.1_3 (Control Case)
STC10_0.1_3
Normalised elevation, z/H
was observed for STC20 and STC30. When tyre chips are
mixed with sand, attenuation of the acceleration is observed.
This may be because of tyre chips were lighter and lower
inertial effect may be contributed to the above observed
response.
Figure 17 shows the model wall response with different
STC mixture backfills for 0.2 g base acceleration and 3 Hz
frequency. In Figure 17(a) shows the normalized displace-
ment profile for different tests (STC0_0.2_3, STC10_0.2_3,
STC20_0.2_3, STC30_0.2_3, STC40_0.2_3 and STC50_0.2_3
tests). Here elevation (z) and horizontal displacements (δh)
are presented in non-dimensional form after normalizing
them by the total height of the wall (H). The maximum
normalized displacement of 0.54% is observed for
STC0_0.2_3 test and the corresponding values for
STC10_0.2_3, STC20_0.2_3, STC30_0.2_3, STC40_0.2_3 and
STC50_0.2_3 tests are 0.41%, 0.31%, 0.21%, 0.29% and 0.37%,
respectively. Figure 17(b) shows the incremental lateral earth
pressure profiles observed for tests STC0_0.2_3,
STC10_0.2_3, STC20_0.2_3, STC30_0.2_3, STC40_0.2_3,
and STC50_0.2_3. Here the elevation (z) is represented in
non-dimensional form after normalizing by the full wall
height (H) and incremental lateral earth pressure (σhinc) are

0.6
STC20_0.1_3 presented in non-dimensional form after normalizing them
STC30_0.1_3 by the vertical earth pressure (ᵞH). The maximum normalized
STC40_0.1_3 earth pressure of 7.97% is observed for STC0_0.2_3 test; and
STC50_0.1_3
0.4
the corresponding values for STC10_0.2_3, STC20_0.2_3,
STC30_0.2_3, STC40_0.2_3, and STC50_0.2_3 tests are
6.54%, 5.47%, 1.41%, 2.59%, and 4.46%, respectively. 17 (c)
0.2
presents the acceleration amplification factor along the height
of model wall with different STC mixtures. From Figure 17
(c), it is observed that acceleration amplification factor is less
0.0
for STC30_0.2_3 compared to control test (STC0_0.2_3).
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Further higher base acceleration (0.3 g) applied on model
Acceleration amplification factor wall at frequency of 3 Hz and 5 Hz for all different STC
Figure 16. Effect of STC mixtures on acceleration amplification at dynamic mixture backfills. Figure 18 shows the effect of different STC
excitation of 0.1_3.

Figure 17. Model wall response at 0.2 g_3 Hz (a) Normalized displacement profile (b) Normalized earth pressure profile (c) acceleration amplification factor.
1102 S. B. REDDY AND A. M. KRISHNA

1.0 1.0

0.8
0.8
STC0_0.3_3 (Control Case)
STC10_0.3_3
Normalised elevation, z/H

Normalised elevation, z/H

0.6 STC0_0.3_3 (Control Case) STC20_0.3_3
0.6
STC10_0.3_3 STC30_0.3_3
STC20_0.3_3 STC40_0.3_3
STC30_0.3_3
0.4 STC50_0.3_3
STC40_0.3_3
0.4
STC50_0.3_3

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0.0
Normalised displacement, δh/H (%)
-1 0 1 2
Acceleration amplification factor
Figure 18. Effect of backfill material on normalized horizontal displacement
profile for 0.3 g_3 Hz. Figure 20. Effect of STC mixtures on acceleration amplification for 0.3 g−3 Hz.

5 100 1.0

Maximum displacements, mm
4 % Reduction 80
Maximum displacements, mm

0.8

STC0_0.3_3 (Control Case)

Percentage reduction

Normalised elevation, z/H

3 60
STC10_0.3_3
0.6 STC20_0.3_3
STC30_0.3_3
STC40_0.3_3
2 40 STC50_0.3_3
0.4

1 20
0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.0
Percentage of tire chips (by weight) 0 10 20 30 40
Normalised lateral earth pressure, σhinc/γ H (%)
Figure 19. Effect of STC mixtures on maximum displacement values and %
reduction for 0.3 g_3 Hz.
Figure 21. Effect of STC mixtures on normalized pressures for 0.3 g-3 Hz.

mixture backfills on model response in terms of normalized

displacement profile for 3 Hz. Here elevation (z) and hori- in top displacements as compared to control case
zontal displacements (δh) are presented in non-dimensional (STC0_0.3_3).
form after normalizing them by the total height of the wall To represents the acceleration response at different eleva-
(H). Variations of the top displacement and its percentage tions of the retaining wall, acceleration amplification is used.
reduction with reference to the control case (Test Figure 20 compare the acceleration amplification profile along
STC0_0.3_3) with percentage tyre chips are shown in Figure the height of the wall for different tests (STC0_0.3_3,
19. From Figures 19 and 19, it is revealed that 65% reduction STC10_0.3_3, STC20_0.3_3, STC30_0.3_3, STC40_0.3_3 and
STC50_0.3_3) after 20 cycles of sinusoidal motion. Here the
elevation (z) is represented in non-dimensional form after
Table 4. Maximum displacements and % reduction with different base normalizing by the full wall height (H). Maximum accelera-
acceleration. tion amplification is observed at the top of the wall in all the
Maximum displacements % Reduction tests. Further it is observed that, acceleration amplification
Mixture Proportions 0.1 g 0.2 g 0.3 g 0.1 g 0.2 g 0.3 g less for STC30 and more for STC0 (control test).
STC0 (Control test) 0.61 3.22 4.32 - - - Figure 21 shows the normalized increment earth pressure
STC10 0.47 2.48 3.41 23.76 22.98 21.06 (σhinc/γH) profile at base excitation of 0.3g–3Hz. Though there
STC20 0.37 1.88 2.63 39.53 41.61 39.12
STC30 0.27 1.28 1.49 56.43 60.25 65.51 is non-linear trend in relative variations of pressures for
STC40 0.33 1.79 2.31 45.36 44.41 46.53 different model walls, it can be observed that the pressures
STC50 0.40 2.24 3.09 34.21 30.43 28.47 are higher at bottom in some tests. Further it can also be seen
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1103

that the earth pressures were significantly affected by the STC
mixture giving lowest earth pressure for STC30_0.3_3 and
STC40_0.3_3 model. Maximum displacement are measured
at different accelerations of base motion with different STC
mixtures and reported in Table 4. Form the table, it may
conclude that maximum displacement were reduced in the
range of 50% to 65% when using STC30 mixture backfill.
Further, model tests conducted on different STC mixtures
backfills for 0.3 g acceleration and 5 Hz frequency of base
motion and results are presented in terms of normalized
displacement, normalized incremental earth pressure and
acceleration amplification factor in Figure 22. Table 5 pre-
sents the comparison of maximum displacement for 0.3
g acceleration at 3 Hz and 5 Hz frequencies of base motion
for different STC mixtures and percentage reduction of dis-
placement. From Figure 22 and Table 5 it may conclude that
maximum displacements were reduced in the range of 60%
−65% when using STC30 mixture backfill material in place of
only sand backfill material test. Incremental earth pressures
and acceleration amplification factor profiles response for 0.3
Table 5. Maximum displacements and % reduction with two different
frequencies.
Maximum displacements
0.3g
Mixture Proportions 3Hz
STC0 (Control test) 4.32
STC10 3.41
STC20 2.63
STC30 1.49
STC40 2.31
STC50 3.09
g _5 Hz is observed similar behaviour of 0,3 g_3 Hz base
motion.
The following analysis attempts to explain the behaviour/
mechanisms causing the performance difference of different
STC mixtures backfills of retaining wall models. Based on
Figures 10 and 11 it may conclude that the higher accelera-
tion of base motion gives more response of model wall. From
Figure 12, 13, 17(a), 18, 19, 22(a) and Tables 4 and 5, it may
conclude that maximum displacements are reduced in the
range of 50% to 65% when STC30 and STC40 mixture back-
fills using in place of STC0 (only sand backfill). From Figure
14, 15, 17(b), 21 and 22(b), it is revealed that, incremental
lateral earth pressures are significantly reduced when using
STC mixtures in place of pure sand as retaining wall backfill
material. STC30 mixture material shows more reduction of
earth pressures compared to other STC mixtures. From
Figure 16, 17(c), 20 and 22(c), it is revealed that attenuation
of acceleration amplification factor when tyre chips mixing
sand as backfill material. Attenuation of acceleration and
displacements of model wall shows the higher damping/seis-
mic isolation behaviour when using STC mixtures.
Reddy, Kumar, and Krishna 2016 characterized the index
and engineering properties of different STC mixtures through
laboratory tests. Reddy, Kumar, and Krishna 2016 discussed
about the shear strength and ductility behaviour and void
ratio of different STC mixutres. They concluded that shear
% Reduction
strength was increased upto STC30 and void ratio was
0.3g decreased upto STC40. Shear stress – strain response shows
5Hz 3Hz 5Hz that ductility was increased with increment of tyre chips in
3.35 - - sand. Similar type of behaviour was observed in the literature
2.56 21.06 23.58
1.81 39.12 45.97 (Ghazavi 2004; Balunaini et al. 2009; Vinot and Singh 2013).
1.28 65.51 61.79 However, tyre chips are being lighter and high shear strength
1.65 46.53 50.75 properties of STC mixture contributed to the observed model
2.08 28.47 37.91
response. Base on all the tests results, it may conclude that
with mixing of tyre chips in sand as an STC mixture, more
beneficial in seismic condition. Moreover, reduction of hor-
izontal displacement of wall, incremental lateral earth pres-
sure, attenuation of acceleration implies lesser dimensions of
retaining wall. This optimization of dimensions of retaining

1.0 1.0 1.0

[a] [b] STC0_0.3_5 (Control Case)
STC10_0.3_5
[c]
STC20_0.3_5
STC30_0.3_5 STC0_0.3_5 (Control Case)
STC40_0.3_5 STC10_0.3_5
0.8 0.8 STC20_0.3_5
0.8 STC50_0.3_5
STC30_0.3_5
STC40_0.3_5
STC50_0.3_5
Normalised elevation, z/H
Normalised elevation, z/H
Normalised elevation, z/H

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

STC0_0.3_5 (Control Case)

STC10_0.3_5
STC20_0.3_5
STC30_0.3_5
0.2 STC40_0.3_5 0.2 0.2
STC50_0.3_5

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Normalised displacement, δh/H (%) Normalised lateral earth pressure, σhinc/γ H (%) Acceleration amplification factor

Figure 22. Effect of STC mixtures on model response at 0.3 g_5 Hz (a) Displacement profile (b) incremental earth pressure (c) acceleration amplification factor.
1104 S. B. REDDY AND A. M. KRISHNA
wall shows the sustainability when compared to conventional
backfill material.
Conclusions
This paper presents an experimental research on the dynamic
responses of retaining walls backfilled with different STC
mixtures and compares the responses with the traditional
granular backfill under the same base excitations using shak-
ing table tests. From the conducted shaking table tests herein,
the flowing conclusion can be drawn.
(1) Accelerations were amplified at higher elevations and
higher displacements were observed at higher
elevations.
(2) Using STC30 mixture, displacements were reduced
around 60% compared to control test/conventional
backfill.
(3) Dynamic induced pressures were reduced in the range
of 70%−80% compared with the control test (STC0)/
conventional backfill model wall.
(4) The acceleration amplifications decreased with the
increasing of STC mixtures upto STC30 mixture.
This behaviour is attributed to the less unit weight and
more shear strength property of STC materials than that of
conventional material. This shows that the seismic resili-
ence of retaining walls with STC mixtures as back fill
materials is significant. So, this type of mixture materials
have absorbing capacity of earthquake induced force.
Higher resilience behaviour was observed for model walls
with STC30 mixtures. STC mixture can be used in the
backfill of retaining walls for seismic resilience.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr S. Bali Reddy is a Senior Assistant Professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering at Madanapalle Institute of Technology and Science,
Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh, India. He has authored more than 20
reputed Journals/ Book chapters/ Conference proceedings. His areas of
interest include Reinforced soil and Optimization technique, stability
analysis of slopes, Shallow foundations, Ground Response Analysis. He
has expertise in the area of Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and
Shaking Table Tests.
Dr. A. Murali Krishna is a Associate Professor, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, IITTirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India. e has
authored more than 80 reputed Journals/ Book chapters/ Conference
proceedings. His areas of interest include Earthquake
Geotechnics, Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement, Site characteri-
zation, and Numerical and Physical modelling of geotechnical structures.
ORCID
S. Bali Reddy http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0826-2593
References
Ahmed, I. 1993. “Laboratory Study on Properties Of Rubber-soils. IN: ”
PhD. thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette. doi:10.5703/1288284314210.
Ahn, S., ll, and L. Cheng. 2014. “Tire Derived Aggregate for Retaining
Wall Backfill under Earthquake Loading.” Construction and Building
Materials 57: 105–116.
Anbazhagan, P., and D. R. Manohar. 2013. “Shear Strength
Characteristics and Static Response Of Sand –Tire Crumb Mixtures
for Seismic Isolation.” ICSBE. November 28. http://dl.lib.mrt.ac.lk/
handle/123/8919?show=full
Balunaini, U., S. Yoon, M. Prezzi, and R. Salgado. 2009. “Tire Shred
Backfill in Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Applications.” FHWA/
IN/JTRP-2008/17. West Lafayette, Indiana
Cecich, V., L. Gonzales, A. Hoisaeter, J. Williams, and K. Reddy. 1996.
“Use of Shredded Tires as Lightweight Backfill Material for Retaining
Structures.” Waste Management & Research 14: 433–451.
Dammala, P., S. B. Reddy, and M. A. Krishna. 2015. “Experimental
Investigation of Applicability of Sand Tire Chip Mixtures as
Retaining Wall Backfill.” IFCEE 2015 1420–1429. doi:10.1061/
9780784479087.128.
Foose, G. J., C. H. Benson, and P. J. Bosscher. 1996. “Sand Reinforced
with Shredded Waste Tires.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122
(9): 760–767.
Ghazavi, M. 2004. “Shear Strength Characteristics of Sand Mixed with
Granular Rubber.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 22 (3):
401–416.
Hataf, N., and M. M. Rahimi. 2005. “Experimental Investigation of
Bearing Capacity of Sand Reinforced with Randomly Distributed
Tyre Shreds.” Construction and Building Materials 20: 910–916.
Hazarika, H., E. Kohama, and T. Sugano. 2008. “Underwater Shake
Table Tests on Waterfront Structures Protected with Tire Chips
Cushion.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 134: 1706–1719.
Hazarika, H., and K. Yasuhara. 2007. Scrap Tire Derived Geo Materials –
opportunities. UK: Challenges.Taylor, and Francis.
Huggins, E., and N. Ravichandran (2011). “Numerical Study on the
Dynamic Behavior of Retaining Walls Backfilled with Shredded
Tires”. Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of GeoRisk 2011, Atlanta,
Georgia d, June 26–28, 2011, 2011000
Humphery, D. N. 1996. Investigation of Exothermic Reaction in Tire
Shred Fill Located on SR 100 in Ilwaco. Washington, D.C: Fedral
Highway Administration Washington.
Humphrey, D. N., T. C. Sandford, M. M. Cribbs, and W. P. Manion 1993.
“Shear Strength and Compressibility of the Tyre Chips for Use as
Retaining Wall Backfill.” Transportation Research Record No. 1422,
Lightweight Artificial and Waste Materials for Embankments over
Soft Soils, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 29–35
IS: 2720 (part 4). 1985. Methods of Test for Soils: Grain Size Analysis.
New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Lee, H. J., and H. S. Roh. 2006. “The Use of Recycled Tire Chips to
Minimize Dynamic Earth Pressure during Compaction of Backfill.”
Construction Building Materials Journal 21 (5): 1016–1026.
Pando, M., and M. Garcia. 2011. “Tire Derived Aggregates as a
Sustainable Backfill or Inclusion for Retaining Walls and Bridge
Abutments.” Presentation at the sixth Geo3T2Conf. and Expo,
Raleigh, NC
Pitilakis, K., S. Karapetrou, and K. Tsagdi. 2015. “Numerical
Investigation of the Seismic Response of RC Buildings on Soil
Replaced with Rubber – Sand Mixtures.” Soil Dynamics and
Eaerthwuake Engineering 79: 237–252.
Rao, G. V., and R. K. Dutta. 2006. “Compressibility and Strength
Behaviour of Sand – Tyre Chips Mixtures.” Geotechncial and
Geological Engineering 24: 711–724.
Ravichandran, N., and L. Huggins. 2014. “Applicability of Shredded Tire
Chips as a Lightweight Retaining Wall Backfill in Seismic Regions.”
Proceedings of Geo-Congress (GSP 234), ASCE, Atlanta.
Reddy, K. R., T. Stark, and A. Marella. 2010. “Beneficial Use of Shredded
Tires as Drainage Material in Cover Systems for Abandoned

Landfills.” Practice Periodical of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive
Waste Management 14 (1): 47–60. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X
(2010).
Reddy, S. B., and A. M. Krishna. 2015. “Recycled Tire Chips Mixed with
Sand as Lightweight Backfill Material in Retaining Wall Applications:
an Experimental Investigation.” International Journal of Geosynthetics
and Ground Engineering 1. doi:doi:10.1007/s40891-015-0036-0.
Reddy, S. B., D. P. Kumar, and A. M. Krishna. 2016. “Evaluation of
Optimum Mixing Ratio of Sand- Tire Chips Mixture for
Geo-engineering Applications.” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE 28 (2). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001335.
Sheikh, M. N., M. S. Mashiri, J. S. Vinod, and H. H. Tsang. 2013. “Shear
and Compressibility Behavior of Sand-tire Crumb Mixtures.” Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering 1366–1374. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0000696.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1105
Tsang, H. H. 2008. “Seismic Isolation by Rubber –soil Mixtures for
Developing Countries.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 37: 283–303.
Vinot, V., and B. Singh. 2013. “Shredded Tyre-Sand as Fill Material for
Embankment Applications.” Journal of Environmental Research and
Development 7 (4A): 1622–1627.
Xiao, M., J. Bowmen, M. Graham, and J. Larralde. 2012. “Comparison of
Seismic Responses of Geosynthetically Reinforced Walls with
Tire-derived Aggregates and Granular Backfills.” Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE 24: 1368–1377.
Yang, S., R. A. Lohnes, and B. H. Kjartanson. 2002. “Mechanical
Properties of Shredded Tires.” Geotechnical Testing Journal 25 (1):
44–52.
Zornberg, J. G., C. Viratjandr, and A. R. Cabral. 2004. “Behavior of Tire
Shred–sand Mixtures.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41 (2):
227–241.