International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 181–191 | Cite as

Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in Sand–Tire Crumb Mixtures Using the Energy Approach

  • Nader ShariatmadariEmail author
  • Mehran Karimpour-Fard
  • Alireza Shargh
Research Paper


This research explores performance of the energy approach for evaluating the liquefaction potential of sand–tire crumb mixtures. Thirty-six stress-controlled undrained cyclic torsional tests were performed under three different confining pressures on samples with different rubber contents. The effect of such parameters as the rubber content and confining pressure on liquefaction behavior of sand–rubber mixtures was studied using the energy approach. Test results indicated that, unlike the observations made on the pure sand sample, in the case of sand–rubber mixture with 25% rubber content, when the initial liquefaction is triggered, the dissipated shear energy increases with continued cyclic loading. The increasing trend is stopped when the pore water pressure reached the initial consolidation stress (Ru = 1). This observation indicates that for the case of sand–tire crumb mixture, the dissipated energy per volume is associated only with the progression of pore water pressure. Moreover, the results show that the required energy for liquefaction occurrence decreases with the increase in the rubber content. The minimum amount of required energy is determined for mixtures with 10% rubber content. As the result, the inclusion of crumb rubber decreases the liquefaction resistance of sand. However, when the rubber content increases from 10 to 25%, the resistance to liquefaction improves. The generation rate for mixture with 25% rubber content is somewhat faster than that of the clean sand and the mixture with 10% tire crumbs, as it is expected.


Scrap tire Tire crumb Liquefaction resistance Energy approach Hollow cylinder torsional apparatus Pore water pressure 


  1. 1.
    Ahmed I, Lovell C (1993) Use of rubber tires in highway construction. In: Utilization of waste materials in civil engineering construction. ASCE, New York, p 166–181Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edil TB, Bosscher PJ (1994) Engineering properties of tire chips and soil mixtures. ASTM Geotech Test J 17(4):453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foose GJ, Benson CH, Bosscher PJ (1996) Sand reinforced with shredded waste tires. J Geotech Eng 122(9):760–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee JH, Salgado, R Bernal A, Lovell CW (1999) Shredded tires and rubber–sand as lightweight backfill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(2):132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masad E, Taha R, Ho C, Papagiannakis T (1996) Engineering properties of tire/soil mixtures as a lightweight fill. ASTM Geotech Test J 19(3):297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baziar M, Sharafi H (2011) Assessment of silty sand liquefaction potential using hollow torsional tests—an energy approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(7):857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hyodo M, Yamada S, Orense R, Okamoto M, Hazarika H (2007) Undrained cyclic shear properties of tire chip–sand mixtures. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on scrap tire derived geomaterials—opportunities and challenges, Yokosuka, Japan, p 187–196Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uchimura T, Chi N, Nirmalan S, Sato T, Meidani M, Towhata I (2007) Shaking table tests on effect of tire chips and sand mixture in increasing liquefaction resistance and mitigating uplift of pipe. In Proceedings, international workshop on scrap tire derived geomaterials—opportunities and challenges, Yokosuka, Japan, p 179–186Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Promputthangkoon P, Hyde A (2007) Compressibility and liquefaction potential of rubber composite soils. In: Scrap tire derived geomaterials—opportunities and challenges: proceeding of the international workshop IW-TDGM2007, Yokosuka, Japan, p 161–170Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaneko T, Orense RP, Hyodo M, Yoshimoto N (2012) Seismic response characteristics of saturated sand deposits mixed with tire chips. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(4):633–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(8):1249–1274Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dobry R, Ladd RS, Yokel FY, Chung RM, Powell D (1982) Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method, vol 138. National Bureau of Standards, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang W, Goh AT, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Xiao Y (2015) Assessment of soil liquefaction based on capacity energy concept and multivariate adaptive regression splines. Eng Geol 188:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Figueroa JL, Saada AS, Liang L, Dahisaria MN (1994) Evaluation of soil liquefaction by energy principles. J Geotech Eng ASCE 120(9):1554–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hosono Y, Yoshimine M (2004) Liquefaction of sand in simple shear condition. In: Proceedings of the international conference on cyclic behaviour of soils and liquefaction phenomena, Bochum, Germany, p 129–136Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J (1976) Pore-water pressure changes during soil liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 102(4):323–346Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boulanger RW, Idriss I (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1413–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee KL, Albaisa A (1975) Earthquake induced settlement in saturated sands. J Geotech Eng 100(4):387–406Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nader Shariatmadari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mehran Karimpour-Fard
    • 2
  • Alireza Shargh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringThe University of GuilanRashtIran

Personalised recommendations