ABSTRACT

Case Study Plastic Waste used as Soil Stabilization

The main objective of this study is to investigate the use of waste plastic strips
materials in geotechnical applications and to evaluate the effects of waste plastic strips
on shear strength of unsaturated soil by carrying out direct shear tests and unconfined
compression tests. The results obtained are compared for various tests and inferences are
drawn towards the usability and effectiveness of plastic strip reinforcement as a
replacement for deep foundation or raft foundation, as a cost effective approach.
Randomly distributed plastic waste reinforcement technique has successfully been used in
a variety of applications such as slope stabilization, road subgrade and sub base etc. This is
a relatively simple technique for ground improvement and has tremendous potential as a
cost effective solution to many geotechnical problem. Keeping this in view the present
study was taken up. In this study a series of compression tests under different confining
pressures were conducted on soil sample without and with plastic reinforcement.
Plastic fibers are similar to the roots of trees and vegetation which provide an excellent
ingredient to improve the soils and the stability of natural slopes.
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

For any land-based structure, the foundation is very important and has to be strong to
support the entire structure. In order for the foundation to be strong, the soil around it plays a
very critical role. So, to work with soils, we need to have proper knowledge about their
properties and factors which affect their behavior. The process of soil stabilization helps to
achieve the required properties in a soil needed for the construction work.
From the beginning of construction work, the necessity of enhancing soil properties has
come to the light. Ancient civilizations of the Chinese, Romans and Incas utilized various
methods to improve soil strength etc., some of these methods were so effective that their
buildings and roads still exist.
In India, the modern era of soil stabilization began in early 1970’s, with a general
shortage of petroleum and aggregates, it became necessary for the engineers to look at means to
improve soil other than replacing the poor soil at the building site. Soil stabilization was used
but due to the use of obsolete methods and also due to the absence of proper technique, soil
stabilization lost favor. In recent times, with the increase in the demand for infrastructure, raw
materials and fuel, soil stabilization has started to take a new shape. With the availability of
better research, materials and equipment, it is emerging as a popular and cost-effective method
for soil improvement.

1.1. WASTE PLASTIC

The bottled water is the fastest growing beverage industry in the world. According to the
international bottled water association (IBWA), sales of bottled water have increased by 500
percent over the last decade and 1.5 million tons of plastic are used to bottle water every year.
Plastic bottle recycling has not kept pace with the dramatic increase in virgin resin polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) sales and the last imperative in the ecological triad of reduce / reuse / recycle,
has emerged as the one that needs to be given prominence.
 The general survey shows that 1500 bottles are dumped as garbage every second. PET is
reported as one of the most abundant plastics in solid urban waste. In 2007, it was reported that
the world’s annual consumption of PET bottles is approximately 10 million tons and this
number grows about up to 15% every year.
On the other hand, the number of recycled or returned bottles is very low. On an
average, an Indian uses one kilogram (kg) of plastics per year and the world annual average is
an alarming 18 kg. It is estimated that approximately 4-5% post- consumer plastics waste by
weight of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is generated in India and the plastics waste generation
is more i.e. 6-9 % in USA, Europe and other developed countries.

1.2. SOIL REINFORCED WITH WASTE PLASTIC

Plastic waste when mixed with soil behaves like a fiber reinforced soil. When plastic
waste/fibers are distributed throughout a soil mass, they impart strength isotropy and reduce the
chance of developing potential planes of weakness. Mixing of plastic waste fibers with soil can
be carried out in a concrete mixing plant or with a self-propelled rotary mixer. Plastic waste/
fibers could be introduced either in specific layers or mixed randomly throughout the soil. An
earth mass stabilized with discrete, randomly distributed plastic waste/fibers resembles earth
reinforced with chemical compounds such as lime, cement etc. in its engineering properties.

1.3. STABILIZATION
Stabilization can increase the shear strength of a soil and/or control the shrink- swell
properties of a soil, thus improving the load bearing capacity of a sub-grade to support
pavements and foundations. The most common improvements achieved through stabilization
include better soil gradation, reduction of plasticity index or swelling potential, and increases in
durability and strength. In wet weather, stabilization may also be used to provide a working
platform for construction operations. These types of soil quality improvement are referred to as
soil modification. Benefits of soil stabilization are higher resistance values, reduction in
plasticity, lower permeability, reduction of pavement thickness, elimination of excavation,
material hauling and handling, and base importation, aids compaction, provides all- weather
access onto and within projects sites.
These types of soil quality improvement are referred to as soil modification. Benefits of
soil stabilization are higher resistance values, reduction in plasticity, lower permeability,
reduction of pavement thickness, elimination of excavation, material hauling and handling, and
 base importation, aids compaction, provides all- weather access onto and within projects sites.
The determining factors associated with soil stabilization may be the existing moisture content,
the end use of the soil structure and ultimately the cost benefit provided. As good soil becomes
scarcer and their location becomes more difficult and costly, the need to improve quality of soil
using soil stabilization is becoming more important.
Soil stabilization using raw plastic bottles is an alternative method for the improvement
of subgrade soil of pavement. It can significantly enhance the properties of the soil used in the
construction of road infrastructure.

1.4. ADVANTAGES OF SOIL STABILIZATION

Soil properties vary a great deal and construction of structures depends a lot on the
bearing capacity of the soil, hence, we need to stabilize the soil which makes it easier to predict
the load bearing capacity of the soil and even improve the load bearing capacity. The gradation
of the soil is also a very important property to keep in mind while working with soils. The soils
may be well-graded which is desirable as it has less number of voids or uniformly graded
which though sounds stable but has more voids. Thus, it is better to mix different types of soils
together to improve the soil strength properties. It is very expensive to replace the inferior soil
entirely soil and hence, soil stabilization is important.

 It improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing capacity.
 It is more economical both in terms of cost and energy to increase the bearing
capacity of the soil rather than going for deep foundation or raft foundation.
 It is also used to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other such places.
 Sometimes soil stabilization is also used to prevent soil erosion or formation of
dust, which is very useful especially in dry and arid weather.
 Stabilization is also done for soil water-proofing; this prevents water from entering
into the soil and hence helps the soil from losing its strength.
 It helps in reducing the soil volume change due to change in temperature or
moisture content.
 Stabilization improves the workability and the durability of the soil.
1.5 METHODS
 Mechanical method of Stabilization
In this procedure, soils of different gradations are mixed together to obtain the desired
property in the soil. This may be done at the site or at some other place from where it can
be transported easily. The final mixture is then compacted by the usual methods to get the
required density.

 Additive method of stabilization

It refers to the addition of manufactured products into the soil, which in proper
quantities enhances the quality of the soil. Materials such as cement, lime, bitumen, fly
ash etc. are used as chemical additives. Sometimes different fibers are also used as
reinforcements in the soil. The addition of these fibers takes place by two methods;

a) Oriented fiber reinforcement

The fibers are arranged in some order and all the fibers are placed in the same
orientation. The fibers are laid layer by layer in this type of orientation. Continuous
fibers in the form of sheets, strips or bars etc. are used systematically in this type of
arrangement.

b) Random fiber reinforcement

This arrangement has discrete fibers distributed randomly in the soil mass. The mixing
is done until the soil and the reinforcement form a more or less homogeneous mi x t u r e .
Materials used in this type of reinforcements are generally derived from paper, nylon,
metals or other materials having varied physical properties. Randomly distributed fibers
have some advantages over the systematically distributed fibers. Somehow this way of
reinforcement is similar to addition of admixtures such as cement, lime etc. Besides being
easy to add and mix, this method also offers strength isotropy, decreases chance of
potential weak planes which occur in the other case and provides ductility to the soil.

some advantages over the systematically distributed fibers. Somehow this way of
reinforcement is similar to addition of admixtures such as cement, lime etc. Besides being
easy to add and mix, this method also offers strength isotropy, decreases chance of
potential weak planes which occur in the other case and provides ductility to the soil.
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. THE USE OF RE-ENGINEERED WASTE PLASTICS IN

ROAD PAVEMENTS
Lakshmipathy et.al. (2003)
An experimental investigation to study the suitability of the use of Re- engineered
plastics as fibers for road pavements was performed. The properties studied include
compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength under reversed cyclic loading, impact
resistance, plastic shrinkage and abrasion resistance etc., Efforts have been made to compare it
steel fibers. The results have shown that the improvement of concrete properties at lower cost is
obtained with re-engineered plastic shred reinforced concrete.

2.2. USE OF WASTE PLASTICS IN THE CONSTRUCTION

SECTOR Prabir Das (2004)
It was suggested that plastics can be used in construction industry at various places.
Proper selection of material / grade and suitable design considerations can help to replace many
more applications. Lighter weight, design flexibility, part integration, low system cost, very
high productivity and improved product appearance are the main features for use of engineering
plastics. The engineering thermoplastics and introduction of application specific grades has
thrown challenges to conventional materials in the industries. This paper provides all the
supports in selecting suitable engineering plastics, process and design for conversion of
conventional material to engineering plastics for performance and system cost benefits.

2.3. USE OF WASTE PLASTIC STRIPS MIXED WITH

SOIL TO INCREASE STRENGTH
Chandrakaran (2004)

It was explained using a laboratory experimental study carried out to utilize waste
plastics (in the form of strips) obtained from milk pouches in the pavement construction.
Results of the study indicate that by adding plastic strips in the soil, shear strength, tensile
strength and CBR values of the soil increases. In this study, plastic or polythene sheets having
thickness of 0.5mm and which are made up of high density are used. These plastic strips have
innumerable advantageous properties like high tensile strength, low permeability etc., These
plastic strips act as a good barrier to gases and liquids and are unaffected by cycles of wetting
and drying.

2.4. THE USE OF PVC SCRAP AS ALTERNATIVE

BUILDING MATERIALS
Agarwal (2004)

They have conducted pilot level studies using industrial PVC scrap to develop PVC
board. Efforts have been made in developing innovative number of such alternative building
materials. These would be helpful in saving our precious forest and environment efficiently
and economically on commercial exploitation.
Developed materials are mostly wood alternatives used in the construction of door shutters,
frames, false ceiling, thermal insulation and alike applications. Developed sustainable
alternative building materials are good economic replacement of wood and other reconstituted
wood products commercially available and would be helpful in cost effective constructions.

2.5. USE OF PLASTIC WASTES IN ROAD CONSTRUCTION

BY PREVENTION OF DISPOSAL ON EARTH
Vasudevan (2004)

In his report, they have given the most useful ways of disposing waste plastics and
laying roads have come to light in a research carried out by the Chemistry Department of
Thiyagarajar College of Engineering. They have reported that the waste plastics may be used in
block making modified light roofing, mastic flooring and polymer reinforced concrete. The
novel composition of waste polymer-aggregate blend has been patented. They have suggested
that utilization of waste plastics to enhance the binding property is better option than disposing
or enforcing a blanket ban on the use of plastics. It has been reported that the per capita use of
plastics in India is 3.5 kg, with virgin plastics accounting for 3.1 million tonnes and recycled
plastics, one million. The use in Tamil Nadu, with over 7000 units manufacturing material is
put at 2.4 lakh tonnes per year. The ‘Garbage Culture’ has made disposal of waste plastic a
major problem for civic bodies.
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY
The following tests are being carried out well before the reinforcement is added to properly
determine the properties of soil. These tests are used to find out the various characteristics of the
soil. These tests help in determining properties such as size of soil, specific gravity, cohesiveness,
atterberg’s limit etc.

COLLECTION OF
MATERIALS

PRELIMINARY TEST
FOR SOIL

SHEAR AND
STRENGTH TEST
FOR SOIL

STRENGTH TESTS
WITH
REINFORCEMENTS

CONCLUSION
TEST RESULT AND
DISCUSSION
3.1 TESTS CONDUCTED

The experimental work consists of the following steps:

1. Specific gravity of soil
2. Determination of soil index properties (Atterberg Limits)
i) Liquid limit by Casagrande’s apparatus

ii) Plastic limit

3. Particle size distribution by sieve analysis

4. Determination of the maximum dry density (MDD) and the corresponding optimum
moisture content (OMC) of the soil by Proctor compaction test
5. Preparation of reinforced soil samples.
6. Determination of the shear strength by:
i) Direct shear test (DST)

ii) Unconfined compression test (UCS).

iii) California Bearing Ratio test (CBR)

 CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

4.1 MATERIALS
 Soil sample
Location: In front of GT Lab, Guntur Engineering College
 Reinforcement: Randomly oriented waste plastic of random dimensions

Fig 1: Preparation of Plastic strips from Waste Plastic

4.2 PREPARATION OF SAMPLES
Following steps are carried out while mixing the fiber to the soil,

 All the soil samples are compacted at their respective maximum dry density (MDD)
and optimum moisture content (OMC), corresponding to the standard proctor
compaction tests
 The different values adopted in the present study for the percentage of fiber
reinforcement are 0, 0.15, and 0.25.
 If fiber reinforcement was used, the adopted content of fibers was first mixed into the
air-dried soil in small increments by hand, making sure that all the fibers were mixed
thoroughly, so that a fairly homogenous mixture is obtained, and then the required
water was added.

4.3 BRIEF STEPS INVOLVED IN THE

EXPERIMENTS 4.3.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS

Sieve analysis is the name given to the operation of dividing a sample of aggregate into
various fractions each consisting of particles of the same size. The sieve analysis is conducted
to determine the particle size distribution in a sample of aggregate, which we call gradation.
The sieve analysis gives us a detailed idea regarding the type, consistency and
components of the soil.

4.3.2 Atterberg Limits

1) Shrinkage Limit:
This limit is achieved when further loss of water from the soil does not reduce the volume of
the soil. It can be more accurately defined as the lowest water content at which the soil can
still it be completely saturated and is denoted by Ws.
2) Plastic Limit:
This limit lies between the plastic and semi-solid state of the soil. It is determined by rolling
out a thread of the soil on a flat surface which is non- porous. It is the minimum water content
at which the soil just begins to crumble while rolling into a thread of approximately 3mm
diameter. Plastic limit is denoted by wP.

3) Liquid Limit:
It is the water content of the soil between the liquid state and plastic state of the soil. It can
be defined as the minimum water content at which the soil, though in liquid state, shows small
shearing strength against flowing. It is measured by the Casagrande’s apparatus and is
denoted by wL.

4.3.3 Particle Size Distribution

Soil at any place is composed of particles of a variety of sizes and shapes, sizes
ranging from a few microns to a few centimetres are present sometimes in the same soil sample.
The distribution of particles of different sizes determines many physical properties of the soil
such as its strength, permeability, density etc. Particle size distribution is found out by two
methods, first is sieve analysis which is done for coarse grained soils only and the other method
is sedimentation analysis used for fine grained soil sample. Both are followed by plotting the
results on a semi-log graph. The percentage finer N as the ordinate and the particle diameter i.e.
sieve size as the abscissa on a logarithmic scale. The curve generated from the result gives us an
idea of the type and gradation of the soil. If the curve is higher up or is more towards the left, it
means that the soil has more representation from the finer particles; if it is towards the right, we
can deduce that the soil has more of the coarse grained particles.

The soil may be of two types- well graded or poorly graded (uniformly
graded). Well graded soils have particles from all the size ranges in a good amount. On the other
hand, it is said to be poorly or uniformly graded if it has particles of some sizes in excess and
deficiency of particles of other sizes. Sometimes the curve has a flat portion also which means
 there is an absence of particles of intermediate size, these soils are also known as gap graded or
skip graded.

For analysis of the particle distribution, we sometimes use D 10, D30, and
D60 etc. terms which represents a size in mm such that 10%, 30% and 60% of particles
respectively are finer than that size. The size of D10 also called the effective size or diameter is a
very useful data. There is a term called uniformity coefficient Cu which comes from the ratio of
D60 and D10, it gives a measure of the range of the particle size of the soil sample.

4.3.4 Specific gravity

Specific gravity of a substance denotes the number of times that substance is heavier than
water. In simpler words we can define it as the ratio between the mass of any substance of a
definite volume divided by mass of equal volume of water. In case of soils, specific gravity is the
number of times the soil solids are heavier than equal volume of water. Different types of soil
have different specific gravities, general range for specific gravity of soils:

Table 1: Specific Gravity Classification

1. Sand 2.63 - 2.67

2. Silt 2.65 - 2.7
3. Clay and Silty clay 2.67 - 2.9
4. Organic soil <2.0

4.3.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE SOIL

The specific gravity of soil is the ratio between the weight of the soil solids and weight of
equal volume of water. It is measured by the help of a volumetric flask in a very simple
experimental setup where the volume of the soil is found out and its weight is divided by the
weight of equal volume of water.
 w
Specific Gravity =
[ w2-w1

Where,
W1- Weight of bottle (gms)
W2- Weight of bottle + Dry soil (gms) W3-
Weight of bottle + Soil + Water W4- Weight
of bottle + Water
Specific gravity is always measured in room temperature and reported to the nearest 0.1

4.3.6 LIQUID LIMIT

The Casagrande’s tool cuts a groove of size 2mm wide at the bottom and 11 mm wide at
the top and 8 mm high. The number of blows used for the two soil samples to come in contact is
noted down. Graph is plotted taking number of blows on a logarithmic scale on the abscissa and
water content on the ordinate. Liquid limit corresponds to 25 blows from the graph.

4.3.7 PLASTIC LIMIT

This is determined by rolling out soil till its diameter reaches approximately 3 mm and
measuring water content for the soil which crumbles on reaching this diameter.
Plasticity index (Ip) was also calculated with the help of liquid limit and plastic limit;
Ip = w L – W p
wL- Liquid limit wP- Plastic limit
 Table 2: Classification of Soil according to Atterberg’s Limit

FIRST WORD SECOND WORD

SYMBOL DEFINITION SYMBOL DEFINITION

G GRAVEL P POORLY
GRADED
S SAND W WELL GRADED

M SILT H HIGH
PLASTICITY
C CLAY L LOW
PLASTICITY
O ORGANIC

4.3.2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

The results from sieve analysis of the soil when plotted on a semi-log graph with particle
diameter or the sieve size as the abscissa with logarithmic axis and the percentage passing as the
ordinate gives a clear idea about the particle size distribution. From the help of this curve, D10 and
D60 are determined. This D10 is the diameter of the soil below which 10% of the soil particles
lie. The ratio of, D10 and D60 gives the uniformity coefficient (C u) which in turn is a measure
of the particle size range.

4.3.3 PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

This experiment gives a clear relationship between the dry density of the soil and the
moisture content of the soil. The experimental setup consists of (i) cylindrical metal mould
(internal diameter- 10.15 cm and internal height-11.7 cm), (ii) detachable base plate, (iii) collar
(5 cm effective height), (iv) rammer (2.5 kg). Compaction process helps in increasing the bulk
density by driving out the air from the voids. The theory used in the experiment is that for any
compactive effort, the dry density depends upon the moisture content in the soil. The maximum
dry density (MDD) is achieved when the soil is compacted at relatively high moisture content and
almost all the air is driven out, this moisture content is called optimum moisture content (OMC).
After plotting the data from the experiment with water content as the abscissa and dry density as
the ordinate, we can obtain the OMC and MDD. The equations used in this experiment are as
follows:

Wet Density=Weight of wet soil in mould (gms)

Volume of Mould (cc)

Moisture % = (Weight of water /weight of dry soil )x100

Dry density =(Wet density/moisture content)x100

4.3.2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST

This test is used to find out the cohesion (c) and the angle of internal friction (φ) of the soil,
these are the soil shear strength parameters. The shear strength is one of the most important soil
properties and it is required whenever any structure depends on the soil shearing resistance. The
test is conducted by putting the soil at OMC and MDD inside the shear box which is made up of
two independent parts. A constant normal load (ς) is applied to obtain one value of c and φ.
Horizontal load (shearing load) is increased at a constant rate and is applied till the failure point is
reached. This load when divided with the area gives the shear strength ‘τ’ for that particular
normal load. The equation goes as follows:
τ = c + σ*tan (φ)
After repeating the experiment for different normal loads (ς) we obtain a plot which is a
straight line with slope equal to angle of internal friction (φ) and intercept equal to the cohesion
(c). Direct shear test is the easiest and the quickest way to determine the shear strength parameters
of a soil sample.

4.3.3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

This experiment is used to determine the unconfined compressive strength of the soil
sample which in turn is used to calculate the unconsolidated, undrained shear strength of
unconfined soil. The unconfined compressive strength (qu) is the
compressive stress at which the unconfined cylindrical soil sample fails under
simple compressive test. The experimental setup constitutes of the compression device and dial
gauges for load and deformation. The load was taken for different readings of strain dial gauge
starting from ε = 0.005 and increasing by 0.005 at each step. The corrected cross-sectional
area was calculated by dividing the area by (1- ε) and then the compressive stress for each step
was calculated by dividing the load with the corrected area.

qu= load/corrected area (A’)

Where, qu - compressive stress

A’= cross-sectional area/ (1- ε)

4.3.4 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST (CBR)

Bearing ratio is one of the vital parameters, used in the evaluation of soil sub grades for
both rigid and flexible pavements design. It is also an integral part of several pavement
thickness design methods. For this test cylindrical specimens were prepared corresponding to
their MDD at OMC in a rigid metallic cylinder mould with an inside diameter of 150 mm and a
height of 175 mm. A mechanical loading machine equipped with a movable base that moves at
a uniform rate of 1.2 mm/min and a calibrated proving ring is used to record the load. For this,
Static compaction is done by keeping the mould assembly in compression machine and
compacted the soil by pressing the displacer disc till the level of the disc reaches the top of the
mould. Keep the load for some time, and then release.

C.B.R = {Load sustained by the specimen at 2.5 or 5.0mm penetration}x 100

Load sustained by standard aggregates at corresponding penetration level

16
 CHAPTER 5
TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

5.1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

The specific gravity of the soil is determined using specific gravity test.

Apparatus:
1. Pycnometer
2. 450 mm sieve
3. Weighing balance
4. Oven
5.Glass rod
6. Distilled water

Table -3: Specific Gravity of the Soil Sample

Particulars Trial – Trial – Trial –

1 2 3
Wt. of Pycnometer (W1) 630 630 630
Wt. of Pyconometer+Soil (W2) 830 830 830
Wt. of Pyconometer+Soil+ Water 1700 1691 1701
(W3)
Wt. of Pyconometer+Water (W4) 1570 1572 1572
SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.85 2.469 2.816

Calculations: For Trail 1

G = 830-630/(830-630)-(1700-1570)
G = 2.85
Average Specific Gravity Of Soil is 2.72
17
 Fig – 3: Pyconometer Apparatus in Specific Gravity Test

5.2 INDEX PROPERTIES

5.2.1 LIQUID LIMIT
The liquid limit is determined.

APPARATUS:
1. Casagrande equipment
2. Grooving tool
3. 425 micron sieve
4. Oven
5. Weighing balance
6. Distilled water
7. Spatula

18
 Table – 4: Liquid Limit of Soil Sample
Sample number 1 2 3
Number of blows 37 30 23
Weight of containers W0 g 10.6 10.6 10.6
Weight of container + wet soil W1 g 24 25.6 26.8
Weight of container + oven-dry soil 22 22.8 23.2
W2 g
Weight of water W1 -W2 g 2 2.8 3.6
Weight of oven dry soil W2 –W0 g 11.4 12.2 12.6
17.54 22.95 28.5
Water content= ( w1-w2/w2-w0)
x100

Caluculations :Trail 1
Water content = (w1-w2) x 100
( w2-w0)
= 24-22 x 100 = 17.54
22-10.6

Liquid limit of soil sample = 26.8%

19
Fig – 4: No of Blows vs. Water Content Graph

20
Fig – 5: Liquid Limit using Casagrande Apparatus

Fig – 6: Plastic Limit on Glass Plate

21
 5.2.2 PLASTIC LIMIT

Apparatus:
425micron sieve
Flat glass plate
Oven
Weigning balance
Air tight container

Table :- 5 Plastic limit of soil

Sample number 1 2 3
Weight of containers W0 g 10.6 10.6 10.6
Weight of container + wet soil 14.8 15.4 14.6
W1 g

Weight of container + oven-dry 14.3 14.9 14.1

soil W2 g
Weight of water W1 -W2 g 0.5 0.5 0.5

Weight of oven dry soil W2 –W0 3.7 4.3 3.5

g

13.514 11.628 14.286

Water content = (w1-w2/w2-w0)

x100

Calculation: Trail 1
Plastic limit of soil (Wp) = (W1-W2)/(W2-W0)X100
= (14.8-14.3)/(14.3-10.6) X100
= 13.51%
Average plastic limit of soil (Wp) =13.142%

22
 PLASTICITY INDEX

Ip = wL – Wp

= 26.8 - 13.142

Ip = 13.658

5.3 Grain size Distribution of soil by Sieve Analysis

Apparatus:
1.Glass jar 1 liter capacity
2.Stop watch
3.Hydrometer
4.Therometer
5. Set of sieves
6. Tray
7. Weighing balance
Table :- 6 Grain size distribution

Retained Retained soil Cumulative%

IS soil % Retained %FINER
Sieve(mm) (gm)

4.75 132 13.3 13.3 86.7

2.36 138 13.9 27.2 72.8

1.18 284 28.6 55.8 44.2

0.6 134 13.5 69.3 30.7

0.3 170 17.1 86.4 13.6

0.15 88 8.9 95.4 4.6

0.075 36 3.6 98.9 1.1

<0.075 10 1 99.9 0.1

20
Result
 1. Percentage of gravel (>4.75mm) = 13.33
2. Percentage of coarse sand (4.75mm-2.36mm) = 27.2
3. Percentage of medium sand(2.36mm-1.18mm) =55.8
4. Percentage of fine sand(0.6mm-0.075mm) = 98.9
5. Percentage of fines(<0.075mm) = 0.1
6. Uniformity coefficient Cu = 7.76
7. Coefficient of curvature Cc = 0.693

Caluculations:
Uniformity co-efficient (Cu) = D 60/ 𝐷10
=1.94/0.25=7.76
Co-efficient of curvature (Cc) = (𝐷302) / 𝐷60X 𝐷10
= 0.582/(1.94x0.25)
= 0.693
Co-efficient of curvature (Cc) = 0.693`

FIG: 7 Grain Size Distribution By sieve Analysis

21
 Fig – 8: Sieve Shaker Apparatus

5.4 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

Apparatus:
1.cylindrical mould of capacity 1000 c.c , internal dia 100 mm and height 127.3mm
2. rammer
3. mould accessories
4. weighing balance
5. graduated jar
6. straight edge
7.spatula
8.oven
9. moisture bins
Requirements:
Optimum moisture content (%)
Maximum dry density(kg/cu.m)

Compaction is the process of densification of soil mass,By reducing air voids under dynamic
loading. On the other hand though consoildation is also a process of densification of soil
mass but it is due to the expulsion of water under the action of continuosly accting static load
over a long period.
The degree of compaction of a soil is measured in terms of its dry density.the degree of
22
compaction mainly depends upon its moisture content during compaction, compaction energy
and the type of soil. For a given compaction energy, every soil attains the maximum dry
density at a particular water content which is known as optimum moisture content.
Table :- 7 Standard proctor Test
Trail No. 1 2 3 4 5
Volume of Cu.m 0.000945 0.000945 0.000945 0.000945 0.000945
mould
Weight o Kg 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
hammer
No.of Blows Nos 25 25 25 25 25
per layer
No.of Layers Nos 3 3 3 3 3
Weight of Kg 1.368 1.368 1.368 1.368 1.368
empty
mould+basepla
te(W1)
Weight of soil Kg 3.467 3.482 3.497 3.462 3.436
sample+
mould(w2)
Weight of soil Kg 2.099 2.114 2.129 2.094 2.068
sample and
only(w3)
Bulk density of Kg/cu.m 2222.057 2237.937 2253.816 2216.764 2189.240
the soil sample
and (ℽḃ)
Moisture Weight of bin Gm 29.31 29.44 29.5 29.43 29.38
content WeightofBin+ Gm 156.64 152.65 130.18 159.88 132.71
wet soil
Weigth of Gm 140.71 138.12 119.17 147.11 123.06
bin+drysoil
Weight of Gm 15.93 14.53 11.01 12.77 9.65
water content
Moisture % 14% 13% 12% 11% 10%
content 23
Results Dry density Kg/cu.m 1944.060 1974.02 2007.347 1999.761 1984.786
ℽb = weigth of soil sample only(w3)/volume of mould
moisture content =weight of water content / weight of bin +dry soil-weight of bin

Dry density = ℽb/1+m

Calculations Trail 1
ℽb = weigth of soil sample only(w3)/volume of mould
ℽb = 2.099/0.000945= 2221.16 kg/cu.m

m = weight of water content / (weight of bin +weight of dry soil-weight of bin)x100

m = 15.93/(140.71-29.31)x100 = 14.2%

Dry density = ℽb / 1+m

Dry density = 2221.16/(1+0.142)=1945.00

The average maximum dry density = 9909/5 =1981.8kg/cu.m

Y-Values
2020

2000

1980

Dry 1960
density
Kg/m3 1940

1920

1900
9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5

Water content%

Fig – 9: Dry denity vs water content

24
 Fig – 10: Standard Procter Mould

5.5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Apparatus
1 C.B.R test apparatus
1 cbr mould with baseplate,stayrodand wingnet
2 cylindrical mould
3 collar
4 spacer disc
5 weights(2.5kg and 5kg)
6 compaction rammer(4.89 kg with a drop of 450mm)

The following table gives the standard loads adopted for different penetrations for the
standard material with a C.B.R. value of 100%

Table-8 CBR TEST Values

Penetration of plunger (mm) Standard load (kg)

2.5 1370

5 2055

7.5 2630

10 25 3180
 12.5 3600

Definition of CBR
It is the ratio of force per unit area required to penetrate a soil mass with
standard circular piston at the rate of 1.25 mm/min. to that required for the
corresponding penetration of a standard material.

C.B.R. = Test load/Standard load * 100

Table 9 Cbr test results for soaked soil

Penetration (mm) Load normal soil Load on soil with Load on soil with
plastic waste of plastic waste of
(0.4%) (0.6%)
0.5 160 175 180
1.0 165 180 185
1.5 170 185 190
2.0 175 190 195
2.5 180 195 200
3.0 190 200 210
4.0 210 220 220
5.0 235 245 245
7.5 260 275 275
10.0 275 285 285
12.5 290 300 300

CBR Value: Unreinforced Soil = 23.537

0.15% Plastic reinforced = 24.087
0.25% Plastic reinforced = 25.187

26
 500

450
Unreinforced
Soil
Load (kg) 400
0.15%
Reinforcement
350
0.25%
300 Reinforcement

250

200
0 2 4 6 8
Penetration (mm)

Fig – 11: CBR – Unsoaked – Load Vs Penetration Graph Comparison

27
 2. Soaked Soil Sample

Table 10: CBR Unsoaked Test for Soil Sample

Penetration Load (kg) – Load (kg) – 0.15% Load (kg) – 0.25%

(mm) Unreinforced Soil Reinforced Soil Reinforced Soil

0.5 160 175 180

1.0 165 180 185

1.5 170 185 190

2.0 175 190 195

2.5 180 195 200

3.0 190 200 210

4.0 210 220 220

5.0 235 245 245

7.5 260 275 275

10.0 275 285 285

12.5 290 300 300

CBR Value: Unreinforced Soil = 13.138

0.15% Plastic reinforced = 14.233
0.25% Plastic reinforced = 14.598

28
 300
280
260
240
Load (kg)

220
200
180 Unreinforce
d Soil
160
140 0.15%
Reinforceme
120 nt

0.25%
100 Reinforceme
0 2 4 6 8 nt

Penetration (mm)

Fig 12: Load Vs. Penetration Curve Comparison Graph for Soaked Soil

5.6 DIRECT SHEAR

(i) Unreinforced Soil

Area of box: 36 cm2
Proving ring constant (k): 0.196

Table – 11: Direct Shear Test – Unreinforced Soil

Normal Stress Proving Ring Shear Load (Proving Shear Stress

(kg/cm2 ) Reading Ring x k) kN (kN/cm2)

0.5 54 10.584 0.294

1.0 84 16.464 0.457

1.5 106 20.776 0.577

29
 0.294

0.8
Shear Stress(kN/cm2 )

0.7
0.457
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.577
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normal Stress (kg/cm2)

Fig – 10: DST – Shear Stress Vs. Normal Stress Graph for unreinforced Soil

From Graph,
i) Cohesion(c): 0.16 kg/cm2 ii) Angle (φ): tan-1 (0.362) = 19.902

(ii) Reinforcement = 0.15%

Table – 12: Direct Shear Test – Reinforced Soil with 0.15% Plastic Fiber
Normal Stress Proving Ring Shear Load (Proving Shear Stress
(kg/cm2 ) Reading Ring x k) kN (kN/cm2)

0.5 78 15.288 0.424

1.0 121 23.716 0.658

1.5 164 32.144 0.892

30
 1.2

1 0.892
Shear Stress (kN/cm2 )

0.8
0.658

0.6
0.424
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normal Stress (kg/cm2 )
Fig – 11: DST – Shear Stress Vs. Normal Stress Graph for Reinforced Soil with 0.15% Plastic Strips
From Graph,

Cohesion(c): 0.198 kg/cm2

Angle (φ): tan-1 (0.468) = 25.07

(iii) Reinforcement = 0.25%

Table 13: Direct Shear Test – Reinforced Soil with 0.25% Plastic Fibers
Normal Stress Proving Ring Shear Load (Proving Shear Stress
(kg/cm2 ) Reading Ring x k) kN (kN/cm2)

0.5 79 15.484 0.430

1.0 122 23.912 0.664

1.5 166 32.536 0.903

31
 0.43
1.2

1
Shear Stress (kg/cm2 )

0.8 0.664

0.6

0.4 0.903

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normal Stress (kg/cm2 )
Fig – 12: DST – Shear Stress Vs Normal Stress Graph for reinforced with 0.25% Plastic strips

From Graph,
Cohesion(c): 0.199 kg/cm2
Angle (φ): tan (0.468) = 25.07

32
Fig 13: Direct Shear Sample Mould

Fig. 14: Direct Shear Apparatus

33
5.7 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
(TRIAXAIL TEST)

• Initial Length of sample: 6.9 cm

• Dia. Of sample: 3.7 cm
• Initial amount of soil taken: 3.5 kg
• Least count of dial gauge: 0.01 mm
• Proving ring constant: 4.14 N
• Initial cross sectional area of sample (A) : 3.14 x 1.852 = 1074 mm2
• Strain = Deformation/Original Length
• Corrected Area = A / (1 – Strain)

Fig – 15: Unconfined Compression Test Sample and Mould

34
 i) Unreinforced Soil
Table – 11: Unconfined Compression Test – Unreinforced Soil

Dial Strain(ϵ) Proving ring Corrected load (N) Axial Stress

gauge reading area (Mpa)
reading
50 0.0033 9 19.72 40.81 0.020
7
100 0.0067 1 19.82 69.19 0.034
6 9
150 0.0100 2 19.92 92.11 0.046
2 2
200 0.0133 2 20.03 106.12 0.053
5 0
250 0.0167 2 20.13 114.27 0.056
7 7
300 0.0200 2 20.24 108.44 0.053
6 6
350 0.0233 2 20.34 99.11 0.048
3 7

0.05
Axial Stress (MPa)

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain (ɛ)

Fig 16: UCS - Axial Stress vs. Strain Graph for

Unreinforced Soil

35
i) Reinforcement = 0.15%

Table – 12: Unconfined Compression Test – Reinforced Soil

with 0.15% Plastic Fiber

Dial gauge Strain(ϵ) Proving ring corrected load (N) Axial Stress
reading reading area (Mpa)

50 0.0033 13 19.72 54.8 0.0277

100 0.0067 20 19.82 82.79 0.0417

150 0.0100 26 19.92 109.6 0.0550

200 0.0133 29 20.03 122.43 0.0612

250 0.0167 31 20.13 128.26 0.0639

300 0.0200 29 20.24 120.1 0.0593

350 0.0233 26 20.34 107.27 0.0527

36
 07

0.06

0.05

0.04
Axial Stress

0.03
(MPa)

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain (ɛ)

Fig 17: UCS - Axial Stress vs. Strain Graph for Reinforced Soil with 0.15%
Plastic strips

ii) Reinforcement = 0.25%

Table 13: Unconfined Compression Test – Reinforced Soil with

0.25% Plastic Strips
Dial gauge Strain(ϵ) Proving ring corrected load (N) Axial Stress (Mpa)
reading reading area

50 0.0033 14 19.72 59.47 0.0302

100 0.0067 19 19.82 80.45 0.0406
150 0.0100 26 19.92 109.6 0.0550
200 0.0133 29 20.03 122.43 0.0612
250 0.0167 31 20.13 129.43 0.0643
300 0.0200 30 20.24 123.6 0.0611
350 0.0233 26 20.34 108.44 0.0533

37
 07
0.0643

0.06

0.05

0.04
Axial Stress

0.03
(MPa)

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Strain (ɛ)

Fig – 18: UCS - Axial Stress vs. Strain Graph for Reinforced Soil with 0.25% Plastic st

38
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Use of plastic products such as polythene bags, bottles, containers and packing
strips etc. is increasing day by day. The disposal of the plastic wastes without causing any
ecological hazards has become a real challenge to the present society. Thus using plastic
bottles as a stabilizer is an economical and gainful utilization since there is scarcity of good
quality soil for embankments and fills. Thus this project is to meets the challenge of society
to reduce the quantities of plastic waste, the plastic stripes were made out of this plastic
wastage and are used in making the payment and it is found that there is an increase in the
strength of the soil. California Bearing Ratio test was carried out to find the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content. The CBR was conducted for soil mixed with plastic
strips. The CBR test is conducted for the red soil and black cotton soil, adding the 0.7% of
plastic stripes to red soil and 0.5% for the black cotton soil it is found that the strength of the
soil is increased resulting the bearing ratio of 2.9 for red soil and 3.3 for the black cotton soil.
As it economic in nature and hazard free it is the one of the best solution for re- utilization of
the plastic wastage. Producing useful materials from non-useful waste materials that lead to
the foundation of sustainable society.

39
 CHAPTER-7
REFERENCES

1. Arora, K.R. (2004). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Standard Publishers Distributors.
2. Kumar, M. A., Prasad, D. S. V. and Prasadraju, G. V. R. (2009). Utilization of industrial waste in
flexible Pavement Construction. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Vol. 13.
3. IS: 1888 (1982), Method of Load Test on Soils. Indian Standards Institutions, New Delhi.
4. Bateni, F. (2009). Stabilization Mechanisma of oil-palm fruit bunch fiber reinforced silt sand.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thsis, University of Auckland.
5. Purushothama Raj, P. (20050. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Pearson Education.
6. Mercy Joseph Poweth, Solly George and Jessy Paul (2013): “Study on use of plastic waste in road
construction ’’ IJIRSET march 2013/vol. 3/issue 3.
7. Dr. A.I. Dhatrak, S.D. Konmare (2015): “performance of randomly oriented plastic waste in
flexible pavement’’ IJPRET march 2015/vol. 3/no. 9/193-202
8. A.K. Choudary, J.N. Jha and K.S. Gill (2010): “A study on CBR behaviour of waste plasic strip
reinforced soil’’ EJER January 2010 /vol. 15/no. 1
9. Raj Kumar Nagle (2014): “comparative study of CBR of soil, reinforced with natural waste plastic
material’’ IJESR June 2014/ vol-4/issue-6/304-308.
10. AchmadFauzi, ZuraidahDjauhari, and UsamaJuniansyahFauzi (2016): “Soil engineering properties
improvement by utilization of cut waste plastic and crushed waste glass as additive’’ IJET
February 2016/vol. 8/no.1.
11. Amin EsmaeilRamaji (2012): “A review on the soil stabilization using low-cost methods’’ JASR
may 2012/8(4):2193-2196
12. Rishi Singh Chhabra, SupriyaMarik (2014): “A review literature on the use of waste plastics and
waste rubber tyres in pavement’’ IJCEM April 2014/ vol. 1/issue 1.

40
41
42
43
44