Stabilization of soils using waste plastics

ABSTRACT:

This paper investigates with two issues

1. Reuse of waste plastics that has been produced in large quantity every year.
2. Performance of flexible pavement on expansive soil subgrade using gravel/flyash as
subbase course with waste plastics as a reinforcing material. It was observed that from
the laboratory test results of direct shear and CBR, the gravel subbase shows better
performance as compared to flyash subbase with different percentages of waste plastics
as reinforcing material. From cyclic load tests it is observed that the maximum load
carrying capacity associated with less value of rebound deflection is obtained for gravel
reinforced subbase compared to flyash.

INTRODUTION:

Reinforcement of soils with nature and synthetic fibers is potentially an effective

technique for increasing soil strength. In recent years, this technique has been suggested
for a variety of geotechnical applications ranging from retaining structures, earth
embankments and footings to subgrade/sub base stabilization of pavements. The result of
compaction tests for a silty clay soil specimen reinforced with fibers indicate that
increasing the volume of fibers in the soil generally causes a modest increase in the
maximum dry unit weight, and a slight decrease in the optimum moisture content. The
optimum fiber content depends largely on the soil and fiber types. Compaction tests
conducted on sandy soil specimens reinforced with polypropylene/nylon fabric sheets
resulted in specimens with less dense packing. The results of direct shear tests performed
on sand specimens indicated increased shear strength, increased ductility and reduced
post peak strength loss due to the inclusion of discrete fibers increased both the cohesion
and angle of internal friction of the specimen.
Mixing a predetermined amount of fiber at particular moisture content gives a mesh like
configuration leading to a mechanical means for reinforcement of soil matrix. Sand-waste
soil plastic mixtures improve the bearing capacity of granular trench and consequently the
bearing capacity ratios. This studies indicated that fiber inclusions increase the ultimate
strength and stiffness, CBR, resistance to liquefaction, and shear modulus and damping of
reinforced sand. In the present work an attempt is made to use reinforcement material
like waste plastics in gravel and flyash subbases in model flexible pavement system laid on
expensive soil subgrade and study the relative performance between the reinforced and
 unreinforced subbase of flexible pavement system. Direct shear and CBR tests are
conducted in the laboratory for both gravel and flyash materials with different
percentages of waste plastics strips to obtain optimum percentages of reinforcement
material. The investigation is further extended by constructing model flexible pavements
in laboratory with different subbases reinforced with optimum percentages of waste
plastics and cyclic plate load tests are conducted on the pavement systems at saturated
state.

Soil stabilization :
Soil stabilization is the permanent physical and chemical alteration of soils to enhance
their physical properties. 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. Stabilization can be used to
treat a wide range of sub-grade materials from expansive clays to granular materials.
Stabilization can be achieved with a variety of chemical additives including lime, fly
ash, and portland cement, as well as by-products such as lime-kiln dust (LKD) and
cement-kiln dust (CKD). Proper design and testing is an important component of any
stabilization project. This allows for the establishment of design criteria as well as the
determination of the proper chemical additive and admixture rate to be used to achieve
the desired engineering properties. Benefits of the stabilization process can include:
Higher resistance (R) values, Reduction in plasticity, Lower permeability, Reduction of
pavement thickness, Elimination of excavation - material hauling/handling - and base
importation, Aids compaction, Provides “all-weather” access onto and within projects
sites. Another form of soil treatment closely related to soil stabilization is soil
modification, sometimes referred to as “mud drying” or soil conditioning. Although
some stabilization inherently occurs in soil modification, the distinction is that soil
modification is merely a means to reduce the moisture content of a soil to expedite
construction, whereas stabilization can substantially increase the shear strength of a
material such that it can be incorporated into the project’s structural design. The
determining factors associated with soil modification vs soil stabilization may be the
existing moisture content, the end use of the soil structure and ultimately the cost
benefit provided. Equipment for the stabilization and modification processes include:
chemical additive spreaders, soil mixers (reclaimers), portable pneumatic storage
containers, water trucks, deep lift compactors, motor graders.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Materials used:

The following materials are used in this study.

SOIL:

Expensive soil as a subgrade material.

FLYASH:

Flyash as a subbase course.

MURRUM SOIL:

This soil is used as a subbase course.

ROAD METAL:

Road metal, which satisfied most specified is used for the base corse.

WASTE PLASTICS:

Waste plastic strips are used.

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTATION
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS:

Direct shear tests were conducted in the laboratory by using a standard direct shear
testing machine as per IS:2720. The required percentage of waste plastics is mixed uniformly
 with dry weight of soil and compacted to maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of natural material.

California Bearing Ratio :

The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is a measure of the supporting value of the
subgrade. It is not unique and other tests such as the R-Value test and the Triaxial are used
occasionally. It is however by far the most commonly used in Pavement Design. The CBR test
should be used with soil at the calculated equilibrium moisture content (see below) although
in the United States it is usual for samples to be soaked for 4 days prior to testing.

To determine the CBR for a soil the designer has two options, they can either use the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test if equipment is available or they can use the table below to
estimate the CBR.

CBR (%)
Type Plasticity index
Depth of formation below water table
of soil (%)
More than 600mm 600mm or less

Heavy clay 70 2 1*

60 2 1.5*

50 2.5 2

40 3 2

Silty clay 30 5 3

Sandy clay 20 6 4

10 7 5

Silt - 2 1*

Sand (poorly graded) non-plastic 20 10

Sand (well graded) non-plastic 40 15

Well graded sandy gravel non-plastic 60 20

 Table 1
Estimation of CBR values

The CBR should be carried out in accordance with BS 13772

The test involves the equipment shown below. The plunger is then seated into the soil using a
force of 50N for an expected CBR below 30% or 250N for greater than 30%. The plunger is then
penetrated into the soil at a constant rate of 1mm/min and the forces recorded at penetration
intervals of 0.25mm. The total penetration should not exceed 7.5mm. These results are then
compared to a standard curve for a value of 100% CBR. The forces on the standard curve are 13.2kN at
2.5mm penetration and 20.0kN at 5.0mm penetration. The CBR is then a simple ratio of the
corresponding values and where a difference between the value at 2.5mm and 5mm occurs, the
higher value is taken. Annular weights are sometimes used to represent a surcharge.

Figure 2
California Bearing Ratio Equipment

The first factor affecting the performance of the subgrade is the moisture content.
Unfortunately this is normally extremely variable as water can come from many sources such as
rainfall, capillary action, seasonal movement of the water table and ingress.

The importance of the moisture content is demonstrated by the variation of the CBR values as
shown below. This is a plot of a typical soil sample values of CBR against moisture content. Thus the
soil sample should have the moisture content re assessed after the test is performed and compared to
the desired value.

Figure 2 shows how the CBR value of a soil varies with the moisture content.
Subgrade Strength :

The strength of the subgrade (soil below the pavement) is asssesed using a test known
as the California Bearing Ratio test. This was developed in California in the 1930's and makes
no attemp to determine any of the standard soil properties such as density. It is merely a
value and it is integral to the process of road design. Nearly all design charts for the road
foundations are based on the CBR value for the subgrade.

Pavement Design - Thickness Design

The thckness design of the pavement is the determination of the overall thickness of
the road and the thickness of the individual layers. This is of course dependant on the type of
material chosen for the road. This is explained in more detail below. The procedure described
in this page is that in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 7.
 The map alongside can be used as a guide to
the process of Thickness Design.

Clicking on the desired area of the map will

take you to the desired section. When you
have finished a particular section, if you wish to
return to the map then use the back button on
the browser or click on the map link.

It is highly recommended that you follow the

logical progression of the map

Figure 1 - Foundation Design Process

As has been previously discussed, there are many methods of thickness design and
nearly every country has adopted different methods. A review of several of these methods
has been carried out by the Permanent International Association of Road Congress 1. The
method discussed in these pages is that commonly used in the United Kingdom.

At this point, it is necessary to have ascertained the vehicle loading on the road surface. This is
not an indication of the total traffic flow nor is it intended to design the road layout. It is
solely relevant to the engineer and used to design the pavement thickness. This is covered in
more detail and hopefully somewhat better explained on the traffic loading page. Thus you
should now have two pieces of information, the CBR value and a vehicle loading in the left
hand lane (right hand lane outside the UK) in millions of standard axles (msa).

Flexible Pavement :

A flexible pavement is constructed of several layers as shown below:

 Figure 2
Flexible Pavement Layout

The sub-base has already been designed on the foundation page, a link to which is at the bottom of
this page.

PREPARATION OF MODEL FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

The model flexible pavement is prepared in a circular steel tank. Out of which
subgrade , subbase and base course are laid respectively from base. In the circular tank the
pulverized expensive soil mixed with water at OMC is laid in layers such that each layer is
compacted. On the prepared subgrade, gavel/flyash subbase mixed with optimum percentage
of waste plastics of compacted thickness is laid in layers by compacting to OMC and MDD. On
the prepared subbase layers of WBM-lll each of compacted thickness is laid. A sand bed is
placed before placement of subgrade soil in the tank and sand drains were provided by means
of vertical sand columns from bottom to top of the subgrade soil from stratum.

CYCLIC LOAD TESTING

Cyclic plate load tests were carried out on the model flexible pavement system in a
circular steel tank at complete saturation stage. The load is done through a circular metal
plate, placed at the middle on the model pavement. The loads are applied in increments
corresponding to tyre pressure. At each pressure increment six cycles of loading and
unloading is done until there is no significant change in deformation.

HEAVE MEASUREMENT

The model pavement is saturated completely by pouring water above the base course. Heave
readings are taken with the help of dial gauges at regular intervals. The readings are measured
until there is no significant change between consecutive readings observed.
DISCUSSION ON TEST RESULTS

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Direct shear tests and CBR tests are conducted by using different percentages of waste
plastics mixed with gravel and flyash materials for finding the optimum percentage of waste
plastics. Cyclic load tests are conducted for gravel and flyash subbases, reinforced with
optimum percentage of waste plastics.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS :

It is observed that gravel reinforced with waste plastics has given comparatively higher values
of shear strength parameters in comparison with flyash.

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEAT RESULTS :

It is observed that by reinforcing waste plastics soaked CBR values increased for both
soils and optimum percentage of waste plastics for both soils is also equal.

CYCLIC LOAD TEST RESULTS :

It is observed that load carrying capacity has substantially increased for waste plastics
reinforced model flexible pavement. Gravel reinforced base shows better performance as
compared to flyash.

HEAVE STUDIES

It is observed that there is no significant control of heave for gravel/flyash subbases

reinforced with waste plastics. This behavior is evident from the fact that there is no heave
control mechanism with the reinforcement in the pavement system.

COMPARISION BETWEEN GRAVEL AND FLYASH SUBBASES REINFORCED WITH

WASTE PLASTICS

Gravel reinforced model pavement has shown better performance compared to the
flyash reinforced model pavement. The improvement in the load carrying capacity could be
attributed to improved load dispersion through reinforced subbase on to the subgrade. This
in-turn, results in lesser intensity of stresses getting transfer to subgrade, this loading to lesser
subgrade stress.
CONCLUSION
From the results of direct shear test and CBR tests for gravel and flyash materials
reinforced with different percentages of waste plastics, the optimum percentage of waste
plastics is equal to dry unit weight of soil.

The load carrying capacity of the laboratory model flexible pavement system has
significantly increased for both gravel and flyash subbases reinforced with optimum
percentage waste plastics laid on expensive soil subgrade.

No significant control of heave is observed for the laboratory model flexible

pavements for both the gravel and flyash reinforced with waste plastics tried in this
investigation, laid on expensive soil subgrade.

At all the deformation levels, gravel reinforced with waste plastics in model flexible pavement
has shown better performance, compared to flyash subbase reinforced with waste plastics.