See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304148047

Engineering properties of sand reinforced with strips from waste plastic

Conference Paper · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

8 1,124

2 authors:

Rakesh Kumar Dutta G. Venkatappa Rao

National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur 100 PUBLICATIONS   1,610 CITATIONS   
180 PUBLICATIONS   1,201 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India sponsored project, entitled, "Development of Standards for use of Jute Geotextiles (JGTs) in Rural Roads". View project

Soft Computing Techniques View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rakesh Kumar Dutta on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Engineering Properties of Sand Reinforced with Strips from Waste Plastic

R.K.Dutta and G Venkatappa Rao

rkd@recham.ernet.in gvrao@civil.iitd.ernet.in
Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur – 177005 and Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi - 110016
INDIA

ABSTRACT: Laboratory triaxial compression tests were carried out in order to determine the engineering properties of
sand reinforced with strips from waste plastic. The mechanical behaviour of the composite material was investigated
through varying percentage of waste plastic strips, type of plastic strip, aspect ratio and confining pressure, in random
arrangement. Tests were performed on 100 mm diameter and 200 mm high specimens of sand reinforced with two types
of strips from plastic waste. The results indicated that inclusion of waste plastic strips improves the performance of sand
specimens. The admixtures can be used at the base/sub-base course in roads and more so the disposal of waste plastic
will be environmental friendly.

KEY WORDS: Engineering properties, Sand, Triaxial test, Waste plastic

INTRODUCTION conducted on fiber-reinforced materials. The results of

Civil engineers around the world are in search of new
alternative materials which are required both for cost
effective solutions for ground improvement and for
conservation of scarce natural resources. The various
methods of ground improvement currently in use include
lime columns, stone columns, use of chemical stabilisers
and various kinds of inclusions like metal strips, mats,
fibres, geosynthetics, etc. The cost of these virgin
materials as well as the processes involved are usually
high and as such they are yet to be commonly used in
developing nations like India. On the other hand good
quality conventional natural resources like sand, gravel,
aggregates etc are fast depleting with the increase in
construction activities in the country and there is a ban on
new quarries, due to environmental concerns. As such
there is a growing need of a material which can partially
replace the sand and providing improved properties. In
this context, used packaging strips and used LDPE bags
hold promise as alternate materials to be used with sand.
The estimated municipal solid waste production in
India upto the year 2000 was of the order of 39 million
tonnes per year. This figure is most likely to touch 56
million tons per year by the year 2010 (Dutta 1997). The
typical percentage of plastic in the municipal solid waste
produced in India is 1 %.
In the present paper a study has been conducted to cut
LDPE bags and HDPE used packaging strips into smaller
strips and mix them with sand and carry out a study on the
admixtures for their possible use in base/sub-base courses
in roads. If found feasible, it may help in utilisation of
waste plastic.
BACKGROUND
A large number of laboratory investigations have been
direct shear tests performed on sand specimens by Gray
and Ohashi (1983) indicated increased shear strength,
increased ductility, and reduced post peak strength loss
due to the inclusion of discrete fibers. These results were
supported by a number of researchers using consolidated
drained triaxial tests (Gray and Al -Refeai 1986; Gray and
Maher 1989; Al -Refeai 1991; Ranjan et al 1996). Arteaga
(1989) supported these results using both direct shear tests
and consolidated drained triaxial tests, but indicated that
the direct shear results were more erratic than the triaxial
experiments. Based upon these results, investigators
conducted analyses to determine the behaviour of material
properties of fiber-reinforced sands. Gray and Ohashi
(1983) reported that the failure envelopes for fiber-sand
composites were bilinear. Also, Gray and Al -Refeai
(1986) reported that the critical confining stress was a
function of surface friction properties of the fibers and
soil. Gray and Maher (1989) reported curvilinear failure
envelopes for rounded sands and bilinear failure envelopes
for angular sands. They established that the failure surface
of fiber-sand composites was planar and oriented in
accordance with the Coulomb criterion which suggests
isotropic reinforcing behaviour ( Al -Refeai 1991; Morel
and Gourc 1997).
The inclusion of discrete fibers increased both the
cohesion and angle of internal friction of the specimens.
The increase in cohesion of typically cohesionless
materials due to the inclusion of discrete fibers was termed
the " apparent cohesion" of the material (Arteaga 1989).
The improvement of the engineering properties due to the
inclusion of discrete fibers was determined to be a
function of a variety of parameters including fiber type,
fiber length, aspect ratios,, fiber content, orientation, and
soil properties. Attempts were made by various researchers
to determine the effect of each parameter on the different
engineering properties of the composite. The peak strength

186
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

reportedly increased with increasing fiber content and particle diameter (D50) of 0.42 mm, coefficient of
length up to a limiting amount of each beyond which no uniformity (Cu) of 2.11 and coefficient of curvature (Cc) of
additional benefits were observed (Gray and Ohashi 1983; 0.96. Minimum and maximum void ratios were 0.56 and
Gray and Al-Refeai 1986; Arteaga 1989; Gray and Maher 1.12 while the corresponding dry unit weights were 16.70
1989; Maher and Ho 1994; Ranjan et al 1996; Webster and kN/m3 and 12.30 kN/m3 respectively. The sand was
Santoni 1997). classified as SP-SW.
Gray and Ohashi (1983) reported an optimum
Waste plastic strips
orientation angle of 60° to the failure plane. Gray and Al -
Refeai (1986) reported that reed fibers were superior to The reinforcement consisted of two types of plastic waste.
glass fibers due to greater surface friction properties. They For the first one (designated as Type I) used plastic carry
also indicated that sands stabilised with fiber contents >2% bags of LDPE having a mass per unit area of 30 gsm and a
dry weight of sand achieved no added benefit (Ranjan et al thickness of 0.05 mm were chosen. From these, 12 mm
1996). Al -Refeai (1991) reported that fibrillated wide strips were cut. Further these strips were cut into
polypropylene fibers outperformed glass fibers, and the pieces of 24 mm and 12 mm length. The resulting strips of
optimum fiber length was 76 mm for sands. Ahlrich and size 24 mm x 12 mm are designated as Type I A (Fig. 1)
Tidewell (1994) recommended an optimum fiber content and 12 mm x 12 mm strips are designated as Type I B
0.5% dry weight for stabilising sands with monofilament (Fig. 2).
fibers. A laboratory study conducted by Webster and
Santoni (1997) using varying lengths of monofilament
fibers in sands indicated an optimum fiber length of 51mm
and an optimum content 0.8% dry weight of sand. Ranjan
et al (1996) reported that reinforcement of medium sands
was less effective than fine sands. Morel and Gourc (1997)
recommended an optimum mesh content of 0.5% dry
weight of sand for discrete polypropylene mesh elements.
Benson and Khire (1994) used cut pieces of HDPE
waste milk jugs and shown that there is an increase in
strength, CBR and secant modulus of sand. They also
found friction angle increase is as large as 18 degrees.
Bueno (1997) conducted laboratory study on
mechanically stabilized soils with short thin plastic strips
of different lengths and contents. They found an
Fig. 1 Photograph of LDPE strips Type I A
enhancement of strength and load bearing capacity.
Thus it is evident that while the use of fibers,
geotextiles, geogrids have been extensively researched, the
stabilisation of sand with random oriented discrete strips
has not been thoroughly investigated.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

To investigate the effects of test parameters on the

mechanical behaviour of unreinforced and reinforced sand,
a total of 56 triaxial compression tests were performed.
The test parameters included: four confining pressures
(34.5 kPa to 276 kPa), 2 types of waste plastic strips with
percentage varying from 0.05 % to 0.15 % for LDPE and
0.25 % to 2 % for HDPE and two different aspect ratio.
Test Materials
Sand
The investigation was carried out on locally available
Badarpur sand which is medium grained uniform quarry
sand having sub-angular particles of weathered quartzite.
It had a specific gravity of 2.66, maximum particle size of
1.20 mm, minimum particle size of 0.07 mm, mean
Fig. 2 Photograph of LDPE strips Type I B
The second material studied was used packaging strips
made of HDPE (designated as Type II) having a width of
12 mm, and a thickness of 0.45 mm and a mass of 3.8 g
/m. These were cut into lengths of 24 mm (designated as
Type II A (Fig. 3)) and 12 mm (designated as Type II B
(Fig. 4)) lengths. Type I strips (with a width of 12 mm)
had an ultimate tensile strength of 0.011 kN and the
percent elongation at failure was 20. The ultimate tensile
strength of Type II (with a width of 12 mm) strip was 0.32

187
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
kN and percent elongation at failure was 25. It may be
noted that 1 % of Type II A inclusions resulted in 280
strips whereas 0.15 % of Type I A contained 276 strips.
This is attributed to difference in their thickness. The units
(pieces) of strips were manually counted corresponding to
each percentage.
Fig. 3 Photograph of HDPE strips Type II A
Fig. 4 Photograph of HDPE strips Type II B
Experimental Procedure
A standard triaxial apparatus was used for testing
unreinforced and reinforced sand. The specimen was of
100 mm diameter and 200 mm high. To ensure uniform
distribution of strips in the mixture, the dry sand and the
required percentage of waste plastic strips were weighed
and divided into three equal parts respectively. One part of
sand and one part of weighed strips were mixed together
manually in dry condition in a random arrangement. The
sand-strip mixture was then soaked. The soaked sand-strip
mixture was then deposited into the rubber membrane
inside a split mould former as a first layer. The required
number of blows were given to the first layer through
tamping with a rubber tamper consisting of a circular disk
attached to a aluminium rod to achieve the required
density. The similar procedure was repeated for the second
and the third layer. The specimen was compacted in three
188
October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE
layers. The density of sand specimen with Type I and
Type II inclusions was maintained at 15.08±0.18 kN/m3
and 14.88±0.42 kN/m3 respectively for different samples.
Conventional consolidated drained triaxial tests were then
conducted at a deformation rate of 1.016 mm/min.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Stress-Strain Volume Change Behaviour
The stress-strain behaviour of unreinforced sand is
illustrated in Fig. 5. It can be generally seen from this
figure that with an increase in confining pressure, the peak
stress increases and corresponding axial strain generally
remains constant. For example, at σ3 = 276 kPa sand
exhibits a maximum deviator stress of 894 kPa at an axial
strain of 4.54 %, whereas at σ3 = 34.5 kPa these values are
100 kPa and 4.84 % respectively.
Typical stress-strain curves for sand reinforced with
0.15 % Type I A and 2 % Type II A strips at a confining
pressure of 34.5 kPa are shown in Figs. 6-7. These figures
indicate that strip inclusion in sand improves the
performance of the sand specimen. This matter is
essentially due to the increase in confinement. Moreover,
as shown in Fig 6, improvement in performance of
reinforced specimen is more pronounced for greater
percentage of strips.
Volumetric Strain
The variations of volumetric strain versus axial strain for
both unreinforced and sand reinforced with Type I A and
Type II A were also presented in Figs 5-7. A study of
these figures indicate that:
1. As expected during the initial shear, the volume of
unreinforced and reinforced sand decreases slightly
(the positive sign of volumetric strain indicates
dilatancy). With further shearing, the behaviour is
reversed and the specimens show a increase in
volume, while, increase in confining pressure limits
the volumetric expansion of both unreinforced and
reinforced sand.
2. The tendency of samples to dilate is restricted by the
strips. As reported by many researchers (for example
Duncan and Dunlop, 1968), dilation occurs mainly in
the center of the specimens. At the top or bottom of
the sample, the cap and the base restrain lateral
deformation and dilation. It is also believed that strip
restrain lateral deformation. Consequently, it is
evident that strip effectively restricts the dilation of
the samples. This effect becomes further apparent
when the percentage of strip increases.
Strength Characteristics
The effective stress strength parameters φ′ and c′ are
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Fig. 5 Stress-strain-volume change curves for sand

Fig. 7 Stress-strain-volume change curves for sand with

stripType II A at 34.5 kPa

critical confining pressure, the value of φ′ is generally

equal to that of the sand without strip but there is a definite
increase in the value of c′. For instance, for 0.15 % of
Type I A strip, the value of φ′ increased from 38.0° to
46.2° upto the confining pressure of 69 kPa, beyond which
the value of φ′ = 39.8° and c’ = 14.8 kPa. Similarly for
0.15 % of Type I B strip, the value of φ′ increased from
38.0° to 45.8° upto the confining pressure of 69 kPa,
beyond which the value of φ′ = 39.3° and c’ = 15.3 kPa.
For 2 % of Type II A strip the value of φ′ increased from
38.0° to 47.1° upto a confining pressure of 69 kPa,
beyond which the value of φ′ = 41.8° and c’ = 13.5 kPa.
Similarly for 2 % of Type II B strip the value of φ′
increased from 38.0° to 45.9° upto a confining pressure of
69 kPa, beyond which the value of φ′ = 40.8° and c’ = 10.4
kPa. Similar observations may be made for other cases
too. Thus it is evident that the value of c′ increases with
percentage inclusion and aspect ratio, as expected for
confining pressure beyond 69 kPa, the φ′ is nearly the
Fig. 6 Stress-strain-volume change curves for sand with same as sand. Below this, there is only an increase in φ′.
strip Type I A at 34.5 kPa
Table 1 Strength parameters for sand with strip Type I A
summarised in Tables 1 to 4. A study of these tables
reveals the following: Range of Strength Percentage strip
σ3(kPa) parameter
1. The strength parameters for sand without strip are φ′ = 0 0.05 0.10 0.15
38° and c′ = 0. <69 c’ (kPa) 0 0 0 0
2. However with strips there is a bilinear behaviour. In φ′ (deg.) 38 44.2 45.3 46.3
general the behaviour upto a confining pressure of 69
69 to 276 c’ (kPa) 0 7.7 11.5 14.8
kPa, there is an increase in φ′ and beyond this
φ′ (deg.) 38 39.6 39.6 39.8

189
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Table 2 Strength parameters for sand with strip Type I B column 7. This gives the percentage agreement as per
Kondner’s procedure. It is also seen from column 7 of
Range of Strength Percentage strip Tables 6 and 7, that the maximum percentage of error
σ3(kPa) parameter is about 23 and 10 and the average values of error are
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 about 14 percent and 8 percent respectively. It is thus
<69 c’ (kPa) 0 0 0 0 seen that in all the cases, the predicted values are
φ′ (deg.) 38 43.7 45.1 45.8 more than the experimental values. This is expected
69 to 276 c’ (kPa) 0 6.0 11.2 15.3 because the asymptotic values are always more than
φ′ (deg.) 38 39.6 39.4 39.3 the experimental peak values.
3. Column 8 (Tables 6 and 7) gives the predicted values
Table 3 Strength parameters for sand with strip Type II A of deviator stress, considering the value of strain as at
failure (column 4 of Tables 6 and 7) corresponding to
Range of Strength Percentage strip each case. The percentage of agreement (column 9 of
σ3(kPa) parameter Tables 6 and 7) for various cases vary from 98 to 103
0 0.25 0.50 1 2 and 98 to 100 with the average being at 100.5 and
<69 c’ (kPa) 0 0 0 0 0 99 percent respectively thus there is a reasonably
φ′ (deg.) 38 44.4 45.5 46.7 47.1 good agreement.
69 to 276 c’ (kPa) 0 10.5 16.8 19.8 13.5 For facilitating easy computations, failure axial strains
φ′ (deg.) 38 39.4 39.2 40.1 41.8 were assumed as of 4 %, 5 % and 6 % for different
inclusion contents at different confining pressures. The
Table 4 Strength parameters for sand with strip Type II B predicted and experimentally obtained values are
presented in Tables 6 and 7 from column 10 onwards.
Range of Strength Percentage strip
Also presented in these tables are the values of percentage
σ3(kPa) parameter
agreement. These tables indicate that the % agreement is
definitely better than the asymptotic value, but of lower
0 0.25 0.50 1 2
accuracy compared to predicted with actual failure strain.
<69 c’ (kPa) 0 0 0 0 0
On the whole it may be observed that
φ′ (deg.) 38 43.7 44.3 45.2 45.9
i) The values of (σ1-σ3)ult predicted by using ε
69 to 276 c’ (kPa) 0 4.9 8.4 11.4 10.4
φ′ (deg.) 38 39.4 39.2 40.1 41.8
approaching infinity are always higher than
experimental values.
ii) Agreement with experimental value is better
Constitutive Relationship
when value of strain is in general between 4 to 6
% for the sand with inclusion Type I A , Type I B
Hyperbolic stress-strain relationship
and best when failure strain is used directly.
Similar study has been carried out in respects of sand with
Many researchers have found the validity of
strip Types II A and II B and the values of hyperbolic
hyperbolic stress strain relationship (Konder and Zelasko
parameters “b” and “a” and the other calculations are
1963) for various kinds of soils and rocks under various
shown in Tables 8 to 10.
test conditions (Sridharan and Narasimha Rao 1972) to
assess the validity of hyperbolic stress - strain relationship
for plastic strips sand mixtures, the present results have
been replotted. The typical plot between ε/(σ1-σ3) versus ε
for the sand with 0.15 % inclusions Type I A is presented
in Fig. 8. In Table 5 typical values of hyperbolic
parameters “b” and “a” for Type I A and I B are presented.
At different confining pressures and percent inclusions of
Types I A and I B, the maximum measured deviator stress
at failure (σ1-σ3)f obtained from the stress-strain plots and
the ultimate strength (σ1-σ3)ult evaluated from ‘b’ of Table
5 are included in Tables 6 and 7 in columns 5 and 6
respectively. A study of Fig. 8 and Tables 6 and 7 reveals
the following.
1. The linear variation indicates clearly the validity of
hyperbolic relationship for different confining
pressures and with varying percentage of inclusions.
2. The percentage agreement (defined as the ratio of the Fig. 8 Hyperbolic plot for sand with 0.15% strip Type I A
predicted value to the experimental value) is given in at different confining pressures.

190
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE

Table 5 Values of parameters “b” and “a” for sand with Table 8 Values of parameters “b” and “a” for sand with
and without strip Type I A and I B and without strip Type II A and II B
Strip σ3 Parameter "b" *10-5for Parameter "a" *10-5for
type (kPa) percent inclusion percent inclusion

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 0.05 0.10 0.15

34.5 8.06 5.20 5.08 5.19 7.7 5.61 4.95 2.86
Type 69 3.27 2.83 2.72 2.64 3.00 1.74 1.40 0.92
IA
138 2.17 1.97 1.98 1.89 1.15 1.03 0.88 0.87
276 1.00 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.34
34.5 8.06 6.11 6.02 5.89 7.7 3.76 3.22 2.81
Type 69 3.27 2.93 2.79 2.68 3.00 1.99 1.18 0.92
IB
138 2.17 2.02 1.98 1.91 1.15 0.88 0.88 0.72
276 1.00 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.46 0.37 0.37 0.33

Table 6 Predicted and experimental value of (σ1-σ3) for Table 9 Predicted and experimental value of (σ1-σ3) for
sand with strip Type I A. sand with strip Type II A

Table 10 Predicted and experimental value of (σ1-σ3) for

Table 7 Predicted and experimental value of (σ1-σ3) for sand with strip Type II B.
sand with strip Type I B.

191
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
Initial Tangent Modulus
The inverse of parameter "a" yields initial tangent
modulus, (Ei ). The typical variation of initial tangent
modulus with confining pressures and percentage
inclusion is presented in Table 11 for different cases. A
study of this table reveals that
1. The values of Ei for sand with 0.05 % inclusion Type
I A and I B increased to 17.8 MPa and 26.6 MPa
respectively at the same confining pressure. Similarly
at 34.5 kPa, for sand with 0.15 % inclusion Type I A
and I B this value has gone up to 34.9 MPa and 35.5
MPa respectively.
2. At 34.5 kPa, the values of Ei for sand with 0.25 %
inclusion Type II A and II B increased to 24.9 MPa
and 24.2 MPa respectively. Similarly, for sand with 1
% inclusion Type II A and II B this value has further
increased to 45.6 MPa and 35.3 MPa respectively.
Table 11 Values of initial tangent modulus for sand with
strip Type I and II
There appears no general trend of variation of Ei for both
Types of inclusions. For Type I there are more cases of
greater Ei with aspect ratio of unity and vice versa for
Type II. Normally one would expect that higher aspect
ratio will yield higher modulus. It has not been so clearly
evident from the experimental findings. It could be
perhaps attributed to the fact that hyperbolic fitted lines
(Fig. 8) deviate from the experimental values at lower
strains. These deviations could cause a change in the
hyperbolic predictions compared to observed experimental
values.
Effect of Aspect Ratio
The effect of plastic strip was isolated by evaluating test
specimens in which the aspect ratio of each strip was
varied, but all other significant test variables were
controlled. The effect of changes in aspect ratio was
determined for the Type I and Type II strips. The results of
the test series (Table 12) indicated that aspect ratio
significantly improve the major principal stress at failure
for Type I and Type II strips at all strip content. For Type I
strip, it may be recalled that Type I A has an aspect ratio
of 2 and the value for Type I B is unity. Also the number
of units (pieces) of strips in a given triaxial specimen will
192
October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE
be 184, for 0.10 % of Type I A as well as 0.05 % of Type I
B. When one compares the major principal stresses
obtained for these combination, it is evident that the
former exhibits higher value of major principal stress, in
view of the higher aspect ratio. Again 0.15 % of Type I A
has a theoretical units of strips as 276, and 0.10 % of Type
I B has 368 units. On studying the values of major
principal stress, it is evident that the former exhibits higher
values, despite the smaller number of units of
reinforcement, thus demonstrating the predominant
influence of aspect ratio.
Table 12 Values of major principal stress at failure
For Type II strips, it may be recalled that Type II A has
an aspect ratio of 2 and the value for Type II B is unity.
Accordingly the number of units of strips in a given
triaxial specimen will be 280, for 1 % of Type II A and 0.5
% of Type II B. On comparing the values of major
principal stress obtained for these two cases, it is evident
that the former with higher aspect ratio exhibits higher
values. Similarly, 0.5 % of Type II A exhibits higher value
of major principal stress than 0.25 % of Type II B, despite
the fact that both have 140 units of reinforcements but
differing in aspect ratio. The predominant influence of
aspect ratio is thus conclusive. The reason of this i ncrease
may be due improved anchorage, tensile strength of the
strip.
Effect of Strip Type
To study the effect of waste plastic strip type, the values of
major principal stress at failure for all specimens tested,
were measured and are presented in Table 12. The results
indicated that all strip types significantly improved the
value of major principal stress. The performance benefits
of using Type I were relatively higher at lower confining
pressure but lower at high confining pressure whereas the
performance benefit of Type II were found to be lower at
low confining pressure and higher at high confining
pressure. Though the reason for this is not so directly
evident, it could be attributed to an experimental
observation. The Type II strips are relatively thicker and
 International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering
stiffer, infact their stiffness does not allow good
compaction when mixed at 2 % content. Consequently no
visible damage/depression has been noticed after the
triaxial testing. On the other hand for the soft and weak
Type I strip, there were indentations (Figs. 1&2) noticed at
the lowest confining pressures. These indentations might
have mobilised a greater interface friction at the lower
confining, resulting in higher values of major principal
stress at failure. Such an effect seems to be ineffective at
higher confining pressure levels. On further examining
Table 12, it was found that the improvement in the
performance of the admixture was higher at low confining
pressure and lower at high confining pressure. This may be
attributed to more influence of strips at lower confining
pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of results and discussion presented above, the
following conclusions are drawn.
1. The inclusion of randomly oriented discrete waste
plastic strips significantly improved the performance
of the admixture.
2. The performance of the admixture improved with the
increase in strip content.
3. The performance of the admixture is influenced by
aspect ratio.
4. The performance of Type I strip reinforced admixture
was better than Type II at lower confining pressure
and vice versa.
5. The improvement in performance of the admixture
was higher at low confining pressure and lower at
high confining pressure.
6. Hyperbolic stress-strain relationships are valid for the
admixtures studied. The predictions improve when the
value of failure strain / actual or assumed on
experience is introduced into the relationship.
On the whole, the paper has attempted to provide an insight
into the various aspects of the engineering properties of sand
reinforced with waste plastic strips t hrough laboratory study
and brought out their application in base/sub-base course in
roads. Further utilising waste plastic in this way will not only
save the scarce granular material but will also improve the
ground and more so the disposal of used plastic will be in an
environmental friendly manner.
REFERENCES
Ahlrich, R.C., and Tidewell,.L.E. (1994). Contingency
airfield construction: Mechanical stabilization using
monofilament and fibrillated fibers. Tech. Rep GL-94-2, U.S.
Army Engr. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Arteaga, C.B. (1989). The shear strength of Ottawa sand
mixed with discrete short length plastic fibers. MS Thesis,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Miss.
Al-Refeai, T. (1991). Behavior of granular soils reinforced
with discrete randomly oriented inclusions. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 10, pp. 319-333.
193
View publication stats
October 3-6, 2004, Sharjah – UAE
Benson, C.H., and Khire, M.U. (1994). Reinforcing sand with
strips of reclaimed high-density polyethylene. Proc ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, pp.
838-855.
Bishop, A.W and Henkel, D.J (1962). The measurement of
properties in the triaxial test. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd,
London.
Bueno, B. de Souza, (1997). The Mechanical response of
reinforced soils using short randomly distributed plastic
strips. Recent developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics,
Almeida (ed.) @ Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9054108851,
pp.401-407.
Duncan, J.M and Dunlop, P(1968). The significance of cap
and base restraint .Proc ASCE Journal of soil Mechanics and
Foundations, Vol 112, No. 8, pp. 804-820.
Dutta, M. (Ed) (1997). Waste disposal in Engineered
landfills. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 3-4.
Gray, D.H. & Maher, M.H. (1989). Admixture stabilization of
sand with discrete randomly distributed fibers. Proc. XII Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp.
1363-1366.
Gray, D.H. & Ohashi, H. (1983). Mechanics of fiber
reinforcing in sand.Proc ASCE. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering , Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 335-353.
Gray, D.H., and Al-Refeai. T (1986). Behavior of fabric-vs
fiber-reinforced sand.Proc ASCE. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 8, pp. 804-820.
Konder, R.L and Zelasko, J.S (1963). A hyperbolic stress-
strain formulation for sands. Proc. 2 nd PanAm Conf. SMFE,
pp 289-324.
Maher, M.H. & Ho, Y.C. (1994). Mechanical properties of
kaolinite/fiber soil composite.Proc ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 8, pp. 1381-1393.
Morel, J.C. and Gourc, J.P. (1997) Mechanical behavior of
sand reinforced with mesh elements. Geosynthetics
International., Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 481-508.
Ranjan, Gopal., Vasan, R.M., & Charan, H.D. (1996).
Probabilistic analysis of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced
soil. Proc ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
122, No. 6, pp. 419-426.
Sridharan, A. and Rao, Narasimha. S (1972). Hyperbolic
representation of strength, pore pressures and volume changes
with axial strain in triaxial test. Symp. on Strength and
Deformation Behaviour of Soils, Bangalore, India, Vol. 1, pp.
33-42.
Webster, S.L., and Santoni, R.L. (1997). Contingency airfield
and road construction using geosynthetic fiber stabilization of
sands. Tech. Rep GL-97-4, U.S. Army Engr. Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.