45TH NATIONAL CONVENTION AND TECHNICAL CONFERENCE

ACADEME SESSION

USE OF POLYETHYLENE
TEREPHTHALATE (PET) POLYMER
WASTE (PLASTIC BOTTLE) AS SOIL
STABILIZER FOR SUSTAINABLE
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION

AUTHOR/S
ENGR. EDUARDO B. LERON JR.
FACULTY, CE DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST-CALOOCAN

NEIGJHEL T. ALDEGUER
MIA DIANNE J. APOSACAS
JOHN ROBERT G. CRUZ
ANDRICH O. ROSARIO
CONTENTS
01 INTRODUCTION
02 RELATED STUDIES
03 METHODOLOGY
04 RESULTS
05 CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION

CONVENIENCE OF
PLASTIC
PRODUCTS

Plastic products make the

daily life of people convenient
as it has become part of
society’s basic need.

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
INTRODUCTION
HARMFUL
EFFECTS OF
PLASTIC
USAGE

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
 INTRODUCTION
PHILIPPINES AS 3RD MASSIVE SOURCE OF PLASTIC POLLUTANT IN ASIA
Mismanaged % of total Plastic marine
Econ. Coastal Pop. Waste gen. rate % plastic % mismanaged
Rank Country plastic waste mismanaged debris
Classif. [millions] [kg/ppd] waste waste
[MMT/year] plastic waste [MMT/year]

1 China UMI 262.9 1.1 11 76 8.82 27.7 1.32-3.53

2 Indonesia LMI 187.2 0.52 11 83 3.22 10.1 0.48-1.29
3 Philippines LMI 83.4 0.5 15 83 1.88 5.9 0.28-0.75
4 Vietnam LMI 55.9 0.79 13 88 1.83 5.8 0.28-0.73
5 Sri Lanka LMI 14.6 5.1 7 84 1.59 5.0 0.24-0.64
A
6 Thailand UMI 26 1.2 12 75 1.03 3.2 0.15-0.41
7 Egypt LMI 21.8 1.37 13 69 0.97 3.0 0.15-0.39
8 Malaysia UMI 22.9 1.52 13 57 0.94 2.9 0.14-0.37
9 Nigeria LMI 27.5 0.79 13 83 0.85 2.7 0.13-0.34
10 Bangladesh LI 70.9 0.43 8 89 0.79 2.5 0.12-0.31

11 South Africa UMI 12.9 2.0 12 56 0.63 2.0 0.09-0.25

12 India LMI 187.5 0.34 3 87 0.60 1.9 0.09-0.24

13 Algeria UMI 16.6 1.2 12 60 0.52 1.6 0.08-0.21
14 Turkey UMI 34 1.77 12 18 0.49 1.5 0.07-0.19
15 Pakistan LMI 14.6 0.79 13 88 0.48 1.5 0.07-0.19
16 Brazil UMI 74.7 1.03 16 11 0.47 1.5 0.07-0.19
17 Burma LI 19 0.44 17 89 0.46 1.4 0.07-0.18
18 Morocco LMI 17.3 1.46 5 68 0.31 1.0 0.05-0.12
19 North Korea LI 17.3 0.6 9 90 0.30 1.0 0.05-0.12
20 United States HIC 112.9 2.58 13 2 0.28 0.9 0.04-0.11
EFFECTS ON
INTERNATIONAL
WATERS
The Philippines, having a crisis on

ocean pollution is now classified as one of

the massive sources of plastic waste to

international waters (Jambeck, J.R. et al.,

2015). Some plastic wastes from Metro

Manila flows along the ocean and blocks

some waterways causing marine pollution.

Thus, maximizing the efficiency of plastic

waste through using it as an additive for

soil stabilizer.

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
WAYS TO RECYCLE
PLASTIC WASTE

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

MYSHELTER FOUNDATION

“First Bottled School in Asia (Pasay, Philippines)”

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

TYPES OF PLASTIC

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study aims to answer the following questions:

 What is the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) when plastic waste

is used as an additive for soil stabilizer?

 What is the effect on its Moisture Density Relationship (MDR)

when plastic strip is added as a soil stabilizer?
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.3 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the effects on soil properties by

using Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Polymer
Waste (Plastic Bottle) as an additive for soil
stabilizer.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

 To determine the effects on the soil having 0%, 2%,

3%, and 5% of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
with 3% cement as an additive for soil stabilizer on
its California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

 To determine the effects on the soil having 0%, 2%,

3%, and 5% of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
with 3% cement as an additive for soil stabilizer on
its Moisture Density Relationship (MDR)
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

 To be able to contribute to the environment by

helping on the disposal of plastic wastes by
recycling and maximizing it as an additive for soil
stabilizer
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
 Contribute to the Environment

 Improve the load-bearing strength and shear strength of soil

 Lessen plastic waste

 Improve soil sustainability

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
 Improve the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Moisture Density Relationship
(MDR) of soil

 It will solely focus on using 0%, 2%, 3%, and 5% of Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET) Polymer Waste (Plastic Bottle) with 3% of Cement

 The study is conducted to develop ways on recycling plastic wastes to contribute

to the environment

 The plastic will be cut into 12mm x 36mm strips

The term soil stabilization means the improvement of the stability or bearing
power of the soil by the use of controlled compaction, proportioning and or the
addition of suitable admixture or stabilizer. The basic principles in soil
stabilization may be stated as follows
1.Evaluating the properties of the given soil.
2.Deciding the method of supplementing the lacking property by the effective
and economical method of stabilization.
3.Designing the stabilized soil mix for intended stability and durability values.
4.Considering the construction procedure by adequately compacting the
stabilized layers.
2:
RELATED STUDIES
RELATED
STUDIES “One method to reduce some portion of
the plastic waste disposal problem is by
recycling and utilizing these materials
(Plastic) in the stabilization of expansive
soil.”

-Harish and Ashiwini (2016)

 The use has greatly increased in the recent past
making disposable plastics as the primary
RELATED STUDIES pollutant in our environment.

(Video Source:Youtube.com)
 Plastic Recycling became an essential
RELATED STUDIES activity in our world nowadays. Plastic
Recycling is the process of recovering
scrap or waste plastic and reprocessing
the material into reusable products

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
RELATED
“Eco-bricks, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles
STUDIES filled with mixed inorganic waste, have become a low
cost construction material and a valid recycling
method to reduce waste disposal in regions where
industrial recycling is not yet available.”

-Antico et. Al. (2017)

RELATED STUDIES An ecobrick is used today as a building block,
plastic bottles filled with solid non-
biodegradable waste to a set density.

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
RELATED STUDIES

-ecobricks will certainly be a useful

material to make both for the
environment and for man’s social needs.

-help to lessen the cost of living.

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
RELATED STUDIES

(Image Source:Pinterest.com)
RELATED
STUDIES

“Soil fiber composites have been found effective in

improving CBR value.”

-Neopaney, Wangchuk and Tenzin (2012)

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR)

-empirical test procedure that has been used to determine

the properties of materials for flexible pavement design.

- Each case samples were evaluated and figured that

California Bearing Ratio of fine-grained soil usually

depends on dry density and moisture content of soil and

varies from different types of soil.

(Image Source:Google.com)
 Choudhary, Jha, and Gill (2010) in their study

revealed that reinforcing sand with waste strips

enhances its resistance to deformation and its

strength. In addition, strips of HDPE mixed with local

sand increases the CBR value and secant modulus

when using a strip content of 4% and the aspect ratio

3. They also stated that reinforcement benefit

increases with an increase in waste plastic strip

content and length.

(Image Source:Google.com)
“Settlement of foundations results from
moisture movements.”

-Olsen (1962)
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF “Soil stabilization is the process of blending and
RELATED mixing materials to improve engineering
properties of soil.”
LITERATURE -Singh and Dixit (2017)
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF
RELATED
LITERATURE

(Image Source:Google.com)
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF
RELATED
LITERATURE

(Image Source:Google.com)
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
METHODOLOGY
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
METHODOLOGY

MATERIAL
GATHERING
METHODOLOGY SOIL: Soil collected from the Meycauayan, Bulacan
MATERIAL GATHERING was used in this study with specific gravity 2.40

SOIL SAMPLE having coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 5.0 and

coefficient of curvature (Cc) of 1.80 and free swell
index as 40%. The soil is classified as „MH‟ or „OH‟
(„MH‟ is inorganic silt of high plasticity and „OH‟ is
organic clay of medium or high plasticity) group as
per the Unified Soil Classification System. The
maximum dry density and maximum water content of
soil as determined from the relative tests were
1.70g/cc and 17.50%.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
MATERIAL GATHERING
POLYETHYLENE
TEREPHTHALATE
(PET)

Plastic
: The waste plastic were collected from nearby disposal sites and made
into strips of different aspect ratios. A study on CBR behavior of waste
plastic strip reinforced soil having strip width of 12mm and a thickness of
40 micron.
- The waste plastic strips to be added to the soil were considered a part of
the solid fraction in the void solid matrix of the soil. The content of the
strip is defined herein as the ratio of weight of strips to the weight of
drysoil. The tests were conducted at various strip contents of 0.0%, 2%,
3%, and 5%. All mixtures has 3% of Cement.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
PROCESS
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
PROCESS

Plastic Strips cut by 12mm x 36mm

METHODOLOGY
PROCESS

Plastic Strips cut by 12mm x 36mm

METHODOLOGY
PROCESS
METHODOLOGY
TESTING
METHODOLOGY
TESTING MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP(MDR)
Determines the optimum

moisture content which is

the limit in which the Optimum Moisture Content

addition of water should be

stopped that would give

the maximum dry density

of the soil sample after the

test of compaction. Adding

water further on will only

lead to the loss of dry

density.
(Image Source:Google.com)
METHODOLOGY
TESTING CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR)

The test measures the

resistance of soil to penetration by a
standard piston calibrated against
the standard resistance of a good
quality crushed rock.

(Image Source:Google.com)
METHODOLOGY

EXAMINING/
ANALYZING
THE RESULTS
METHODOLOGY
EXAMINING/ANALYZING THE RESULTS

MDR / CBR
CONTROL

SOIL WITH 3% CEMENT

SOIL WITH 3% CEMENT AND 2% PET

SOIL WITH 3% CEMENT AND 3% PET

SOIL WITH 3% CEMENT AND 5% PET

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

- Many of the strips showed elongation, thinning and clear impression of silt
particles. Apparently, as the soil sheared during penetration, strip fixed in the
soil by friction, elongated and together provided strength against the
deformation. Deformation of the soil specimen being predominantly shear in
nature, the CBR value can be regarded as an indirect measure of strength.
The load- penetration curves for following CBR test were performed.
 MDR RESULTS: Moisture Content: RAW SOIL/CONTROL
RAW SOIL / CONTROL 1480.00
Trial Number 1 2 3 4 5
Water added in ml 100 100 100 100 100 1460.00
Mold + Wet Soil 3336 3425 3510 3539 3529

DRY DENSITY (KG/M3)

1440.00
Mold 1787 1787 1787 1787 1787
Wet Soil 1549 1638 1723 1752 1742 1420.00
WET DENSITY, kg/m3 1593.62 1685.19 1772.63 1802.47 1792.18
Container Number 3A 33 13 25 30 1400.00
Container + Wet Soil 279.27 323.45 307.39 267.19 258.43
Container + Dry Soil 250.64 284.17 263.37 223.47 208.15 1380.00
Water 28.63 39.28 44.02 43.72 50.28
Container 40.89 51.35 52.66 55.24 50.53 1360.00
Dry Soil 209.75 232.82 210.71 168.23 157.62
1340.00
MOISTURE CONTENT, 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
13.650 16.871 20.891 25.988 31.900
%
MOISTURE CONTENT 0.136 0.169 0.209 0.260 0.319 Moisture Content
DRY DENSITY, kg/m3 1402.22 1441.91 1466.30 1430.66 1358.75
2 % PLASTIC STRIPS
MoistureDensity: WITH 2% PLASTIC STRIPS Trial Number 1 2 3 4 5
Water added in ml 100 100 100 100 100
1480.000
Mold + Wet Soil 3272 3418 3508 3526 3439
1460.000 Mold 1787 1787 1787 1787 1787
DRY DENSITY (KG/M3)

Wet Soil 1485 1631 1721 1739 1652

1440.000 WET DENSITY, kg/m3 1527.78 1677.98 1770.58 1789.09 1699.59
Container Number 34 A1 16 21 NM
1420.000
Container + Wet Soil 201.66 255.34 254.5 228.14 234.62
1400.000 Container + Dry Soil 184.61 226.88 218.94 194.87 200.45
Water 17.05 28.46 35.56 33.27 34.17
1380.000 Container 54.75 51.63 52.21 51.09 51.63
Dry Soil 129.86 175.25 166.73 143.78 148.82
1360.000
MOISTURE CONTENT,
13.130 16.240 21.328 23.140 22.961
1340.000 %
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 MOISTURE CONTENT 0.1313 0.1624 0.2133 0.2314 0.2296
MoistureDensity DRY DENSITY, kg/m3 1350.468 1443.555 1459.331 1452.900 1382.222
 3 % PLASTIC STRIPS
Trial Number 1 2 3 4 5
Water added in ml 100 100 100 100 100
Mold + Wet Soil 3247 3415 3494 3513 3503
1787 1787 1787 1787 1787
Moisture Content: WITH 3% PLASTIC STRIPS
Mold
Wet Soil 1460 1628 1707 1726 1716 1460.000
WET DENSITY, kg/m3 1502.06 1674.90 1756.17 1775.72 1765.43 1440.000

DRY DENSITY (KG/M3)

Container Number 30 25 13 33 3A 1420.000
Container + Wet Soil 215.65 281.68 248.03 224.31 221.2 1400.000
Container + Dry Soil 194.11 246.2 211.87 184.97 178.55
1380.000
Water 21.54 35.48 36.16 39.34 42.65
1360.000
Container 50.5 51.63 52.21 51.09 51.63
Dry Soil 143.61 194.57 159.66 133.88 126.92 1340.000

MOISTURE CONTENT, 1320.000

14.999 18.235 22.648 29.385 33.604
% 1300.000
MOISTURE CONTENT 0.1500 0.1824 0.2265 0.2938 0.3360 1280.000
DRY DENSITY, kg/m3 1306.149 1416.582 1431.879 1372.436 1321.393 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Moisture Content

5 % PLASTIC STRIPS
Moisture Content: WITH 5% PLASTIC STRIPS Trial Number 1 2 3 4 5
Water added in ml 100 100 100 100 100
1330.000
Mold + Wet Soil 3159 3281 3348 3440 3436
1320.000
Mold 1787 1787 1787 1787 1787
DRY DENSITY (KG/M3)

1310.000
Wet Soil 1372 1494 1561 1653 1649
1300.000 WET DENSITY, kg/m3 1411.52 1537.04 1605.97 1700.62 1696.50
1290.000 Container Number NM 21 16 A1 34
1280.000 Container + Wet Soil 202.47 217.09 238.79 245.19 203.66
1270.000 Container + Dry Soil 183.79 193.15 205.64 200.67 163.8
1260.000 Water 18.68 23.94 33.15 44.52 39.86
1250.000 Container 51.63 51.09 52.21 51.6 54.75
1240.000 Dry Soil 132.16 142.06 153.43 149.07 109.05
1230.000 MOISTURE CONTENT,
14.134 16.852 21.606 29.865 36.552
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 %
MOISTURE CONTENT 0.1413 0.1685 0.2161 0.2987 0.3655
Moisture Content
DRY DENSITY, kg/m3 1236.720 1315.370 1320.632 1309.525 1242.385
 0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14 STRIP CONTENTS

0.12

LOAD (N)
E (w/ 5% PET)
0.1 D (w/ 3% PET)

0.08 C (w/ 2% PET)

B (w/ 3% CEMENT)
0.06
A CONTROL
0.04

0.02

0
0.64 1.27 1.91 2.54 5.08 7.62
PENETRATION (mm)

LOAD PENETRATION (LOAD READINGS IN mm)

MOLD 0.64 1.27 1.91 2.54 5.08 7.62

A CONTROL 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

B (w/ 3% CEMENT) 0.021 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.025 0.03

C (w/ 2% PET) 0.01 0.01 0.011 0.015 0.02 0.02

D (w/ 3% PET) 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.035 0.045

E (w/ 5% PET) 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.025 0.032

 LOAD
PENETRATION
(LOAD
READINGS IN
mm)
STANDARD
STANDARD LOAD (6.9 LOAD (10.3
MOLD 2.54 MPA) 5.08 MPA)
A CONTROL 0.05 6.90 0.724638 0.05 10.3 0.485437
B (w/ 3% CEMENT) 0.022 6.90 0.318841 0.025 10.3 0.242718
C (w/ 2% PET) 0.015 6.90 0.217391 0.02 10.3 0.194175
D (w/ 3% PET) 0.02 6.90 0.289855 0.035 10.3 0.339806
E (w/ 5% PET) 0.02 6.90 0.289855 0.025 10.3 0.242718
- It can be observed from these figures that mixing of uniformly distributed plastic strips in soil increased the
piston load at a given penetration considerably.

- It is also evident from these figures that inclusion of waste plastic increased the CBR value appreciably. The
CBR value of the unreinforced soil corresponding to 2.5mm and5.08mm penetration were found to be 0.72%
and 0.48 % respectively, which were increased to 1.20% and 1.06% respectively when soil was reinforced
with 3% waste plastic strips.

- Further, CBR values of 1.90% and 2.07% for 2% waste plastics and finally CBR values of 1.63% and 1.91%
for 5% waste plastics respectively. The maximum value of CBR at 2.5mm & 5mm penetration is 1.90% &
2.07% respectively when 3% waste plastic strip content was mixed with the soil. The CBR value kept
increasing up till 3% plastic waste, and then a decrease in CBR is noticed at 5%. This reveals that at 3% PET
strip content give us the maximum bearing strength. Now, based on the maximum CBR value at 3%, similar
tests have been performed with varying percentage of strip content, the results of which can be observed.
The CBR value kept increasing till 5% strip content and at 1% strip content decrease in CBR is noticed.
 CONCLUSIONS:
The study after experiments, found following significances in using plastic strips as stabilizing agent.
a) The addition of reclaimed plastic waste material to local soil increases the CBR.
b) The maximum improvement in CBR is obtained while using 3% plastics strips.
c) The CBR value 5% plastic strip decreased.
d) The reinforcement benefit increases with an increase in3% and percentage of strip content up to
certain limit, and beyond that it reduces its strength.
The maximum CBR value of a reinforced system is approximately 1.70 times that of an unreinforced
system. We can therefore conclude that base course thickness can be significantly reduced if
waste plastic strip is used as soil stabilizing agent for sub-grade material. This suggests that the
strips of appropriate size cut from plastic wastes may prove beneficial as soil reinforcement in
highway sub-base if mixed with locally available granular soils in appropriate quantity. However
further study is needed:

(i)To optimize the size and shape of strips and increasing its percentage content.
(ii) To assess the durability and aging of the strip.
(iii)Large scale test is also needed to determine the boundary effects influence on test results.
 REFERENCES:
 https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/294144/mod_resource/content/0/Artigo%201%20%20Wishmeier%20e%20Mannering%201969.pdf

 http://wpg.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/wpg/files/seminars/2000_Bryan_Geom.pdf

 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Elliot/publication

43257960_WEPP_Soil_Erodibility_Experiments_for_Rangeland_and_Cropland_Soils/links/53d95d520cf2e38c63345938.pdf

 https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=10012&content=PDF

 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lorenzo_Borselli/publication/227896767_Climate_effects_on_soil_erodibility/links/5b5b2d46aca272a2d66e3c11/Climate-effects-on-soil-

erodibility.pdf

 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/03a5/1ba4e25efc40841605e4fc96d8319405a606.pdf**

 https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=nrem_pubs

 https://www.earthday.org/2018/04/06/top-20-countries-ranked-by-mass-of-mismanaged-plastic-waste/

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-B978044442758850012X/first-page-pdf

 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2860/1e59842e01f9594bf3d0379f0e4a9c77fe1f.pdf

 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr40/sr40-022.pdf

 https://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge441/hydrocompression_and_hydroswell-news_terms_in_the_geotechnical_dictionary.pdf

 https://people.bath.ac.uk/abspw/rammedearth/review.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0bJZy9yq3BuFm4C34_2U56oGKx1KHTVPPMlschAnLm76Vswt-XMPLL2FI

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322197361_Ecobricks_A_sustainable_substitute_for_construction_materials
THANK YOU