Experimental study on effect of plastic

waste strips in soil improvement

Group 05
Members:
Pema Choden (02200024)
Pema Rinzin (02200025)
Pema Zangmo (02200026)

Research Guide:
Mr. Karma Tempa

Fig 01
Landslide on the way to Lhawang hostel

1
Introduction

 Soil stabilization is a process by which the properties of a soil are

transformed to provide permanent strength gains and enhanced
engineering properties.
 Soil stabilization is a technique used to improve the condition of a
ground
to have a higher bearing capacity.

2
Introduction

 Plastics are a group of materials, either synthetic or naturally

occurring, that may be shaped when soft and then hardened
to retain the given shape.
 Plastic products have become an integral part of our daily life
as a basic need.
 Why plastic?

3
Introduction

 Sandy soils are those that are generally coarse textured and retain
few nutrients and have a low water holding capacity.
 Clay soil is a type of soil that benefits from high nutrients or the
soil that is comprised of very fine mineral particles.

4
Aim

This study aims to test and examine how the addition of plastic into sandy
clay soil improves the physical properties of soil.

5
Objectives

 To study the change in properties and compaction behavior of

sandy clay soil due to addition of plastic waste.
 To provide alternative remedy for plastic waste disposal.

 Decreasing cost of soil stabilization by using cheaper material.

 To validate the practical application of the method.

6
Problem Statement

 Increment in plastic waste production

 Frequent landslides in road cut slopes

7
METHODOLOGY
8
9
Result and Analysis

1. CBR test Table 1: CBR test result

Penetration (mm) Load(kgf)
  0% plastic 0.5% plastic 1% plastic 1.5% plastic
0 0 0 0 0
0.5 22.8 26.7 41.2 26.8
1 47.5 58.4 69.1 56.4
1.5 70.3 82.4 97.6 80.2
2 96.9 109.3 126.4 106.8
2.5 121.6 138.5 152.2 135.2
3 142.5 157.4 173.9 154.7
4 165.3 177.3 193.4 173.2
5 178.6 191.3 205.8 187.9
7.5 195.7 211.2 228.9 209.7
10 207.1 219.8 237.5 217.3
12.5 216.6 228.5 245.8 225.3
CBR Value for 2.5 mm 8.88 10.11 11.11 9.87
CBR Value for 5 mm 8.69 9.31 10.01 9.14

10
Result and Analysis

load vs penetration
300
250
200
Load (kgf)

150 0% plastic
100 0.5% plastic
1% plastic
50
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Penetration (mm)
Figure

11
Result and Analysis

Table 2: CBR value for each sample

CBR Value
Plastic
percentage (%) CBR Value 12

10
0 8.88
8

0.5 10.11

CBRValue
6

1 11.11 4

1.5 9.87 2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5

Plastic Percentage (%)

12
Result and Analysis

2. Direct shear test

 It is shown that the shear strength of the soil increases as the percentage
of the plastic strip increases.
Table 2: Direct shear test results

  Maximum shear stress (KN/m^2)

normal stress
(KN/m2) 0% plastic 0.5% plastic 1% plastic 1.5% plastic
19.62 20.8 25 29 30
39.24 31.1 38 42 49
58.86 45.8 51 57 65

13
Result and Analysis
70

f(x) = 0.891946992864424 x + 13
60
f(x) = 0.713557594291539 x + 14.6666666666667
50
f(x) = 0.662589194699286 x + 12
Table 3 value of cohesion and coefficient of internal friction
Shear stress(KN/m2)

f(x) = 0.63710499490316 x + 7.56666666666667

40

30
C Value
  (KN/m2) Phi Value

20 0% plastic 7.57 32.52

10 0.5% plastic 12 33.55

1% plastic 14.67 35.53

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
1.5%plastic 13 41.75
Normal stress (KN/m2)

Fig.3 Relationship between normal stress and shear stress

14
Result and Analysis

3. Compaction test
Table 4. Data for compaction curve

0% plastic 0.5% plastic 1% plastic 1.5% plastic

Sl. No. Dry unit moisture Dry unit moisture Dry unit moisture Dry unit moisture
weight content weight content weight content weight content
(KN/m3) (%) (KN/m3) (%) (KN/m3) (%) (KN/m3) (%)

1 17.14 13 17.5 12 18.12 11.5 17.2 11.2

2 17.32 14 18.5 13.5 19.42 12 17.7 12.3
3 18.51 16 19 14.5 20.16 13.3 18.7 13
4 19.11 17 20.6 16 21.7 15.2 19.8 15
5 18.1 18 19.4 18 20.4 17.4 18.5 16.8
6 17.2 20 17.5 19.5 19.7 18.6 17.6 17.4

15
Result and Analysis

22
Compaction curve

Maximum Dry Density (KN/m3)

21.5
23
21
Dry Density (KN/m3)

21 20.5
0% plastic 20
19 0.5% plastic
19.5
1% plastic
1.5% plastic 19
17
18.5
15 18
10 14 18 22
17.5
Moisture content(%) 0 0.5 1 1.5
Plastic Percentage (%)

Fig 4. compaction curve for different plastic strip contents Fig.5 Effect of plastic content on maximum dry density

16
Result and Analysis

 The maximum dry density of the soil increases with the addition of plastic
strip to the soil.
 The maximum dry density was obtained when the plastic addition was 1%
after that the MDD value started decreasing.
 The optimum moisture content of the soil was observed to be decreasing
with the increase in plastic percentage.

17
Result and Analysis
4. Permeability test
 The value of coefficient of permeability shows slight variation with the
addition of plastic in the soil
Table 5 coefficient of permeability for different plastic content
Sl. No 0% plastic 0.5% plastic 1% plastic 1.5% plastic

1 Initial head, h1(cm) 80 80 80 80

2 Final head, h2 (cm) 30 30 30 30
3 Time interval in
second (t2-t1) 110 121 118
122
4 Coefficient of
Permeability,
K= 2.303aL/At 0.0044758 0.004069 0.004172354 0.004035556
Log10(h1/h2) cm/s

18
Conclusions

 The CBR value of sandy clay soil shows an increasing trend on

addition of waste plastic strips.
 The strength of the soil also shows an improvement with the
increased value of shear parameters.
 The maximum dry density of the soil increase up to certain
percentage addition of plastic.
 Further increase in the plastic replacement showed decrease in the
MDD

19
References
Borah, B. (2022). Variation in CBR Strength of Dibrugarh Soil Subgrade by partial replacement of soil with varying
percentages of Waste Plastic Strips. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science Engineering and
Technology, 11, 8264–8270. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2022.1106202

Endaryanta, M., & Wibowo, D. E. (2017). The Efforts to Improve Shear Strength of Clay Soil Using Plastic Waste.
28–34. https://doi.org/10.2991/ictvt-17.2017.6

Fadhil, S. H., Al-Soud, M. S., & Kudadad, R. M. (2021). Enhancing the Strength of Clay-Sand Mixture by Discrete
Waste Plastic Strips. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 24(3), 381–391.
https://doi.org/10.6180/jase.202106_24(3).0013

Gangwar, P., & Tiwari, S. (2021). Stabilization of soil with waste plastic bottles. Materials Today: Proceedings, 47,
3802–3806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.010

Gardete, D., & Luzia, R. (2020). Experimental Study on Soils Stabilized with Two Types of Plastic Waste. KnE
Engineering, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.18502/keg.v5i6.7020

20
References
Kassa, R. B., Workie, T., Abdela, A., Fekade, M., Saleh, M., & Dejene, Y. (2020). Soil Stabilization Using Waste
Plastic Materials. Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojce.2020.101006

Ilieş, N.-M., Cîrcu, A.-P., Nagy, A.-C., Ciubotaru, V.-C., & Kisfaludi-Bak, Z. (2017). Comparative Study on Soil
Stabilization with Polyethylene Waste Materials and Binders. Procedia Engineering, 181, 444–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.414

Ogundairo, T. O., Olukanni, D. O., Akinwumi, I. I., & Adegoke, D. D. (2021). A review on plastic waste as
sustainable resource in civil engineering applications. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, 1036(1), 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1036/1/012019

Peddaiah, S., Burman, A., & Sreedeep, S. (2018). Experimental Study on Effect of Waste Plastic Bottle Strips in
Soil Improvement. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 36(5), 2907–2920.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0512-0

21
Thank You

22