Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Engineering properties of plastic waste reinforced sand
1
2
Bahram Ta'negonbadi1, Reza Noorzad
*2, Pardis Shakery
3 3
4
PhD in Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of 5
Technology, Babol, IRAN 1 6
Email: [email protected] 1 7
Mobile: +989112800472 8
9
Associate Professor in Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol 10
Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, IRAN2 11
*Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected], [email protected] 2 12
Tel: +981135278377 mobile: +989121763764 13
14
M.sc in Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of 15
Technology, Babol, IRAN 3 16
Email: [email protected] 3 17
Tel: +981135278377 18
19
Words: 5884; Figures: 11; Tables: 4 20
Submitted to: 21
Scientia Iranica 22
2
23
Bahram Ta'negonbadi was born in Gonbade Kavoos, Golestan, Iran in 24
1989. He received the B.Sc. degree in Civil engineering from Ferdowsi 25
University of Mashhad in 2011, M.Sc. degree in Geotechnical engineering 26
from Sharif University of Technology in 2013. He obtained his Ph.D. degree 27
in Geotechnical engineering from Babol Noshirvani University of 28
Technology, Bbaol, Iran, in 2018. 29
His main areas of research interest are soil stabilization, soil improvement, 30
underground spaces (tunnels) under dynamic loadings, soil-structure 31
interaction, earth dams and geotechnical earthquake engineering. 32
33
Reza Noorzad * was born in Nour, Mazandaran, Iran in 1964. He received 34
both his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degree in Civil engineering and Geotechnical 35
engineering from Tehran University, Tehran, Iran, in 1990 and 1994 36
respectively, He obtained his Ph.D. degree in Geotechnical engineering from 37
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2000. 38
He is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil 39
Engineering at Babol Noshirvani University of Technology. From 2004 to 2007 he was the Head 40
of Central Library and Documentation Centre at Mazandaran University. His research interests 41
include soil improvement, reinforced soil, earth dams, marine geotechnics, and geotechnical 42
earthquake engineering. 43
44
Pardis shakery was born in Babol, Mazandaran, Iran in 1987. She 45
received the B.Sc. degree in Civil engineering from Tabari Institute of 46
Higher Education in 2010, M.Sc. degree in Geotechnical engineering from 47
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology in 2014. She is interested in soil 48
improvement and soil reinforcement. 49
50
51
52
53
* Corresponding author
3
Engineering properties of plastic waste reinforced sand
54
55 Abstract: A series of triaxial compression tests were performed to evaluate the benefits of plastic 56
wastes and investigate the engineering properties of sand reinforced with these materials. In this 57
research, the effects of plastic waste contents (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1% by dry weight of sand), types of 58
plastic wastes -polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP) fibers- and confining pressures 59
(50, 100 and 200 kPa) on the behavior of Babolsar sand were investigated. The values of deformation 60
modulus (up to 84%), peak (up to 7 times of the unreinforced sand) and steady state shear strength 61
increased with reinforcement. Also, axial strain at failure for fiber-reinforced sand increased up to 1.5 62
times of unreinforced one (from 3.36% to 8.53% for 1% PP usage at 50 kPa confining pressure). 63
Therefore, it can be generally stated that the use of plastic wastes in the sand leads to low cost soil 64
reinforcement and also lessens the disposal problem of these kinds of wastes. 65
Keywords: Sand reinforcement, Shear strength, Plastic waste, Fiber-shaped plastic, Triaxial 66
compression test. 67
1. Introduction 68
Nowadays lack of accessibility to lands with fair bearing capacity for construction is an 69
important problem, so this problem force engineers to use local lands. In such cases, soil 70
improvement techniques such as soil reinforcement and soil stabilization behaved satisfactorily 71
in many conditions. Soil reinforcement has been performed with different methods and materials 72
such as various types of geosynthetics and fibers. 73
There are at least two advantages in using randomly distributed fiber as reinforcement. First, 74
the discrete fibers are simply added and mixed randomly with soil, in much the same way as 75
cement, lime, or other additives. Second, randomly distributed fibers limit potential planes of 76
weakness that can develop parallel to oriented reinforcement [1-4]. 77
Nowadays, the tendency to use alternative materials which can fulfill design specification is 78
promoted because of environmental and economic problems. One possible way to reuse these 79
wastes is to convert them into materials for soil reinforcement and construction applications like 80
highway base material and backfill of retaining walls. The soil which is reinforced by waste 81
4
plastic strip can be used in embankment/road construction which leads to significant reduction in 82
cost as well as safe disposal of these waste materials in an environmental friendly manner [5-9]. 83
So, many researchers have focused on finding suitable ways for reusing waste materials. Plastic 84
wastes are usually materials with high strength and less reaction with acids and alkalis. These 85
kinds of wastes are not biodegradable, so they remain unchanged for years and cause 86
environmental pollution [6-7]. 87
Using plastic wastes such as tire shreds to improve the mechanical properties of soil dates 88
back to the 1990. Many researchers studied on the engineering properties of plastic waste 89
reinforced soils [2, 4, 6-18]. The idea of incorporating other plastic wastes in soil was first 90
proposed by Benson and Khire [19]. They used translucent HDPE milk jugs which were cut into 91
strips as reinforcing material. Direct shear tests were conducted on samples, and results showed 92
that adding these wastes into the soil increased friction angle and shear strength of sand. Consoli 93
et al. [20] conducted an experimental study on uncemented and artificially cemented soil 94
reinforced with polyethylene fibers derived from plastic wastes. The results demonstrated that 95
plastic wastes improved the stress-strain response of both uncemented and cemented sand. Kim 96
et al. [21] investigated the behavior of reinforced and unreinforced lightweight soils. The 97
unconfined compression tests as well as those of one-dimensional compression tests showed that 98
the strength of reinforced lightweight soil generally increased after adding waste fishing net (0%, 99
0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of the dry soil weight), however the level of increase in 100
compressive strength was not directly proportional to the percentage of waste fishing net. The 101
results of the tests indicated that the maximum increase in compressive strength was obtained for 102
soil mixed with 0.25% waste fishing net. Babu et al. [22] conducted experiments on sand 103
samples reinforced with waste PET pieces (0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of dry soil weight) obtained 104
5
from waste water bottles. They observed that inclusion of these plastics in the soil improved the 105
shear strength, tensile strength and internal friction angle of the soil. Muntohar et al. [23] carried 106
out an experimental study on silty soil stabilized with lime and rice husk ash and reinforced with 107
waste plastic fibers. The results showed that this method was an effective way to improve the 108
engineering properties of the silty soil with regard to compressive strength, tensile strength, and 109
shear strength, which enhanced the stability of the soil; also, the optimum amount of fiber in the 110
soil/lime/rice husk ash/fiber mixtures was ranged from 0.4–0.8% of the dry soil weight. 111
Abbaspour et al. [7] performed a series of static and cyclic laboratory tests to contribute to 112
manage and prevent the burial of a part of hazardous wastes produced during the recycling 113
process of worn tires. Their results showed that the fiber inclusion enhances all geotechnical 114
properties of the soil under static state. Also, they concluded that under dynamic state, the fibers 115
can increase the energy absorption and dissipation properties of the soil, as well as the resilient 116
modulus and damping ratio with an optimum fiber content of 1–2%. 117
Therefore, based on previous researches, the main advantages of using short fibers over planar 118
reinforcement can be summarized as follows: 119
(1) Improving soil physical properties. 120
(2) Provide more uniformity. 121
(3) Provide considerable flexibility. 122
(4) Provide high levels of stiffness to weight ratio. 123
(5) Increase in toughness. This means more energy absorption ability. So, this property 124
makes it suitable for subgrades of airport pavements, blast resistant structures and etc. 125
In this paper an experimental study of the utilization of two kinds of fiber-shaped plastic 126
wastes (PET and PP) for sand reinforcement and their effects on shear strength, ductility and 127
6
stiffness of the sand are described. Also, the effects of plastic waste fiber content, confining 128
pressure and length of PET fibers on sand behavior is examined. 129
2. Materials 130
2.1. Sand 131
The sand used in this research was obtained from shores of Caspian Sea (Babolsar- Iran). The 132
grain size distribution curve of the soil, which was obtained based on ASTM D-422 [24], is 133
shown in Figure 1. Babolsar sand is uniform and clean with subrounded to subgranular particles 134
and classified as SP according to the unified soil classification system, ASTM D-2487 [25]. The 135
mean particle diameter (D50) of the sand was 0.2 mm. The specific gravity of sand particles was 136
determined a value of 2.75 based on ASTM D-854 [26]. Minimum and maximum dry unit 137
weights of the sand were obtained according to ASTM D-4254 [27] and ASTM D-4253 [28] 138
equal to 14.8 and 17.4 kN/m3 respectively. 139
2.2. Reinforcing materials 140
The reinforcing materials used in this study were two kinds of plastic wastes, polyethylene 141
terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP). The PET waste was recycled from plastic water 142
bottles. These plastic water bottles were accumulated and then melted to transform into fiber-143
shaped material. The fibers were cut into 5, 10 and 15 mm pieces to be used as reinforcing 144
elements in sand (Figure 2). The waste PP fibers have been taken from a factory which produced 145
polypropylene bags and then cut into 15 mm length pieces (Figure 3). The characteristics of used 146
fibers are shown in Table 1. 147
3. Sample preparation and testing procedure 148
To prepare samples mixed with PET fibers, an appropriate amount of the sand as well as 149
plastic waste was weighed. To ensure uniform distribution of PET fibers in the mixture, at first 150
7
the specified dry soil was mixed with 5% water content and then the specified weight of plastic 151
waste (by dry weight of the soil) was mixed with soil until obtaining a uniform mixture (It is 152
suggested to add an amount of water to the sand to achieve a better mixture of sand and fiber 153
until it does not cause them to float [29]. In this research, to determine the required amount of 154
water for preparation of samples, different water contents including 5, 10, and 15% were 155
considered and the homogeneity of samples was evaluated. Based on the results, 5% water 156
content was determined as the optimum moisture content to prepare the uniform sand-fiber 157
mixtures). Since the tests were conducted on dry specimens; so, the mixtures were put into an 158
oven at 65°C for 48 hours prior to the tests, to get dry. Because it was observed that the PET 159
fibers begin to deform when the heat was over 65°C, so this temperature was used for the 160
purpose. 161
To prepare mixtures with PP fibers, the specified amount of sand and PP fibers were mixed 162
in dry condition. 163
After preparing the sand and plastic waste mixture, specimens were statically compacted in 164
four layers in a cylindrical mold - 38 mm diameter and 76 mm height – (similar to the mold that 165
used by Yadav and Tiwari [18] for the maximum length of 15 mm fiber) to a relative density of 166
70% based on the procedure proposed by Baldi et al. [30]. Both kinds of plastic wastes were 167
mixed with sand at different percentages (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1% by dry soil weight). 168
The prepared samples were tested in dry condition in a conventional triaxial apparatus. There 169
has been a lot of research on dry samples of granular soils in the past [31-33]. In this research, 170
the specimen's volume change was recorded and measured to monitor this property during the 171
shear, and also for using in area correction. A twin-burette volume change was applied to 172
measure the volume change of specimens on the cell pressure line. A total of 51 triaxial 173
8
compression tests were performed on the unreinforced and reinforced specimens at a strain rate 174
of 0.35% per minute. The tests were performed on the samples with three values of confining 175
pressures (50, 100 and 200 kPa). Deviator load was applied till the specimens fail or attain the 176
axial strain of 15%. Corrections including membrane force [34], membrane penetration [35] and 177
cross-sectional area were taken into account and applied. The investigated variables are 178
illustrated in Table 2. 179
4. Results and discussion 180
In this section, the results of performed triaxial compression tests on specimens of 181
unreinforced and reinforced sand with two types of plastic wastes are presented based on peak 182
strength, ductility, failure strain, volumetric strain and secant modulus of deformation. 183
4.1. Effect on peak strength 184
As it can be seen in Figure 4, the peak strength increased with reinforcement of the sand. This 185
increment became more considerable with an increase in percentage and length of plastic wastes. 186
For example, the peak strength of the unreinforced sand under a confining pressure of 50 kPa 187
was increased from 230.5 to 288.8 kPa due to the reinforcement by 0.25% PET with 5 mm 188
length. This value was increased to 961.3 kPa (more than 4 times of the unreinforced one) for a 189
sample reinforced by 1% PET with 15 mm length. Also, for PP waste fiber-reinforced sand at 190
1% usage, the peak strength was reached to 1614 kPa (about 7 times of the unreinforced one) at 191
the same confining pressure. A similar trend was observed in previous works [4, 12-13, 20]. As 192
the plastic waste reinforced sand was subjected to deformation, friction which is appeared 193
between soil and plastic wastes led to development of tensile stress in the plastic wastes, also 194
increase in confinement of the sample, and consequently increase in the shear strength of the 195
samples. As it can be seen in Figure 5, at all PET contents and all confining pressures, the peak 196
9
shear stress of sand improved with an increase in the length of waste PET fibers from 5 mm to 197
10 mm but after this value, the improvement of shear stress was negligible. This may be due to 198
the fact that longer fibers have longer embedment length; therefore, they endure greater tension 199
during shear. Actually, the value of increase in peak shear stress for the sand reinforced with 15 200
mm length PET fibers is almost the same as that for the sand reinforced with 10 mm length fibers 201
with a negligible difference. Previous research has also indicated a similar trend between the 202
shear strength improvement of fiber-reinforced soil and the length of the fiber [4]. This 203
phenomenon can be attributed to the following reasons: 204
The decrease of the number of fibers which participate in the failure zone – when the 205
percentage of the fiber is constant, the number of fibers decreases with the increase in fiber 206
length. 207
As the fiber length was increased, it got more difficult to make a uniform mixture with the 208
sand because the long fibers piled up together resulting in slippage; so, less improvement was 209
achieved when the percentage of the fiber was constant in the soil and waste plastic fibers 210
length was increased. 211
Nevertheless, the stress ratio (ratio of peak deviatoric stress of reinforced specimen to the 212
corresponding value of unreinforced one) decreased with the increase of confining pressure as 213
shown in Figure 6. Consider, for instance, in the sample reinforced by 1% PET with 15 mm 214
length, the stress ratio for 50 kPa confining pressure is 3.98, while for 200 kPa confining 215
pressure is about 1.57. A similar trend was observed in previous researches [4, 32, 36-37]. 216
Improvement of shear strength in dilating soils, with the inclusion of fibers is related to the level 217
of interaction between fibers and soil particles as well as the amount of dilation during the shear 218
stage that mobilizes the tensile strength of fibers. Dilatancy is the result of shear zone expansion 219
10
during the mobilization of the reinforcing elements. Increase in the confining pressure limits the 220
rearrangement of the soil structure resulting in less dilation and this restricts the amount of fiber 221
stretch during the shear [4, 32, 36]. Hence, the efficiency of fiber reinforcement to increase the 222
shear strength of the dilating soil is obviously influenced by an increase in the confining 223
pressure. It is evident that the stress ratio of fiber- reinforced sand was reduced from the value of 224
4 at the confining pressure of 50 kPa to the 1.5 times of unreinforced sand at the confining 225
pressure of 200 kPa and it can be concluded that the efficiency of fibers in increase of the shear 226
strength of medium dense sand reduces at high confining pressures regardless of the fiber 227
content. So, to reach the maximum efficiency, it is appropriate to use these fibers as 228
reinforcement for the soils with low to medium overburden stress range, such as base layer in 229
road construction. 230
The results obtained from the conducted tests indicated that, for all different waste contents 231
and confining pressures, sand reinforced with PP plastic wastes had a higher peak deviatoric 232
stress compared to the sand reinforced with waste PET fibers. For example the tests conducted 233
under a confining pressure of 50 kPa, indicated that the peak shear stress for sand reinforced with 234
15 mm length PET fiber (Figure 4-c) is 4.17 times more than unreinforced sand and for sand 235
reinforced with waste PP fibers (Figure 4-d), it was 7 times more than that of the unreinforced 236
one; these values were achieved for specimens with 1% plastic waste. This may be due to the 237
tensile strength of wastes; as the tensile strength of PP fibers was more than the PET fibers, so 238
the PP fibers were crushed during the shearing (Figure 7) but the PET fibers torn in the failure 239
zone. 240
4.2. Effect on ductility 241
11
Based on Figure 4 and Table 3, it can be seen that the post-peak loss of shear stress is 242
decreased for reinforced specimens. Actually, steady state stress of reinforced samples was 243
increased with an increase in plastic waste content and length. The reason for this can be 244
explained by the fact that when the samples are loaded, the fibers act like a bridge and prevent 245
the occurrence of early and large deformations in the soil. As a result, the soil shows significant 246
strength against larger strains and less strength drop. So, the brittleness index, which indicates 247
the fragility and ductility of the reinforced soil, that was calculated based on Bishop's [38] 248
definition (equation 1) and depicted in Table 4, decreased with the inclusion of waste fibers in 249
the soil. 250
IB=q𝑝 −qs
q𝑝 (1) 251
Where IB is brittleness index, qp is peak shear stress and qs is steady state shear stress. 252
According to the Table 4, the brittleness index of the reinforced specimens decreased with an 253
increase in the waste fiber length and percentage. However, the amount of this reduction was 254
very small for the reinforced sand with 5 mm length PET fibers (about 11% for 1% usage). But, 255
the greatest decrease in the brittleness index was observed for the waste PP-reinforced sand 256
(about 75% for 1% usage). Actually, sand reinforced by the waste PP fibers has more ductile 257
behavior than the sand reinforced by the waste PET fibers. The reason for this is explained 258
previous and is related to the tensile strength of wastes. Generally, it can be argued that the 259
ductility of the Babolsar sand improved by reinforcing with plastic wastes. Increase of soil 260
ductility lead to improvement of seismic stability of geotechnical projects such as airport 261
runways and rail embankments [39]. 262
4.3. Effect on failure strain 263
12
As demonstrated in the Figures 8-9, sand reinforced with plastic waste had a greater axial 264
strain at failure in comparison to the unreinforced sand and the strain at failure increased with an 265
increase in fiber-shaped waste content and length. As an example, for the sample reinforced with 266
1% PP at 50 kPa confining pressure, the axial strain at failure increased up to 1.5 times of 267
unreinforced one (from 3.36 to 8.53%). Actually, at all confining pressures, axial strain at failure 268
increased with an increase in plastic waste percentage. As stated earlier, this can be attributed to 269
the appeared friction between the soil and plastic waste fibers (when the load applied to the 270
specimen) which led to development of tensile stress in the plastic wastes. In addition, this 271
tensile stress cause confining pressure in the sample, which result in increase of axial strain at 272
failure in reinforced samples [22]. Due to the greater tensile strength of PP waste fiber (as 273
mentioned earlier), the amount of increase in the axial strain at failure for the PP-fiber reinforced 274
sand is higher than the PET-fiber reinforced one. 275
4.4. Effect on volumetric strain 276
The changes of volumetric strain against axial strain for unreinforced and reinforced sand 277
with plastic waste (PET) were presented in Figure 10. A closer look at this figure shows that: 278
1- As anticipated during the primary part, both unreinforced and reinforced samples 279
exhibited small contraction in their volumes. With the advance of shear stress, the trend is 280
reverted and the samples showed an increase in their volumes. However, the increase in 281
confining pressure restricted the volumetric dilation of them. 282
2- The dilation of specimens is decreased by the plastic wastes (PET) inclusion. Many 283
researchers [40-41] reported that the dilation occurs principally in the center of samples. 284
Dilation and lateral deformation of the top and bottom of the specimen is restrained by the 285
cap and the base. Also, it is believed that plastic fibers reduce lateral deformation. As 286
13
stated previously, inclusion of fiber in the sand due to the appeared friction between soil 287
and plastic waste increase the confinement of the sample, which leads to decrease of the 288
lateral deformation. Therefore, it is obvious that plastic waste fibers efficiently reduce the 289
dilation of the specimens. A similar behavior was reported in previous researches [37, 40-290
41]. This phenomenon may be attributed to the decrease of maximum dry unit weight of 291
the sand due to the inclusion of fiber in the specimen and also to the small size of fiber 292
holes compared to the D50 of the sand. This outcome becomes more obvious when the 293
PET content and length increases. 294
4.5. Effect on secant modulus of deformation 295
The secant deformation modulus (E50), which was shown in Figure 11, increased with the 296
increase in waste content for two types of wastes (PET and PP) and for all lengths. The value of 297
this increment is highest for the sample reinforced by 1% PET with 5 mm length. So that, E50 298
increased from 18.6 MPa for the unreinforced sample to 34.2 MPa (about 84% increment) for the 299
mentioned sample at 50 kPa confining pressure. As mentioned earlier, by increasing plastic 300
waste length, the peak strength and axial strain at failure increases. Now, it can be stated that for 301
reinforced sample with shorter fiber lengths, axial strain has a more limited increase than peak 302
strength. As a result, the value of E50 has increased further in this case. Also, the figure shows the 303
amount of increase of E50 has decreased with increasing PET length, however for reinforced 304
samples with 10 and 15 mm lengths of PET is almost the same (similar to the results obtained for 305
peak strength of these two samples). Moreover, due to the better strength feature of PP than PET, 306
the sample reinforced by PP with 15 mm length has a higher E50 than the sample reinforced by 307
PET with 15 mm length. 308
14
The results of this study generally showed that the use of PET and PP waste fibers in soil 309
reinforcement improves soil behavior. The achieved improvement of reinforcement with PP 310
waste fiber is more than PET one, but both of them significantly improved the soil properties. 311
Depending on the expected conditions and the type of available plastic waste in the area, each of 312
them can be used. By use of them, both the environmental effects of existence of waste are 313
reduced (as stated by Hejazi et al. [3], the main reason of using plastic wastes in geotechnical 314
engineering is the environmental purposes) and the behavior of the soil is improved according to 315
the results of this research. 316
5. Conclusions 317
In this research an idea to reuse the plastic wastes in geotechnical engineering applications is 318
presented. A series of triaxial compression tests were conducted on the reinforced sand with 319
these materials. The content of these fiber-shaped plastic wastes varied from 0 to 1%. The effects 320
of four factors on the behavior of plastic waste reinforced sand were investigated: plastic waste 321
type, plastic waste length, plastic waste content and confining pressure. The experimental results 322
showed that: 323
(1) Shear strength of sand increased with the inclusion of both kinds of plastic wastes. As the 324
plastic waste reinforced sand was subjected to deformation, friction which is appeared 325
between soil and plastic wastes led to development of tensile stress in the plastic wastes, 326
also increase in confinement of the sample, and consequently increase in the shear strength 327
of the samples. 328
(2) The amount of increase in peak stress increased with an increase in PET fiber length from 329
5 to 10 mm, and due to the fact that longer fibers have longer embedment length, after this 330
value the improvement of peak stress was negligible. 331
15
(3) The peak shear strength for the PP fiber reinforced sand (for 1% fiber addition, about 7 332
times of the unreinforced sand) was greater than the PET fiber reinforced sand (for 1% 333
fiber addition and 15 mm length, about 4.17 times of unreinforced sand) due to the more 334
tensile strength of this kind of fiber. 335
(4) The stress ratio (ratio of peak deviatoric stress of reinforced specimen to the corresponding 336
value of unreinforced one) decreased from 3.98 to about 1.57 (for the sample reinforced by 337
1% PET with 15 mm length) with the increase of confining pressure from 50 to 200 kPa. 338
Increase in the confining pressure limits the rearrangement of the soil structure resulting in 339
less dilation and this restricts the amount of fiber stretch during the shear. 340
(5) The inclusion of fiber-shaped plastic wastes in the sand, made its behavior more ductile, 341
and reduced its brittleness index (up to 75%). In the reinforced sample, the fibers act like a 342
bridge and prevent the occurrence of early and large deformations in the soil. As a result, 343
the soil shows significant strength against larger strains and less strength drop. 344
(6) Due to the fiber inclusion in the sand, strain of the fiber reinforced sand at failure 345
increased up to 1.5 times of unreinforced one (from 3.36 to 8.53% for 1% PP usage at 50 346
kPa confining pressure) because of the appeared friction between the soil and plastic waste 347
fibers. 348
(7) The dilation of the plastic waste reinforced sand decreased with an increase in plastic waste 349
content and length, up to about 30%. This phenomenon may be attributed to the decrease 350
of maximum dry unit weight of the sand due to the inclusion of fiber in the specimen. 351
(8) The secant deformation modulus (E50), increased with the increase in fiber (waste) content. 352
The maximum increment is observed for the sample reinforced by 1% PET with 5 mm 353
length (about 84%). 354
16
Conflict of interest 355
The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this 356
publication. 357
Acknowledgements: 358
The authors acknowledge the funding support of Babol Noshirvani University of 359
Technology through Grant program NO. BNUT/370342/98. 360
References 361
1. Tang, C., Shi, B., Gao, W., Chen, F. and Cai, Y. “Strength and mechanical behavior of 362
short polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil”, Geotextiles and 363
Geomembranes, 25(3), pp. 194-202 (2007). 364
2. Bendjillali, K. and Chemrouk, M. “Efficiency of Plastic Fibres Waste on the Physico-365
Mechanical Properties of Mortars in Hot-Dry Conditions”, International Journal of 366
Natural Sciences Research, 4(4), pp. 75-82 (2016). 367
3. Hejazi, S.M., Sheikhzadeh, M., Abtahi, S.M. and Zadhoush, A. “A simple review of soil 368
reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers”, Construction and building 369
materials, 30, pp. 100-116 (2012). 370
4. Mirzababaei, M., Arulrajah, A., Haque, A., Nimbalkar, S. and Mohajerani, A. “Effect of 371
fiber reinforcement on shear strength and void ratio of soft clay”, Geosynthetics 372
International, 25(4), pp. 471-480 (2018). 373
5. Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N. and Gill, K.S. “Utilization of plastic wastes for improving the 374
sub-grades in flexible pavements”, In Paving materials and pavement analysis, pp. 320-375
326 (2010). 376
6. Eweed, K.M., Ebrahim, Y.K. and Ali, R.S. “Effecting the addition of the Plastic waste 377
and Rubber on the constructions materials properties”, In IOP Conference Series: 378
Materials Science and Engineering, 454(1), 012151 (2018). 379
7. Abbaspour, M., Narani, S.S., Aflaki, E. and Nejad, F.M. “Behavior of a Subgrade Soil 380
Reinforced by Waste Tire Textile Fibers under Static and Cyclic Loading”, Journal of 381
Materials in Civil Engineering, 32(8),04020208 (2020). 382
8. Abbaspour, M., Narani, S.S., Aflaki, E., Moghadas Nejad, F. and Mir Mohammad 383
Hosseini, S.M. “Strength and Swelling Properties of a Waste Tire Textile Fiber (WTTF)-384
17
Reinforced Expansive Soil”, Geosynthetics International, pp. 1–14 (2020). 385
9. Narani, S.S., Abbaspour, M., Hosseini, S.M.M., Aflaki, E. and Nejad, F.M. “Sustainable 386
reuse of Waste Tire Textile Fibers (WTTFs) as reinforcement materials for expansive 387
soils: With a special focus on landfill liners/covers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 388
247,119151 (2020). 389
10. Foose, G.J., Benson, C.H. and Bosscher, P.J. “Sand reinforced with shredded waste 390
tires”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (ASCE), 122(9), pp. 760–767 (1996). 391
11. Zornberg, J.G., Cabral, A.R. and Viratjandr, C. “Behaviour of tire shred–sand mixtures”, 392
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), pp. 227–241 (2004). 393
12. Ghazavi, M. “Shear strength characteristics of sand-mixed with granular rubber”, 394
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 22(3), pp. 401-416 (2004). 395
13. Mashiri, M.S., Vinod, J.S., Sheikh, M.N. and Tsang, H.H. “Shear strength and dilatancy 396
behaviour of sand–tyre chip mixtures”, Soils and Foundations, 55(3), pp. 517-528 397
(2015). 398
14. Indraratna, B., Sun, Q. and Grant, J. “Behaviour of subballast reinforced with used tyre 399
and potential application in rail tracks”, Transportation Geotechnics, 12, pp. 26-36 400
(2017). 401
15. Narani, S.S., Abbaspour, M., Hosseini, S.M.M. and Nejad, F.M. “Long-term Dynamic 402
Behavior of a Sandy Subgrade Reinforced by Waste Tire Textile Fibers (WTTFs)”, 403
Transportation Geotechnics, 24, 100375 (2020). 404
16. Soltani, A., Deng, A., Taheri, A., Mirzababaei, M. and Nikraz, H. “Interfacial shear 405
strength of rubber-reinforced clays: A dimensional analysis perspective”, Geosynthetics 406
International, 26(2), pp. 164-183 (2019). 407
17. Abbaspour, M., Aflaki, E. and Nejad, F.M. “Reuse of waste tire textile fibers as soil 408
reinforcement”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, pp. 1059-1071 (2019). 409
18. Yadav, J.S. and Tiwari, S.K. “Effect of waste rubber fibres on the geotechnical properties 410
of clay stabilized with cement”, Applied Clay Science, 149, pp. 97-110 (2017). 411
19. Benson, C.H. and Khire, M.V. “Reinforcing sand with strips of reclaimed high-density 412
polyethylene”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering(ASCE), 120(5), pp. 838–855 (1994). 413
20. Consoli, N.C., Montardo, J.P., Prietto, P.D.M. and Pasa, G.S. “Engineering behavior of a 414
sand reinforced with plastic waste”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental 415
18
Engineering(ASCE), 128(6), pp. 462-472 (2002). 416
21. Kim, Y.T., Kim, H.J. and Lee, G.H. “Mechanical behavior of lightweight soil reinforced 417
with waste fishing net”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26, pp. 512–518 (2008). 418
22. Babu, G.S. and Chouksey, S.K.. “Stress–strain response of plastic waste mixed soil”, 419
Waste Management, 31, pp. 481–488 (2011). 420
23. Muntohar, A.S., Widianti, A., Hartono, E. and Diana, W. “Engineering properties of silty 421
soil stabilized with lime and rice rusk ash and reinforced with waste plastic fiber”, 422
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering(ASCE), 25(9), pp. 1260-1270 (2013). 423
24. ASTM D-422, Standard Test Method for Particle-size Analysis of Soils, Annual Book of 424
ASTM Standards, USA (2007). 425
25. ASTM D-2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes 426
(Unified Soil Classification System), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, USA (2017). 427
26. ASTM D-854, Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water 428
Pycnometer, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, USA (2014). 429
27. ASTM D-4254, Standard Test Methods For Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight Of 430
Soils and Calculation Of Relative Density, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, USA 431
(2016). 432
28. ASTM D-4253, Standard Test Methods For Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight Of 433
Soils Using a Vibratory Table, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, USA (2016). 434
29. Noorzad, R. and Amini, P.F. “Liquefaction resistance of Babolsar sand reinforced with 435
randomly distributed fibers under cyclic loading”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake 436
Engineering, 66, pp. 281-292 (2014). 437
30. Baldi, G., Hight, D.W. and Thomas, G.E. “State-of-the-art paper: a reevaluation of 438
conventional triaxial test methods”, In Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock, ASTM 439
International (1988). 440
31. Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., Soil mechanics SI version. John Wiley and Sons, New 441
York (2008). 442
32. Haeri, S.M., Noorzad, R. and Oskoorouchi, A.M. “Effect of geotextile reinforcement on 443
the mechanical behavior of sand”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 18(6), pp. 385-402 444
(2000). 445
33. Noorzad, R. and Raveshi, M. “Mechanical behavior of waste tire crumbs–sand mixtures 446
19
determined by triaxial tests”, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 35(4), pp. 1793-447
1802 (2017). 448
34. Head, K.H., Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, Vol. 3, Pentech Press, London (1986). 449
35. Baldi, G. and Nova, R. “Membrane penetration effects in triaxial testing”, Journal of 450
Geotechnical engineering, 110(3), pp. 403-420 (1984). 451
36. Anagnostopoulos, C.A., Papaliangas, T.T., Konstantinidis, D. and Patronis, C. “Shear 452
strength of sands reinforced with polypropylene fibers”, Geotechnical and Geological 453
Engineering, 31(2), pp. 401-423 (2013). 454
37. Mirzababaei, M., Arulrajah, A., Horpibulsuk, S. and Aldava, M. “Shear strength of a 455
fibre-reinforced clay at large shear displacement when subjected to different stress 456
histories”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(5), pp. 422-429 (2017). 457
38. Bishop, A.W. “Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and remoulded soil specimens”, 458
In Proceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium, Cambridge University, Cambridge, 459
Weight, pp. 29–31 (1971). 460
39. Ta'negonbadi, B. and Noorzad, R. Stabilization of clayey soil using 461
lignosulfonate. Transportation Geotechnics, 12, pp. 45-55 (2017). 462
40. Duncan, J.M., Dunlop, P. The significance of cap and base restraint. Journal of the Soil 463
Mechanics and Foundations Division, 94(1), pp. 271-290 (1968). 464
41. Dutta, R.K. and Venkatappa Rao, G. Engineering properties of sand reinforced with 465
strips from waste plastic. In Proceedings of the international conference on geotechnical 466
engineering, Sharjah, UAE, pp. 186-193 (2004). 467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
20
Table Captions: 475
Table 1. Characteristics of used fibers 476
Table 2. Variable factors in the testing program 477
Table 3. Strength properties of reinforced and unreinforced sand 478
Table 4. Brittleness index for reinforced sand with plastic waste at confining pressure of 100 kPa 479
21
Figure Captions:
Figure 1. Grain size distribution curve for Babolsar sand.
Figure 2. Recycled PET fibers.
Figure 3. Waste PP fibers.
Figure 4. Stress-Strain curves at 50 kPa confining pressure: a) for different PET fiber contents
with a length of 5 mm, b) different PET fiber contents with a length of 10 mm, c) different PET
fiber contents with a length of 15 mm and d) different PP fiber contents with a length of 15 mm.
Figure 5. Effect of PET fiber length on peak deviatoric stress: a) for 100 kPa confining pressure
and different PET contents, b) for 1% PET and different confining pressures.
Figure 6. Stress ratio versus confining pressure for sand reinforced by 1% PET and different
length.
Figure 7. Waste PP fibers in the failure zone.
Figure 8. Effect of PET: a) fiber content on strain at failure for 50 kPa confining pressure, b)
fiber length on strain at failure for 100 kPa confining pressure.
Figure 9. Effect of PP fiber content on strain at failure for different confining pressures.
Figure 10. Volumetric change curves for PET fibers with different lengths and 50 kPa confining
pressure: a) fiber content of 0.25%, b) fiber content of 0. 5%, c) fiber content of 0.75% and d)
fiber content of 1%.
Figure 11. Deformation modulus of reinforced sand by varying contents of plastic wastes at 50
kPa confining pressure.
22
Tables:
Table 1. Characteristics of used fibers
Fiber
type
Length
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Diameter
(mm)
Specific
gravity
(g/cm3)
Elastic
modulus
(GPa)
UTS*
(MPa)
PET× 5,10,15 - 0.4-0.8 0.92 0.65 200
PP●
15 2-2.5 - 0.92 3.2 300
* Ultimate tensile strength
× Polyethylene terephthalate
● Polypropylene
23
Table 2. Variable factors in the testing program
Variable Range
Confining pressure 50, 100, and 200 kPa
Plastic waste content 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1%
Waste PET length 5, 10, and 15 mm
Waste PP length 15 mm
24
Table 3. Strength properties of reinforced and unreinforced sand
Material
Confining pressure
(kPa)
Peak stress at failure
(kPa)
Steady state stress
(kPa)
Sand
50
100
200
230.5
563
1063.2
130.1
343
747.6
Sand + 1% waste PET
(5mm)
50
100
200
500.2
943.5
1546.1
282.2
602.7
1132.2
Sand + 1% waste PET
(10mm)
50
100
200
917.3
1242.2
1665.4
563.7
880.3
1437.3
Sand + 1% waste PET
(15mm)
50
100
200
961.3
1246.6
1698
730
939.7
1472.3
Sand + 1% waste PP 50
100
200
1614
2198.6
2691.9
1289
1889.8
2399.7
25
Table 4. Brittleness index for reinforced sand with plastic waste at confining pressure of 100
kPa
Material Plastic waste content
0% 0.25% 0.5% 0.75% 1%
Sand + waste PET (5mm) 0.64 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.57
Sand + waste PET (10mm) 0.64 0.53 0.44 0.43 0.41
Sand + waste PET (15mm) 0.64 0.51 0.43 0.38 0.32
Sand + waste PP 0.64 0.56 0.31 0.25 0.16
26
Figures:
Figure 1. Grain size distribution curve for Babolsar sand.
27
Figure 2. Recycled PET fibers.
28
Figure 3. Waste PP fibers.
29
Figure 4. Stress-Strain curves at 50 kPa confining pressure: a) for different PET fiber contents
with a length of 5 mm, b) different PET fiber contents with a length of 10 mm, c) different PET
fiber contents with a length of 15 mm and d) different PP fiber contents with a length of 15 mm.
30
Figure 5. Effect of PET fiber length on peak deviatoric stress: a) for 100 kPa confining pressure
and different PET contents, b) for 1% PET and different confining pressures.
31
Figure 6. Stress ratio versus confining pressure for sand reinforced by 1% PET and different
length.
32
Figure 7. Waste PP fibers in the failure zone.
33
Figure 8. Effect of PET: a) fiber content on strain at failure for 50 kPa confining pressure, b)
fiber length on strain at failure for 100 kPa confining pressure.
34
Figure 9. Effect of PP fiber content on strain at failure for different confining pressures.
35
Figure 10. Volumetric change curves for PET fibers with different lengths and 50 kPa confining
pressure: a) fiber content of 0.25%, b) fiber content of 0. 5%, c) fiber content of 0.75% and d)
fiber content of 1%.
36
Figure 11. Deformation modulus of reinforced sand by varying contents of plastic wastes at 50
kPa confining pressure.