nach oben

International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.08.2023 | Technical Note

Using Waste PET Shreds for Soil Stabilization: Efficiency and Durability Assessment

verfasst von: Ahmed Basil Haider, Anoosheh Iravanian, Mudhafer Hameed Selman, Abdullah Ekinci

Erschienen in: International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering | Ausgabe 4/2023

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Patentsuche

Aus

Abstract

Encountering weak fine-grained soil presents a significant challenge during highway construction. The conventional approach to address this challenge involves incorporating calcium-based stabilizers, particularly cement, for stabilization. However, despite its widespread use, the application of cement for soil stabilization has adverse environmental consequences. Accordingly, finding alternative methods to minimize cement usage has become a prominent area of research, from researchers worldwide. This study evaluates the effectiveness of utilizing discarded polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle shreds as soil reinforcement alongside lower cement contents. To this end, soil samples were mixed with varied contents of two grades of shredded PET. The ground PET pellets, which displayed diverse shapes, demonstrated properties resembling fibres. Compacted samples were subjected to CBR to determine optimum PET content. Strength, small-strain stiffness and durability of soils in original state, mixed with cement and PET were measured by a programme of CBR, wetting–drying cycles, and ultrasonic pulse experiments. Findings suggest a 28–91% increase in strength of soil upon its mixing with cement—PET shreds. Substituting cement with cement—PET shred led to a drop in accumulated loss of mass (ALM). In twelve cycles of wetting and drying, the small-strain stiffness initially decreased, but then stabilized at approximately the same value in the subsequent cycles. The porosity to binder ratio was adopted as an index for CBR, ALM and the maximum shear modulus. The latter was finally proposed as a measure for durability.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Clay and silt are very common types of soil found worldwide, and it is very frequent that soil structures such as slopes, and highway embankments are built from this type of soil [1, 2]. For subgrades, building on natural weak fine-grained soil could cause serious damage, risk uncontrolled erosion, and decrease the service life of the earth structure [3]. It is known that the engineering properties of soil can be improved using the process of soil stabilization [4]. Practice of mixing cement with the soil is one of the most common methods in soil treatment [5‐15]. Cement stabilization is proved effective in enhancing the geotechnical properties of soil [16, 17]. However, the process of cement production is harmful to the environment due to the use of substantial amounts of energy and natural resources, as well as the release of massive volumes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) [18‐20]. The carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from cement manufacturing from 1928 to 2018 were approximately 38.3 GTs, globally, according to Andrew [21]. As such, many researchers [e.g., 22‐25] have examined alternative, more sustainable materials and methods to decrease the overall emission throughout the construction sector [e.g., 22 and 23, also see 24 and 25]. A particular challenge with soil–cement stabilization method is the durability of the treated soil against degradation. Durability can be defined as a material's ability to withstand the weathering conditions, wetting–drying and freeze–thaw cycles, while retaining its integrity and stability over extended period of time [26]. The diminishing benefits of cement stabilization after weather exposure cycles [14], provide additional support for exploring alternative stabilizing materials as substitutes for cement.

Furthermore, the growing concern over solid waste generation necessitates effective management strategies to address this environmental issue [27, 28]. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is one of the most widely used materials to manufacture products like bottles for beverage and other containers. After single use, PET bottles are discarded and become PET waste [29, 30]. Numerous researchers have investigated the utilization of PET bottles as construction materials, revealing a wide range of advantages in soil improvement applications. These benefits have been observed in both cohesive fine-grained soils and cohesionless coarse-grained soils [31‐33]. Ferreira et al. found that in the case of sandy soil, the introduction of PET fibres contributes to increased soil strength, reduced deformation in vertical and lateral directions, and improved stiffness [34]. Incorporating waste plastic bottle shreds, particularly PET, along with cement offers a potential waste disposal method while reducing the cement requirement for soil stabilization, leading to a decrease in CO₂ emissions associated with cement manufacturing. Hence, several studies have investigated the engineering properties of cement stabilized soil reinforced with PET shreds [35‐41]. Bozyigit et al. [42] investigated the strength of cement stabilized PET strips reinforced clay, and stated that adding PET strips improve the unconfined compressive strength of clay samples.

Several previous studies have investigated the enhancement of fine-grained soil through the incorporation of cement, slag, lime, and gypsum [43‐49]. The investigations have yielded findings indicating that the addition of cement induces brittle behaviour in the stabilized soil, with limited or negligible plastic deformation [50]. Additionally, there have been experimental trials involving fibre-reinforced cemented soil. Indeed, a significant challenge encountered in PET fibre/cement soil stabilization is the dependency of the final mixture's performance on factors such as the consistency of preparation and mixing procedures, soil type, compaction energy, and the shape and dimensions of the added fibres [51‐54].

Khattak and Al-rashid [55] considered the durability of PET fibres reinforced cemented fine-grained soil and found that PET fibres improved the durability of the mixtures. Zhang, et al. [56] carried out a study on the durability of cemented silty clay soil, the study revealed that the loss of mass decreases as the cement content increases. Furthermore, Consoli, et al. [57], established an effective approach for stabilized cement treated soils based on the porosity/cement (binder) ratio as a strength parameter. The porosity/binder index could be explained as the ratio of porosity of the dense mixture to the percentage of the binder by volume [57]. Further research investigated the feasibility of using the porosity/binder ratio as durability and stiffness factors in cement stabilized soil samples, by considering mass loss after multiple cycles of wetting and drying [11, 58, 59]. In addition, Hanafi et al. [44] studied the porosity/binder ratio for cemented soil mixes from the mass loss perspective.

The primary goal of this study is to evaluate the practicality of PET shreds as a reinforcing medium and to determine the ideal percentage range of PET shreds in terms of strength, CBR, durability and small-strain stiffness.

Materials and Methods

Materials

The fine-grained soil used in this study was collected from Duhok governorate (36°59′24.5"N, 42°39′20.7"E) in northern Iraq and is categorized as low plasticity clayey silt, ML, according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) [60]. The characterization test results are presented in Table 1 and the grain-size distribution curve is presented in Fig. 1.

Table 1

Characterization tests results of soil

Properties	Value
Liquid limit (%)	37
Plastic limit (%)	24
Specific gravity	2.70
Gravel (4.75 < diameter < 20 mm) (%)	0.4
Sand (2.00 < diameter < 0.425 mm) (%)	4.8
Silt (0.002 < diameter < 0.075 mm) (%)	76.8
Clay (diameter < 0.002 mm) (%)	18
Mean particle diameter D₅₀ (mm)	0.04

Type I ordinary Portland cement (OPC), in accordance with ASTM C150/C150M-18 [61] was used in this study.

The PET shreds utilized in the current research were made from waste PET plastic water bottles. The bottles were first cut into small pieces using scissors, then ground into shreds using a disc mill grinder, and finally were screened to obtain two grades. The first grade sized 2–4.75 mm and the second grade sized 42–841 μm, these grades will be mentioned as size no. 10 and size no. 40, respectively. The process of grinding and screening the PET resulted in having fibre-like pellets in random shapes which is given the general name of “shreds” throughout this work. Figure 2 illustrates the two PET grades.

Methods

To determine the optimum PET shreds content range based on improvement in California bearing ratio (CBR) values, CBR tests were conducted. For CBR test, cylindrical samples were utilized as per ASTM D1883-16 [62]. The quantities of needed dry soil and PET shreds were prepared based on each mixture’s optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) that was found through standard Proctor compaction test (Table 2). The CBR values were determined by applying pressure to the soil using a cylindrical piston. The piston was inserted into the soil at a constant speed of 1.27 mm. The CBR values for each soil sample were calculated at penetrations of 2.5 mm and 5 mm by dividing the recorded load by the standard stress. To ensure reproducibility, each experiment was conducted twice.

Table 2

Optimum water content and maximum dry density results of PET shred added soil samples

PET content by weight (%)	Grade size no. 10		Grade size no. 40
	Optimum water content (%)	Maximum dry density (Kg/m³)	Optimum water content (%)	Maximum dry density (Kg/m³)
0	23.5	1580.1	23.5	1543.8
0.1	24.1	1543.8	23.7	1507.3
0.2	25.0	1507.3	23.9	1492.8
0.3	25.7	1492.8	25.6	1492.8
0.4	25.5	1458.5	24.6	1458.5
0.5	26.6	1427.1	25.6	1427.1
0.6	26.7	1406.0	25.9	1406.0
0.7	26.9	1385.0	26.1	1385.0
0.8	27.0	1367.8	26.6	1367.8
0.9	27.2	1353.9	26.9	1353.9
1	27.3	1340.0	27.1	1340.0

To determine the effect of adding PET shreds to cemented soil’s behaviour, durability test in terms of loss of mass, and stiffness test in terms of ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) were performed as per ASTM D559/D559M-15 [63] and ASTM D2845-08 [64] respectively, on samples with dimensions of 11.62 cm in height and 15.24 cm in diameter. After determining the dry mass of the soil sample (M_S) based on the predefined dry density (ρ_d), the proportion of cement and PET contents was measured as a percentage of the dry mass of soil. The selected dry density for all samples was 1.4 g/cm³. The samples were prepared by combining the required weight of soil, PET shreds and cement in a sealed zip-lock bag. To prevent agglomeration, great care was taken to thoroughly mix the soil and shreds by rotating the zip-lock bag in all directions for no less than five minutes. The materials in dry state were blended till a visual uniformity was reached. The predetermined quantity of distilled water was later added and the mixing continued till a homogeneous mixture was obtained. The prepared samples were compressed in five uniform layers in the CBR moulds. The extruded samples were subsequently wrapped in cling film and placed inside a climatic chamber set at a temperature of 24° ± 2 °C and were left for curing for 7 and 28 days, following the guidelines outlined in ASTM C511-19 [65].

The durability tests were held to evaluate the loss of mass produced by repeated twelve wetting/drying cycles. Each cycle started with samples submerging fully in distilled water for five hours at room temperature. Subsequently, the samples were taken out of the water and subjected to oven drying for forty-two hours at 71 °C. Afterward, the samples were brushed using a wire brush with an applied force of approximately 13.3 N. The accumulated loss of mass (ALM) percentage was calculated for each sample following the completion of wetting and drying cycles. The masses of the samples were recorded after each wetting–drying-brushing cycle to determine the mass loss for each individual cycle. The ALM after the twelfth cycle was then obtained by summing the masses recorded at each cycle.

Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) tests were employed to evaluate the maximum shear modulus (G_max) for the same samples used in the durability test. The UPV measurements were conducted before initiating the cycles and after each individual cycle of the repeated 12 wetting/drying cycles. Each sample was measured for UPV after drying and before submerging it in water for the next cycle. Two transducers were attached to both the upper and lower ends of the samples using a coupler gel, with the precise distance between the transducers being measured. The device was then operated to determine the time taken for the waves to travel through the sample between the transducers, enabling the measurement of velocity. This measurement of velocity allowed for the calculation of maximum shear modulus (G_max).

A modified version of Eq. (1) of porosity was utilized in this study to calculate the porosity, this equation was initially proposed by Consoli et al. [66].

$$\eta =100-100\left[\left(\frac{{\rho }_{d}}{{M}_{S}+{M}_{C}+{M}_{PET}}\right)\times \left(\frac{{M}_{S}}{{\rho }_{S}}+\frac{{M}_{C}}{{\rho }_{C}}+\frac{{M}_{PET}}{{\rho }_{PET}}\right)\right]$$

(1)

where, $\eta$ is the porosity, ${\rho }_{d}$ is the dry density, ${M}_{S}, {M}_{C}$, and ${M}_{PET}$ are the mass content of the soil, cement, and PET shreds respectively, and ${\rho }_{S}, {\rho }_{C}$, and ${\rho }_{PET}$ are the density of soil, cement, and PET shreds respectively.

To predict the behaviour of soil samples stabilized with cement, Consoli et al. suggested a ratio between the porosity and cement index (η/C_iv) [67]. Ekinci et al. offered a general index (X_iv), that is applicable for different types of binder [49]. In the current research, the general index was used to predict the ALM and G_max of the mixes, in which Xiv is determined using the Eq. (2).

$${X}_{iv}=\frac{{V}_{C}+{V}_{PET}}{V}=\frac{\left(\frac{{M}_{c}}{{\rho }_{c}}\right)+\left(\frac{{M}_{PET}}{{\rho }_{PET}}\right)}{V}$$

(2)

where, ${X}_{iv}$ is the adjusted general index for this study, $V$ is the total volume of the soil sample, ${V}_{C}$ is the volume of cement and ${V}_{PET}$ is the volume of PET shreds, ${M}_{c}$ is the mass of cement content, ${M}_{PET}$ is the mass of PET shreds content, ${\rho }_{c}$ is the density of cement utilized, ${\rho }_{PET}$ is the density of the PET shreds utilized.

An external exponent, α, must be adjusted to the parameter X_iv to determine the relationships between strength η/Xiv. The external exponent of adjusted porosity/binder η/(X_iv)0.32 index for this research was selected as the best fitting power. The selection of exponent of 0.32 was based on a number of former studies in the literature. A number of studies which were carried out for different kinds of soil demonstrated that the exponent may range between 0.28 and 0.35 [44, 49, 68]. In addition, in other studies it was stated the exterior exponent of 0.32 to be the best fitting exponent [57‐59].

The data of all samples prepared are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Sample preparation chart

Mixture	Cement content by weight (%)	PET shreds content by weight (%)	PET shred mean particle size	Dry density (g/cm³)	Curing periods (days)	Test type
Soil + PET shreds	–	0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 & 1.0	2 mm < grade no. 10 < 4.75 mm 0.42 mm < grade no. 40 < 0.841 mm	MDD^a	–	CBR
Soil + cement + PET shreds	5, 7 & 10	0.6, 0.7 & 0.8	2 mm < grade no. 10 < 4.75 mm 0.42 mm < grade no. 40 < 0.841 mm	1.4	7 & 28	Wetting/drying cycles and UPV

^aMaximum dry density that was found through standard Proctor compaction test

Results and Discussion

Control of Shreds on Strength

The results of the CBR tests are shown in Fig. 3. The findings demonstrate that the addition of PET shreds has enhanced the CBR values irrespective of the grade and percentage added. Considering the grade of the PET shreds, the results show that the grade 2–4.75 mm (size no. 10) presents better performance than the grade sized 42–841 μm (size no. 40) regarding the CBR strength values. In addition, the PET shreds content of 0.7% exhibited the optimum improvement for coarser PET grades, while the content of 0.6% provided the optimum improvement for the finer PET grades. Concluding from the results the percentage range of 0.6–0.8 is the optimum PET shreds range to be utilized in reinforcing cemented soil in this study.

Control of Shreds and Cement on Durability

Figure 4 shows ALM for all the mixes after 12 wetting–drying cycles. The mixes have different cement content and PET shreds percentages, and are cured for varying durations. The results after 12 cycles show an increase in the durability of all of the PET sherds enhanced samples regardless of the curing duration and percentage addition. The percentage ALM being reduced in PET shreds enhanced samples can be explained by the reinforcement property that the PET shreds add to the soil, which hold the soil particles together and therefore make it more durable. Nevertheless, the other key factor in durability is the cement content, with higher cement content lower ALM was observed. It is important to mention that the porosity is a principal factor to consider regarding the ALM percentage, typically samples with lower porosity values show lower ALM percentage. This phenomenon can be related to the higher coordination number and particle contact which allow the cement to develop more bonds [15].

Controls on ALM

Statistical analysis was used to investigate the effects of each factor on ALM, namely; Shreds size, cement content, and curing days. This was done by using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Figure 5a illustrates the effect of the PET shreds size on loss of mass, ALM, from the results it can be comprehended that addition of size no. 10 PET resulted in better performance of the samples than addition of size no. 40, as the loss of mass is reduced in all mixes. Figure 5b illustrates the effect of the content of added PET shreds on ALM percentage. Three percentages of 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 of PET shreds were added to the samples. For size no. 10 best performance was observed at percentage of 0.7 followed by 0.6 and 0.8%. On the other hand, for size no. 40 PET shreds, the best performance was observed at the percentage of 0.6 followed by 0.7 and eventually 0.8%. Figures 4 and 5 show that the increase in cement content reduces the ALM at the end of each cycle of wetting and drying. Increase in content of the cement in the samples cause more solid cementation bonds between the mixture units, therefore it reduces the ALM of the sample which is aligned with the findings of Consoli et al. [15, 70]. Additionally, Fig. 5c demonstrates that 28 days of curing results in higher durability value than the 7 days. The ASTM standard requires the ALM percentage after twelve cycles not exceeding 7% for fine grained soils, and in this study all the mixes satisfied this requirement. Consequently, the cement content of 7% can be considered as an optimum percentage to be added to the mixtures.

Control of Adjusted Porosity/Binder Index on ALM

Figure 6 illustrates the relation between the ALM and the adjusted porosity/binder index (η/Xiv0.32) of the samples in this study. Considering the results, it is evident that an increase in porosity reduces durability, Fig. 6 indicates that porosity reduction due to the integration of PET shreds, results in a decrease in ALM at all curing durations. Moreover, it can be noticed that the 7 and 28 days of curing had a higher effect at high porosity. However, the gain in durability due to PET shreds addition seems to be more significant for higher values of (η/Xiv0.32).

For the purpose of regularising the results of different mixes and curing conditions, the method proposed by Consoli et al. is applied. This equation divides the established power equations to a specific value of CBR, stiffness, or loss of mass, matching to a value of [porosity/binder] = ∇ within the studies ranges, to predict the mechanical performances of cemented sand [71]. Extending the model to determine the outputs of cement and PET stabilized clayey silt, a normalization model is introduced in Fig. 6. This method divides the generated equations of each mixture by a particular ALM value. In this research, samples were selected with ALM at (η/Xiv0.32) = ∇ = 32 for all mixes. A sum of 42 ALM results were utilized to adjust Eq. (3), permitting the formation of a correlation between the ALM and the adjusted porosity/binder index. A reasonable determination’s coefficient (R²) of 0.87 was acquired.

$$\frac{ALM}{{ALM}_{\left(\frac{\upeta }{{\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{iv}}\right)}^{0.32}}=32\right)}}=5\times {10}^{-11}\times {\left(\frac{\upeta }{{\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{iv}}\right)}^{0.32}}\right)}^{6.8581}$$

(3)

It can be presumed that the obtained correlation can be used to predict ALM in wetting and drying cycles using only the Porosity/Binder Index.

Small Strain Stiffness

In Fig. 7 the variation of small strain stiffness along cycles is presented. The results show that soil without PET enhancement in the case of curing period of 7 days, has a decrease in the stiffness during the initial cycles occurs however it will regain some of it toward the 12th cycle. While, in the case of addition of size no. 10 PET shreds, a reduction in the initial stiffness can be observed compared to the plain cement-soil, which is eventually recovered in the upcoming cycles. However, in the case of PET shreds size no. 40, the increase in stiffness continues up to the 12th cycle. In the 28 days cured samples, a constant decrease can be noticed in the stiffness, yet, this decrease ratio is less in the case of samples enhanced with PET shreds in both sizes. The initial stiffness loss in 7 days-cured samples, is potentially a result of retracting and resultant cracking of the samples throughout temperature rise in the drying section of the cycles and confirms the observations in comparable previous research [69‐71]. In the case of samples enhanced with PET shreds of size- no. 40, there was no decrease in stiffness. The reason behind that is that the stabilizing material in these samples helped the soil grains to have their optimum bonding and interlocking orientations, therefore, the initiation of cracks was prevented, and the soil sample kept its integrity throughout the cycles.

In the wetting cycles, water fills the voids of soil and ran between the miniscule fissures, widening them and causing initiation of new cracks in the sample. This process can cause reduction in stiffness when undergoing repetitive cycles of wetting and drying. In the state of 7 days curing duration, for samples reinforced with PET, the stiffness improved after the loss in initial cycles, which could be related to the fact that the cementation bonds continue developing up to 28 days. However, after 28 days, most of the cementation bonds being completed, loss of stiffness takes place by subjecting the samples to further cycles. After passing 7 days the strength gain gets slower and the cementation bonds almost stop developing after 28 days, therefore fissuring and disintegration would occur in latter cycles. Previous studies also confirmed that silt samples treated with cement gained more than half of its overall strength and stiffness before 28 days [72]. Moreover, it can be seen that PET shreds treated samples showed better stiffness throughout the cycles compared to the control mix of soil and cement. This can be attributed to the reinforcement action of PET shreds that limits the cracks development during the cycles.

Control of Adjusted Porosity/Binder Index on Small Strain Stiffness

Figure 8 illustrates the correlation among the maximum shear modulus (G_max) at 12 wetting/drying cycles and the adapted porosity/binder index and (η/X_iv0.32) of the treated soil mixes in this study. As it can be noticed, the G_max gain is lower compared to the increase of η/(X_iv)0.32 value. It can be observed that a having high porosity and low volumetric binder contents result in lower G_max values. The results of the analysis of ALM was performed also for G_max, and it revealed that (η/X_iv0.32) correlates with G_max at 12 cycles. Similar to ALM, G_max can be normalized by dividing the generated equations for each mixture by a certain G_max value. The relation between normalized G_max at 12 cycles [G_max/(G_max for η/(Xiv)0.32 = 32)] and the adapted porosity/binder index is depicted in Fig. 8. A sum of 42 data value of G_max at 12 wetting/drying cycles results were used to adjust Eq. (4), creating a correlation between the G_max and (η/Xiv0.32) with R² value of 0.96.

$$\frac{{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{max}}}{{{\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{max}}}_{\left(\frac{\upeta }{{\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{iv}}\right)}^{0.32}}=32\right)}}=17.275\times {\left(\frac{\upeta }{{\left({\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{iv}}\right)}^{0.32}}\right)}^{-0.821}$$

(4)

Equation (4) could introduce a great contribution in soil stabilization with cement and PET area, by determining the G_max value of cured fine grained soil treated with cement and PET shreds, using the results of a single experiment.

Conclusions

This study evaluated the effect of reinforcing low content cement stabilized soil with PET shreds in different ranges by carrying experimental and analytical work and the following conclusions were obtained:

(1)

The PET shreds reinforcing of soil is a helpful solution to improve the small strain stiffness and durability of soil. The inclusion of different percentages of PET shreds improved CBR values from 28.5 to 90.7% compared to plain compacted soil. In general, PET shreds of 2–4.75 mm demonstrated better results compared to 42–841 μm. The optimum percentage range of PET shreds to be added was found to be 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8% of the selected sizes.

(2)

The soil stabilized with cement and PET shreds presented better durability to wetting and drying exposure compared to soil stabilized with only cement, it also ensured the satisfaction of mass loss according to standards.

(3)

Reinforcing soil with cement and PET shreds reduced brittleness of soil due to the ductility properties of PET shreds. In addition, the inclusion of PET shreds reduced the stiffness loss through wetting /drying cycles.

(4)

The use of the adapted porosity/binder index (η/Xiv) to extract the performance of the mixes investigated in this study can be regarded as successful. When G_max and ALM values were associated with the modified porosity/binder index, high coefficients of determination were obtained. G_max and ALM of mixtures can be predicted using the proposed porosity/binder index calculations.

(5)

Decrease in the porosity/binder index presented a direct correlation with Accumulated Loss of Mass, ALM, and an inverse correlation with stiffness, therefore, lower porosity combined with a higher binder content resulted in more durable and sturdier samples.

(6)

This research suggests an eco-friendly and cost-effective solution by reducing the usage of cement, minimizing the environmental impacts of soil disposal, and lowering CO₂ emissions resulting from the transportation of unwanted soil. Additionally, this technique is cost-effective as the waste material is utilized in construction work instead of incurring transportation costs. Moreover, cement manufacturing's environmental impacts can be reduced by reinforcing cemented soil with PET shreds, which also makes it more cost-effective by lowering cement usage.

(7)

Correlations between the ALM, G_max, porosity, and amount of cement and PET shreds used was formed to predict the behavior of soil after facing cycles of wetting and drying.

In this research, a formula to predict the ALM through stiffness was proven valid. Future study may be performed for validating this formula and prove its applicability more so that it can be used in practical areas.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Vorheriger Artikel Density-Dependent Pore Water Pressure Evolution in a Simplified Cyclic Shear Test

Nächster Artikel Review on Biopolymer Binders as Renewable, Sustainable Stabilizers for Soils

Kulanthaivel P, Soundara B, Velmurugan S, Naveenraj V (2020) Experimental investigation on stabilization of clay soil using nano-materials and white cement. Mater Today: Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.107CrossRef

Ziegler S, Leshchinsky D, Ling HI, Perry EB (1998) Effect of short polymeric fibers on crack development in clays. Soils Found 38(1):247–253. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.38.247CrossRef

Okasha TM, Abduljauwad SN (1992) Expansive soil in Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Appl Clay Sci 7(4):271–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-1317(92)90015-FCrossRef

Winterkorn HF, Pamukcu S (1991) Soil stabilization and grouting. Foundation engineering handbook. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 317–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5271-7_9CrossRef

Amhadi TS, Assaf GJ (2018) Overview of soil stabilization methods in road construction. International congress and exhibition sustainable civil infrastructures: innovative infrastructure geotechnology. Springer, Cham, pp 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01911-2_3CrossRef

Walker PJ (1995) Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil blocks. Cem Concr Compos 17(4):301–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(95)00019-9MathSciNetCrossRef

Kariyawasam KKGKD, Jayasinghe C (2016) Cement stabilized rammed earth as a sustainable construction material. Constr Build Mater 105:519–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.189CrossRef

Jayasinghe C, Kamaladasa N (2007) Compressive strength characteristics of cement stabilized rammed earth walls. Constr Build Mater 21(11):1971–1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.049CrossRef

Ingles OG, Metcalf JB (1972) Soil stabilization principles and practice, vol 11. Butterworths, Sydney, p 374

10.

Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement—state-of-the-art report. In: Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Int. Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 509–565

11.

Consoli NC, Scheuermann Filho HC, Segadães L, Cristelo N (2019) Effect of wet-dry cycles on the durability, strength and stiffness of granite residual soil stabilised with Portland cement. https://doi.org/10.32075/17ECSMGE-2019-0686

12.

Biswal DR, Sahoo UC, Dash SR (2017) Strength and stiffness studies of cement stabilized granular lateritic soil. International congress and exhibition sustainable civil infrastructures innovative infrastructure geotechnology. Springer, Cham, pp 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61902-6_25CrossRef

13.

Suddeepong A, Intra A, Horpibulsuk S, Suksiripattanapong C, Arulrajah A, Shen JS (2018) Durability against wetting-drying cycles for cement-stabilized reclaimed asphalt pavement blended with crushed rock. Soils Found 58(2):333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.02.017CrossRef

14.

Lu Y, Liu S, Zhang Y, Li Z, Xu L (2020) Freeze-thaw performance of a cement-treated expansive soil. Cold Reg Sci Technol 170:102926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2019.102926CrossRef

15.

Consoli NC, Carretta MS, Leon HB, Schneider MEB, Reginato NC, HarbCarraro JA (2019) Behaviour of silty sands stabilised with cement subjected to hard environmental conditions. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.18.00243CrossRef

16.

Deepak MS, Rohini S, Harini BS, Ananthi GBG (2020) Influence of fly-ash on the engineering characteristics of stabilised clay soil. Mater Today Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.497CrossRef

17.

Wang S, Xue Q, Ma W, Zhao K, Wu Z (2021) Experimental study on mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced and geopolymer-stabilized clay soil. Const Build Mater 272:121914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121914CrossRef

18.

Schneider M, Romer M, Tschudin M, Bolio H (2011) Sustainable cement production—present and future. Cem Concr Res 41(7):642–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019CrossRef

19.

Rahla KM, Mateus R, Bragança L (2019) Comparative sustainability assessment of binary blended concretes using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) and ordinary Portland cement (OPC). J Clean Prod 220:445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.010CrossRef

20.

Siddique, R., Singh, M., & Singhal, A. K. (2019). Use of unprocessed wood ash as partial replacement of sand in concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 116(6), 77–86. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14359/51718052

21.

Andrew RM (2019) Global CO 2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 11(4):1675–1710. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1675-2019CrossRef

22.

Ekinci A (2019) Effect of preparation methods on strength and microstructural properties of cemented marine clay. Const Build Mater 227:116690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116690CrossRef

23.

Cheah CB, Samsudin MH, Ramli M, Part WK, Tan LE (2017) The use of high calcium wood ash in the preparation of ground granulated blast furnace slag and pulverized fly ash geopolymers: a complete microstructural and mechanical characterization. J Clean Prod 156:114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.026CrossRef

24.

Martinez A, DeJong J, Akin I, Aleali A, Arson C, Atkinson J, Zheng J (2022) Bio-inspired geotechnical engineering: principles, current work, opportunities and challenges. Géotechnique 72(8):687–705. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.20.P.170CrossRef

25.

Assadi-Langroudi A, O’Kelly BC, Barreto D, Cotecchia F, Dicks H, Ekinci A, van Paassen L (2022) Recent advances in nature-inspired solutions for ground engineering (NiSE). Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 8(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-021-00349-9CrossRef

26.

Dempsey BJ, Thompson MR (1967) Durability properties of lime-soil mixtures (No. Hpr-1/3/)

27.

Albano C, Camacho N, Hernandez M, Matheus A, Gutierrez A (2009) Influence of content and particle size of waste pet bottles on concrete behavior at different w/c ratios. Waste Manag 29(10):2707–2716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.007CrossRef

28.

Saikia N, de Brito J (2014) Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial substitution of natural aggregate. Constr Build Mater 52:236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.049CrossRef

29.

Al-Hadithi AI, Noaman AT, Mosleh WK (2019) Mechanical properties and impact behavior of PET fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete (SCC). Compos Struct 224:111021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111021CrossRef

30.

Frigione M (2010) Recycling of PET bottles as fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Manag 30(6):1101–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.030CrossRef

31.

Perera S, Arulrajah A, Wong Y, Maghool F, Horpibulsuk S (2020) Evaluation of shear strength properties of unbound PET plastic in blends with demolition wastes. Constr Build Mater 262:120545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120545CrossRef

32.

Iravanian A, Ali S (2020) Soil improvement using waste plastic bags: a review paper. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 614(1):012080. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/614/1/012080CrossRef

33.

Iravanian A, Haider AB (2020) Soil stabilization using waste plastic bottles fibers: a review paper. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 614(1):012082. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/614/1/012082CrossRef

34.

dos Santos Ferreira JW, Senez PC, Casagrande MDT (2021) Pet fiber reinforced sand performance under triaxial and plate load tests. Case Stud Const Mater 15:e00741

35.

Babu GS, Chouksey SK (2011) Stress–strain response of plastic waste mixed soil. Waste Manage 31(3):481–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.018CrossRef

36.

Singh K, Mittal A (2019) Soil stabilisation using plastic waste. Recycled waste materials. Springer, Singapore, pp 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7017-5_10CrossRef

37.

Arpitha GC, Dayanandha BV, Shruti N (2017) Soil stabilization by using plastic waste, 347–354 IS-2720: Part 7 (1980) Indian standard methods of test for soils: determination of water content–dry density relation using light compaction. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

38.

Louzada NDSL, Malko JAC, Casagrande MDT (2019) Behavior of clayey soil reinforced with polyethylene terephthalate. J Mater Civ Eng 31(10):04019218. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002863CrossRef

39.

Peddaiah S, Burman A, Sreedeep S (2018) Experimental study on effect of waste plastic bottle strips in soil improvement. Geotech Geol Eng 36(5):2907–2920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0512-0CrossRef

40.

Consoli NC, Montardo JP, Prietto PDM, Pasa GS (2002) Engineering behavior of a sand reinforced with plastic waste. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(6):462–472. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:6(462)CrossRef

41.

Botero E, Ossa A, Sherwell G, Ovando-Shelley E (2015) Stress–strain behavior of a silty soil reinforced with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Geotext Geomembr 43(4):363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.003CrossRef

42.

Bozyigit I, Bulbul F, Alp C, Altun S (2021) Effect of randomly distributed pet bottle strips on mechanical properties of cement stabilized kaolin clay. Eng Sci Technol, Int J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2021.02.012CrossRef

43.

Ahmad A, PekriogluBalkis A, Kurtis Onochie K (2022) The use of shredded plastic wastes in Alker production and its effect on compressive strength and shrinkage properties. Alex Eng J 61:1563–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.06.062CrossRef

44.

Hanafi M, Ekinci A, Aydin E (2020) Triple-binder-stabilized marine deposit clay for better sustainability. Sustainability 12(11):4633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114633CrossRef

45.

Kamruzzaman AH, Chew SH, Lee FH (2009) Structuration and destructuration behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(4):573–589. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:4(573)CrossRef

46.

Chew SH, Kamruzzaman AHM, Lee FH (2004) Physicochemical and engineering behavior of cement treated clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(7):696–706. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:7(696)CrossRef

47.

Rahman MM, Siddique A, Uddin MK (2010) Microstructure and chemical properties of cement treated soft Bangladesh clays. Soils Found 50(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.50.1CrossRef

48.

Horpibulsuk S (2012) Strength and microstructure of cement stabilized clay. Scanning electron microscopy. IntechOpen, London, p 844

49.

Ekinci A, ScheuermannFilho HC, Consoli NC (2020) Copper slag–hydrated lime–Portland cement stabilised marine-deposited clay. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrim.18.00123CrossRef

50.

Ng KS (2018) Tensile behavior of fiber reinforced cemented soil: a short review. AIP Conf Proc 2020(1):020001. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062627CrossRef

51.

Consoli NC, Vendruscolo MA, Prietto PDM (2003) Behavior of plate load tests on soil layers improved with cement and fiber. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(1):96–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:1(96)CrossRef

52.

Consoli NC, Vendruscolo MA, Fonini A, Dalla Rosa F (2009) Fiber reinforcement effects on sand considering a wide cementation range. Geotext Geomembr 27(3):196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.005CrossRef

53.

Gupta D, Kumar A (2016) Strength characterization of cement stabilized and fiber reinforced clay–pond ash mixes. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(4):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0069-zCrossRef

54.

Consoli NC, Zortéa F, de Souza M, Festugato L (2011) Studies on the dosage of fiber-reinforced cemented soils. J Mater Civ Eng 23(12):1624–1632. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000343CrossRef

55.

Khattak MJ, Alrashidi M (2006) Durability and mechanistic characteristics of fiber reinforced soil–cement mixtures. Int J Pavement Eng 7(1):53–62CrossRef

56.

Zhang Z, Tao M (2008) Durability of cement stabilized low plasticity soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(2):203–213. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:2(203)CrossRef

57.

Consoli NC, Foppa D, Festugato L, Heineck KS (2007) Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(2):197–205. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(197)CrossRef

58.

Consoli NC, da Silva K, Rivoire AB (2017) Compacted clay-industrial wastes blends: long term performance under extreme freeze-thaw and wet-dry conditions. Appl Clay Sci 146:404–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.06.032CrossRef

59.

Consoli NC, Tomasi LF (2018) The impact of dry unit weight and cement content on the durability of sand–cement blends. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Ground Improv 171(2):96–102. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrim.17.00034CrossRef

60.

ASTM D2487-17e1 (2017) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/D2487-17E01CrossRef

61.

ASTM C150/C150M-18 (2018) Standard specification for Portland cement. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0150_C0150M-18CrossRef

62.

ASTM D1883-16 (2016) Standard test method for California bearing ratio (CBR) of laboratory-compacted soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/D1883-16CrossRef

63.

ASTM D559/D559M-15 (2015) Standard test methods for wetting and drying compacted soil-cement mixtures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0559_D0559M-15CrossRef

64.

ASTM D2845-08 (2008) Standard test method for laboratory determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants of rock (Withdrawn 2017). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/D2845-08CrossRef

65.

ASTM (2019) Standard specification for mixing rooms, moist cabinets, moist rooms, and water storage tanks used in the testing of hydraulic cements and concretes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0511-19CrossRef

66.

Consoli NC, ScheuermannFilho HC, Godoy VB, Rosenbach CMDC, Carraro JAH (2018) Durability of RAP-industrial waste mixtures under severe climate conditions. Soils Rocks 41(2):149–156. https://doi.org/10.28927/SR.412149CrossRef

67.

Consoli NC, Ferreira PMV, Tang CS, Marques SFV, Festugato L, Corte MB (2016) A unique relationship determining strength of silty/clayey soils–Portland cement mixes. Soils Found 56(6):1082–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.11.011CrossRef

68.

Ekinci A, Hanafi M, Aydin E (2020) Strength, stiffness, and microstructure of wood-ash stabilized marine clay. Minerals 10(9):796. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10090796CrossRef

69.

Consoli NC, Leon HB, da Silva Carretta M, Daronco JVL, Lourenço DE (2019) The effects of curing time and temperature on stiffness, strength and durability of sand-environment friendly binder blends. Soils Found 59(5):1428–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.06.007CrossRef

70.

Consoli NC, ScheuermannFilho HC, Leon HB, da Silva Carretta M, Corte MB, Cordeiro RE, Lourenço DE (2021) General relationships controlling loss of mass, stiffness and strength of sustainable binders amended sand. Transp Geotech 27:100473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100473CrossRef

71.

Consoli NC, QuiñónezSamaniego RA, González LE, Bittar EJ, Cuisinier O (2018) Impact of severe climate conditions on loss of mass, strength, and stiffness of compacted fine-grained soils–portland cement blends. J Mater Civ Eng 30(8):04018174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002392CrossRef

72.

Consoli NC, Cruz RC, Floss MF (2011) Variables controlling strength of artificially cemented sand: influence of curing time. J Mater Civ Eng 23(5):692–696. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000205CrossRef

Titel: Using Waste PET Shreds for Soil Stabilization: Efficiency and Durability Assessment
verfasst von: Ahmed Basil Haider
Anoosheh Iravanian
Mudhafer Hameed Selman
Abdullah Ekinci
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2023
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 2199-9260
Elektronische ISSN: 2199-9279
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-023-00473-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Materials

Methods

Results and Discussion

Control of Shreds on Strength

Control of Shreds and Cement on Durability

Controls on ALM

Control of Adjusted Porosity/Binder Index on ALM

Small Strain Stiffness

Control of Adjusted Porosity/Binder Index on Small Strain Stiffness

Conclusions

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Publisher's Note

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2023

Modelling Geosynthetic Reinforced Three-Layered Soil System Under Monotonic Loads Considering Shear and Vertical Deformations of Layers

Mechanical Properties of Clays Stabilized with Glass Powder and Silica Fume

Determination of GIS-Based Landslide Susceptibility and Ground Dynamics with Geophysical Measurements and Machine Learning Algorithms

Multiparameter Experimental Study on the Factor Contributions of Micropile Uplift Capacity Using Taguchi Approach

Harnessing Nature-Inspired Soft Computing for Reinforced Soil Bearing Capacity Prediction: A Neuro-nomograph Approach for Efficient Design

Overall Improvement of Seismic Resilience by Rocking Foundation and Trade-off Implications