1.

Introduction
Expansive clay soils are types of soils that show a significant
change in volume once they come in contact with moisture.
They expand when exposed to excess water and shrink in hot
weather conditions where there is scarce amount of water.
They can easily be identified in the field in dry seasons as
they show deep cracks of polygonal patterns. This behavior of
swelling and shrinking of expansive clay soils in turn affects
the stability of structures that is built over these soils causing
a serious hazard. It majorly affects the bearing capacity and
strength of foundations by uplift as they swell and may cause
from cracks to differential movements to structural failures
[1].

In order to build on expansive soils, they need to be stabilized

to reduce their swelling and improve their mechanical
capacities. Soil stabilization is the process by which the
engineering properties of the soil are improved and it is made
more stable. It is used to decrease the soil’s unqualified
characteristics such as permeability and consolidation
potential and increase the shear capacity [2].

The method is mainly adopted for highway and airfield

construction projects. Commonly, activities such as
compaction and pre-consolidation are used to improve types
of soils which are already in good form. But soil stabilization
goes way up to encouraging usage of weak soil and reducing
the uneconomical process of weak soil replacement. Other
than working on the soil mass interaction, chemically altering
the soil material itself is also the focus of this process.
Sometimes, soil stabilization is used for city and suburban
streets to make them more noise-absorbing [3].

Different methods have been developed previously to

stabilize weak and unsuitable soils. Some of these methods
include mechanical (granular) stabilization, cement
stabilization, lime stabilization, bituminous stabilization,
chemical stabilization, thermal stabilization, electrical
stabilization, as well as grouting stabilization by geotextile
and fabrics. Recently, researchers have introduced another
way of soil stabilization by using waste materials. Plastics are
one of the leading waste materials that are found to be
suitable for this purpose. They a reduce the cost of
stabilization at a large rate
[4].

Using plastics for this purpose simultaneously solves the

challenges of improper plastic waste recycling that is
currently a teething problem in most developing countries.
Improper plastic waste disposal is becoming a pressing
environmental issue in most African countries. They are
currently covering landfills and water bodies, clogging
sewerage systems, disrupting the ecological cycle and
creating an aesthetically unpleasing environment. This in turn
causes serious damage to animal, plant and human lives.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles are conventional
plastic bottles that currently are highly utilized. They are used
to package water, soft drinks, liquid foods, and various other
beverages. With their increasing demand, their disposal is
becoming difficult. The degradation of waste PET bottles
takes a very long time in nature (more than a hundred years)
[5].

Recycling and using these plastic bottles to stabilize expansive

clay soil are moves in the right direction making the
construction industry an appropriate candidate with its high
consumption ability. This will be a decent alternative for
clearing and protecting the environment from waste plastic
bottles [6].

This paper presents appropriate and easy to implement ways

of recycling plastic water bottles as reinforcing material for
the stabilization of expansive soil to improve and achieve the
required properties for construction works. The experimental
tests that were performed with the achieved results are
presented.
 2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
There were two materials used for this study: a
representative clay type soil taken from Bole area in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia and rectangular PET bottle strips. The
strips were prepared from waste plastic bottles that were
collected from the nearby surroundings. The bottles were
cleaned properly after collection and cut into three
different sized strips, manually using scissors (Figure 1).
The strip sizes are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Material Characterization
The characterization of the soil sample taken for this study
included particle size distribution, Atterberg limit and
specific gravity of soil tests. The sample soil taken was
sieved in order to take out any other impurities and
unnecessary particles. It was then prepared for testing
according. Once sample preparation was done, sieve
analysis and hydrometer analysis were conducted to study
the particle size distribution of the soil. The tests were
done as per [7] and [8] respectively. Plastic limit, liquid
limit and
plasticity index of the soil were determined
 Figure 1. Strip preparation

Table 1. Strip sizes.

Strip Width (mm) Length (mm)

1 5 7.5
2 10 15
3 15 20

by performing the Atterberg limit test. The test was carried out
as per [9] using Casagrande’s apparatus. Specific gravity of the
soil on the other hand was determined from the specific gravity
test in the geotechnical laboratory. A specific gravity beaker and
vacuum pump were used to carry out the test as per [10].

The specific gravity was taken as the ratio of the density of soil
to the density of water at the same temperature. The PET fibers
on the other hand were characterized as per size (length, width
and thickness), surface texture, shape and color.
2.2.2. Material Mixing Method and Proportions
The plastic strips, which are expected to act as soil
reinforcements, were added to the soil in three different
percentages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) by mass of the soil. Table 2
shows the treatment levels used for each strip while carrying
out this study. Percentage by mass represents the ratio of mass
of plastic to mass of soil sample taken as a percentage.
2.2.3. Methods of Testing Soil Properties
Once the characterization of both materials was complete, the plastic
bottle strips were added to the soil sample in the treatment levels
described above. Free swell test, standard proctor compaction test,
direct shear test, Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test were carried out in order to study the
effects of the addition of the plastic bottle strips on clay soil. The
specific standards used to perform these testes are listed in Table 3.

Table 2. Treatment levels.

Strip Size (mm) Treatment Level (%)
0.5
5*7.5 1
2
0.5
10*15 1
2
0.5
15*20 1
2
Table 3. Test methods

Test Performed Standard Used

Free swell test [11]
Standard proctor compaction test [12]
Direct shear test [13]
Unconfined Compressive Strength [14]
(UCS) test [15]
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test

The swelling of the soil sample was studied by conducting the

free swell test. In this test, a 10 g of oven-dried soil sample
passing through a number 40 sieve (425 µm) was put into a
graduated free-swell jar with capacity of 100 ml, and filled with
water. The sample was left until it reached its maximum swelling
level. Then the recorded value was computed with respect to
the original 10 ml volume and expressed in percentage. Figure 2
shows free swell jars set for settling. The maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content were determined by conducting
standard proctor compaction test.
In this test, the soil was compacted using a test mold and a
rammer at different water contents until the wet density started
decreasing (Figure 3). Moisture content of the soil at different
water additions was obtained, and the dry density for each
compaction level was graphed with its respective water content.
The peak of the curve provided the maximum dry density that
the soil can be compacted to, with the optimum moisture
content that can yield the maximum compaction. Equation (1)
shows how dry density can be calculated, where d γ is dry
density, w γ is wet density and ω is water content

Figure 2. Free swell jars set for settling.

Figure 3. Standard proctor compaction test mold and rammer.

The response of a consolidated and drained soil sample for
direct shear, and results in the shear strength of the soil were
determined by conducting a direct shear test.
The test was performed by deforming a specimen at a
controlled strain rate on a single shear plane, which is
determined by the configuration of the apparatus. Generally,
three specimens were tested, each under a different normal
load, to demonstrate the effect of surcharge and structural load
upon shear resistance and displacement.
The shear results at the three normal loads are plotted on one
graph and linearly fitted to result the average shear strength (C)
of the soil, whereas the angle of internal friction (φ) is
calculated from the slope of the line that is used to fit the shear
strength values. Figure 4 illustrates the procedures of a direct
shear test. Cohesive soils can be evaluated based on their shear
resistance when subjected to compressive load with no
confinement. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
was used to determine shear capacity of the sample soil under
compression. The sample was extruded and cut into the
standard cylindrical shape. The UCS machine was used to
compress the sample and both the applied load and change in
length of the sample were recorded. The values were tabulated
and computed to get one representative value. Figure 5 shows
the UCS test machine and sample. Figure 4. Direct shear
 Figure 4. Direct shear test

Figure 5. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test.

CBR test was conducted to measure the penetration strength of

a compacted soil relative to crushed rock, which is considered
to be an excellent base-course material. The results of a CBR
test help to understand the shear strength and bearing capacity
of a soil sample. The test follows a compaction procedure
combined with a penetration that is applied by a machine that
applies a plunger load. This test was used to simulate the effect
of surcharge and excessive moisture on the compacted soil by
putting a standard load that represents surcharge and soaking
the mold for four days.
 3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Characterization of Soil
The characterization of the soil sample was done according to
particle size distribution, Atterberg limit tests and specific
gravity of soil test. The results showed that the soil was a fine-
grained clay soil with a specific gravity of 2.78 as well as a liquid
limit of 94.2%, a plastic limit of 28.3% and a plasticity index,
which is the difference between the liquid and plastic limit, of
65.9%. 3.2. Testing Reinforced Soil Properties 3.2.1. Standard
Proctor Compaction Test Results One of the ways the effect of
adding plastic into the soil was checked was in terms of the
soil’s improvement during compaction. This improvement was
expressed in the change in the maximum dry density (MDD) and
optimum moisture content (OMC). The summary of the test
results is given in Table 4. All strip sizes showed reduction in
optimum moisture content as the percentage of plastic
increased. A largest reduction is obtained at a strip size of 5 ×
7.5 (mm) at a 2% addition which yielded a 31% decrease in the
moisture content. The reason for the decrement of the OMC
might be because of zero absorption.

Table 4. MDD and OMC of soil with different treatment levels

of plastic strips
Strip Size (mm) Treatment Level MDD (KN/m3 ) OMC (%)
(%)
None 0 12.82 42
0.5 11.97 34.4
5*7.5 1 12.56 32.5
2 12.8 29
0.5 12.38 36
10*15 1 12.12 35
2 11.92 34
capacity of the plastic strips for water. Therefore, soil can be
compacted to its maximum dry density at lower addition of
water, which is a very good Improvement. Figure 6 shows the
comparisons between OMC of the soil at the different sizes and
percentages of plastic addition. A decrease in maximum dry
density of the soil is also noted but it is marginal. The largest
reduction occurred at a strip size of 10 mm × 15 mm at 2%
content which is 7% only. Only the 2% content of 5 × 7.5 (mm)
strip maintained the maximum dry density of the original soil,
which is 12.8 KN/m3 . The addition of less dense material,
which is the plastic, in the soil might have decreased the density
of the soil. However, the reduction in maximum dry density is
counterbalanced by the decrease in optimum moisture content.
The decreased density of soil has an engineering application in
light weight embankment construction. Figure 7 shows the
comparisons between MDD of the soil at the different sizes and
percentages of plastic addition.
 Figure 6. Comparison between OMC of soil samples

Figure 7.
Comparison between MDD of soil samples.

3.2.2. Free Swell Test Results

The main problem of expansive soil is its volume change in
different moisture conditions. When the moisture content
increases, the soil swells and its volume increases in a wide
range from the original. This property happens at a particle
level, when water particles break the bonds that connect the
sandwich like chemical structure and penetrate between layers.
This problem is particularly solved by altering the chemical
characteristics of the soil using the application of different
chemicals. As for this project, the plastic strip was proposed to
act as a physical agent and was expected to decrease the
swelling potential of the soil. From visual inspection during
experiments and the results from free-swell tests for the soil
containing different percentage of plastic strips, there is no
chemical bonding between the soil and the strip. Therefore, the
reduction in swelling is a sole effect of the physical interaction
between the soil and the strip. The free swell of unreinforced
soil is observed to be 160% which according to ASTM is
classified as very highly expansive soils. A substantial reduction
in the free swell of the soil is observed due to the addition of
plastic strip. A 30% reduction in swell occurs at strip size of 5 ×
7.5 (mm) and strip content of 2%. Table 5 gives a summarized
version of the swelling test results for each plastic strip size and
treatment level (percentage). The free-swell test uses 10 g of
sample in a standard graduated free-swell jar. On the addition
of the plastic in the soil, the mass of the soil has to decrease so
that the total mass of the plastic and the soil will become 10 g.
The reason for the decrease in the swelling potential was not
because of chemical interaction. But it was due to the amount
of soil mass decreased, which is equal to the mass of the plastic
added. Since decreased mass of the soil was replaced by non-
swelling material, the swelling showed some improvement. The
soil-plastic interaction might also have an effect in reducing the
free swell.
Table 5. Free swell test results.

Strip Size (mm) Treatment Level (%) Swelling (%)

None 0% 160
0.5 136.3
5*7.5 1 126.3
2 112.5
0.5 134
10*15 1 121
2 116
0.5 135
15*20 1 127.5
2 117.5

3.2.3. Direct Shear Test Results

It was possible to conclude from the test results that the
arrangement of the plastic strips in the soil affects the shear
capacity of the reinforced soil. If the surface of the strip is
parallel to the shear plane, the shearing will be enhanced and
the capacity will fail. But any other arrangement will improve
the shear capacity of the soil. On the other hand, it was difficult
to arrange the larger sizes of strips in on the direct shear
machine, as their surface area was close to that of the shear
box. The shear capacity from the tests is presented in terms of
the shear strength parameters, cohesion (C) and angle of
internal friction (φ). Both improvement and drop of shear
capacity were recorded for C and φ. The angle of internal
friction and cohesion intercept of the unreinforced soil was
found to be 5.710 and 49.83 kPa respectively. The small value of
friction angle is attributed to the cohesiveness of the soil. The
largest values of C and φ for the reinforced soil was obtained as
8.980 and 62.67 Kpa which was a 57% and 26% improvement
respectively. These results were obtained for the 15 * 20 strip
size at 0.5%. Table 6 gives the C and φ results obtained for each
treatment level and strip sizes. Increasing the plastic content for
the same plastic strip size has increased both the friction angle
and cohesion for 5 × 7.5 (mm) and 10 × 15 (mm) strips but
decreased for 15 × 20 (mm). However, increasing the plastic size
for the same content increases the friction angle and cohesion.

3.2.4. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) Test

Results
The results found from the unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) test, were different from the direct shear results. The UCS
of unreinforced soil was found to be 151.8 kPa. The largest
improvement in the UCS is 316.4 kPa that is a net increase of
108% which is a tremendous growth. The rise in UCS is obtained
at small strip contents and sizes. Increase in size generally
reduces the UCS value.

Table 6. Direct shear test results

Strip Size (mm) Treatment Φ C (kPa)

Level (%)
None 0 5.71 49.83
0.5 6.66 51.64
5*7.5 1 7.15 54.43
2 7.64 56.88
0.5 7.31 60.84
10*15 1 7.76 61.17
2 8.36 61.87
0.5 8.98 62.67
15*20 1 8.75 62.50
2 8.28 62.00

When the applied compressive stress forced the soil mass to

slide over the surface of plastic strips and the lack of
confinement might have contributed for the reduction of the
UCS value. The UCS mold is also small and it might have caused
large un-compacted shear planes. Table 7 summarizes the UCS
values for the different plastic strip size and percentage
reinforced soil samples.

Cracking and Shrinking

The decrease in moisture content of expansive soil results in
wide and deep cracking. This phenomenon results decrease in
volume, and consequently the soil is excessively compressed.
Many structures lost their stability and failed due to less
awareness and treatment of this character of expansive soil.
The addition of plastic strips can help reduce the cracking and
shrinking characters of the soil by bridging between the cracks.
This was witnessed when the compacted soil was extruded from
the mold and left to air dry until it fully cracked. The cracks
outlined on the surface of the molded soil and its ability to
maintain its original spherical shape were compared by visual
inspection. The strip size of 5 × 7.5 (mm) resulted a very
considerable reduction of cracking, while larger sizes especially
at higher percentages decreased the ability of the soil to
maintain its spherical shape of mold. It was obvious that the
larger surface area of the plastic, the easier for the soil to crack.
Figure 8 shows the cracking mode of the soil for strip sizes 15 *
20, 10 * 15, and 5 * 7.5 from left to right. It can clearly be seen
from the figure that the sample containing 15 * 20 plastic strip
sizes showed excessive cracking.

Figure 8. Comparison of cracking between soil samples.

Table 7. UCS test results (KN).

3.2.5. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results

The bearing capacity of the soil was measured indirectly by

conducting the CBR test. The Soaked CBR is only tested in this
study because it is only test that simulate actual site condition.
Also, the study was focused in investigating the effect of water
on expansive soils CBR value. The load penetration curve has
shown that there is an improvement in the CBR value. The
soaked CBR of unreinforced soil was found to be 1.58 which is
small. The principal enhancement is attained at a strip size and
content of 15 × 20 (mm) and 1% respectively and is of value
3.23. This is a total of 104% increment. The results are
summarized in Table 8.
Increase in plastic size for the same percentage has resulted in
an increase in soaked CBR value but increase in plastic content
for the same plastic size increases the soaked CBR then
decreases. The improvement in CBR can attributed to the ability
of the strips in resisting swelling prior to penetration and load
exerted by the plunger during penetration.

4. Advantages of Plastic as a Soil Stabilizer

1. It improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil
bearing capacity.
2. It is a lot of economical each in terms of price and energy to
extend. 3. Bearing capacity of the soil instead of going for deep
foundation or raft foundation.
4. It offers more stability to the soil in slopes or other such
places.
5. Sometimes soil stabilization is also stop soil erosion or
formation of mud, which is extremely helpful particularly in dry
and arid weather.
6. Stabilization is also done for soil water-proofing; this prevents
the seepage in soil and hence helps the soil from losing its
strength.
7. It helps in reducing the soil volume modification because of
modification in temperature or wetness content.
8. Stabilization improves the workability and also durability of
the soil.

5. Conclusions

This paper assessed the method of stabilizing clay soils using

plastic bottle strips. The following conclusions are drawn based
on the analysis and interpretation of the results obtained. A
significant and marginal reduction was recorded in the optimum
moisture content and in the maximum dry density results
respectively. The angle of internal friction and the cohesion
intercept increased significantly as the reinforcement
percentages and sizes increased. A huge improvement in UCS
has been noted for smaller strip size and content. Any further
increase in size and content has brought reduction in UCS
because increase in size causes in un-compacted weak shear
planes. The swelling of the soil was reduced significantly at high
percentages of strip content because of replacement in an
equal mass of expansive soil by non-expansive plastic. Physical
anchorage has also some effect in reducing the free swell. The
swelling reduction is in some way similar for different sizes at
the same percentage which shows that the dominant factor
that contributes to reduction in swelling is percent by weight of
plastic content. Increase in plastic size for the same percentage
has resulted in an increase in soaked CBR value but increase in
plastic content for the same plastic size increases the soaked
CBR then decreases. The optimum plastic size and plastic
content that results in optimum result can be selected based on
the
Table 8. CBR values (%).

Treatment Strip Sizes (mm)

Level 5*735 10*15 15*20
0 1.58 1.58 1.58
0.5 1.71 2.28 2.85
 1 2.09 2.66 3.23
2 1.96 2.47 3.04

importance of the selection parameter for a specified

engineering work. In nutshell, stabilizing expansive clay soil with
waste plastic bottle strips is a reliable alternative as it improves
the volume fluctuation problems of the soil. The strips were
acting as reinforcements playing a role of arresting volume
changes with change in water content. Incorporating waste
plastic bottles in the construction industry also is a crucial way
to solve the issue of insufficient plastic waste disposal. The
laboratory results presented in the study favorably suggest the
possibility of utilizing plastic material as tensile inclusions in
expansive soil to increase the resistance to shear, CBR value and
reduction in swelling. However, a better understanding of the
interaction mechanism in soils reinforced with the plastic
material would be essential to properly document the
engineering behavior of the soil-plastic composite.

References