A Project on Effect of Waste plastic bottles strips in soil improvement..

1. A Project Report on Effect of Waste Plastic Bottles
Strips in Soil Improvement
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Award of
degree of Bachelor of Technology
in
Civil Engineering
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Suket Kumar
Assistant Professor
(Department of Civil Engineering)
Government Engineering College
Buxar
(Compus of BCE Bakhtiyarpur)
Submitted By
Name of Students: Registration Number
Deepak Kumar 19101155012
Shivam Kumar 19101155016
Ankit Kr Aryan 19101155037
Alok Raj 19101155021

2. CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Deepak Kumar(19C15), Shivam Kumar(19C02), Ankit
KR Aryan(19C43) & Alok Raj(19C36) have successfully completed their minor
project entitled “Effect of Waste Plastic Bottles Strips in Soil Improvement”
which is a bonafide who work carried out by themselves in partial fulfilment of
Bachelor of Technology, Degree in Civil Engineering from Government
Engineering College, Buxar. The work was carried under our supervision during the
academic session 2019-2023.
Project Supervisor Head of department
Prof. Suket Kumar Prof. Hariom Shankar
(Department of Civil Engineering) (Department of Civil Engineering)
(Govt. Engineering College, Buxar) (Govt. Engineering College, Buxar)

3. Declaration by the Students
We hereby certify that we have properly verified all the items in the checklist and ensure that the
report is in proper format as specified in the course handout.
Name of Students: Signature of the Student:
Deepak Kumar
Ankit KR Aryan
Alok Raj
Shivam Kumar
Place:
Date:
Verification by the Project Guide
I have duly verified all the items in the checklist and ensured that the report is in the proper format.
Place:
Date:
Signature of the Project Guide:

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without
the kind support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to
extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I am highly indebted to Prof. Suket Kumar
for their guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary
information regarding the project & also for their support in completing the project.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents & member of GEC Buxar
for their kind co-operation and encouragement which help me in completion of this
project. My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the
project and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.
We also do not like to miss the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of all
faculty members of the department for their kind assistance and co-operation during
the development of our project. Last but not the least, we acknowledge our friends
for their contribution in the completion of the project.
We feel elated to extend our floral guidance to Prof. Hariom Shankar, Head of
Department of Civil Engineering, for his encouragement all the way during analysis
of the project. His annotations, insinuations and criticism are the key behind the
successful completion of doing the thesis and for providing us all the required
facilities.

5. ABSTRACT
With rapid advancements in technology globally, the use of plastics such as
polyethylene bags, bottles etc. is also increasing. The disposal of thrown away
wastes pose a serious challenge since most of the plastic wastes are non-
biodegradable and unfit for incineration as they emit harmful gases. Soil stabilization
improves the engineering properties of weak soils by controlled compaction or
adding stabilizers like cement, lime etc. but these additives also have become
expensive in recent years. This paper presents a detailed study on the behavior and
use of waste plastic in soil improvement. Experimental investigation on reinforced
plastic soil results showed that, plastic can be used as an effective stabilizer so as to
encounter waste disposal problem as well as an economical solution for stabilizing
weak soils. Plastic reinforced soil behaves like a fiber reinforced soil. This study
involves the investigation of the effect of plastic bottle strips on silty sand for which
a series of compaction, direct shear and California bearing ratio (CBR) tests have
been performed with varying percentages of plastic strips and also with different
aspect ratios in terms of size. The results reflect that there is significant increment in
maximum dry unit weight, Shear Strength Parameters and CBR value with plastic
reinforcement in soil. The quantum of improvement in the soil properties depends
on type of soil, plastic content and size of strip. It is observed from the study that,
improvement in engineering properties of silty sand is achieved at 0.4% plastic
content with strip size of (15 mm x 15 mm).
Keywords Plastic bottle strips
Compaction test,
Direct shear test
CBR test

6. TABLE OF CONTENT
Part-1
1. Title of Project 01
2. Certificate 02
3. Declaration 03
4. Acknowledgement 04
5. Abstract 05
Part-2
1. Introduction 06-07
2. Objectives 08
3. Literature Review 09-12
4. Scope of Work 13
5. Materials & Methodology 14
5.1 Natural Soil 14
5.2 Plastic Material 14
6 Test Procedure 15-21
6.1 Compaction Test 15-17
6.2 CBR Test 17-19
6.3 Atterberg Limit Test 19-21
7 Result And Discussion 22-26
7.1 Natural Soil Results without plastic strips 22
7.2 Effect of Plastic content strip size (15mm x 25mm) 23
7.3 Result of with plastic strips (15mm x 25mm) 23-26
8 Conclusions 27
9 References 28-29

7. 1. INTRODUCTION
Plastic products have become an integral part in our daily life as a basic need. It is
produced on a massive scale worldwide and its production crosses 150 million
tonnes per year globally. As per survey conducted by Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB), India (Times of India, April 30 2015) in 60 cities of India, the
quantity of plastic waste generation is estimated to be 15,342.6 tonnes per day (TPD)
which is approximately 5.6 million per annum (TPA) while more than 6000 tonnes
remain uncollected and littered. One of the most important reasons found in a survey
reflects that the cause of 2005 Mumbai city flood was due to choking of drains by
plastic waste materials thrown indiscriminately by the users. This is a prime example
of how the non-biodegradable waste plastic garbage creates difficulties in our lives.
Therefore, there is a need to dispose these garbage products properly. Their use as
reinforcing materials for weak soils to improve its strength is a way of recycling
these materials in a meaningful, efficient and cost effective manner. Their
applications in soil stabilization of base, subbase courses of pavement,
reinforcements for earthen embankments and to reduce the settlement of soil in
foundations are some examples of using these materials for civil engineering
purposes. Also, waste plastic can be used in soil improvement as a replacement for
other expensive admixtures like cement, lime etc. as plastic is a cheaper alternative.
As per the study by Modak et al. (2012), if locally available soil is inadequate to
support design maximum loads, the properties can be improved by soil stabilization
techniques by adding suitable additives. Soil stabilization using raw waste plastic
bottle strips is an alternative method for improving subgrade and stability of earth
embankments. This new technique of soil stabilization can be effectively used to
meet the challenges of society and to reduce the quantity of waste plastic that lead
to eco-friendly safe environment.

8. Fig.1 Bootle which using soil improvement
Plastic wastes generally include Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE), Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), Poly Vinyl Chloride
(PVC), Poly Propylene (PP) and Polystyrene (PS). In this study, PET plastic bottle
strips are used to improve the engineering Properties of soil.

9. 2. OBJECTIVES
➢ To increase the density and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of soil using
plastic as an admixture.
➢ To provide an alternative solution for the disposal of plastic waste.
➢ To provide an economical solution for soil stabilization using plastic waste.
➢ To determine the optimum plastic content to be used.
Fig. 2 Cutting strips size (15mm x 25mm )

10. 3. Literature Review
While performing constructions on weak soils, it is very common practice to use
a variety of ground improvement techniques (such as cement, lime etc.) to
address the poor shear strength and bearing capacity properties of the subgrade
or foundation soil. Later over the years, new advanced technology has been
introduced by
1. Vidal (1969) to reduce the danger of slope stability, increase bearing
capacity and reduce the lateral deformation by reinforcing the tensile resisting
materials (Geo-synthetics etc.) into the weak soils. After a few years later,
2. Dutta and Rao (2004) applied a new tensile force resisting material called
Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) plastic strips and performed conventional
drained triaxial compression tests mixing LDPE strips with sandy soil. Dutta
and Rao (2004) found that with the addition of LDPE strips, load bearing
capacity of soil also increased but did not take the account of strip content and
size. As a part of research on improving the strength of weak soils using
tensile resisting material, a new form of plastic strips called reclaimed High
Density Polyethylene (HDPE) are introduced by Choudhary et al. (2010) and
reinforced to locally available sandy soil to improve the engineering
performance of sub-grade soil. Different concentrations of HDPE strips (0.25,
0.5, 0.75, 1, 2 and 4%) and different lengths and proportions are added
randomly to the sandy soil. They also observed that increase in the HDPE strip
content and size, CBR values are also increased and which significantly
reduced the sub-grade thickness.

11. 3. Khabiri Mahammad (2011) added combination of different waste
plastic materials to the plane soil and coarse granular materials. As a result,
Khabiri Mahammad (2011) observed that, tensile and compressive strengths
of soils improved significantly. Chouksey and Babu (2011) introduced a new
form of plastic waste i.e. drinking water bottles to investigate the effect of the
bottle strips on consolidation characteristics. A series of both unconfined
compression test (UCC) and consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial tests
showed that there is benefit of increasing the engineering strength of the soil
and also observed that there is significant reduction in the compressibility
parameters. But they did not consider the particular proportions of bottle strips
so that the behavior of these strips could be identified with change in
percentage of strips. Further to understand the behavior of plastic strips as soil
reinforcement,
4. Bhattarai et al. (2013) considered a new gradation of soil such as
inorganic silts. Different plastic concentrations (0.25, 0.5 and 1%) and
different lengths of 10 mm (AR = 1), 20 mm (AR = 2), 30 mm (AR = 3) and
40 mm (AR = 4) are considered and mixed with inorganic silts. They
performed series of CBR tests and observed that, with quite controversy to the
strength improvement from the above findings, CBR values are only increased
up to a certain limit of 0.50% strip content and AR of 3 and beyond which the
properties had been decreased. To understand more about the behavior of
HDPE plastic strips,
5. Chebet and Kalumba (2014) considered HDPE plastic strips obtained
from shopping bags and reinforced them to two kind of sandy soils called
Klipheuwel and Cape Flat sands. The investigators considered the strip

12. perforations with different diameters as reinforcement to sandy soils. Series
of direct shear tests were performed on the two type of sands reinforced with
HDPE strips of concentrations i.e. 0.1- 0.3% by weight.
6. Amrutha and Krishnan (2015) considered three different kinds of
samples namely sandy soil fly ash and red soil (silty clay) with different
percentages of HDPE strips such as 0.5, 1 and 1.5% and various aspect ratios.
They observed that if the amount of plastic strip content and aspect ratio (AR
= length/width) of plastic strip is increased, CBR value increases up to a
certain extent. After reaching a particular AR, the CBR value decreased. From
the analysis of results it was also evident that the void ratio was higher for
plain soil and addition of plastic strips lowered void ratio as the percentage
amount of plastic waste were increased in soil, more voids were occupied with
plastic waste and resulted in overall reduction in voids present in soil.
Analysis of the slope of e-log p curve obtained from the one dimensional
consolidation test showed a decrease in the slope as the plastic waste content
increased. The results indicated that the compressibility of soil reduced as the
plastic waste content was increased.
In overall, it is inferred that, with addition of plastic strips at particular
percentage and for particular gradation of soil there is significant
improvement in the strength characteristic of soil. So it clearly opens a door
to research on the behavior of various kinds of waste plastic strips and various
gradations of soils taking consideration of various parameters like percentage,
size, shape, perforations etc. As a part of this research and to provide more
accurate information about plastic strip’s behavior as a reinforcing material,

13. experimental studies are carried out on silty sand with waste PET bottle strips
with different plastic contents and aspect ratios. The results obtained clearly
show that plastic bottle strips can perform as a soil reinforcing additive very
effectively.

14. 4. Scope of Work
The scope of present work includes addition of plastic bottle strips to the locally
available soils to enhance the engineering properties. The work presented in this
paper aims to investigate the improvement of soil properties such as shear
strength, maximum dry density(MDD) and CBR values by adding strips cut from
plastic bottles. A series of laboratory tests are conducted on both virgin soils as
well as on plastic reinforced soil to compare the improvement of soil properties.
List of experiments conducted in laboratory as per IS/ASTM Codes are given in
Table 1.
Table 1. Experiments performed in the study
S. no List of experiments List of codes (IS/ASTM)
1 Specific gravity of soil solids IS:2720-Part 3-1980/ASTM D854-14
2 Particle size analysis IS:2720-Part 4-1985/ASTM D6913-04
3 Atterberg limits IS:2720-Part 5-1985/ASTM D4318-05
4 Compaction test (standard proctor test) IS:2720-Part 7-1980/ASTM D698
5 Direct shear test IS:2720-Part 13-1986/ASTM D3080
6 California bearing ratio test IS:2720-Part 16-1987/ASTM D1883

15. 5 Materials and Methodology
5.1 Natural Soil
Natural soil used in this study is collected from the plain of Bihar (Patna) is
covered by Gangetic alluvium. The soil is mainly young loam rejuvenated every
year by constant deposition of silt, clay and sand brought by river streams. The
soil is collected at a certain depth from the ground level. The disturbed soil
sample is then transported to Geotechnical laboratory of BCE Bakhtiyarpur.
Large lumps of soil, if any, are pulverized and kept in oven dry condition at 110
C for 24 h.
5.2 Plastic Material
PET is normally termed as Polyethylene Terephthalate and is produced from
petroleum hydrocarbons, through a reaction between ethylene glycol and
Terephthalate acid. Due to its excellent wearing resistance, low coefficient of
friction and high flexural modulus, it is regarded as a good additive for
stabilization of soil to improve the engineering properties of soil. The chemical
formula for PET is (C10H8O6). PET waste water bottles are cut into strips with
width and length of (15 mm x 15 mm), (15 mm x 25 mm) and (15 mm x 35 mm)
using scissor and measuring ruler. Standard Proctor Test and California bearing
ratio (CBR) tests are conducted without plastic strips and same set of tests are
performed on reinforced soil with plastic strips with varying percentages of 2%,
4%, 6% and 8% respectively.

16. 6 Test Procedure
6.1 Compaction Test
Soil compaction happens when soil particles are pressed together, reducing pore
space between them. Heavily compacted soils contain few large pores, less total
pore volume, and a greater density.
Test Apparatus
• Molds, manual rammer
• Extruder, Balance
• Drying oven
• Mixing pan
• Trowel
• #4 Sieve
• Moisture cans
• Graduated cylinder
• Straight edge
Procedure Fig.3 Mold and Hammer
1. Take a representative oven-dried sample, approximately 5 kg in the given pan.
Thoroughly mix the sample with sufficient water to dampen it with approximate
water content of 4-6 %.
2. Weigh the proctor mould without base plate and collar. Fix the collar and base
plate. Place the soil in the Proctor mould and compact it in 3 layers giving 25 blows
per layer with the 2.5 kg rammer falling through. The blows shall be distributed
uniformly over the surface of each layer.
3. Remove the collar; trim the compacted soil even with the top of mould using a
straight edge and weigh.

17. 4. Divide the weight of the compacted specimen by 944 cc and record the result as
the bulk density  bulk.
5. Remove the sample from mould and slice vertically through and obtain a small
sample for water content.
6. Thoroughly break up the remainder of the material until it will pass a no.4 sieve
as judged by the eye. Add water in sufficient amounts to increase the moisture
content of the soil sample by one or two percentage points and repeat the above
procedure for each increment of water added. Continue this series of determination
until there is either a decrease or no change in the wet unit weight of the compacted
soil.
Fig.4 Conmpaction test Equipment

18. From compaction test using plastic bottle strips.
water content-dry density relationship of soil with varying percentages (2, 4, 6 and
8%) of plastic strips is obtained. A series of Standard Proctor Tests are conducted
on reinforced plastic soil as per (IS-2720 Part-VII) Procedure. The cut plastic strips
thus obtained are added to natural soil after making dry soil partially wet soil by
adding sufficient amount of water to ensure that the soil samples are approximately
uniform and plastic paste could be formed. Strips and soil are mixed thoroughly until
mix becomes uniform and homogeneous approximately. As per Standard Proctor
Test procedure, tests are performed for all soil specimens containing different
percentage of plastic strips and with different lengths of strips.
6.2 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test
California bearing ratio is the percentage of stress a soil specimen can resist for a
certain amount of penetration relative to the value of stress of which a standard soil
could resist. Basically, the value is an indicator of the strength of the soil.
Fig.5 Loading Machine Fig.6 Penetration Piston and mold

19. Test Apparatus
• Loading Machine
• Penetration Piston
• Sieves
• Mold
• Spacer Disk
• Mixing Tools
Test Procedure
1. Place the mould assembly with test specimen on the lower plate of penetration
testing machine. To prevent upheaval of soil into the hole of the surcharge weights,
2.5 kg annular weight shall be placed on the soil surface prior to seating the
penetration plunger after which the remainder of the surcharge weights shall be
placed.
2. Seat the penetration piston at the center of the specimen with the smallest possible
load, but in no case in excess of 4 kg so that full contact of the piston on the sample
is established.
3. Set the load and deformation gauges to read zero. Apply the load on the piston so
that the penetration rate is about 1.25 mm/min.
4. Record the load readings at penetrations of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10
and 12.5 mm.
5. Raise the plunger and detach the mould from the loading equipment. Take about
20 to 50 g of soil from the top 30 mm layer and determine the moisture content.

20. California bearing ratio Test using plastic bottle strips.
CBR Tests are performed on reinforced soil with varying plastic percentages of 2,
4, 6 and 8 respectively for plastic strip size of (15 mm x 25 mm) as per IS-2720 Part
16 procedure for light static compaction. At first, plastic strips are blended with 5 kg
of soil, and then mixed thoroughly until homogeneous mix is obtained. Load
required for penetrating through the soil sample up to 10 mm penetration depths is
noted.
6.3 Atterberg Limits Test
The Atterberg limits test is a classification test used to determine the moisture
content at which fine-grained clay and silt soils transition between the different
phases. The test for Atterberg limits is performed on the fraction of soil that will
pass through a No. 40 or 425µm or 0.425mm sieve as per ASTM D 4318-00.
Clay soil changes consistency and behavior depending on its moisture
content. The boundary at which the change in behavior takes place is defined based
on the behavior of the soil sample. Depending on the moisture content, the soil may
be in any of the four states:
• Solid.
• Semi-solid.
• Plastic.
• Liquid.
Test Apparatus
• Evaporating dishes – to mix specimen to desired moisture content.
• Spatula – to mix, form and smooth the soil specimen.
• Aluminum containers – for soil moisture samples.
• Mortar and pestle – to reduce particle size.

21. • Drying oven – for moisture content test.
• Liquid limit test accessory set including liquid limit machine and Casagrande
grooving tool.
• Plastic limit test apparatus including plastic limit roller and glass plate.
• Shrinkage limit test apparatus including shrinkage dish, microcrystalline wax,
petroleum jelly, fine thread, glass plate, and wax melting pot.
Test Procedure
The soil samples for each test consist of soil that is able to pass through a No. 40
sieve and is prepared using standard methods. Moisture is adjusted by adding water
and thoroughly mixing it. The sample is allowed to condition for at least 16 hours.
Liquid Limit (LL) Test – A portion of the soil sample is spread in the brass cup of
the liquid limit machine. It is then divided at the center using the Casagrande
grooving tool. The liquid limit is reached when the groove closes a distance of
0.5inches along the bottom of the groove after 25 blows. The moisture content is
noted. The test is conducted at varying moisture content for the same soil with the
number of blows varying between 15 and 35.
Plastic Limit (PL) Test – A small ball of moist plastic soil is repeatedly remolded
and rolled out into a 1/8th
inch (3.18 mm) thread. The moisture content at which the
thread crumbles before it is completely rolled out is the plastic limit.
Shrinkage Limit (SL) Test – A soil pat from the moist soil sample is molded into
a special shrinkage dish. The dish along with the soil pat is oven-dried and weighed
and the volume of the specimen is determined. The test is described in ASTM
D4943.

22. 7 Results and Discussions
7.1 Natural Soil
In this section, the results for various tests such as standard proctor tests, direct shear
tests and CBR tests performed on natural soil are presented. The results for
properties of natural soil obtained from these experiments results are shown in Table
2.
Index and engineering properties of natural/virgin soil without plastic strips
Table 2. Index and engineering properties of natural/virgin soil without plastics
S. no. Property of natural soil Value
1 Particle size distribution Gravel (20–4.75 mm)
Sand (4.75–0.075 mm)
Silt (0.075–0.002 mm)
Clay ( < 0.002 mm)
0%
21.4%
57.2%
22.4%
2 Specific Gravity(Gs) 2.62
3 Atterberg limits Liquid limit (LL)
Plastic limit (PL)
Plasticity index (PI)
68.5%
33.3%
35.2%
4 Compaction properties Maximum dry unit weight
(MDU)
Optimum moisture content
(OMC)
1.62 gm/cc
20.5%
5 Un-soaked CBR test California bearing ratio (CBR) 1.0%
6 Shear strength parameters Cohesion(C)
Angle of internal friction (ɸ)
19 kN/m2
23.20

23. 7.2 Effect of Plastic Content for Strip Size (15 mm x 25 mm)
In this section, detailed results for plastic reinforced soil for different plastic contents
(%) of soil for (15 mm x 25 mm) strip size are presented. A series of compaction,
direct shear and CBR tests are performed and their corresponding tests results are
shown in Table 3.
7.3 Resulst of Plastic Content for Strip Size (15 mm x 25 mm)
Table 3. Test results of reinforced soil with plastic contents for strip size of (15 mm x 25 mm)
where,
MDD is maximum dry density
OMC is optimum moisture content
CBR is California bearing ratio
S.no Percent of plastic content for strip size (15 x 25)
mm
MDD
(gm/cc)
OMC (%) CBR (%)
1. Natural Soil with 2% waste plastic strips 1.75 19.0 2.02
2. Natural Soil with 4% waste plastic strips 1.81 18.5 11.70
3. Natural Soil with 6% waste plastic strips 1.71 18.0 4.80
4. Natural Soil with 8% waste plastic strips 1.65 17.4 4.40

24. The plastic which was collected from used plastic chairs are collected and are made
into different strips. Plastic strips with a density about 0.42 gm/cc are added to the
Black Cotton Soil in percentages of 2, 4, 6 & 8 and the modified proctor test has
been conducted on the sample and graphs obtained are shown below in Fig. 7 to 10
Fig.7 Soil with 2% plastic bottle strips Fig .8 Soil with 4% plastic bottle strips
Fig. 9. Soil with 6% plastic bottle strips Fig. 10. Soil with 8% plastic bottle strips
1.64
1.66
1.68
1.7
1.72
1.74
1.76
0 10 20 30
Dry
Density
(gm/cc)
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture Content Vs Dry
Density
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
0 10 20 30
Dry
Density
(gm/cc)
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture Content Vs Dry
Density
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
0 10 20 30
Dry
Density
(gm/cc)
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture Content Vs Dry
Density
1.52
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.6
1.62
1.64
1.66
0 10 20 30
Density
(gm/cc)
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture Content Vs Dry
Density

25. Similarly, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test was conducted to obtain the CBR
Value on the samples with plastic strips in various percentages of 2, 4, 6 & 8 and the
results obtained are presented as load vs penetration graphs below in Fig. 11 to 14
Fig. 5. Soil with 2% plastic bottle strips Fig. 6. Soil with 4% plastic bottle strips
Fig. 7. Soil with 6% plastic bottle strips Fig. 8. Soil with 8% plastic bottle strips
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 20 40 60 80
Penetration
(mm)
Load (Kgs)
Load Vs Penetration
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 50 100 150 200 250
Penetration
(mm
Load (Kgs
Load Vs Penetration
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 50 100 150
Penetration
(mm)
Load (Kgs)
Load Vs Penetration
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Penetration
(mm)
Load (Kgs)
Load Vs Penetration

26. CBR can be said as the indirect measure of the strength as soil deformed was shear
in nature. From the results, it is evident that waste plastic increases the CBR value.
There is a major increase in CBR value when the soil is incorporated with Plastic
strips and compared to that of soil with no plastic.
CBR test is performed on the samples with varying percentages of Plastic
strips i.e., 2%, 4%, 6% and 8%. In this regard, the CBR value has been increasing
up to 4% plastic content and thereon it started to decrease. From this, it can be
inferred that, 4% plastic content is the OPTIMUM CONTENT of utilization of waste
plastic in the soil.

27. 8 CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, the improved CBR value of the soil is due to the addition of
plastic strips. Plastic can be utilized as one of the material that can be used as a soil
stabilizing agent but the proper proportion of plastic must be there, which helps in
increasing the CBR of the soil.
It can be concluded that CBR percentage goes on increasing up to 4% plastic content
in the soil and thereon it decreases with increase in plastic content. Hence, we can
say that 4% plastic content is the optimum content of plastic waste in the soil.
Utilization of plastic products in various forms is enormously increasing day by day.
This has an adverse effect in nature and it is not possible to restrict its uses. In this
regard, the disposal of the plastic wastes without causing any ecological hazards has
become a real challenge to the present society. Thus, using plastic as a soil stabilizer
is an economical and gainful usage because there is lack of good quality soil for
various constructions
This work serves as a means to meet the challenges of Patna, the capital of Bihar
State and also to the whole society by reducing the amount of plastic waste and
producing useful product from non useful waste materials leading to the foundation
of sustainable society.

28. 9 REFERENCES
[1]. Pragyan Bhattarai, Bharat Kumar, Engineering behavior of soil reinforced with
plastic strips, International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and
Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) ISSN 2249-
6866 Vol. 3, Issue 2, Jun 2013, 83-88.
[2]. Maha Hatem Nsaif, Behavior of Soils Strengthened By Plastic Waste Materials,
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference December 15-17,2011, Kochi
(Paper No. H-304).
[3]. Anas ashraf, arya sunil, Soil stabiliisation using raw plastic bottles, Journal of
Engineering and Development, Vol. 17, No.4, October 2013, ISSN 1813- 7822.
[4]. K.V. Madurwar, P.P. Dahale, Comparative Study of Black Cotton Soil
Stabilization with RBI Grade 81 and Sodium Silicate, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology Vol. 2, Issue 2,
February 2013.
[5]. Consoli, N. C., Montardo, J. P., Prietto, P. D. M., and Pasa, G. S., Engineering
behavior of sand reinforced with plastic waste, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 128 No. 6, 2002, pp, 462-472.
[6]. Ghiassian, H., Poorebrahim, G., and Gray, D. H., Soil reinforcement with
recycled carpet wastes. Waste Management Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, 2004, pp, 108–
114. HMSO. (1952) “Soil Mechanics for Road Engineers” London.
[7]. MadhaviVedula, PawanNath G and Prof. B. P. Chandrashekar , NRRDA, New
Delhi Critical review of innovative rural road construction techniques and their
impacts.
[8]. Kaniraj, S. R. and Havanagi, V. G., Behavior of cement-stabilized fiber-
reinforced fly ash–soil mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 12. No. 7, 2001, pp, 574–584

29. [9]. Tang, C. S, Shi, B., Gao, W., Chen, F. J., and Cai, Y., Strength and mechanical
behavior of short polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 25, 2007, pp, 194–202.