Mechanical Stabilization of Granular Soils with Chicken Feather Fiber Waste

Öz

Taking into account that 26 billion chickens were produced worldwide in 2021, a total of 2.6 million tons of chicken feather waste is generated for consumed chickens. Methods such as burning and burying are commonly utilized for the disposal of chicken feather waste, especially burning pollutes the environment. Recently, it has been shown that organic fibers can be used as an alternative to synthetic fibers for soil improvement by reinforcing them. This study examined the usability of chicken feathers as an alternative to organic fibers. In this context, chicken feathers obtained from chicken production facilities were processed and chicken feather fibers were obtained. The sand soil reinforced with 0.2% and 0.4% fibers were tested in a direct shear test apparatus. The data obtained indicated an increase in peak shear strength values in the range of 16-25% and residual shear strength values in the range of 23.5-34.6%. The highest strength values were obtained with 0.2% reinforcement. According to findings, it was found that the soil has a saturation point in chicken feather fiber reinforcement and the amounts of fiber on it are of no benefit. In summary, chicken feathers that need to be discarded can be used as a promising soil stabilization method. Considering all these advantages, chicken feather fibers can be considered a favorable alternative for soil stabilization in terms of their contribution to both the economy and nature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Peak shear strength
• Chicken feather fiber
• Direct shear test
• Friction angle

Kaynakça

1. Aamir M, Mahmood Z, Nisar A, Farid A, Ahmed Khan T, Abbas M, Ismaeel M, Shah SAR, Waseem M. 2019. Performance evaluation of sustainable soil stabilization process using waste materials. Proces, 7: 378.
2. Adlin Rose R, Subramanian M, Elakkiyadasan R, Siva M, Manoj Kumar P. 2022. Strength characteristics of sand modified with keratinous chicken feather fiber. Mater Today Proc, 62: 3935-3939.
3. Ahmed MD, Adkel AM. 2017. Stabilization of clay soil using tyre ash. J Eng, 23: 34-51.
4. Anagnostopoulos CA, Papaliangas TT, Konstantinidis D, Patronis C. 2013. Shear strength of sands reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Geotech Geol Eng, 31: 401-423.
5. ASTM D4253-16e1. 2016. Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. ASTM Int, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp: 125.
6. Benziane MM, Della N, Denine S, Sert S, Nouri S. 2019. Effect of randomly distributed polypropylene fiber reinforcement on the shear behavior of sandy soil. Stud Geotech Mech, 41: 151-159.
7. Bordoloi S, Garg A, Sekharan S. 2017. A review of physio-biochemical properties of natural fibers and their application in soil reinforcement. Adv Civ Eng Mater, 6: 323-359.
8. Bowles JE. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, New York, USA, pp: 148.

9. Brakman S, Kohl T, van Marrewijk C. 2025. DemoGravity: world population and trade in the 21st century. Rev Int Econ, 33(2): 486-501.
10. Choobbasti AJ, Kutanaei SS, Ghadakpour M. 2019. Shear behavior of fiber-reinforced sand composite. Arab J Geosci, 12: 157.
11. Darvishi A, Erken A. 2018. Effect of polypropylene fiber on shear strength parameters of sand. Proc 3rd World Congr Civ Struct Environ Eng (CSEE’18), ICGRE, 123.
12. Das BM, Sivakugan N. 2017. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Cengage Learn, Boston, USA, pp: 800.
13. Depison D, Puteri NI, Gushairiyanto G. 2020. Growth patterns, body weight, and morphometric of KUB chicken, Sentul chicken and Arab chicken. Bull Peternak, 44.
14. Ghosh A, Kumar A, Biswas G. 2024. Exponential population growth and global food security: challenges and alternatives. In: Bioremediation of Emerging Contaminants from Soils. Elsevier, 1-20.
15. Hancock CE, Bradford GD, Emmans GC, Gous RM. 1995. The evaluation of the growth parameters of six strains of commercial broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci, 36: 247-264.
16. Hausmann MR. 1989. Engineering principles of ground modification. McGraw-Hill College, Sydney, pp:120.
17. Hejazi SM, Sheikhzadeh M, Abtahi SM, Zadhoush A. 2012. A simple review of soil reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers. Constr Build Mater, 30: 100-116.
18. Holtz RD, Christopher BR, Berg RR. 1998. Geosynthetic design and construction guidelines. Participant notebook. NHI Course No. 13213 (revised April 1998).
19. Holtz RD, Kovacs WD, Sheahan TC. 2010. An introduction to geotechnical engineering. 2nd ed. Pearson, New Jersey, pp: 864.
20. Ingles OG, Metcalf JB, 1973: Soil stabilization principles and practice. John Wiley & Sons, London, pp: 374.
21. Islam N, Ahmed N, Akter S, Hossain ASMF. 2021. Sandy soil stabilization using jute fiber as admixture. J Geotech Stud, 6: 30-34.
22. Jafer H, Majeed Z, Dulaimi A. 2020. Incorporating of two waste materials for the use in fine-grained soil stabilization. Civ Eng J, 6: 1114-1123.
23. James J, Pandian PK. 2015. Soil stabilization as an avenue for reuse of solid wastes: a review. Acta Tech Napocensis: Civ Eng Archit, 58: 50-70.
24. Jones CJFP, Bell FG. 2013. Earth reinforcement and soil structures. Butterworths Adv Ser Geotech Eng, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp:65.
25. Kadakoğlu B, Bayav A, Karli B. 2024. Türkiye’de kümes hayvancılığının mevcut durumu ve gelişimi. In: Int Conf Global Pract Multidiscip Sci Stud-VIII, Dubai, 325-335.
26. Keleş D, Balcı D, Taşdemir M, Ulutaş E. 2024. Polipropilen + %20 kenevir takviyeli / çörek otu / maleik anhidrit aşılı polipropilen polimer kompozitinin fiziksel özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Gazi Univ J Sci Part C: Des Technol, 12: 464-474.
27. Koerner RM. 2005. Designing with geosynthetics. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, pp:52.
28. Koerner RM. 2012. Designing with geosynthetics. 6th ed. Xlibris Corp, New Jersey, pp: 418.
29. Latshaw JD, Bishop BL. 2001. Estimating body weight and body composition of chickens by using noninvasive measurements. Poult Sci, 80: 868-873.
30. Liu J, Feng Q, Wang Y, Bai Y, Wei J, Song Z. 2017. The effect of polymer-fiber stabilization on the unconfined compressive strength and shear strength of sand. Adv Mater Sci Eng, 2017: 1-9.
31. Noorzad R, Zarinkolaei STG. 2015. Comparison of mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced sand under triaxial compression and direct shear. Open Geosci, 7: 547-558.
32. Öztürk M. 2024a. Effect of aperture size on the interface shear behavior of gridded cementitious geocomposite on sand soil with different relative densities. Constr Build Mater, 432: 136653.
33. Öztürk M. 2024b. Strength characteristics of lightweight soil with waste modified expanded polystyrene particles. Constr Build Mater, 442.
34. Öztürk M, Altay G, Kayadelen C. 2024. Assessment of the utilization of cement-treated geotextile as a reinforcement element for highway base layer under cyclic loading. Transp Geotech, pp:48.
35. Rahman MK, Rehman S, Al-Amoudi OSB. 2011. Literature review on cement kiln dust usage in soil and waste stabilization and experimental investigation. Int J Res Rev Appl Sci, 7: 77-87.
36. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 2024. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Poultry farming situation forecast report (accessed date: February 27, 2025) at https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge/Belgeler/PDF%20Durum-Tahmin%20Raporlar%C4%B1/2024%20DurumTahmin%20Raporlar%C4%B1/K%C3%BCmes%20Hayvanc%C4%B1l%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1%20Durum%20Tahmin%20Raporu%202024-402%20TEPGE.pdf.
37. Saran S. 2017. Reinforced soil and its engineering applications. IK Int Pvt Ltd., Delhi, India, pp:125.
38. Singh M, Sharma R, Abhishek A. 2017. Soil stabilization using industrial waste (wheat husk and sugarcane straw ash). Int Res J Eng Technol, 4: 589-596.
39. Sudhakaran SP, Sharma AK, Kolathayar S. 2018. Soil stabilization using bottom ash and areca fiber: experimental investigations and reliability analysis. J Mater Civ Eng, 30: 04018169.
40. Syed Zuber SZ, Kamarudin H, Mustafa A, Abdullah MMAB, Binhussain M, Salwa M. 2013. Review on soil stabilization techniques. Aust J Basic Appl Sci, 7: 258-265.
41. TS 1900-2/T3. 2019. Methods of testing soils for civil engineering purposes in the laboratory - Part 2: Determination of mechanical properties. Turk Stand Enst, Ankara.
42. TS EN ISO 17892-3. 2016. Geotechnical investigation and testing - Laboratory testing of soil - Part 3: Determination of particle density. Turk Stand Inst, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 28.
43. TS EN ISO 17892-4. 2016. Geotechnical investigation and testing - Laboratory testing of soil - Part 4: Determination of particle size distribution. Turk Stand Inst, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 53.
44. United Nations (UN). 2024. United Nations (UN) - World population prospects. URL: https://population.un.org/wpp/graphs (accessed date: February 27, 2025).
45. Uzun M. 2010. Tavuk tüyü ile dünyayı kurtarmak. Bilim Tek E-Derg, 2010: 82-85.
46. Yazıcı MF, Keskin SN. 2021. A review on soil reinforcement technology by using natural and synthetic fibers. Erzincan Univ J Sci Technol, 14(2): 631-663.
47. Yetimoglu T, Salbas O. 2003. A study on shear strength of sands reinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers. Geotext Geomembr, 21: 103-110.
48. Zafar T, Ansari MA, Husain A. 2023. Soil stabilization by reinforcing natural and synthetic fibers - a state of the art review. Mater Today Proc, 2023: 1-10.
49. Zorluer İ, Gücek S. 2017. Usage of fly ash and waste slime boron for soil stabilization. Period Eng Nat Sci, 11(1): 15-19.