INTERFACIAL STRESS–DILATANCY BEHAVIOR OF GEOGRIDS IN SOILS REINFORCED WITH RECYCLED WASTE PET

Abstract

In recent decades, the significant increase in the production of plastics and the inability to recycle it has caused a remarkable environmental impact; therefore, it is necessary to decrease the harmful environmental impacts of waste plastic with sustainable and innovative solutions. The aim of this investigation is to demonstrate the threefold benefits of using polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as a soil improvement agent in geogrid reinforced soil, such as reusing a waste material by recycling it from nature, reducing the negative effects of geogrid reinforcement, and revealing the interfacial stress dilatancy behavior. Direct shear experiments were performed on wet sand with 2 different geogrids and waste PET with 2 different aspect ratios. The outcomes were evaluated based on interfacial shear characteristics, interfacial peak friction angle, dilation behavior, maximum dilation angle, and friction angle-dilation angle relationship. Using geogrid for soil reinforcement decreased the maximum shear stress by 13.01%, while the use of PET reinforcement enhanced it by 22.60%. The reduction in shear strength, friction, and dilation angles in geogrid-reinforced soil is eliminated by adding PET; therefore, it is anticipated that this will lead to an improvement in the utilization rate of waste PET in geotechnical engineering.

Keywords

• Dilation angle
• Direct shear test
• Geogrid
• Peak shear stress
• Soil improvement
• Waste PET strips

References

1. T. W. Castilho, R. A. Rodrigues, and P. C. Lodi, “Use of Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate Strips in Soil Improvement,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 5943–5955, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10706-021-01848-2.
2. P. M. Subramanian, “Plastics recycling and waste management in the US,” Resour Conserv Recycl, vol. 28, no. 3–4, pp. 253–263, 2000.
3. S. Perera, A. Arulrajah, Y. Wong, F. Maghool, and S. Horpibulsuk, “Evaluation of shear strength properties of unbound PET plastic in blends with demolition wastes,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 262, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120545.
4. M. R. Silveira, P. C. Lodi, N. de S. Correia, R. A. Rodrigues, and H. L. Giacheti, “Effect of recycled polyethylene terephthalate strips on the mechanical properties of cement-treated lateritic sandy soil,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 23, pp. 1–19, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12239801.
5. R. M. Bajracharya, A. C. Manalo, W. Karunasena, and K. tak Lau, “Characterisation of recycled mixed plastic solid wastes: Coupon and full-scale investigation,” Waste Management, vol. 48, pp. 72–80, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.017.
6. A. E. Tayyar and S. Üstün, “Usage of recycled PET,” pp. 53–62, 2010.
7. S. Avery-Gomm, S. B. Borrelle, and J. F. Provencher, “Linking plastic ingestion research with marine wildlife conservation,” Oct. 01, 2018, Elsevier B.V. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.409.
8. A. K. Choudhary, J. N. Jha, K. S. Gill, and S. K. Shukla, “Utilization of Fly Ash and Waste Recycled Product Reinforced with Plastic Wastes as Construction Materials in Flexible Pavement,” pp. 3890–3902, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1061/9780784413272.377.

9. X. Chen, F. Xi, Y. Geng, and T. Fujita, “The potential environmental gains from recycling waste plastics: Simulation of transferring recycling and recovery technologies to Shenyang, China,” Waste Management, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 168–179, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.08.010.
10. L. Shen, E. Nieuwlaar, E. Worrell, and M. K. Patel, “Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of PET recycling: Change-oriented effects,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 522–536, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0296-4.
11. J. J. Zhao, M. L. Lee, S. K. Lim, and Y. Tanaka, “Unconfined compressive strength of PET waste-mixed residual soils,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 53–66, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.12989/gae.2015.8.1.053.
12. H. Fathi, R. Jamshidi Chenari, and M. Vafaeian, “Shaking Table Study on PET Strips-Sand Mixtures Using Laminar Box Modelling,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 683–694, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10706-019-01057-y.
13. N. R. Malidarreh, I. Shooshpasha, S. M. Mirhosseini, and M. Dehestani, “Effects of recycled polyethylene terephthalate fibers on strength behavior of cemented Babolsar sand,” Scientia Iranica, vol. 27, no. 3 A, pp. 1130–1143, May 2020, doi: 10.24200/SCI.2018.5468.1295.
14. S. Peddaiah, A. Burman, and S. Sreedeep, “Experimental Study on Effect of Waste Plastic Bottle Strips in Soil Improvement,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 2907–2920, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10706-018-0512-0.
15. A. Hasanzadeh and I. Shooshpasha, “Influences of silica fume particles and polyethylene terephthalate fibers on the mechanical characteristics of cement-treated sandy soil using ultrasonic pulse velocity,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 81, no. 1, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10064-021-02494-x.
16. A. Hasanzadeh and I. Shooshpasha, “A Study on the Combined Effects of Silica Fume Particles and Polyethylene Terephthalate Fibres on the Mechanical and Microstructural Characteristics of Cemented Sand,” International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40891-021-00340-4.
17. J. W. dos S. Ferreira, P. C. Senez, and M. D. T. Casagrande, “Pet fiber reinforced sand performance under triaxial and plate load tests,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 15, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00741.
18. E. Botero, A. Ossa, G. Sherwell, and E. Ovando-Shelley, “Stress-strain behavior of a silty soil reinforced with polyethylene terephthalate (PET),” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 363–369, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.003.
19. M. Koohmishi and M. Palassi, “Mechanical Properties of Clayey Soil Reinforced with PET Considering the Influence of Lime-Stabilization,” Transportation Geotechnics, vol. 33, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100726.
20. M. Abukhettala and M. Fall, “Geotechnical characterization of plastic waste materials in pavement subgrade applications,” Transportation Geotechnics, vol. 27, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100472.
21. E. Kaplan, C. Kayadelen, M. Öztürk, Y. Önal, and G. Altay, “Experimental evaluation of the usability of palm tree pruning waste (PTPW) as an alternative to geotextile,” Revista de la Construccion, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 69–82, 2022, doi: 10.7764/RDLC.21.1.69.
22. V. V. Kumar, S. Saride, and J. G. Zornberg, “Mechanical response of full-scale geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt overlays subjected to repeated loads,” Transportation Geotechnics, vol. 30, no. July, p. 100617, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100617.
23. M. Öztürk, G. Altay, and C. Kayadelen, “Assessment of the utilization of cement-treated geotextile as a reinforcement element for highway base layer under cyclic loading,” Transportation Geotechnics, vol. 48, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2024.101333.
24. G. Yang, B. Zhang, P. Lv, and Q. Zhou, “Behaviour of geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall with concrete-rigid facing,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 350–356, Oct. 2009, doi: 10.1016/J.geotexmem.2009.03.001.
25. N. Ceylan Bora, C. Kayadelen, G. Altay, Y. Önal, and M. Öztürk, “Comparative effectiveness research of palm tree pruning waste and geotextiles on subgrade stabilization,” Građevinar, vol. 74, no. 10., pp. 829–839, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.14256/JCE.3401.2021.
26. Y. Önal, M. Öztürk, G. Altay, and C. Kayadelen, “Comparison of the Effect of Geotextile and Palm Tree Pruning Waste on CBR Value of Sand Soil,” Osmaniye Korkut Ata University Journal of The Institute of Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 570–579, 2022, doi: 10.47495/okufbed.998633.
27. M. Öztürk, C. Kayadelen, G. Altay, and Y. Önal, “Investigation of load-displacement behavior of cement-coated geotextile reinforced sandy soils,” NOHU J. Eng. Sci, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1232–1238, 2023, doi: 10.28948/ngmuh.1286185.
28. S. W. Abusharar, J. J. Zheng, B. G. Chen, and J. H. Yin, “A simplified method for analysis of a piled embankment reinforced with geosynthetics,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39–52, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.002.
29. H. Venkateswarlu, A. SaiKumar, and G. M. Latha, “Sand-geogrid interfacial shear response revisited through additive manufacturing,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 95–107, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2023.04.001.
30. H. R. Razeghi and A. Ensani, “Clayey Sand Soil Interactions with Geogrids and Geotextiles Using Large-Scale Direct Shear Tests,” International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40891-023-00443-0.
31. L. Xu, R. Wang, D. Xu, J. Wang, X. Wang, and Q. Meng, “Interface Shear Behavior of Geogrid-Reinforced Calcareous Sand Under Large-Scale Monotonic Direct Shear,” International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, vol. 8, no. 5, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40891-022-00403-0.
32. V. A. Sakleshpur, M. Prezzi, R. Salgado, N. Z. Siddiki, and Y. S. Choi, “Large-scale direct shear testing of geogrid-reinforced aggregate base over weak subgrade,” International Journal of Pavement Engineering, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 649–658, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419.
33. M. B. Hossain, T. Sakai, and M. Z. Hossain, “Evaluation of sand-geosynthetic interface behavior for earth reinforcement,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 251–256, Jul. 2013, doi: 10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000034.
34. A. M. Namjoo, F. Soltani, and V. Toufigh, “Effects of Moisture on the Mechanical Behavior of Sand–Geogrid: An Experimental Investigation,” International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40891-020-00243-w.
35. J. Stacho, M. Sulovska, and I. Slavik, “Analysis of the Shear Strength of a Soil-Geosynthetic Interface,” Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 452–463, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.2478/cee-2023-0040.
36. A. Singh, B. R. Paramkusam, and P. K. Basudhar, “Empirical modelling of shear behavior of oil contaminated sand - geogrid interface,” Soil Sediment Contam, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 31–50, 2023, doi: 10.1080/15320383.2022.2051426.
37. F. B. Ferreira, C. S. Vieira, and M. L. Lopes, “Direct shear behaviour of residual soil–geosynthetic interfaces – influence of soil moisture content, soil density and geosynthetic type,” Geosynth Int, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 257–272, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1680/gein.15.00011.
38. M. Öztürk, “Strength characteristics of lightweight soil with waste modified expanded polystyrene particles,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 442, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.137635.
39. A. Casagrande, “Classification and Identification of Soils,” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 901–930, Jan. 1948, doi: 10.1061/taceat.0006109.
40. H. Fathi, R. Jamshidi Chenari, and M. Vafaeian, “Large Scale Direct Shear Experiments to Study Monotonic and Cyclic Behavior of Sand Treated By Polyethylene Terephthalate Strips,” International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 533–548, May 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40999-020-00580-x.
41. “ASTM D3080/D3080M. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
42. C. Kayadelen, G. Altay, Y. Önal, and M. Öztürk, “Particle shape effect on the interfacial properties between granular materials-geotextile,” Geosynth Int, 2023, doi: 10.1680/jgein.22.00346.
43. M. D. Bolton, “The strength and dilatancy of sands,” Geotechnique, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 65–78, 1986.
44. S. Frydman, M. Talesnick, H. Nawatha, and K. Schwartz, “Stress-dilation of undisturbed sand samples in drained and undrained triaxial shear,” Soils and foundations, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 27–32, 2007.
45. M. Öztürk, “Effect of aperture size on the interface shear behavior of gridded cementitious geocomposite on sand soil with different relative densities,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 432, p. 136653, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136653.
46. Cherif Taiba A. et al., “Discussion on ‘Particle shape effect on the interfacial properties between granular materials-geotextile,’” Geosynth Int, pp. 1–8, 2023.