Utilization of Industrial Waste in

Flexible Pavement Construction

Dr. D S V Prasad
Professor, B V C Engineering College, Odalarevu
Email: dsvp9@yahoo.com
Dr. G V R Prasada Raju
Professor, J N TU College of Engineering, Kakinada
Email: gvrp_raju@yahoo.com
M Anjan Kumar
Associate Professor, GIET, Rajahmundry
Email:anjan_mantri@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Reinforced earth technique has been gaining popularity in the field of civil engineering due to
its highly versatile and flexible nature. It has been used in the construction of retaining walls,
embankments, earth dams, foundation beds for heavy structures on soft grounds, viaduct
bridges and other applications (Henry Vidal, 1969; Haussmann, 1990; Rao, 1996). With the
advent of geosynthetics in civil engineering, reinforced earth technique has taken a new turn
in its era. The practice of reinforced earth technique became easy and simple with
geosynthetics. In spite of its wide use in various engineering practices, its application in the
construction of pavements is very much limited (Prasada Raju, 2001). However, geosynthetic
layer has been used as a separator at the subgrade – pavement interface (Al-Qadi and Bhutta,
1999; Brandon et al, 1996) to prevent the entry of pavement materials into the subgrade or
subgrade material into the pavement materials.
Attempts are made to investigate the stabilization process with model test tracks over sand
soil subgrade. Cyclic plate load tests were carried out on the tracks with different
reinforcement materials like waste plastics and waste tyre rubber in murrum / flyash subbase
course, laid on sand subgrade. Test results show that maximum load carrying capacity
associated with less value of rebound deflection is obtained for murrum reinforced subbase
compared to flyash reinforced subbase.

KEYWORDS: Sand, Murrum, Flyash, Waste plastics, Waste tyre rubber, Cyclic plate
load tests.
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 2

INTRODUCTION
Many highway agencies, private organizations and researchers are doing extensive studies
on waste materials and research projects concerning the feasibility and environmental suitability.
The amount of wastes as increased year by year and disposal becomes a serious problem. It is
necessary to utilize the waste affectively with technical development in each field.

Commonly murrum soil has been used for construction of all categories of roads in our
country. Although murrum is a good construction material, due to scarcity they increase the
construction cost at some parts of the country. However, in the latest MORT specifications,
several types of murrum soils are found to be unsuitable for road construction in view of higher
finer fraction and excessive plasticity properties.
Fly ash is a waste by- product from thermal power plants which use coal as fuel. It is estimated
that about 100 million tons of fly ash is being produced from different thermal power plants in
India consuming several thousand hectares of valuable land for its disposal causing severe health
and environmental hazards (Singh and Murthy, (1998); Suryanarayana, (2000)). In order to utilize
fly ash in bulk quantities, ways and means are being explored all over the world to use it for
construction of embankments and roads (Verendra Singh et al, (1996); Boominathan and Ratna
Kumar, (1996); Murthy, (1998)). Ash-fiber stabilized soils showed improvements in reducing
swelling, shrinkage and plasticity characteristics after 14 days of curing period (Punthutaecha et
al, (2006)).

Reinforcement of soils with natural and synthetic fibres is potentially an effective technique
for increasing soil strength. The growing interest in utilizing waste materials in civil engineering
applications has opened the possibility of constructing reinforced soil structure with
unconventional backfills, such as waste plastics and waste tire shreds. The results of direct shear
tests performed on sand specimens by Gray and Osashi (1983) indicated increased shear strength
and ductility, and reduced post peak strength loss due to the inclusion of discrete fibers. The study
also indicated that shear strength is directly proportional to fiber area ratio and length of fiber up
to certain limit. These results were supported by number of researchers using consolidated
drained triaxial tests like Gray and Al-Refeai (1986); Gray and Maher (1989); Ranjan et al.
(1996) ; Michaowski and Cermak (2003); Prabakar et al.(2004); Sivakumar Babu et
al.(2008);Jadhao and Nagarnaik (2008).The addition of fibers increases the CBR ,ultimate
strength ,stiffness and resistance to liquefaction, shear modulus and damping of reinforced the
sand by Lindh and Eriksson(1991); Temel and Omer (2005).The results of compaction tests for a
silty, clay soil specimen reinforced with fibers indicate that increasing the volume of fibers in the
soil generally causes a modest increase in the maximum dry unit weight, and a slight decrease in
the optimum moisture content by Fletcher and Humphries,(1991) . Rao and Dutta,(1997) reported
that sand-waste plastic mixtures improve the bearing capacity of granular trench and
consequently the bearing capacity ratios.

Scrap tyres are a type of waste material for which several beneficial uses have been
proposed and put into practice by Ahmed,(1993).The use of tyre shreds or mixtures of tyre shreds
and sand (ie, rubber-sand) as lightweight fill Bernal et al., (1997) could provide an alternate
avenue for waste tyre disposal. Using shredded waste tyres as a lightweight fill material for road
construction has proven to be another beneficial use of this waste product. Al-Wahab and Al-
Qurna,(1995) based on his experience in admixture and reinforcement testing, found that the
typical sizes of laboratory specimens do not allow for consistent mixing of the shreds within the
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 3

soil matrix. Lee et al., (1999) also used tyre chips, which was defined as shreds that had
maximum dimensions of 12 mm to 50 mm. The authors were able to obtain consistent results of
strength gain through triaxial testing. However, not much research work has been reported on the
gravel subbase reinforced with waste plastic and waste tyre rubber for its application in flexible
pavements on sand subgrade.

In the present work an attempt is made to use sand soil as subgrade, murrum and flyash as
subbase soils, waste plastics and waste tyre rubber as reinforcing materials in subbase soils,
WBM-II as base course in the flexible pavement system.

MATERIALS USED
Sand
The sand is used as subgrade material collected at a depth of 0.3 m below ground level from
a site at J.N.T.U Engineering College, Kakinada. This soil is classified as well graded sandy soil.
The properties of the sand soil are assessed are given in the table: 1

Murrum
Murrum is used as subbase material in this investigation. The properties of the murrum are
given in table: 1

Flyash
Flyash is used as subbase material, collected from Vijayawada thermal power station,
Vijayawada. The Engineering properties of flyash are given in table 1 and chemical composition
in table 2.

Waste Plastic Strips

Waste plastic strips having a size of 12 mm × 6 mm and a thickness of 0.5 mm is used in
this study shown in the Figure.1

Waste Tyre Rubber Chips

Waste Tire Rubber chips passing through 4.75 mm sieve are used in this study shown in the
Figure.2
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 4

Figure 1: Waste plastic strips Figure 2: Waste Tyre Rubber Chips

Road Metal
Road metal, which satisfies MOST specifications, conforming to WBM-II is used for the
base course. The size of aggregate is varying between 45-63mm.

Table 1: Index and Engineering Properties of Different Materials

 Vol. 13, Bund. D 5

Table 2: Chemical Composition of Flyash

(Courtesy: VTPS, Vijayawada)

LABORATORY TESTS
C B R Tests
The required percentage of waste plastics and waste tyre rubber chips by dry weight of soil
is mixed uniformly with the subbase soil and the required water content corresponding to OMC
was added to the soil and compacted to maximum dry density. The CBR tests were conducted in
the laboratory for all the samples as per I.S:2720 (Part VI, 1979) in the laboratory on murrum /
flyash mixed with different percentages of waste plastics and waste tyre rubber chips.

FIELD EXPERIMENTATION
Preparation of Model Flexible Pavements
A test pit, each of size 3m long, 1.5m wide to an average depth of 0.8m is prepared as
shown in the Figure: 3. Out of which, 0.5m depth is for laying sub-grade, 0.15m is subbase and
0.15m for base-course. In the prepared test pit, the sand soil mixed with water at OMC is laid in
10 layers such that each layer of 0.05m compacted thickness amount to a total thickness of 0.5m
subgrade is laid in the excavated pit. On the prepared sand sub-grade murrum / flyash subbase
material mixed with water content at OMC in 2 layers, each of 0.075m compacted thickness to a
total thickness of 0.15m is laid. The reinforcement materials viz; waste plastics and waste tire
rubber were (optimum percentage based on lab CBR) mixed uniformly throughout the subbase
material. On the prepared subbase two layers of WBM-II each of 0.075m compacted thickness to
a total thickness of 0.15m using crushed stone aggregate of size 43mm to 60mm with murrum as
binding material is laid. The compaction is done with the help of hand operated roller for the
entire test.
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 6

Figure 3: Excavated Model Pavement Stretch

Details of Model Flexible Pavements

In this investigation six model flexible pavements were prepared in field each of size 3m ×
1.5m × 0.8m, with different alternatives as given in table: 3. Sand soil is used as a subgrade soil
for all the tests. Out of six models flexible pavements three tests with murrum subbase and other
three tests with flyash subbase were conducted in this study. For all the six alternative stretches,
WBM-II is used as base course was laid uniformly.

Table 3: Details of Model Flexible Pavements

Cyclic Load Testing

Cyclic Plate load tests were carried out for different test stretches with the reinforcement
material under normal tyre pressures using circular steel plate of diameter 0.3m. A loading frame
is arranged centrally over the test track as shown in the Figure: 4. The loading frame is loaded
with the help of sand bags. A steel base plate of 0.3m diameter is placed centrally over the test
pit. Hydraulic Jack of capacity 100kN is placed over the plate attached to the loading frame with
a loading cylinder. Three dial gauges with a least count of 0.01mm are placed on the metal flats to
measure the settlements. A load of 5kPa is applied as a seating load with the help of hydraulic
jack and released. The load is applied in increments corresponding to tyre pressures of 500, 560,
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 7

630,700 and 1000kPa and each pressure increment is applied cyclically until there is insignificant
increase in the settlement of the plate as shown in Figure: 5. These tests are carried out on the
prepared sand subgrade. The compaction is done with the help of hand operated roller for the
entire stretches.

Figure 4: Experimental set-up for conducting cyclic load test

Pressure(kPa)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0

Deformation
D (mm)
10

15

20

25

Figure 5: Pressure Vs Deformation values for Flyash Subbase laid on sand Subgrade

DISCUSSION ON TEST RESULTS

CBR Test Results
It is observed from the laboratory test results, that for murrum reinforced with waste
plastics, soaked CBR values were increased from 8.0 to 16.42 with 0.30 % of waste plastics and
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 8

thereafter decreases. It is also observed that for flyash reinforced with waste plastics, soaked CBR
values were increased from 4.0 to 10.81with 0.40 % of waste plastics. Hence the optimum
percentage of waste plastics is 0.3 % for murrum and 0.4% for flyash respectively.

It is observed from the laboratory test results, that for murrum reinforced with waste tyre
rubber, soaked CBR values were increased from 8.0 to 13.32with 5.0 % of waste tyre rubber and
thereafter decreases. It is also observed that for flyash reinforced with waste tyre rubber, soaked
CBR values were increased from 4.0 to 8.73 with 6.0 % of waste tyre rubber. Hence the optimum
percentages of waste tyre rubber are 5.0 % for murrum and 6.0% for flyash respectively.

Cyclic Load Test Results for Different Alternative Model

Flexible Pavements
Cyclic load tests were carried out on different model flexible pavements for 500, 560, 630,
700 and 1000 kPa tyre pressures, which correspond to different tyre pressures exerted on
pavements. Cyclic load-deformation patterns for the above pressure intensities for flyash subbase
of flexible pavement system laid on sand subgrade are shown in the Figure: 5. It can be observed
that the deformations have almost attained equilibrium beyond 6 cycles of loading and unloading
for all the pressure intensities. However, more deformations are recorded for higher-pressure
intensities. Similar load deformation patterns are obtained for other alternatives, but with
variations in magnitude of the deformations.

Pressure (kPa)
0 300 600 900 1200
0
Unreinforced
1 Murrum Subbase

2
Unreinforced
Flyash Subbase
3
Total Deformation (mm)
4 Reinforced
Murum Subbase
with Waste
5 Plastics
Reinforced
6 Flyash Subbase
with Waste
7 Plastics
Reinforced
Murrum Subbase
8 with Waste Tyre
Rubber
Reinforced
9
Flyash Subbase
with Waste Tyre
10 Rubber

Figure 6: Pressure-Total Deformation values for Different Test Tracks laid on Sand
Subgrade
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 9

The total and elastic deformation values are deduced from the cyclic pressure-deformation
curves. It can be observed from Figures 6 &7, that at different pressure intensities, the total and
elastic deformations are decreased by reinforcing waste plastics and waste tyre rubber with both
murrum and flyash subbases of model flexible pavement system It is also observed that, the waste
plastics reinforced model flexible pavement has shown better performance for the both the
murrum and flyash subbases compared to waste tyre rubber reinforced pavement system.

From the Figure: 6, it is observed that total deformations at 1000 kPa is equal to 7.12 mm
for unreinforced murrum model flexible pavement, 4.38 mm for reinforced subbase with waste
plastics, 5.14 mm for reinforced subbase with waste tyre rubber. It is observed that, maximum
decrease in deformation is observed for reinforced with waste plastics (38.48 %), followed by
reinforced subbase with waste tyre rubber (27.80 %) for murrum subbase.

For flyash subbase the deformation at 1000 kPa is equal to 8.68 mm for unreinforced model
flexible pavement, 5.97 mm for reinforced subbase with waste plastics, and 6.69 mm for
reinforced subbase with waste tyre rubber. From this, it is observed that, maximum decrease in
deformation is observed for flyash reinforced with waste plastics (31.22 %), followed by
reinforced subbase with waste tyre rubber (22.92 %).

From the elastic deformation for a load intensity of 1000 kPa is equal to 6.45 mm, 4.30 mm
and 5.03 mm for unreinforced, reinforced with waste plastics and waste tyre rubber model
flexible pavements respectively as shown in Figure: 7. The elastic deformation is decreased by
33.33 % and 22 % for reinforced with waste plastics and reinforced with waste tyre rubber in
comparison with unreinforced case in murrum subbase. From the elastic deformation for a load
intensity of 1000 kPa is equal to 8.29 mm, 5.90 mm and 6.71 mm for unreinforced, reinforced
with waste plastics and waste tyre rubber model flexible pavements respectively. The elastic
deformation is decreased by 28.83 % and 19.05 % for reinforced with waste plastics and
reinforced with waste tyre rubber in comparison with unreinforced case in flyash subbase.
Pressure(kPa)
0 300 600 900 1200
0
Unreinforced Murrum
1 Subbase

2
Unreinforced Flyash
Subbase
Elas3tic Deformation
(mm)
Reinforced Murrum
4
Subbase with Waste
Plastics

Reinforced Flyash
Subbase with Waste
6
Plastics

7 Reinforced murrum
Subbase with Waste
Tyre Rubber

Reinforced Flyash
9 Subbase with Waste
Tyre Rubber
10

Figure 7: Pressure-Elastic Deformation values for Different Test Tracks laid on Sand
Subgrade
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 10

It is observed from these figures, that the load carrying capacity is substantially increased
for Waste plastics reinforced model flexible pavement, compared to other alternatives studied in
this investigation. At all the deformation levels, waste plastics reinforced model flexible
pavements has shown better performance, followed by reinforced subbase with waste tyre rubber.
The improvement in the load carrying capacity could be attributed to improved load dispersion
through reinforced subbase on to the subgrade.

CONCLUSIONS
It is observed from the results of CBR tests that for murrum and flyash materials reinforced
with different percentages of waste plastics, the optimum percentages were equal to 0.30 % for
murrum and 0.40 % for flyash.

From the results of CBR tests for murrum and flyash materials reinforced with different
percentages of waste tyre rubber, it is observed that the optimum percentages were equal to 5.0 %
for murrum subbase and 6.0 % for flyash.

The load carrying capacity of the model flexible pavement system has significantly
increased for both murrum and flyash subbases reinforced with waste plastics as well as waste
tyre rubber reinforced subbase model flexible pavement laid on sand subgrade.

From the cyclic load test results, it is observed that, waste plastics reinforced model flexible
pavement has shown better performance in comparison with waste tyre rubber reinforced model
flexible pavement for both murrum and flyash subbases. At all the deformation levels, murrum
reinforced with different alternatives in model flexible pavements has shown better performance
compared to flyash subbase reinforced with different alternatives.

Based on the findings, waste plastics and waste tyre rubber could be used as alternative
reinforcement materials in place of conventionally used reinforcing materials.

REFERENCES
1. Ahmed, I., (1993) “laboratory study on properties of rubber soils”, Report no. fhwa/in/jhrp-
93/4, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indianapolis.
2. Al-Qadi, I.L. and Bhutta, S.A., (1999): In-situ Measurements of Secondary Flexible Pavement
Response to Vehicular Loading., TRR-1652, 206-216.
3. AlWahab, R.M. and Al-Qurna, H.H., (1995), “Fiber Reinforced Cohesive Soils for
Application in Compacted Earth Structures”, Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’95, IFAI,Vol.
2, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, February 1995, pp. 433-446.
4. Bernal, A., Salgado, R. and Lovell, C.W., (1997), “Tire Shreds and Rubber-sand as
Lightweight Backfill Material”, accepted for publication as a technical paper in the Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
5. Boominathan, A. and Ratna Kumar, J. (1996),”Lime Treated Flyash as embankment material”,
proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, IGC – 96, Madras, pp. 523 – 526.
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 11

6. Brandon, T.L., Al-Qadi, I.L., Lacina, B.A., and Bhutta, S.A., (1996): Construction and
Instrumentation of Geosynthetically Stabilized Secondary Road Test Sections. TRR-
1534, pp.50-57.
7. Fletcher, C.S. and Humphries, W.K., (1991), “California Bearing Ratio Improvement of
Remolded Soils by the Addition of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforcement”, Proceedings
of Seventieth Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,USA, pp.80-
86.
8. Gray, D.H. & Maher, M.H. (1989). “Admixture stabilization of sand with discrete randomly
distributed fibers”. Proceedings of XII International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and. Foundation Engineering, Riode Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 1363-1366.
9. Gray, D.H. & Ohashi, H., (1983). Mechanics of Fiber Reinforcing in Sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 335-353.
10. Gray, D.H and .Al-Refeai (1986),”Behavior of Fabric versus Fiber Reinforced Sand”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Volume112 (8), pp.804-826.
11. Haussmann, M.R. (1990), “Engineering Principles of Ground Modification”, Mc Graw-Hill
Book Co., New Delhi.
12. Henry Vidal, (1969), “The Principles of Reinforced Earth”, Highway Research Record, Vol.
282, pp. 1-16. Indian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 30, No.3, July 2000.
13. Jadhao.P.D, Nagarnaik.P.B, 2008,”Performance Evaluation of Fiber Reinforced
14. Soil-Flyash Mixtures”, 12th International Conference of International Association for
Computer Method and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6, October- 2008, PP. 2355-
2364.
15. Koonnamas. P and Anand J.Puppala P.E; Sai K Vanapalli, and Hilary Inyang,
(2006),”Volume Change Behaviors of Expansive Soils Stabilized with Recycled Ashes
and Fibers”, Journal Mat.in Civil .Engineering, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 295-306.
16. Lee, J.H., Salgado, R., Bernal, A., and Lovell, C.W., (1999), Shredded Tires and Rubber Sand
as Lightweight Backfill: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume
125, No. 2, pp. 132-141.
17. Lindh, E. and Eriksson, L., (1991), “Sand Reinforced with Plastic Fibers, A Field Experiment”,
Performance of Reinforced Soil Structures, Mc-Gown, A., Yeo, K., and Andrawes,
K.Z., Editors, Thomas Telford, 1991, Proceedings of the International Reinforced Soil
Conference held in Glasgow, Scotland, September 1990, pp. 471-473.
18. Murthy, A.V.S.R., (1998),“ Utilization of Flyash for Embankment Construction.” proc. of
Experience Sharing Meet on Use of Flyash in Roads and Embankments, CRRI- New Delhi, pp.
15 – 20.
19. Michalowski,R.L and J.Cermak,(2003),”Triaxial Compression of sand reinforced
20. with Fibers”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume
129(2),pp.125-136.
21. Prasada Raju, G.V.R. (2001), “Evaluation of Flexible Pavement Performance with
Reinforcement and Chemical Stabilization of Expansive Soil Subgrade”, a Ph.D.
Thesis, Kakatiya University, Warangal, (A.P).
22. Prabhakar.J, Nitin Dendorkar, Morchhale.R.K, (2004),” Influence of flyash on
 Vol. 13, Bund. D 12

23. Strength behavior of typical soils”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 8,

24. Issue 4, pp 263-267.
25. Ranjan, Gopal, Vasan, R.M., & Charan, H.D., (1996). Probabilistic analysis of randomly
distributed fiber-reinforced soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 122, No. 6,
pp.
419-426.
26. Rao, G.V. (1996), “Geosynthetics in the Indian Environment”, Indian Geotechnical
Journal, Volume 26(1).
27. Singh, D.V .and Murthy, A.V.S.R (1998).Flyash in Indian-Problems and Possibilities,
Proceedings. of Experience Sharing Meet on Use of Flyash in Road and Embankments,
CRRI- New Delhi, 1-9.
28. Siva Kumar Babu. G.L, Vasudevan. A.K, Sumanta Haldar, (2008),”Numerical Simulation
of fiber reinforced sand behavior”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 2, issue 21, pp.
181-
188.
29. Suryanarayana, p. (2000),”Action Plan for Utilization of Flyash as an Alternative
Construction
Material”, New Building Materials and Construction World, Volume 5, Issue-8, Pp.50-58.
30. Temel Yetimoglu, Omer Salbas, (2005), “A Study on shear strength of sand
31. Reinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume
21, issue 21, pp. 103-110.
32. Veerendra Singh, Narendra Kumar and Devendra Mohan (1996), “Use of Flyash in Soil
Stabilization for Roads”, proceedings of IGC – 96, Madras, pp. 411 – 414.
33. Venkatappa Rao G, (1997), “Ground improvement with waste plastic”, Indian Institute of
Technology, New Delhi, India, Dutta, R.K, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, India

© 2009 ejge