1

ABSTRACT

This project is entitled as Comparative Study of Crushed Concrete and Plastic Fibers as
Reinforcement for the Improvement of Soil Shear Strength in Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City. In this project,
the researchers determine the problem to be the low shear strength of soil, which is one of the causes of
landslides in an area. This project also presents possible solutions to this problem, which is adding crushed
concrete and plastic fibers to the soil sample. Data gathering is done through triaxial shear testing. The
researchers determined if these two are effective in improving soil shear strength. The researchers also
determined which of the two is more effective.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND......................................................................................................3
1.1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3

1.2 Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................................4

1.3 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.....................................................................................6
2.1 Related Literature and Studies...............................................................................................................6
1.2 Conceptual Framework...........................................................................................................................8
1.3 Hypothesis..............................................................................................................................................9
1.4 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................10
3.1 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................10
3.2 Research Experiment...........................................................................................................................10
3.3 Soil Sample...........................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Data Gathering Procedures..................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA.........................................12
4.1 Data and Results..................................................................................................................................12
4.2 Analysis of Data....................................................................................................................................12
4.3 Interpretation of Data............................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................13
5.1 Findings.................................................................................................................................................13
5.2 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................13
5.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................................13

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Recent Landslide in Antipolo City.................................................................6

Paradigm of the Study............................................................................... 10
Methodology of the Project........................................................................17
Triaxial Test Equipment..............................................................................18
Map of Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City........................................................19

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction
Landslides, defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris or earth down a slope. (Cruden,
1991) can be triggered by a variety of external stimulus, such as intense rainfall, earthquake shaking, water
level change, storm waves or rapid stream erosion that cause a rapid increase in shear stress or decrease
in shear strength of slope-forming materials. In addition, as development expands into unstable hill slope
areas under the pressures of increasing population and urbanization, human activities such as
deforestation or excavation of slopes for road cuts and building sites, etc., have become important triggers
for landslide occurrence.
Social and economic losses due to landslides can be reduced by means of effective planning and
management. These approaches include: (a) restriction of development in landslide-prone areas, (b) use of
excavation, grading, landscaping, and construction codes, (c) use of physical measures (drainage, slopegeometry modification, and structures) to prevent or control landslides, and (d) development of warning
systems (Slosson and Krohn, 1982).
In landslide prone areas, risk mitigation must often face problems related to economic resources,
environmental impact and logistic issues. This is particularly true for structural counter measures, which
aim at mitigating the risk by reducing the probability of failures such as anchors, piles and other more. By
preventing the landslide from reaching the elements at risk (barriers, ditches, retaining walls and etc.) or by
reinforcing existing building. On the other hand, early warning systems are an alternative cost-effective
means to reduce economic impact. One of the most common natural disasters is landslides caused by
heavy precipitation, floods, earthquakes and erosion, and by anthropogenic actions. Many of the casualties
reported after rainstorms, large floods and earthquakes are actually caused by the landslides triggered by
these events.
Each year, the Philippines has suffered from an inexhaustible number of natural disasters cause
countless deaths and formidable damage to infrastructure and the environment. The need to improve the
ability to deal with the hazards and risks was accentuated by increased sliding and flooding in many

regions around the world in recent years, concern for their disastrous consequences on mankind,
infrastructure and material property.
International collaboration is needed to reduce losses in countries where the landslide risk is high.
The measures for effective mitigation require solutions encompassing the technological and the societal
perspectives, which demonstrate the importance and challenge of a multi-disciplinary approach, where
scientists and engineers need to interact and communicate freely with partners with entirely different
backgrounds. (Suzanne Lacasse, 2009)
Every landslide can cause million/billions of pesos of property damage. Confluence of geologic,
geographic and climatic factors makes the Philippines prone to natural disasters, particularly in landslides.
Many communities in landslides prone areas continue to grow. In year 2012, the resident of Antipolo city
said that floods and landslides have been worsening.
Reinforcement of soil to improve its strength properties for civil engineering construction is a
possible means to put to use the abundant plastic bag waste. This will tap into the plastic resource that
possesses great versatility and yet in the same vein poses a danger to the environment if not well managed
in terms of responsible disposal that involves resource recovery which is vital in contributing to sustainable
development.

Figure 1. Recent Landslide in Antipolo City

This paper outlines the development of landslides risk reduction effort and strategies in the
Philippines as part of Institutional building. Through soil improvement, the designers will find a ways to
lessen the probability of land slides in prone areas of Antipolo City.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
One main problem in mountainous areas is the occurrence of landslide, which is caused by the
high slope of the ground, and sometimes, caused by natural phenomenon such as rain, earthquakes, etc.
One property of soil that resists the soil disturbance is its shear strength. When a soil have a high shear
strength, the probability of the occurrence of landslide will be lessen because the soil fibers are greatly
attached to each other.
One of the most recent record of land slide is in Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City. The main problem
of this study is to find a way to lessen the landslide occurrence in the said are.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study is to find a material that will improve the shear strength of soil in
Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City, so as to lessen the probability of landslides in the area. The specific
objectivevs are as follows:
1. To know if there will be a significant difference in the shear strength of soil when crushed
concrete is used as additive.

2. To know if there will be a significant difference in the shear strength of soil when plastic fiber is
used as additive.
3. To know if there will be a significant difference between the effects on shear strength of the soil
with crushed concrete and soil with plastic fibers.

1.4 Significance of the Study

This project is significant to the students, to the school administrators, and most especially to the
people living in the area.
To the students. The students, particularly of geotechnical and foundation engineering are urged
to find techniques in improvement of undesirable soil properties encountered in the site. They are expected
not only by providing information but also to make sure that the technique can be used practically. This
paper can aid the development of new soil improvement system (soil strengthening technique) which in the
future, demands attention with the emergence of soil stability problems. The subject matter has a potential
to be included in curriculum/syllabus which makes it necessary to be learned/studied by future civil
engineers. This will also serve as a tool for future studies/research for the development of new practical
solutions to the ongoing/future problems.
To the school administrators. As an effect of what is stated above, this study may urge the
school administrator to raise the need of including the subject to the curriculum/syllabus, and push students
in pursuing deeper study of the given subject.
To the people living the area. The residents will be aware of some technique they may use in
strengthening weak soils encountered in their respective area. The study might somehow give a sense of
security/peace of mind to people living on unstable areas.

1.5 Scope and Delimitation

The following are the scope of the study:

1. Classification and properties of the soil sample is based on ASTM.
2. The study is focused only on getting the shear strengths of the control (soil sample) and
experimental variables (soil with crushed concrete and soil with plastic fibers).
3. Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test will be utilized for shear strength determination.

The following are the limitations of the study:

1. The soil sample was taken from the area bounded by Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City.
2. Crushed concrete and plastic fibers are the only additives applied into the soil.

1.6 Conceptual Framework

The input for the research is the soil sample that was taken in the area that will be experimented,
which is the Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City. The designers will evaluate the soil sample, classifying the soil
and getting its properties, through geotechnical methods. After knowing these, consolidated triaxial shear
test will be utilized to determine the shear strength of the soil sample.
The next part in the framework of the study is the process. The process is that additives will be
applied to the controlled variable (soil sample). There will be two additives, the crushed concrete and
plastic fibers, which will be utilized. When these two are combined with the soil, they can now be called
experimental variables. In the process, the shear strengths of the experimental variables will be determined
also.
For the last part, which is the output, the designers will compare if there is a significant difference
on the shear strengths of the controlled variable and experimental variables. Then, the designers will
determine which of the two experimental variables is more effective as additives for the improvement of
shear strength of the soil sample. Figure 1 shows the paradigm of the study.

10

11

Figure 1. Paradigm of the Study

1.7 Hypothesis
The researchers made an initial guess that the crushed concrete and plastic fibers will give a
significant increase in the shear strength of a soil sample. And within these two, the researchers also
agreed to make a hypothesis that plastic fibers are more effective than crushed concrete as an additive.

12

1.8 Definition of Terms

For the convenience and better understanding of the readers, the researchers defined some
technical terms conceptually and operationally.
Additives refer to agents or factors that, when combined with other agents and factors, adds to
their cumulative effect or strength usually by a known degree or extent. Additive is a substance added to
another in relatively small amounts to impart or improve desirable properties or suppress undesirable
properties. In this research, additives such as crushed concrete and plastic fibers are added in order to
enhance and give a significant increase in the shear strength of the soil samples.
Crushed Concrete is a material that made from crushing hardened concrete. This is can be taken
from breaking, removing, or crushing existing concrete into a material with a specified size. It is used as an
additive in this study in order to know if there will be a significant difference between the effects on shear
strength of the soil with crushed concrete and soil with plastic fibers.
Landslide prone area refers to an area that is generally prone to landslide hazards and is the
subject of this study. In the study, the subject is to find a material that will improve the shear strength of soil
in one landslide prone area, which is Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City, so as to lessen the probability of
landslides in the area.
Plastic Fibers refer to plastic materials that are produced from shredding recycled polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottles into tiny fibers. In this study, it is used as an additive in order to know o know if
there will be a significant difference in the shear strength of soil when plastic fiber is used as additive.
Shear Strength is referred to as the strength of a material or component against the type of yield
or structural failure where the material or component fails in shear . In the study, the term is used to
describe the magnitude of the shear stress that different soil samples can sustain.
Soil Sample refers to a small quantity of soil intended to show what the whole type of soil is like.
Since there will be two additives, the crushed concrete and plastic fibers, which will be utilized, these two
are combined with the soil to create soil samples. In this study, the samples are plain soil, soil with plastic
fibers and soil with crushed concrete.

13

Triaxial Shear Test is a common method to measure the mechanical properties of many
deformable solids, especially soil (e.g., sand, clay) and rock, and other granular materials or powders.
There are several variations on the test. In this study, the experiment to be utilized will be the triaxial shear
test for determining the shear strength parameters of a soil sample. With all kinds of triaxial shear test, the
most common type of triaxial test, which is the consolidated undrained triaxial test, was applied because
this is the most common type of triaxial testing.

14

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

2.1 Study on the effect of plastic fibers as additives in soil

Simenson (2011) studied the effect of adding plastic fibers to the shear strength and flexural
strength of a soil-cement composition. In his research, it turned out that the soil-cement-fiber are still
bonded together after failure. His results also show that there is a minimal strength in the shear strength
and flexural strength of the soil-cement-fiber. This led to his conclusion that fibers increase the form of
safety of the material after failure, and that plastic fibers also increase the strength of the material.
Data and experiment done by the latter reflects upon the results of other authors. According to
(Santoniand, et. al. 2001), using bers ranging from steel bars, polypropylene, polyester, glass bers, and
biodegradable bers such as coir and jute, has been proven to be particularly effective for soil
reinforcement Some recent initiatives also use waste materials such as tire shred, waste shing nets, and
waster plastics as reinforcing bers. Use of ber reinforcement for soil improvement has been inspired by
observations on the stabilizing effect of root systems to soils.
Choudhary et al. (2010) evaluated the use of plastic wastes for improving the subgrade in flexible
pavement. In this study the effect of waste plastic strip content (0.25 % to 4.0 %) and strip length on the
CBR and secant modulus of strip

2.2 Study on the effect of crushed concrete as additives in soil

Elseiver (2009) studied the strength and stiffness of compacted crushed concrete aggregate. A
comprehensive series of drained triaxial compression tests were performed on crushed concrete aggregate
(CCA) moist as compacted. When compared to ordinary natural well-graded gravelly soils, the peak
strength and stiffness increase more significantly with dry density, while the effect of the degree of
saturation during compaction is much less significant. In a range of confining pressure of 30600 kPa, the
strength and stiffness of well-compacted CCA is similar to, or, in some cases even higher than, typical
selected high-class backfill materials (e.g., well-graded gravelly soil of crushed quarry hard rock). The
strength and stiffness of CCA with a maximum particle size Dmax=37.5 mm obtained from a typical concrete

15

crushing plant are noticeably lower than CCA sieved to Dmax=19 mm compacted using the same energy.
However, when compacted to the same dry density, the original CCA exhibits the strength and stiffness
higher than the sieved CCA. Effects of the strength of original concrete on the strength and stiffness of
compacted CCA are insignificant, while the strength and stiffness of compacted CCA are, respectively,
noticeably higher than, or similar to, the original concrete aggregate (i.e., natural gravelly soil) compacted
using the same energy. All these results indicate that well-compacted CCA can be used as the backfill
material for important civil engineering soil structures requiring a high stability while allowing a limited
amount of deformation.
CCA consists of strong and stiff core gravel particles covered with relatively weak and soft mortar
surface layers. For this reason, CCA is often considered to be an inferior backfill material having strength
and stiffness much lower than selected natural backfill soils. When not well-compacted, the above could be
the case (e.g., Mizukami et al., 1998). On the other hand, Aqil et al. (2005) and Tatsuoka et al.
(2006) showed that, when well-compacted aiming at a good contact among stiff and strong core coarse
aggregate particles (Fig. 1b), CCA can exhibit strength and stiffness equivalent to, or even better than,
high-class backfill materials comprising well-graded strong and stiff particles. Recent other studies
(e.g., Jitsangiam et al., 2012; Grgoire et al., 2009, 2013) also showed similar results. These results
indicate that well-compacted CCA can be used as the backfill material for civil engineering soil structures
requiring a high stability while allowing a limited amount of deformation, as the case reported by Hasegawa
and Shimakawa (2004).
Soil stabilization is a procedure where natural or synthesized additives are used to improve the
engineering properties of weak soil. Several reinforcing methods are available for stabilizing soils.
Therefore, the techniques of soil stabilization can be classified into a number of categories such as physical
stabilization, chemical stabilization and mechanical stabilization. There is a substantial history of use of soil
stabilization admixtures to improve poor subgrade soil performance by controlling volume change and
increasing strength.
Sharif et al. (2000) conducted a laboratory study on the use of burned sludge as a new soil
stabilizing agent. The sludge was burned at 550o c and mixed with clayey soil at different percentages. The
addition of percentages generally greater than 7.5 % by weight will decrease both the maximum dry density

16

and unconfined compressive strength. The tests results show that this material can be used as a soil
stabilizer.
Parsons et al. (2004) evaluated the use of cement kiln dust for soil stabilization. Atterberg limits
and strength tests were conducted before and after selected durability test. Relative values of soil stiffness
were also tracked over a 28 days curing period. The test results show a significant improvement in
performance with the addition of cement kiln dust.
Seda et al. (2007) studied the use of waste tire rubber for swelling potential mitigation in expansive
soil. In this study, the effect of adding small particles of waste tire rubber on the swelling potential of an
expansive soil from Colorado was evaluated. The index properties and compaction parameters of the
rubber, expansive soil and expansive soil-rubber mixture were determined. One dimensional tests were
performed to assess the feasibility of using small particles of waste tire rubber as mechanical additive to
mitigate swelling potential of the expansive soil. The tests results showed that both swell percent and the
swelling pressure are significantly reduced by the addition of rubber to the expansive soil.
Okagbue (2007) evaluated the efficacy of woodash for clay stabilization. The evaluation involved
the determination of the geotechnical properties of clay soil in its natural state as well as when mixed with
varying proportions of woodash. The parameters tested included the particle size distribution, specific
gravity, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, California bearing ratio (CBR) and the compressive
strength. The CBR and strength tests were repeated after 28-day curing of the treated samples. Results
showed that the geotechnical parameters of clay soil are improved substantially by the addition of
woodash; plasticity was reduced by 35% and CBR and strength increased by 2350% and 4967%,
respectively, depending on the compactive energy used. The highest CBR and strength values were
achieved at 10% woodash. Results also showed that curing improved the strength of the woodash-treated
clay. However, the strength gain was short lived as the strength quickly decreased after 714 days of
curing. These results imply that although woodash provides some of the beneficial effects of lime in soil
stabilization, such as plasticity and swell reduction, improved workability, and strength increase, it is
unlikely to be a substitute for lime as strength gain is short lived.

17

2.3 Triaxial Test Utilized for Determination of Shear Strength

Castellanos and Brandon (2013) studied the difference between the methods of direct shear and
triaxial shear testing for the shear stress of the soil. The choice of using direct shear tests or triaxial tests to
determine drained shear strength parameters can be important for natural soil deposits. Although these two
different test methods can often provide similar results in some soil deposits, there is considerable
evidence that direct shear tests provide much lower friction angles in riverine and lacustrine alluvial
deposits than triaxial tests. A comparison of numerous CD direct shear and CU triaxial test results
conducted on alluvial soils from the greater New Orleans area show that the friction angle determined from
the direct shear apparatus is normally about 2 to 5 degrees lower than that determined using the triaxial
apparatus. This can be attributed to the anisotropic shear strength characteristics of the alluvial soils. The
difference in the results of the two test devices is much less when remolded test specimens are used. The
remolding process destroys the anisotropic fabric, and the shear strength parameters are not as dependent
on the orientation of the failure plane. When fully softened shear strength parameters are desired, direct
shear and triaxial test apparatuses appear to provide comparable results.

18

CHAPTER 3 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methodology
The design methodology of the project starts with the planning/conceptualization, which includes
the identification of the problem, which is the low shear strength of sil in Brgy San Isidro Antipol City, and
possible solutions to the problems, which were identified to be crushed concrete and plastic fibers. The
experiment to be done is also determined which is the consolidated undrained triaxial shear test.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLE

PLANNING/
CONCEPTUALIZATION IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXPERIMENT TO BE DONE

EXPERIMENT PHASE
DATA GATHERING
DATA GATHERING OF THE RESULTS ON THE EXPERIMENT THROUGH TABLES OR G

DATA ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS OF DATA
INTERPRETATION OF DATA

CONCLUSION

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLES

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Figure 2. Methodology of the Project

19

The next phase is data gathering. This includes the experiment phase of all the samples included,
and also the tabulation and graphing of the result. The next part is the analysis and interpretation of data,
which will pave the way in giving conclusions. The conclusions will be based on the statements of the
problem.

3.2 Research Experiment

The experiment to be utilized in the study will be the triaxial shear test. According to Das (2006),
this is one of the most reliable methods available for determining the shear strength parameters of a soil
sample. With all kinds of triaxial shear test, the consolidated undrained triaxial test was applied because
this is the most common type of triaxial testing. Triaxial test equipment is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3. Triaxial Test Equipment

The apparatus to be used will include the data that will be needed to compute the shear strength of
the soil inside. The data to be shown by the apparatus will be utilized for the presentation, analysis, and
interpretation of data.

20

3.3 Soil Sample

The soil sample came from the mountainous area of Antipol City, specifically in Brgy. San Isidro.
Through further researches, the soil was identified to be a clayey type of soil. The map below show map of
Brgy San Isidro, Antipolo City.

Figure 4. Map of Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City

21

3.4 Data Gathering Procedures

For the first part of the project, research was done by the group to know the soil properties of the
soil sample present in Brgy. San Isidro. These properties were the liquid limit, plastic limit, soil classification,

22

etc. After knowing the classification and properties of the soil sample, the shear strength of the soil was
through the triaxial shear testing.
After getting the shear strength of the soil sample, crushed concrete was combined with the soil
sample in three different percentages, 5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively, so as to have a boundary in the
amount of additive that can be added. Through triaxial shear testing, the shear strengths of these
combinations was obtained and was tabulated. Then, the soil sample will be combined with plastic fibers,
also in three different percentages, 5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively. The shear strengths of these three
also obtained through the same testing, and the results were tabulated.
After getting all necessary data, the designers compared which of the two will govern as
reinforcement.

23

CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1 Data and Results

The following are the tabulated and graphical results of the data gathered through triaxial shear
testing.
1. Stress-Strain Ratio in the Soil Sample

2. Stress-Strain Graph in the Soil with Crushed Concrete (5%)

24

Time
(sec)

SAMPLE NO. 2 - SOIL w/ CRUSHED CONCRETE (5%)

Water
Loa Diamet
Deformati Load
Area
Stress
Pressur
d
er
on (mm)
Dial
(mm2) (Mpa)
e (Kpa)
(N)
(mm)

14

10

14

0.9

4.5

20

14

1.9

7.5

30
40
50

14
14
14

2.600
3.400
4.167

10.5
13
14

60
70
80

14
14
14

5.001
5.834
6.668

90

14

7.501

Strain
(%)

30

706.86

0.000

0.000

30

706.86

0.017

1.286

30

706.86

0.029

2.714

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.040
0.050
0.053

3.714
4.857
5.953

13.5
13
12

0
12.1
5
20.2
5
28.3
5
35.1
37.8
36.4
5
35.1
32.4

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.052
0.050
0.046

10

27

30

706.86

0.038

7.144
8.335
9.525
10.71
6

SAMPLE NO. 2 - SOIL w/ CRUSHED CONCRETE (5%)

25

3. Stress-Strain Graph in the Soil with Crushed Concrete (10%)

Time
(sec)

SAMPLE NO. 3 - SOIL w/ CRUSHED CONCRETE (10%)

Water
Loa Diamet
Deformati Load
Area
Stress
Pressur
d
er
on (mm)
Dial
(mm2) (Mpa)
e (Kpa)
(N)
(mm)

0
10
20

14
14
14

0
0.833
1.667

0
5
8

30
40
50
60

14
14
14
14

2.500
3.334
4.167
5.001

10.5
12
13
11

70
80

14
14

5.834
6.668

90

14

7.501

Strain
(%)

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.000
0.019
0.031

0.000
1.190
2.381

30
30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86

0.040
0.046
0.050
0.042

3.572
4.763
5.953
7.144

11.5
10

0
13.5
21.6
28.3
5
32.4
35.1
29.7
31.0
5
27

30
30

706.86
706.86

0.044
0.038

21.6

30

706.86

0.031

8.335
9.525
10.71
6

SAMPLE NO. 3 - SOIL w/ CRUSHED CONCRETE (10%)

26

4. Stress-Strain Graph in the Soil with Crushed Concrete (15%)

Time
(sec)

SAMPLE NO. 4 - SOIL w/ CRUSHED CONCRETE (15%)

Water
Loa Diamet
Deformati Load
Area
Stress
Pressur
d
er
on (mm)
Dial
(mm2) (Mpa)
e (Kpa)
(N)
(mm)

0
10
20
30
40

14
14
14
14
14

0
0.833
1.667
2.500
3.334

0
5
9
12
13

50
60
70
80

14
14
14
14

4.167
5.001
5.834
6.668

90

14

7.501

Strain
(%)

30
30
30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86

0.000
0.019
0.034
0.046
0.050

0.000
1.190
2.381
3.572
4.763

13.5
13
11
12

0
13.5
24.3
32.4
35.1
36.4
5
35.1
29.7
32.4

30
30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86

0.052
0.050
0.042
0.046

24.3

30

706.86

0.034

5.953
7.144
8.335
9.525
10.71
6

SAMPLE NO. 4 - SOIL w/ CRUSHED CONCRETE (15%)

27

5. Stress-Strain Graph in the Soil with Plastic Fibers (5%)

Time
(sec)

SAMPLE NO. 5 - SOIL w/ PLASTIC FIBERS (10%)

Water
Loa Diamet
Deformati Load
Area
Stress
Pressur
d
er
on (mm)
Dial
(mm2) (Mpa)
e (Kpa)
(N)
(mm)

0
10
20

14
14
14

0
0.833
1.667

0
5
10

30
40
50

14
14
14

2.500
3.334
4.167

12.5
13
14

60
70
80

14
14
14

5.001
5.834
6.668

13.5
13
12

0
13.5
27
33.7
5
35.1
37.8
36.4
5
35.1
32.4

Strain
(%)

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.000
0.019
0.038

0.000
1.190
2.381

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.048
0.050
0.053

3.572
4.763
5.953

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.052
0.050
0.046

7.144
8.335
9.525

SAMPLE NO. 5 - SOIL w/ PLASTIC FIBERS (10%)

28

6. Stress-Strain Graph in the Soil with Plastic Fibers (10%)

Time
(sec)

SAMPLE NO. 6 - SOIL w/ PLASTIC FIBERS (10%)

Water
Loa Diamet
Deformati Load
Area
Stress
Pressur
d
er
on (mm)
Dial
(mm2) (Mpa)
e (Kpa)
(N)
(mm)

0
10
20
30
40

14
14
14
14
14

0
0.833
1.667
2.500
3.334

0
5
10
12
13

50
60
70
80

14
14
14
14

4.167
5.001
5.834
6.668

90

14

7.501

Strain
(%)

30
30
30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86

0.000
0.019
0.038
0.046
0.050

0.000
1.190
2.381
3.572
4.763

13.5
13
13
12

0
13.5
27
32.4
35.1
36.4
5
35.1
35.1
32.4

30
30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86

0.052
0.050
0.050
0.046

11

29.7

30

706.86

0.042

5.953
7.144
8.335
9.525
10.71
6

SAMPLE NO. 6 - SOIL w/ PLASTIC FIBERS (10%)

29

7. Stress-Strain Graph in the Soil with Plastic Fibers (15%)

Time
(sec)

SAMPLE NO. 7 - SOIL w/ PLASTIC FIBERS (15%)

Water
Loa Diamet
Deformati Load
Area
Stress
Pressur
d
er
on (mm)
Dial
(mm2) (Mpa)
e (Kpa)
(N)
(mm)

0
10
20
30

14
14
14
14

0
0.833
1.667
2.500

0
5
9
11

40
50

14
14

3.334
4.167

12.5
13

60
70
80

14
14
14

5.001
5.834
6.668

13.5
14
12

90

14

7.501

12.5

SAMPLE NO. 7 - SOIL w/ PLASTIC FIBERS (15%)

0
13.5
24.3
29.7
33.7
5
35.1
36.4
5
37.8
32.4
33.7
5

Strain
(%)

30
30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86
706.86

0.000
0.019
0.034
0.042

0.000
1.190
2.381
3.572

30
30

706.86
706.86

0.048
0.050

4.763
5.953

30
30
30

706.86
706.86
706.86

0.052
0.053
0.046

30

706.86

0.048

7.144
8.335
9.525
10.71
6

30

4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Data

In this section, the following data gathered by the researchers analyzed through comparison of the
graphs. The following graphs show the difference of the stress-strain of the soils in the project.
Stress-Strain Comparison of the Results in Soil with Crushed Concrete

The graph shows comparison of the soil with 5%, 10%, and 15% crushed concrete. It implicates
that the best curve happened in the soil with 10% crushed concrete. All the yield strength of the samples
were attained happened in 50 seconds. Of all the three, the soil with 10% crushed concrete has the
greatest performance among the three.
8. Stress-Strain Comparison of the Results in Soil with Plastic Fibers

31

The graph shows comparison of the soil with 5%, 10%, and 15% plastic fibers. It implicates that the
best curve happened in the soil with 15% crushed concrete because the yield strength was attained in after
70 seconds. The yield strength of the 10% and 5% were attained in the both 50 seconds. Of all the three,
the soil with 15% crushed concrete has the greatest performance among the three.
Comparison of Soil Sample, Soil with Crushed Concrete, and Soil with Plastic Fibers

32

The graph shows the difference between the plain soil, soil with crushed concrete (10%), and soil
with plastic fibers (15%). As shown in the graph, the best curve happened in the soil with plastic fibers,
which attained its yield strength at 70 seconds, whereas the other 2 attained their yield strength at 50
seconds. As seen in the figure also, the ratio of the stress-strain of the crushed concrete and plastic fibers
before attaining the yield strength are higher than the plain soil. This says that both additives can add on
the strength of the soil sample, but plastic fiber is than the two.

33

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Findings
Based on the data taken and analysis done by the researchers, the findings can be summarized as
follows.
1. In the soil with crushed concrete samples, namely 5%, 10%, and 15%, the second had the greatest
performance among the three.
2. In the soil with plastic fibers samples, namely 5%, 10%, and 15%, the third had the greatest
performance among the three.
3. In comparing the plain soil sample, soil with crushed concrete (10%), and soil with plastic fibers
(15), the plastic fibers had the greatest performance among the three.
4. It turned out the stress-strain graphs of the soil with crushed concrete and soil with plastic fibers
are better than the stress-strain of the soil sample.
5. It turned out the stress-strain graphs of the soil with plastic fiber has the best stress-strain graph
compared to plain soil and soil with crushed concrete.

5.2 Conclusions
From the experiment, analysis, and interpretation done by the researchers, it turned out that both
additives, crushed concrete and plastic fibers, can help increase the shear strength of soil in the area. In
comparing the two alternatives, it turned out that the adding plastic fibers is more effective than the crushed
concrete.
In the first phase, the researchers made a hypothesis that both the crushed concrete and plastic
fibers will improve the shear strength of the soil. The second part is to determine which of the two is more
effective as additives. The results taken validates that the hypotheses done by the researchers are correct.

5.3 Recommendations
For the convenience of future researches, the researchers give the following recommendations.

34

1. For the improvement of construction industry in the Philippines, we recommend to try other
additives for the improvement of soil shear resistance.
2. Other test for the soil with additives sample may be conducted in the capacity of geotechnical
engineering such as measure of soil stability through bearing strength of the soil.
3. The researchers also recommend to experiment the soil in other areas.
4. The researchers also recommend to experiment on the soil properties such as plastic limit, liquid
limit, etc.
5. Using other methods in determining the shear strength such as direct shear, or other type of triaxial
test such as consolidated drained can also be done.

35

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - STEP BY STEP PROCESS DONE BY THE RESEARCHERS

1) Crush and sieve the materials to be used for tri-axial testing (clayey-soil); Use sieve # 40

2) Use the sprinkler to make the soil reach its optimum moisture content.

3) Compact the sample (plain soil, soil with concrete and soil with concerte fibers) to the molder

36

4) Make the top and bottom surface of the soil straight.

5) Remove the sample from the molder carefully since if there are deformations it would affect the
result of the test.

37

6) Cover the sample with the rubber given.

7) Input the sample with the rubber to the given material below.

38

8) Place the stones, the black circular rubber band and the plastic material on the top and bottom of
the sample

9) Give the sample to the technician for Tri-Axial testing.

39

10) Prepare to record the data that would be given in the test

11) Wait for the sample to be removed from the tri-axial machine.

40

12) Repeat the process on how to do the tri-axial test for the other samples(with concrete and plastic
fibers) record the data and compare the results.

41

42

APPENDIX B REFERENCES
Cruden DH., (1991), Behavior of Fabric Versus FibreReinforced
Engineering, ASCE;112(8):804 826. 2.

Sand, Journal of

Geotechnical

Slosson MH and Krohn DH., (1982), Static Response of Sand Reinforced With Randomly Distributed
Fibers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE;116(11): 16611677.
Suzanne NC, and Lacasse GS.(2009), Engineering Behavior of Sand Reinforced With Plastic Waste,
Journal of Geotechnical and
Simenson A.K., Jha J.N. and Gill K.S., (2011), A Study on CBR Behavior of Waste Plastic Strip Reinforced
Soil, Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 15 (1), 51-57. 6.
Santoniand S. G.L. and Chouksey S. K., (2001), (StressStrain Response of Plastic Waste Mixed Soil),
Waste Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 481488. 7.
Chuudhary V., G. and Dutta, R.K. (2010) (Ground Improvement with Waste Plastic), Proceedings of 5th
International Conference on Ground Improvement Techniques, 22 23 March,
Elseiver B.C., (2009), A Study on CBR Behavior of Waste Plastic Strip Reinforced Soil, Emirates Journal
for Engineering Research, 15 (1), 51-57. 6.
Seda HK, and Baha LS.(2009), Engineering Behavior of Sand Reinforced With Plastic Waste, Journal of
Geotechnical and
Castellanos LC, and Brandon GP (2013), Comparison of Direct Shear and Triaxial Shear Testing.