Skip to main content

Large Scale Direct Shear Experiments to Study Monotonic and Cyclic Behavior of Sand Treated By Polyethylene Terephthalate Strips


The continuously increasing production of plastics in the last few decades has taken a heavy toll on the environment. Soil reinforcement with the use of randomly distributed fibers, plastics and glass has recently received a lot of attention. The use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) strips as soil reinforcement has been observed to result in the increase in the shear strength. In this paper, the monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic properties of sand reinforced with different contents and aspect ratios of PET strips are investigated by carrying out a set of monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests. Accordingly, the influence of various parameters on the direct shear response of sand-PET mixture is examined. Results show that in the monotonic tests, for mixtures containing 0%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% PET with AR = 1, the peak friction angle is 37.5°, 41.8°, 42.7°, and 44.6°, repectively, while these values increase to 41.8°, 45.4°, 48.2°, and 50.4°, respectively, for post-cyclic monotonic tests. In addition, in the monotonic tests, for mixtures containing 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% PET with AR = 5, the peak friction angle is 48.8°, 52.2°, 54.0°, respectively, while these values increase to 50.9°, 54.8°, 55.9°, respectively, for post-cyclic monotonic tests. Results clearly imply that normal stress and cyclic shear strain amplitude contribute jointly to the contractive behavior of the reinforced mixtures. Moreover, the hardening behavior becomes less eminent when the sand is reinforced with PET strips due to the resistance mobilized against particle rearrangement. The post-cyclic shear strength of the PET-sand mixture is higher than their monotonic strength due to the densification occurring during the cyclic loading. In summary, the favorable impact of PET inclusion on the monotonic and cyclic performance of granular materials is deduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17


  1. 1.

    Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P, Baeyens J (2009) Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Manag 29(10):2625–2643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Chen X, Xi F, Geng Y, Fujita T (2011) The potential environmental gains from recycling waste plastics: simulation of transferring recycling and recovery technologies to Shenyang, China. Waste Manag 31(1):168–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Singh N, Hui D, Singh R, Ahuja IPS, Feo L, Fraternali F (2017) Recycling of plastic solid waste: a state of art review and future applications. Compos B Eng 115:409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mwanza BG, Mbohwa C (2017) Drivers to sustainable plastic solid waste recycling: a review. Procedia Manuf 8:649–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Çınar ME, Kar F (2018) Characterization of composite produced from waste PET and marble dust. Constr Build Mater 163:734–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Albano C, Camacho N, Hernandez M, Matheus A, Gutierrez A (2009) Influence of content and particle size of waste pet bottles on concrete behavior at different w/c ratios. Waste Manag 29(10):2707–2716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Akçaözoğlu S, Atiş CD, Akçaözoğlu K (2010) An investigation on the use of shredded waste PET bottles as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Waste Manag 30(2):285–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hannawi K, Kamali-Bernard S, Prince W (2010) Physical and mechanical properties of mortars containing PET and PC waste aggregates. Waste Manag 30(11):2312–2320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Frigione M (2010) Recycling of PET bottles as fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Manag 30(6):1101–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kim SB, Yi NH, Kim HY, Kim JHJ, Song YC (2010) Material and structural performance evaluation of recycled PET fiber reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos 32(3):232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Foti D (2011) Preliminary analysis of concrete reinforced with waste bottles PET fibers. Constr Build Mater 25(4):1906–1915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Thorneycroft J, Orr J, Savoikar P, Ball RJ (2018) Performance of structural concrete with recycled plastic waste as a partial replacement for sand. Constr Build Mater 161:63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Divya PV, Viswanadham BVS, Gourc JP (2018) Hydraulic conductivity behaviour of soil blended with geofiber inclusions. Geotext Geomembr 46(2):121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Consoli NC, Montardo JP, Prietto PDM, Pasa GS (2002) Engineering behavior of a sand reinforced with plastic waste. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(6):462–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sivakumar Babu G, Chouksey SK (2011) Stress–strain response of plastic waste mixed soil. Waste Manag 31(3):481–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Botero E, Ossa A, Sherwell G, Ovando-Shelley E (2015) Stress–strain behavior of a silty soil reinforced with polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Geotext Geomembr 43(4):363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Zhao JJ, Lee ML, Lim SK, Tanaka Y (2015) Unconfined compressive strength of PET waste-mixed residual soils. Geomech Eng Int J 8(1):53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Malidarreh NR, Shooshpasha I, Mirhosseini SM, Dehestani M (2018) Effects of reinforcement on mechanical behaviour of cement treated sand using direct shear and triaxial tests. Int J Geotech Eng 12(5):491–4999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    ASTM D. (2010). 854-10. Standard test methods for Specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. The American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, US

  20. 20.

    ASTM D. (2002). 4253-00. Standard test method for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. The American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, US

  21. 21.

    ASTM D. (2000). 4254-00. Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. The American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, US

  22. 22.

    ASTM D. (2008). 638-03. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. The American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, US

  23. 23.

    ASTM, D. (1998). 5321. Standard test method for determining the Coefficient of soil and geosynthetic or geosynthetic and geosynthetic friction by the direct shear method, The American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, US

  24. 24.

    Liu FY, Wang P, Geng XY, Wang J, Lin X (2015) Cyclic and post-cyclic behaviour from sand–geogrid interface large-scale direct shear tests. Geosynth Int 23(2):129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wang J, Liu FY, Wang P, Cai YQ (2016) Particle size effects on coarse soil-geogrid interface response in cyclic and post-cyclic direct shear tests. Geotext Geomembr 44(6):854–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Alaie R, Jamshidi Chenari R (2018) Cyclic and post-cyclic shear behaviour of interface between geogrid and EPS beads-sand backfill. KSCE J Civil Eng 22(9):3340–3357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ranjan G, Vasan RM, Charan HD (1994) Behaviour of plastic fibre-reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 13(8):555–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Babu GS, Chouksey SK (2011) Stress–strain response of plastic waste mixed soil. Waste Manag 31(3):481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Shariatmadari N, Karimpour-Fard M, Hasanzadehshooiili H, Hoseinzadeh S, Karimzadeh Z (2020) Effects of drainage condition on the stress-strain behavior and pore pressure buildup of sand-PET mixtures. Constr Build Mater 233:117295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cho GC, Dodds J, Santamarina JC (2006) Particle shape effects on packing density, stiffness, and strength: natural and crushed sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(5):591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Yang J, Wei LM (2012) Collapse of loose sand with the addition of fines: the role of particle shape. Géotechnique 62(12):1111–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Payan M, Khoshghalb A, Senetakis K, Khalili N (2016) Effect of particle shape and validity of Gmax models for sand: a critical review and a new expression. Comput Geotech 72:28–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Payan M, Jamshidi Chenari R (2019) Small strain shear modulus of anisotropically loaded sands. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Payan M, Khoshini M, Jamshidi Chenari R (2020) Elastic dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio of sand-silt mixtures. J Mater Civ Eng 32(1):04019314

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Jamshidi Chenari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fathi, H., Jamshidi Chenari, R. & Vafaeian, M. Large Scale Direct Shear Experiments to Study Monotonic and Cyclic Behavior of Sand Treated By Polyethylene Terephthalate Strips. Int J Civ Eng 19, 533–548 (2021).

Download citation


  • PET waste strips
  • Chamkhaleh sand
  • Cyclic direct shear
  • Post-cyclic direct shear
  • Peak shear stress
  • Residual shear stress