Next Article in Journal
Modeling the Ecological Network in Mountainous Resource-Based Cities: Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis Approach
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of Digital Technologies in Construction Safety: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/buildings15081387
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soil Improvement Using Plastic Waste–Cement Mixture to Control Swelling and Compressibility of Clay Soils

by
Mousa Attom
1,
Sameer Al-Asheh
2,*,
Mohammad Yamin
3,
Ramesh Vandanapu
4,
Naser Al-Lozi
5,6,
Ahmed Khalil
1 and
Ahmed Eltayeb
1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 26666, United Arab Emirates
2
Department of Chemical and Biological, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 26666, United Arab Emirates
3
Department of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN 56001, USA
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Amity University, Dubai P.O. Box 345019, United Arab Emirates
5
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
6
Department of Engineering, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PY, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(8), 1387; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081387
Submission received: 13 March 2025 / Revised: 15 April 2025 / Accepted: 18 April 2025 / Published: 21 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainable Building Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Clay soils are known to have a high swelling pressure with an increase in water content. This behavior is considered a serious hazard to structures built upon them. Various mechanical and chemical treatments have historically been used to stabilize the swelling behavior of clay soils. This work investigates the potential use of shredded plastic waste to reduce the swelling pressure and compressibility of clay soils. Two types of highly plastic clay (CH) soils were selected. Three different dimensions of plastic waste pieces were used, namely lengths of 0.5 cm, 1.0 cm, and 1.5 cm, with a width of 1 mm. A blend of plastic–cement waste with a ratio of 1:5 by weight was prepared. Different fractions of the plastic–cement waste blend with a 2 wt.% increment were added to the clay soil, which was then remolded in a consolidometer ring at 95% relative compaction and 3.0% below the optimum. The zero swell test, as per ASTM D4546, was conducted on the remolded soil samples after three curing periods: 1, 2, and 7 days. This method ensures the accurate evaluation of swell potential and stabilization efficiency over time. The experimental results showed that the addition of 6.0–8.0% of the blend significantly reduced the swelling pressure, demonstrating the mixture’s effectiveness in soil stabilization. It also reduced the swell potential of the expansive clay soil and had a substantial effect on the reduction in its compressibility, especially with a higher aspect ratio. The compression index decreased, while the maximum past pressure increased with a higher plastic–cement ratio. The 7-day curing time is the optimum time to stabilize expansive clay soils with the plastic–cement waste mixture. This study provides strong evidence that plastic waste can enhance soil mechanical properties, making it a viable geotechnical solution.

1. Introduction

Expansive clay experiences significant volume changes due to variations in water content. It expands when the moisture content increases and shrinks in hot and dry environments. This behavior leads to various issues that impact the bearing capacity and shear strength, resulting in infrastructure damage to roads, highways, foundations, water supply lines, irrigation systems, and other engineering structures [1]. In the USA alone, the annual costs due to expansive soil damages are about 2.3 billion US dollars [2]. When the soil swells, it creates uplift pressure, resulting in differential movement of the structure that can appear in form of cracks.
Soil stabilization is a well-known technique in the geotechnical engineering field to improve the mechanical properties of weak soils. Researchers employ different methods to stabilize the soil, and techniques including physical, mechanical, chemical and biological methods have been employed in soil improvement, aligning it with the engineering specifications of the proposed project [3]. Broadly, these methods can be categorized into two main groups: mechanical and chemical stabilization. Mechanical stabilization typically involves modifying the soil gradation, introducing reinforcing materials, and applying compaction techniques to improve the load-bearing capacity [4]. Field-scale applications, such as dynamic replacement and rapid impact compaction, have demonstrated their effectiveness in enhancing ground performance in challenging environments, particularly in reclaimed or coastal areas [5]. Chemical stabilization, on the other hand, involves the addition of chemical agents that interact with the soil particles or clay minerals to form stronger, more durable structures with reduced settlement and improved strength characteristics [6]. Common chemical stabilizers include cement [7], lime stabilization [8,9], bituminous stabilization [10], electrical stabilization [11], grouting [7], fly ash stabilization [12], burned sludge stabilization [13], sisal fiber stabilization [14], and polypropylene stabilization [1,15]. Although cement is widely used for its effectiveness in soil stabilization, its high energy consumption and carbon-intensive manufacturing process raise sustainability concerns. As a result, recent research focuses on mitigating these effects by partially replacing the cement with recycled or industrial waste materials, such as plastic waste, to create more sustainable soil stabilization blends. The incorporation of these materials into weak soils has demonstrated a significant enhancement in soil performance, effectively reducing swelling and increasing the shear strength, as well as improving other mechanical properties. Using plastic waste combined with cement offers a novel, cost-effective alternative to traditional stabilizers like lime and fly ash, while also helping address environmental concerns. Additionally, recent studies have highlighted the importance of evaluating soil behavior under varying conditions, using techniques like shear wave velocity monitoring [16,17] and advanced numerical modeling to assess the bearing capacity and deformation in layered soils [18]. Furthermore, predicting internal erosion based on the initial soil properties has become increasingly important for ensuring long-term stability in clayey soils [19]. Moreover, recent studies, e.g., Ref. [20], have shown that adding waste materials such as glass powders, straw fibers, and cement to residual soils can change the soil’s pore structure. These changes help reduce permeability by altering the flow paths and increasing the soil’s compactness, further supporting the use of alternative stabilizers in geotechnical applications.
Modern civilization generates various types of waste, including glass, plastic, plastic, agricultural, industrial [21], and hospital waste [22], as well as used tires. Managing these waste materials has become a necessity. These types of waste pose a significant environmental threat, which becomes even more severe when dealing with non-biodegradable waste, or when the waste recycling costs exceed the production costs. The volume of such waste is overwhelming, with billions of tons generated on a global scale each year. Cement is used for its strong soil stabilization properties and ability to enhance the performance of plastic-reinforced mixtures. Although it has a high carbon footprint, incorporating plastic waste helps offset the environmental impacts, making the blend more sustainable overall.
Therefore, many studies in the literature have investigated the effects of certain types of solid waste on the behavior of soil and concrete. The potential use of glass waste has been studied to improve the soil and enhance the shear strength properties. Ikara et al. [23] conducted a study to assess the viability of using waste glass as an additive to cement-stabilized black cotton soil for road construction. The results showed that the addition of waste glass into the soil resulted in reductions in the plasticity index, liquid limit, and plastic limit, while increasing the maximum dry density of the soil. Furthermore, the highest values of the unconfined compressive strength and California Bearing Ratio were achieved with an optimal blend of 8% cement and 20% waste glass. These findings suggest that waste glass has potential as an admixture to enhance the strength of black cotton soils. Perera et al. [24] conducted an extensive range of mechanical and microstructural analyses in their study on the addition of glass into expansive clay. Their findings revealed that the incorporation of crushed glass into expansive clay used as a subgrade material for pavement significantly enhanced mechanical properties such as the unconfined compressive strength, California Bearing Ratio, and resilient modulus. Phanikumar [25] conducted a study on the impact of lime and fly ash on various geotechnical properties of expansive soils. The results demonstrated that the addition of 20% fly ash resulted in a significant decrease in the swell potential, swelling pressure, compression index, and secondary consolidation characteristics, while the maximum dry density and shear strength increased; the lime content also led to a decrease in the swell potential and swelling pressure of the soil. Patel and Singh [26] investigated the shear strength and deformation behaviors of glass fiber-reinforced clay and sandy soils. The study discussed the potential environmental impact and field application of glass fiber-reinforced soil and demonstrated an increase in shear strength with the fiber content. Almesfer and Ingham [27] investigated the fundamental characteristics of concrete using 20% waste glass as a partial substitute for natural aggregates. They found that the waste glass had an unfavorable impact on the properties of the concrete, which contributed to a problematic alkali–silica reaction. However, the addition of supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash or micro-silica improved the properties and inhibited the alkali–silica reaction. These findings suggest that waste glass should be combined with fly ash or micro-silica to address the concerns regarding the alkali–silica reaction observed in this study. Abdallah and Fan [28] investigated the properties of concrete with crushed glass to determine the optimal ratio of glass for higher concrete strength and the impact of glass replacement on the expansion caused by the alkali–silica reaction. They analyzed various factors, such as slump, compressive strength, and water absorption, and found that concrete with 20% glass replacement exhibited increased strength and reduced expansion due to the reaction between the glass silica and cement alkali. In support of sustainable construction, other studies have highlighted the enhanced performance of geopolymer concrete when blended with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and silica fume, showing improvements in both mechanical strength and durability [29].
Plastic waste is among the most environmentally hazardous materials, contributing significantly to both terrestrial and marine pollution. Studies estimate that approximately 190 million metric tons of plastic waste are produced annually, with nearly 8 million metric tons entering the oceans each year [30,31]. A study revealed that with the growing population, the average waste generation is estimated to be 15.4 billion pieces per day [32]. In 2016, the yearly amount of plastic waste generated in the USA reached a volume of 42 million metric tons, which is about 13.1% of the total amount of solid waste [33]. However, the European Union (EU) generated about 29 million metric tons of plastic waste, which is about 11.7% of the total solid waste production [34], while in Australia, plastic waste contributes up to 16% of the municipal waste, which is about 2.24 million metric tons [35]. Additionally, in the oceans alone, it was reported that coastal human activities dumped about 1.1 to 8.8 million metric tons of plastic waste annually by Awuchi et al. [32], which is equivalent to almost 5 trillion pieces of plastic waste [36]. This shocking volume of plastic waste, according to recent studies, degrades more rapidly in seas and oceans, resulting in the release of toxic and harmful compounds such as phthalates and bisphenol, and thus threatening aquatic life.
Due to the huge volume of plastic waste, many researchers have attempted to solve the problems associated with plastic wastes by utilizing them as potential stabilizing materials to improve the soil mechanical properties used in pavement materials. For example, Gangwar and Sachin [6] investigated the effects of plastic waste on different properties of soils. They found that adding 1% of plastic waste can increase the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value. Peddaiah et al. [37] concluded that the addition of plastic can improve the shear strength and the CBR based on the type of soil. Kassa et al. [38] used a small plastic strip with clay soil, and showed that the addition of this strip plastic to the soil eliminated both the evaporating crack and the swelling pressure. Choudhary et al. [39] investigated the utilization of the waste plastic strip [38] in soil stabilization and demonstrated that the addition of plastic waste with a certain percentage can improve the CBR value and the secant modulus of the soil. Another study [40] showed that the soaked CBR value increased from 1.967 to 2.479 when the soil was mixed with 0.6% of plastic waste.
Kassa et al. [38] studied the effects of plastic bottle strips on different soil properties. They found that adding plastic strips can increase cohesion, as well as the angle of internal friction, and reduce the swelling pressure of the soil. Also, a significant improvement in unconfined compressive strength has been noticed for smaller strip sizes. Boobalan et al. [41] used plastic sheets in soil stabilization; the results revealed that the CBR percentages increased when placing the sheet at depths of H/2 and H/3. A recent study by Wani et al. [42] showed that the addition of 0.5% of plastic waste increased the unconfined compressive strength, and the highest value of CBR was obtained at 1.0% plastic waste addition.
The above-mentioned studies and the negative contributions of plastic wastes to the environment and aquatic life motivated the authors of this work to further explore the use of plastic wastes in soil stabilization. Thus, the main objective of this work is to investigate the use of a plastic waste material combined with cement as a potential blend to stabilize expansive clay soils against swelling and compressibility and to improve the CBR value. The plastic waste–cement blend was added to the soil at different percentages, and the zero swell method, the consolidation test, and the CBR test were employed to achieve the objective of this research.

2. Materials and Testing Program

2.1. Soil Selection

Two types of high-plasticity clay (CH) soils, known for their noticeable expansiveness and compressibility, were chosen for this study. To avoid the impact of organic matter, the soils were collected from a depth of 1 m below the ground surface and subsequently air-dried in the laboratory. The initial physical properties, such as grain size distribution, Atterberg’s limits, specific gravity, maximum dry unit weight, and optimum water content, were determined in accordance with ASTM standard procedures. Table 1 summarizes the physical properties of the two types of soils used in this study.

2.2. Sample Preparation

Before preparing the tested specimens, sufficient amounts of the two selected soils were sieved and passed through sieve # 40 to meet the swelling and consolidation test criteria as per ASTM D4546 [43]. A mixed waste plastic composed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastics was used. It was used without washing or any treatment. The plastic used in this study was shredded into three different dimensions in lengths of 1.0 cm, 1.5 cm, and 2.0 cm and a width of 1 mm, resulting in aspect ratios (L/D) of 10, 15, and 20, respectively. The plastic and cement were blended in a ratio of 1:5 (plastic to cement) for all three aspect ratios; this ratio was selected based on a preliminary experimental study. The mixture was added to the soils at five different percentages from 2% to 10% with a 2% increment. Remolded specimens were prepared at different percentages in a one-dimensional consolidometer standard ring. The specimens for the swelling pressure test and the consolidation test were remolded at 95% relative compaction and 2% below the optimum water content to allow the sample to swell when water was added. All of the specimens were prepared and sealed in plastic bags. Subsequently, the remolded specimens with identical initial conditions were tested after 2 days, 7 days, and 14 days of curing time since the time of preparation. It is worth mentioning that cement hydration is a time-dependent chemical reaction in which water interacts with cement minerals to produce calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) and calcium hydroxide. These compounds play a key role in strength development and enhance bonding within the soil matrix.
From the microstructural point of view, plastic particles might block the soil pores, change their size, and reduce the water flow. However, the microstructure of the plastic can fill the voids in the soil, and thus reduce the compressibility and permeability. Figure 1a represents the shredded plastic waste utilized in this study, while Figure 1b depicts the cement–plastic–soil mixture prepared and used in this study.

2.3. Testing Procedures

2.3.1. Swelling Test

The most common test to determine swelling pressure is known as the ‘zero swell test’, or the constant volume oedometer test, as recommended by ASTM D4546 [43] for both undisturbed and remolded specimens. The zero swell test was used to evaluate the swelling pressure of the expansive soils. In this test, the specimen was remolded in the consolidometer ring and then placed in a standard consolidation test cell. A seating load of 6.9 kPa was applied on the specimen, and water was added. Gradual increments of loads were added throughout the test to prevent swelling and compressibility. The swelling pressure can be defined as the maximum pressure reached when no further swelling or compressibility is observed. Furthermore, the swell potential of the soil was determined by the standard consolidation test. According to Seed et al. [44], the swell potential is defined as the ratio of the increase in thickness after swelling to the initial thickness of the soil sample before swelling in a consolidation ring under a seating pressure of 6.9 kPa. Figure 2 shows the zero swell method used to determine the swelling pressure, while Figure 3 shows the standard e-log P (consolidation) curve from the consolidation test generated to determine the swell potential and other consolidation parameters due to the addition of the plastic–cement mixture to the soils. After remolding the sample in the consolidometer, it was placed in the consolidation cell. A seating load of 6.9 kPa was applied on the sample, and then water was added. After that, the sample started swelling until it reached the maximum void ratio (maximum swelling). Then, increments of loads were added. The new loads consolidated the sample. Accordingly, a plot was drawn between the log P and its corresponding void ratio, as shown in Figure 3. From Figure 3, the maximum past pressure can be determined. The slope of the straight line in the e-log P curve represents the consolidation index Cc.

2.3.2. California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR)

The CBR test is a well-known laboratory test that gives an indication about the strength of a soil by measuring the resistance of the material to penetration by a standard plunger at a specific dry density and moisture content. The CBR (AASHTO Designation T 193-99, 2003) test can be conducted under soaked and unsoaked conditions. The value of the CBR varies between 0.0 and 100%. A higher value is an indication of a stronger soil with higher shear strength. In this test, the soil was passed through a sieve with a 19 mm opening. The soil was then blended with the shredded plastic waste at five different fractions by dry weights of the soil from 2% to 10% with a 2% increment. Then, the blend was compacted in a standard CBR mold at the maximum dry density and optimum water content. For the soaking conditions, a plate of 4.54 kg was placed on the top of the sample and submerged under the water for 4 days before testing.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Plastic–Cement Blend on Swelling Pressure and Swell Potential

The effects of the addition of the plastic–cement (P-C) blend on the swelling pressure of soil 1 and soil 2 are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. It is clear that the addition of the P-C blend leads to a reduction in swelling pressure for the two types of soils. Initially, a minor decrease in swelling pressure is observed at the low blend fraction of 2%. Subsequently, a sharp decline in swelling pressure occurs at 6% or higher blend fractions. It is also seen that the addition of up to 8% results in a substantial reduction in swelling pressure. For instance, after a 2-day curing period, the swelling pressure at a 10% blend substantially decreases from 4.8 kg/cm2 to 0.6 kg/cm2 for soil 1 and from 4.2 kg/cm2 to 0.6 kg/cm2 for soil 2. The percentages of reduction are almost 700% and 600% for soil 1 and soil 2, respectively. It is also noticed that a significant reduction occurs at a 6% P-C blend for the two soils. This reduction is attributed to the cement bonding between the cement–plastic blend and the soil. At low fractions of up to 2%, the soil particles and plastic are not completely bonded with the cement. Therefore, blends with higher cement fractions fully bond with the plastic and soil, and thus prevent the soil from expanding. The behavior of soil 2 is identical to soil 1, where a major reduction in swelling pressure takes place at a 6% mixture as well. This trend aligns with previous findings, where the inclusion of cement, alone or combined with materials like fly ash or lime, has been shown to significantly reduce swelling pressure. For example, a blend of 3% cement or 3.5% cement with 8% fly ash decreased the swelling pressure from 70 kPa to 0 kPa over a curing period of 7 to 28 days [45].
It is also noticed that the length of the plastic added to the cement has a positive impact on the swelling reduction. The length of the plastic is defined by the term aspect ratio, which is equal to L/D (length of plastic/width of plastic). Three aspect ratios are considered in this work, namely 10, 15, and 20. Figure 6 shows the effects of the aspect ratio on the swelling pressures of the two expansive soils at different fractions of the plastic–cement blend. For both types of soils, an increase in the aspect ratio decreases the swelling pressure for all fractions. For example, at a 6% blend, the swelling pressure for soil 1 decreases from 2.1 kg/m2 to 1 kg/m2 when the aspect ratio increases from 10 to 20. Similarly, for soil 2 at a 4% blend, the swelling pressure decreases from 3.7 kg/m2 to 2.5 kg/m2 when the aspect ratio increases from 10 to 20. As shown in Table 2, an increase in aspect ratio results in a measurable reduction in swelling pressure; the highest effect of the aspect ratio is noticed at 6% for soil 1 and at 4% for soil 2.
Figure 7 shows the effect of adding the P-C blend on the swell potential for soil 1 at different aspect ratios. Obviously, the increase in the P-C blend fraction results in a decrease in the swell potential. The swell potential decreases significantly when using a 6% P-C blend, while the soil is almost stabilized at 8%. Further increase in the P-C blend fraction has an insignificant impact on the swell potential.
The swell potential results for the two soils are presented in Table 3. It is seen that for both soils, an increase in the P-C blend fraction and an increase in the ratio decreases the swell potential; both types of soil show almost the same behavior in terms of the swell potential.

3.2. Effect of Plastic–Cement Blend on Consolidation Properties of Tested Clay Soils

Figure 8 shows the effect of the P-C blend percentage on the consolidation properties of soil 1 at an aspect ratio of 10. As the blend’s percentage increases, the e-log P curve shifts to the right, indicating that the value of the maximum past pressure increases, which enhances the soil to accept more load before normal settlement and behave more like over-consolidated clay. This trend aligns well with findings from previous studies, e.g., Refs. [46,47], which also observed a rightward shift in the consolidation curve with an increasing blend content, reflecting higher pre-consolidation pressure. It is also noticed that at low blend percentages, the slope of the version line in the consolidation curve is almost constant, whereas it decreases at percentages greater than 6%. The decrease in the slope of the version line indicates that the soil experiences less settlement due to the addition of the P-C blend at 8% and above. The increase in maximum pressure and the decrease in the version line slope are attributed to the cementitious bonding between the clay particles and the P-C blend. The plastic with cement works as a soil-reinforcing force to prevent the clay from settling, and therefore the soil becomes less compressible.
Figure 9 shows the effect of P-C blending on the maximum past pressure at three aspect ratios for soil 1. The maximum past pressure increases from 2.8 kg/cm2 to 9.6 kg/cm2 at a 10% P-C blend and an aspect ratio of 20. At this amount of P-C blend, the maximum past pressure increases as high as 242%. Figure 10 shows the relation between the P-C blend and the consolidation index. As mentioned earlier, the slope of the version line in the consolidation curve becomes gentler, demonstrating that the consolidation index Cc experiences a relatively high reduction due to the addition of the P-C blend. The Cc decreases from 0.43 to 0.2 at a 10% mixture and an aspect ratio of 20. Table 4 summarizes the effects of the addition of the P-C blend for soil 1 and soil 2 on the consolidation index and the maximum past pressure values. Obviously, a significant reduction in the consolidation index and a significant increase in the maximum past pressure are noticed with the increase in the P-C fraction at different aspect ratios for both soil 1 and soil 2.

3.3. Effect of Curing Time on Soil Stabilized with P-C Blend

Figure 11 shows the relationship between the curing time and the swelling pressure of the soil mixed with 8% P-C blend. The curing time has a significant impact on the reduction in swelling pressure. A substantial reduction in swelling pressure after two days of curing time is noticed (Figure 11). The swelling pressure decreases from 4.8 kg/cm2 to 2.2 kg/cm2 and from 4.2 kg/cm2 to 1.9 kg/cm2 for soils 1 and 2, respectively. A further reduction in swelling pressure is noticed when the curing time is 7 days. The swelling pressure decreases from 4.8 kg/cm2 to 0.8 kg/cm2 and from 4.2 kg/cm2 to 0.8 kg/cm2 for soils 1 and 2, respectively, at an aspect ratio of 20. However, the two expansive soils show an insignificant reduction in swelling pressure, as no difference in the swelling pressure can be noticed between 7 and 14 days of curing time. This implies that 7 days is the optimum curing time to stabilize the soil. Plastic waste is a non-biodegradable material, and because it is embedded in the soil, it is expected to last for a long time. These findings are in good agreement with previous studies, e.g., Ref. [48], which reported similar trends in swelling pressure reduction for clayey soils with lime and gypsum as the curing time increased.

3.4. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

Figure 12 shows the relationship between the content of shredded plastic waste and the CBR values of soil 1 under both soaked and unsoaked conditions. The inclusion of the shredded plastic waste significantly enhances the CBR values for all aspect ratios. For the soaked condition, the CBR values increase steadily with the addition of shredded plastic waste up to a 2% content, beyond which the improvement stabilizes. At an aspect ratio of 15, the CBR value achieves the highest improvement, with the CBR increasing from 6% to 16% for shredded plastic waste contents ranging from 0% to 2%.
Similarly, for the unsoaked condition, the CBR values exhibit a progressive increase with the inclusion of shredded plastic waste, with the aspect ratio of 15 showing the highest improvement. The CBR values increase from approximately 4% to 18% for shredded plastic contents ranging from 0% to 2%. Both the soaked and unsoaked conditions illustrate that an aspect ratio of 15 provides superior performance in improving the CBR values compared to aspect ratios of 10 and 5. This suggested that a higher aspect ratio of shredded plastic waste is more effective in enhancing the soil strength. Figure 12 demonstrates that adding shredded plastic waste is an effective method for improving the bearing capacity of the soils, especially with higher aspect ratios, under both soaked and unsoaked conditions. However, the improvement is more pronounced in the unsoaked condition. These results align well with previous studies. For instance, the research by [49] demonstrated that incorporating a 0.4% plastic content in the form of strips measuring 5 mm in width and 10 mm in length significantly enhanced the strength characteristics of the soil. Similarly, another study [50] reported a notable increase in CBR values when the soil was reinforced with 1% plastic strips compared to unreinforced samples. Additionally, the inclusion of 1% plastic waste in both clayey soils and clay–fly ash mixtures was shown to improve CBR values under both soaked and unsoaked conditions [51].
Figure 13 shows the effect of the shredded plastic waste content on the CBR values of soil 2 under soaked and unsoaked conditions. In both conditions, the CBR values increase steadily with a higher plastic waste content, with the most significant improvement observed at an aspect ratio of 15. For the soaked condition, the CBR increases from approximately 4% to 16%, while for the unsoaked condition, it increases from approximately 4% to 21% as the plastic content rises from 0% to 2%.
The results indicate that higher aspect ratios and unsoaked conditions yield the greatest improvements in soil strength, highlighting the effectiveness of shredded plastic waste as a soil stabilizer. Table 5 further demonstrates the impact of plastic waste content and aspect ratios on the percentage increase in CBR values. It shows that the unsoaked condition consistently achieves greater improvements, particularly at an aspect ratio of 15.

4. Conclusions

Based on the swelling and consolidation test results of the two highly plastic soils mixed with the plastic waste–cement blend, the following conclusion remarks can be drawn:
  • The incorporation of the plastic waste–cement blend effectively reduces both the swelling pressure and swell potential of highly expansive soils, indicating improvement in the highly expansive soils.
  • An optimal blend of 8% of plastic waste–cement significantly minimizes the expansive behavior of clay soils, offering a practical solution for the clay soils.
  • The inclusion of shredded plastic waste in the soil mix leads to lower consolidation index values and a higher maximum past pressure, contributing to a more stable and less compressible soil structure.
  • Increasing the aspect ratio of the plastic strips results in further reductions in swelling pressure, swell potential, and consolidation index, while simultaneously increasing the maximum past pressure, thereby enhancing the mechanical behavior of the soil.
  • A curing time of 7 days is identified as the most effective duration for the plastic–cement blend to stabilize the soil.
  • The results of the CBR tests reveal that adding shredded plastic waste significantly improves the soil’s bearing capacity, particularly under unsoaked conditions and at higher aspect ratios. An aspect ratio of 15 yields the most substantial improvements, with the CBR values increasing up to approximately 21% for soil 2 and 18% for soil 1 under unsoaked conditions with a 2% shredded plastic content.
  • These findings suggest that plastic waste can serve as a viable material for soil stabilization, offering both engineering benefits and an environmentally friendly approach to reducing plastic waste disposal challenges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A., S.A.-A. and M.Y.; methodology, M.A., M.Y., R.V., A.K. and A.E.; software, R.V., N.A.-L., A.K. and A.E.; validation, M.A., S.A.-A. and M.Y.; formal analysis, M.A., S.A.-A., M.Y., R.V., N.A.-L., A.K. and A.E.; investigation, M.A., S.A.-A. and M.Y.; resources, M.A. and M.Y.; data curation, M.A., N.A.-L., A.K. and A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A., S.A.-A., M.Y., R.V., N.A.-L., A.K. and A.E.; writing—review and editing, M.A., S.A.-A., M.Y. and R.V.; visualization, M.A., S.A.-A., M.Y., R.V., N.A.-L., A.K. and A.E.; supervision, M.A. and M.Y.; project administration, M.A. and M.Y.; funding acquisition, M.A., S.A.-A. and M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the American University of Sharjah (AUS) through the Faculty Research Grant program (FRG20-M-E61) and the Open Access Program (OAP).

Data Availability Statement

All data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support and contributions of the American University of Sharjah (AUS), their Civil Engineering Department staff. The work in this paper was supported, in part, by the Open Access Program from the American University of Sharjah. This paper represents the opinions of the authors and does not represent the opinions or position of the American University of Sharjah.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amena, S.; Chakeri, D. A study on the effects of plastic waste strips and lime on strength characteristics of expansive soil. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 6952525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gromko, G.J. Review of expansive soils. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1974, 100, 667–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Winterkorn, H.F.; Pamukcu, S. Soil stabilization and grouting. In Foundation Engineering Handbook; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; pp. 317–378. [Google Scholar]
  4. Yamin, M.; Attom, M.F.; Atabay, S.; Vandanapu, R. The Effect of Compaction Effort on Shear Strength Parameters of Low/High Plasticity Clay Soils. Geotech. Eng. 2021, 52, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Khalil, A.; Khan, Z.; Attom, M.; Khalafalla, O. Evaluation of Ground Improvement with Dynamic Replacement and Rapid Impact Compaction of an Artificial Island in the UAE—A Case Study. Geo-Congr. 2024, 2024, 116–125. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gangwar, P.; Tiwari, S. Stabilization of soil with waste plastic bottles. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 3802–3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Archibong, G.A.; Sunday, E.U.; Akudike, J.C.; Okeke, O.C.; Amadi, C. A review of the principles and methods of soil stabilization. Int. J. Adv. Acad. Res.|Sci. 2020, 6, 2488–9849. [Google Scholar]
  8. Banu, S.; Attom, M. Internal Erosion Stabilization of Cohesionless Soil Using Lime. Water 2023, 15, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Banu, S.A.; Attom, M.F. Effect of Curing Time on Lime-Stabilized Sandy Soil against Internal Erosion. Geosciences 2023, 13, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Andavan, S.; Kumar, B.M. Case study on soil stabilization by using bitumen emulsions–A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 22, 1200–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nayem, N.H. Enhancement of Soil Characteristics Using Different Stabilization Techniques. Environ. Eng. 2023, 8, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  12. Amiralian, S.; Chegenizadeh, A.; Nikraz, H. A review on the lime and fly ash application in soil stabilization. Int. J. Biol. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2012, 1, 124–126. [Google Scholar]
  13. Attom, M.; Mortula, M.M.; Munjed, A. Shear strength stabilization using burned sludge ash. Int. J. Adv. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2017, 4, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zafar, T.; Ansari, M.A.; Husain, A. Soil stabilization by reinforcing natural and synthetic fibers–A state of the art review. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Radwan, M.K.H.; Lee, F.W.; Woon, Y.B.; Yew, M.K.; Mo, K.H.; Wai, S.H. A study of the strength performance of peat soil: A modified cement-based stabilization agent using fly ash and polypropylene fiber. Polymers 2021, 13, 4059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khalil, A.; Khan, Z.; Attom, M.; Fattah, K.; Ali, T.; Mortula, M. Continuous Evaluation of Shear Wave Velocity from Bender Elements during Monotonic Triaxial Loading. Materials 2023, 16, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Khalil, A.; Khan, Z.H.; Attom, M.; El Emam, M.; Fattah, K. Dynamic Properties of Calcareous Sands from Urban Areas of Abu Dhabi. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Banu, S.; Attom, M.; Abed, F.; Vandanapu, R.; Astillo, P.V.; Al-Lozi, N.; Khalil, A. Numerical analysis of the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing constructed on sand-over-clay sediment. Buildings 2024, 14, 1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Attom, M.F.; Vandanapu, R.; Khan, Z.; Yamin, M.; Astillo, P.V.; Eltayeb, A.; Khalil, A. Prediction of internal erosion parameters of clay soils using initial physical properties. Water 2024, 16, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wen, T.; Luo, Y.; Tang, M.; Chen, X.; Shao, L. Effects of representative elementary volume size on three-dimensional pore characteristics for modified granite residual soil. J. Hydrol. 2024, 643, 132006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Majeed, M.; Tangri, A.P. Stabilization of soil using industrial wastes. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; p. 012018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Azni, I.; Katayon, S.; Ratnasamy, M.; Johari, M.M.N.M. Stabilization and utilization of hospital waste as road and asphalt aggregate. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2005, 7, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ikara, I.A.; Kundiri, A.M.; Mohammed, A. Effects of waste glass (WG) on the strength characteristics of cement stabilized expansive soil. Am. J. Eng. Res. (AJER) 2015, 4, 33–41. [Google Scholar]
  24. Perera, S.T.A.M.; Saberian, M.; Zhu, J.; Roychand, R.; Li, J. Effect of crushed glass on the mechanical and microstructural behavior of highly expansive clay subgrade. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Phanikumar, B.R. Effect of lime and fly ash on swell, consolidation and shear strength characteristics of expansive clays: A comparative study. Geomech. Geoengin. Int. J. 2009, 4, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patel, S.K.; Singh, B. A comparative study on shear strength and deformation behaviour of clayey and sandy soils reinforced with glass fibre. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2020, 38, 4831–4845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Almesfer, N.; Ingham, J. Effect of waste glass on the properties of concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 06014022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abdallah, S.; Fan, M. Characteristics of concrete with waste glass as fine aggregate replacement. Int. J. Eng. Tech. Res. 2014, 2, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zuaiter, M.; Khalil, A.; Elkafrawy, M.; Hawileh, R.; AlHamaydeh, M.; Ayman, A.; Kim, T.Y. Effect of blending GGBS and silica fume on the mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 9091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wong, S.L.; Ngadi, N.; Abdullah, T.A.T.; Inuwa, I.M. Current state and future prospects of plastic waste as source of fuel: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 1167–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Eltayeb, A.; Attom, M. The Use of Shredded Plastic Water Bottles in Soil Stabilization. Eurasia Proc. Sci. Technol. Eng. Math. 2021, 13, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Awuchi, C.G.; Awuchi, C.G. Impacts of plastic pollution on the sustainability of seafood value chain and human health. Int. J. Adv. Acad. Res. 2019, 5, 46–138. [Google Scholar]
  33. Khoo, K.S.; Ho, L.Y.; Lim, H.R.; Leong, H.Y.; Chew, K.W. Plastic waste associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: Crisis or opportunity? J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Law, K.L.; Starr, N.; Siegler, T.R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Mallos, N.J.; Leonard, G.H. The United States’ contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabd0288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bajracharya, R.M.; Manalo, A.C.; Karunasena, W.; Lau, K. Characterisation of recycled mixed plastic solid wastes: Coupon and full-scale investigation. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peddaiah, S.; Burman, A.; Sreedeep, S. Experimental study on effect of waste plastic bottle strips in soil improvement. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2018, 36, 2907–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kassa, R.B.; Workie, T.; Abdela, A.; Fekade, M.; Saleh, M.; Dejene, Y. Soil stabilization using waste plastic materials. Open J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 10, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Choudhary, A.K.; Jha, J.N.; Gill, K.S. Utilization of plastic wastes for improving the sub-grades in flexible pavements. In Paving Materials and Pavement Analysis; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2010; pp. 320–326. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jaya, A.D.; Sunil, A.; Joseph, M.; Varghese, M.; Veena, M. Soil Stabilization Using Raw Plastic Bottles. In Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference, Kochi, India, 15–17 December 2011; pp. 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  41. Boobalan, S.C.; Anandakumar, P.K.; Sathasivam, M. Utilization of waste plastic sheets as soil stabilization materials. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wani, I.A.; Sheikh, I.M.; Maqbool, T.; Kumar, V. Experimental investigation on using plastic wastes to enhance several engineering properties of soil through stabilization. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 4571–4574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. ASTM International. Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Collapse of Soils; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  44. Seed, H.B.; Jr, R.J.W.; Lundgren, R. Prediction of swelling potential for compacted clays. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1962, 88, 53–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Muci, R.; Skrame, K.; Fociro, O.; Mancini, M.; Gaudiosi, I.; Simionato, M. Effect of cement and fly-ash on the geotechnical properties of expansive clay soils. Ital. J. Geosci. 2021, 140, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tripathy, S.; Mishra, A.K. On the use of Skempton’s compression index equation. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2011, 29, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Eskisar, T. Influence of cement treatment on unconfined compressive strength and compressibility of lean clay with medium plasticity. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40, 763–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pakbaz, M.S.; Keshani, A. Evaluation of time rate of swelling pressure development due to the presence of sulfate in clayey soils stabilized with lime. GEOMATE J. 2017, 12, 161–165. [Google Scholar]
  49. Shah, A.; Thaker, T. Utilization of post-consumer plastic water bottles as an admixture for improving the soil subgrade. In Geo-Congress 2024; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA; pp. 471–481.
  50. Solanki, Y.; Jambudia, M.; Shah, A. Analysis and modification of engineering behavior of soil using plastic waste materials. In Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019: IGC-2019, Surat, India, 19–21 December 2019; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume III, pp. 661–669. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mandal, M.; Roy, N.; Bag, R. Effect of plastic waste on strength of clayey soil and clay mixed with fly ash. In Problematic Soils and Geoenvironmental Concerns: Proceedings of IGC 2018; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 549–564. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 15 01387 g001
Figure 1. (a) Shredded plastic waste; (b) mixture of soil with cement and plastic waste used in this study.
Figure 1. (a) Shredded plastic waste; (b) mixture of soil with cement and plastic waste used in this study.
Buildings 15 01387 g001
Buildings 15 01387 g002
Figure 2. Void ratio versus swelling pressure in zero swell method.
Figure 2. Void ratio versus swelling pressure in zero swell method.
Buildings 15 01387 g002
Buildings 15 01387 g003
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of consolidation test.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of consolidation test.
Buildings 15 01387 g003
Buildings 15 01387 g004
Figure 4. Effects of plastic–cement blend on swelling pressure of soil 1 at varying blend fractions and aspect ratios.
Figure 4. Effects of plastic–cement blend on swelling pressure of soil 1 at varying blend fractions and aspect ratios.
Buildings 15 01387 g004
Buildings 15 01387 g005
Figure 5. Effects of plastic–cement blend on swelling pressure of soil 2 at varying blend fractions and aspect ratios.
Figure 5. Effects of plastic–cement blend on swelling pressure of soil 2 at varying blend fractions and aspect ratios.
Buildings 15 01387 g005
Buildings 15 01387 g006
Figure 6. The effect of the aspect ratio on the swelling pressure at different plastic–cement fractions for the two types of soils.
Figure 6. The effect of the aspect ratio on the swelling pressure at different plastic–cement fractions for the two types of soils.
Buildings 15 01387 g006
Buildings 15 01387 g007
Figure 7. Effect of plastic–cement blend on swell potential of soil 1.
Figure 7. Effect of plastic–cement blend on swell potential of soil 1.
Buildings 15 01387 g007
Buildings 15 01387 g008
Figure 8. e-log p curve at different plastic–cement blend fractions at aspect ratio of 10 for soil 1.
Figure 8. e-log p curve at different plastic–cement blend fractions at aspect ratio of 10 for soil 1.
Buildings 15 01387 g008
Buildings 15 01387 g009
Figure 9. Effect of plastic–cement blend fraction on maximum past pressure for soil 1 at different ratios.
Figure 9. Effect of plastic–cement blend fraction on maximum past pressure for soil 1 at different ratios.
Buildings 15 01387 g009
Buildings 15 01387 g010
Figure 10. Effect of plastic–cement blend on consolidation index for soil 1 at different aspect ratios.
Figure 10. Effect of plastic–cement blend on consolidation index for soil 1 at different aspect ratios.
Buildings 15 01387 g010
Buildings 15 01387 g011
Figure 11. Effect of curing time on swelling pressure of (a) soil 1 and (b) soil 2 at 8% P-C blend and different aspect ratios.
Figure 11. Effect of curing time on swelling pressure of (a) soil 1 and (b) soil 2 at 8% P-C blend and different aspect ratios.
Buildings 15 01387 g011
Buildings 15 01387 g012
Figure 12. CBR values versus content of shredded plastic waste for soil 1 in (a) soaked and (b) unsoaked conditions.
Figure 12. CBR values versus content of shredded plastic waste for soil 1 in (a) soaked and (b) unsoaked conditions.
Buildings 15 01387 g012
Buildings 15 01387 g013
Figure 13. CBR values versus content of shredded plastic waste for soil 2 in (a) soaked and (b) unsoaked conditions.
Figure 13. CBR values versus content of shredded plastic waste for soil 2 in (a) soaked and (b) unsoaked conditions.
Buildings 15 01387 g013
Table 1. Physical properties of selected soils.
Table 1. Physical properties of selected soils.
Soil 1Soil 2
Liquid Limit (%)8163
Plastic Limit2622
Plasticity Index5341
ɣdmax [kN/m3]13.113.7
Water Optimum Content (%)4133
Sand (%)812
Silt (%)1827
Clay (%)7461
Activity7267
Specific Gravity 2.62.7
Kaolinite (%)14.219.2
Illite (%)31.227.1
Montmorillonite (%)24.118.1
Chlorite (%)14.816.7
Classification (Unified Soil Classification System)CHCH
Table 2. Percentage of reduction in swelling pressure at different aspect ratios.
Table 2. Percentage of reduction in swelling pressure at different aspect ratios.
Blend Fraction (%)Aspect Ratio
101520
% Reduction
Soil 126.312.514.6
420.835.439.6
656.368.879.2
875.077.183.3
1081.381.387.5
Soil 2211.111.113.3
417.822.244.4
655.664.477.8
875.680.082.2
1080.082.286.7
Table 3. Swell potential and percentage of swell potential reduction at different mixture percentages and aspect ratios for soil 1 and soil 2.
Table 3. Swell potential and percentage of swell potential reduction at different mixture percentages and aspect ratios for soil 1 and soil 2.
Blend Fraction (%)Swell Potential (%)Percent Reduction (%)
Aspect RatioAspect Ratio
101520101520
Soil 10212121000
21918189.514.314.3
41311938.147.657.1
6108652.461.971.4
866471.471.481.0
1065471.476.281.0
Soil 201717170.00.00.0
21616155.95.911.8
41412917.629.447.1
61210729.441.258.8
886452.964.776.5
1075458.870.676.5
Table 4. Consolidation index and maximum past pressure values at different mixture percentages and aspect ratios for soil 1 and soil 2.
Table 4. Consolidation index and maximum past pressure values at different mixture percentages and aspect ratios for soil 1 and soil 2.
SoilMixture Percentage (%)Consolidation IndexMaximum Past Pressure (kg/cm2)
Aspect RatioAspect Ratio
101520101520
Soil 100.430.430.432.82.82.8
20.430.430.423.13.23.3
40.40.390.373.73.94.4
60.380.350.334.64.95.6
80.350.320.285.66.07.1
100.310.290.26.97.69.6
Soil 200.390.390.392.52.52.5
20.380.360.332.62.62.8
40.360.340.33.53.73.9
60.310.30.294.14.24.6
80.300.280.274.55.05.7
100.280.270.234.96.17.4
Table 5. CBR values at different plastic waste content percentages and aspect ratios for soil 1 and soil 2 in soaked and unsoaked conditions.
Table 5. CBR values at different plastic waste content percentages and aspect ratios for soil 1 and soil 2 in soaked and unsoaked conditions.
Soil Type% of Plastic Waste% Increase in CBR
Aspect Ratio = 5Aspect Ratio = 10Aspect Ratio = 15
Soaked Soil 10.546.6757.7873.33
177.7882.22102.22
1.5106.67124.44162.22
280.00173.33215.56
Unsoaked Soil 10.551.1173.3395.56
1102.22142.22164.44
1.5120.00193.33231.11
2126.67244.44286.67
Soaked Soil 20.536.0056.0062.00
168.0078.00114.00
1.596.00124.00172.00
294.00174.00208.00
Unsoaked Soil 20.556.0078.0098.00
1122.00164.00196.00
1.5162.00218.00256.00
2196.00264.00318.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Attom, M.; Al-Asheh, S.; Yamin, M.; Vandanapu, R.; Al-Lozi, N.; Khalil, A.; Eltayeb, A. Soil Improvement Using Plastic Waste–Cement Mixture to Control Swelling and Compressibility of Clay Soils. Buildings 2025, 15, 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081387

AMA Style

Attom M, Al-Asheh S, Yamin M, Vandanapu R, Al-Lozi N, Khalil A, Eltayeb A. Soil Improvement Using Plastic Waste–Cement Mixture to Control Swelling and Compressibility of Clay Soils. Buildings. 2025; 15(8):1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081387

Chicago/Turabian Style

Attom, Mousa, Sameer Al-Asheh, Mohammad Yamin, Ramesh Vandanapu, Naser Al-Lozi, Ahmed Khalil, and Ahmed Eltayeb. 2025. "Soil Improvement Using Plastic Waste–Cement Mixture to Control Swelling and Compressibility of Clay Soils" Buildings 15, no. 8: 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081387

APA Style

Attom, M., Al-Asheh, S., Yamin, M., Vandanapu, R., Al-Lozi, N., Khalil, A., & Eltayeb, A. (2025). Soil Improvement Using Plastic Waste–Cement Mixture to Control Swelling and Compressibility of Clay Soils. Buildings, 15(8), 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081387

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop