Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691

International Conference on Solid Waste Management, 5IconSWM 2015

An Overview on the Use of Waste Plastic Bottles and Fly Ash in

Civil Engineering Applications
Sushovan Dutta*, M. B. Nadaf, J. N. Mandal*
IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, India

Abstract

With rapid growth in population, it becomes difficult to control the huge amount of residual materials generated from
enormous industrial activities. The residuals that are not recycled, reclaimed or reused constitute the wastes only to get released
to the environment. As some of the wastes cannot be assimilated by the environment, those can become hazardous for the
environment quality and ensure pollution. This paper expresses the concern on two such industrial wastes, used plastic water
bottles and fly ash. The present study emphasizes on the reuse of used waste plastic water bottles in the Civil Engineering
applications and in this regard, it discusses the previous work by Dutta and Mandal (2013). Two different type plastic water
bottles, having different diameter and tensile stiffness, were chosen to prepare perforated cells of different heights wrapped with
jute geotextile from inner side so that fine infill materials cannot escape from the perforations. Laboratory strain controlled
compression tests were carried out on the cells rested over a rigid base and filled with compacted fly ash or stone aggregates. Test
results showed significant load carrying capacity of the composite cells with fly ash as infill material. Though fine fly ash
appeared to be an effective infill material, use of coarse stone aggregates as infill material produced better load carrying capacity
of the composite cells. It was also observed that with reduction in cell height over the rigid base, load carrying capacity of the
composite cells got increased. The study confirmed that plastic bottles with suitable infill material can act as an ideal
compression member.
2016
2016TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published B.V.B.V.
by Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of 5IconSWM 2015.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of 5IconSWM 2015
Keywords: Waste plastic bottle; Fly ash; Cell; Jute geotextile; Infill material; Stone aggregates; Load carrying capacity;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sushovan@iitb.ac.in

1878-0296 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of 5IconSWM 2015
doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.067
682 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691

1.0 Introduction

According to NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES (NPCS), most single serve plastic bottles,
including those for water, soft drink and juice are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), one of the
most common types of plastics. Plastic consumption in India may reach 18.9 million tons by 2015, half of that in the
form of packaging and bottles (Dolat Capital 2011). For the environmentally conscious citizens and organizations,
disposing off the non-biodegradable used plastic bottles has become a major concern. Approximately 600 billion
bottles are discarded every year all around the world and only 47% is collected (Perpetual Global Ltd.). The problem
with what to do with used bottles is particularly acute in a country like India where the collection rate for used PET
bottles (75%) is well above the global average (Trani and Tandon 2012). A significant portion of these collected
bottles end up in landfills or incinerators, and the remainder is mechanically recycled/ down cycled. Disposable
plastics are the greatest source of plastic pollution. The amount of plastic pollution in the oceans and deserts is
expanding at a catastrophic rate. Plastic recycling is not a sustainable solution to the crisis. Recycling of plastic is
costly and does not stem the production of virgin plastic product. Instead of recycling, reuse of plastic is beneficial
to overcome the disposal problems and also economical. As per available literatures, experimental investigations
have been performed in the direction of using waste plastic bottles as cellular reinforcements with fly ash by Ram
Rathan Lal and Mandal (2012, 2013, 2014a, b), as cells by Dutta and Mandal (2013) and as geocell mattress by
Dutta and Mandal (2015).

Fly ash, generated as a byproduct due to the combustion of pulverized coals in the thermal power plants,
possesses the properties that reflect minerals present in the coals. In India, generally same types of coals are used in
different power plants. In the absence of a well-planned strategy in India for the disposal of fly ash, it is posing
serious health and ecological hazards (Kanojia et al. 2001). The quantity of fly ash produced annually in India by the
88 coal/ lignite based thermal power stations of various power utilities reached 131.09 million tons during the year
2010-12, while total ash utilized was 73.13 million tons with percentage utilization of 55.79% [FLYASH Utilisation
(FAU) 2013]. The utilization and disposal of fly ash in environment friendly manner is of foremost concern in
countries where majority of electricity is produced through thermal power plants. Attempts were made to use fly ash
as bulk fill material (Raymond 1958; Gray and Lin 1972; Joshi et al. 1975), for soil stabilization (Chu et al. 1955;
Goecker et al. 1956; Viskochil et al. 1957; Vasquez and Alonso 1981; Tastan et al. 2011) and land reclamation (Kim
and Chun 1994). Studies on the bearing capacity of shallow foundation on unreinforced fly ash were reported by
DiGioia and Nuzzo (1972) and Kaushik and Ramasamy (1999). Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash
reinforced with jute-geotextile was reported by Ghosh et al. (2005). Model tests on fly ash, reinforced with single
layer and double layers of geotextile, overlying soft soil were performed by Ghosh and Dey (2009).

The present study states the feasibility of reusing waste plastic water bottles as ideal compression member in
various Geotechnical applications by illustrating the work by Dutta and Mandal (2013) which consisted of
compression tests on plastic water bottles with infill materials as fly ash and stone aggregates.

2.0 Material Description

The materials used in the present study are post-consumer plastic water bottles, woven jute geotextile, stone
aggregates and fly ash. Plastic bottles and jute geotextile were used to prepare the cells while the stone aggregates
and fly ash were the infill materials. Description of the different materials is reported here.

2.1 Plastic Bottle Cells

The present investigation includes two different types of plastic water bottles collected from the waste disposal
in Mumbai, India. One set of bottle cells were of 105 mm diameter (Type A), while the other was of 75 mm
diameter (Type B). The maximum usable height of the bottles to acquire a perfectly vertical round shaped cell was
200 mm. First, the bottles were cut in to three different heights to attain cells of height 200 mm, 100 mm and 50
mm. Then those were perforated with a hot iron needle to make apertures of 10 mm diameter around the
circumference and along the height of the cell maintaining an average 20 mm centre to centre spacing as shown in
Figure 1. Before making perforations of 10 mm diameter with a 10 mm diameter hot iron needle, the locations of
 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691 683

perforation, i.e., centres of the perforations were marked at an average 20 mm centre to centre spacing over the cell
walls both along the height and around the circumference leaving minimum 10 mm gap from either end of the
bottles to provide regular and same arrangement of the openings in all tests. Thus, the cell heights of 200 mm, 100
mm and 50 mm have ten, five and two perforations respectively along the height. Around the circumference, the
Type A bottles of diameter 105 mm and Type B bottles of diameter 75 mm got seventeen and twelve perforations
respectively for all the heights.

Fig. 1: Perforated plastic bottle cell

Narrow plastic strips of 50 mm width and 75 mm gauge length were cut from both types of cells to perform cut
strip tensile strength test as shown in Figure 2 according to ASTM D5035-11. Figure 3 incorporates the tensile
strength-strain response of both types of bottle cells. It can be observed that the 105 mm diameter cell (Type A)
shows more tensile strength though failed at a lesser tensile strain compared to the 75 mm diameter cell (Type B).
Some properties of the prepared plastic bottle cells are mentioned in Table 1.

Fig. 2. Cut strip tensile strength test on a plastic strip specimen cut from the bottle cell (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)
684 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691

Fig. 3. Tensile strength - strain response of the plastic strip specimens (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

Table 1: Properties of plastic bottle cells (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

Materials Properties Value

Aperture size 10 mm diameter
Ultimate tensile strength 24 kN/m
Type A cell Strain at failure 13.3 %
(105 mm diameter)
Ultimate tensile stiffness 177 kN/m
Thickness 0.3 mm
Aperture size 10 mm diameter
Ultimate tensile strength 12 kN/m
Type B cell Strain at failure 25 %
(75 mm diameter)
Ultimate tensile stiffness 50 kN/m
Thickness 0.16 mm

2.2 Jute Geotextile

The prepared plastic bottle cells were wrapped around from the inner side with a jute geotextile to prevent
escaping of the infill material. Thickness of the multifilament woven jute geotextile under 2 kPa normal pressure
was 1.8 mm (ASTM D5199-12) with mass per unit area 0.72 kg/m2 (ASTM D5261). Its tensile strength was
determined as per ASTM D4595 for wide width tensile strength test as shown in Figure 4. The peak tensile strength
in machine and cross machine direction was 10 kN/m and 8 kN/m respectively. The tensile strength-strain curve in
machine direction is shown in Figure 5.
 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691 685

Fig. 4. Wide width tensile strength test on woven jute geotextile (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

Fig. 5. Tensile strength-strain curve of jute geotextile in machine direction (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

2.3 Fly Ash

Fly ash, if designed properly, can deliver strength and compressibility comparable to most soil fill materials and
also acquires lower dry unit weight (Kim et al. 2005). Fly ash used in the present study was collected from Koradi
Thermal Power Station, Nagpur, India. X Ray Florescence (XRF) test was conducted on the fly ash to identify its
basic chemical composition. The percentage of basic chemical compounds present in the fly ash were SiO2
(63.52%), Al2O3 (26.89%), Fe2O3 (5%) and CaO (1.23%). Total loss on ignition was 1.49%. As per ASTM C618,
this fly ash is classified as Class F. Specific gravity of the fly ash was 2.15 (ASTM D854-10). It contained mainly
silt sized particles (78%), sand sized particles (15%) and clay sized particles (7%). The maximum dry unit weight
686 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691

and optimum moisture content (OMC) as per the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D698-12) were 12.1 kN/m3 and 24%
respectively. Although at dry state fly ash has no cohesion value, it develops apparent cohesion while compacted in
presence of water. The cohesion and angle of internal friction of the fly ash at OMC are 26 kPa and 28 respectively
as determined from consolidated drained (CD) triaxial tests as per ASTM D7181-11.

2.4 Stone Aggregates

The stone aggregates were angular shaped with size ranging from 2 mm to 10 mm. Large scale direct shear tests
were conducted on the stone aggregates to find out its shear strength properties. The angle of internal friction ()
and cohesion (c) were found to be 35 and 0 kPa respectively.

3.0 Preparation of Composite Cells

First, the cell was kept on a base plate of 200 mm diameter and 15 mm thickness. Then it was filled with infill
material in equal layers providing proper compaction to each layer so as to achieve uniform density. A 10 mm
diameter steel rod was used to compact the stone aggregates inside the cells. For each test, the density of the stone
aggregates was maintained 1.6 gm/cc. A specially manufactured steel rammer of 30 mm diameter was used to
compact the fly ash inside the cells. The fly ash was compacted with 4% water content i.e. dry side of optimum and
90% degree of compaction was achieved. Figures 6(a) and (b) show the composite cells filled with stone aggregates
and fly ash respectively.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Plastic bottle cells wrapped with jute geotextile and filled with (a) Stone aggregates (b) fly ash (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

4.0 Laboratory Model Tests

Laboratory compression tests were performed on the composite cells using a computerized universal testing
machine at a constant displacement rate of 1.2 mm/min. Diameter of the loading plate was 200 mm with 15 mm
thickness. Figure 7 shows the experimental test set up along with its schematic representation. The detailed
experimental program is reported in Table 2.
 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691 687

Fig. 7. Experimental set up along with the schematic for strain controlled compression test (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

5.0 Results and Discussions

The model tests depicted the basic failure pattern of the plastic bottle cells. The influencing factors considered
were height, diameter and stiffness of cells as well as the infill material.

Table 2: Experimental Program (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

Test type Model conditions

Cell type: Type A plastic bottle cell, D = 105 mm, Tult = 24 kN/m
T1 Infill material: Stone aggregates, Unit weight = 16 kN/m3
Variables: h = 200 mm, 100 mm, 50 mm
Cell type: Type B plastic bottle cell, D = 75 mm, Tult = 12 kN/m
T2 Infill material: Stone aggregates, Unit weight = 16 kN/m3
Variables: h = 200 mm, 100 mm, 50 mm
Cell type: Type B plastic bottle cell, D = 75 mm, Tult = 12 kN/m
T3 Infill material: Fly ash, Moisture content = 4 %, Degree of compaction = 90%
Variables: h = 200 mm, 100 mm, 50 mm

5.1 Failure Pattern

The unconfined compression tests resulted in a similar failure pattern for all the cases. The bottle cells wrinkled
as well as deformed laterally under compression load. Plastic failure occurred after a huge settlement. The
deformation pattern of a plastic cell under compression is shown in Figure 8.
688 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691

Fig. 8. Deformation of 200 mm height, 105 mm diameter bottle cells (T1)

(a) before loading (b) during loading (c) at failure (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

5.2 Effect of height (h)

Figures 9(a) and (b) show the pressure-settlement responses of cells filled with stone aggregates for T1 and T2
respectively. Same behaviour was observed for both the cases. At a particular settlement value, load carrying
capacity increased with decrease in the height of cell over a rigid base. As the height of cell decreases, the failure
plane underneath the loading plate intersects the rigid base at a short distance. Also, with decrease in the height of
cell, its bending stiffness increases. These two may attribute to the enhanced cell capacity with decrease in cell
height. Pokharel et al. (2010) also reported same type of behavior of a single geocell over rigid base under static
compression.
Compressive stress (kPa) Compressive stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 0

10
10
20
20
30
Deformation (mm)

Deformation (mm)

30 40

40 50

60
50 h = 50 mm
h = 50 mm
70
h = 100 mm
60 h = 100 mm
80 h = 200 mm
h = 200 mm
70 90
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Effect of height on pressure-settlement responses (a) T1, D = 105 mm (b) T2, D = 75 mm (After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

5.3 Effect of Cell Diameter (D)

Two different diameter plastic bottles, 105 mm and 75 mm diameter, were used in the present study. However,
they have different tensile properties. Hence, no direct comparison can be drawn in respect of the cell diameter.
 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691 689

5.4 Effect of Infill Material

Figure 10 shows the effect of infill material on load carrying capacity of cells where stone aggregates and fly
ash were used as infill materials in the Type B (75 mm diameter) bottle cells. It can be observed that at a particular
settlement value, the cells filled with stone aggregates shows better responses compared to fly ash as infill material.
It pertains to the higher stiffness of the stone aggregates. Also the stone aggregates have higher friction angle with
no cohesion unlike the fly ash having apparent cohesion after compaction and lesser friction angle than the stone
aggregates. It is also observed that it failed at lesser compressive stress but experienced higher compressive strain
compared to the cell with stone aggregates as infill material (T2). It may be due to the fact that stone aggregates
have higher friction angle with no cohesion unlike fly ash having apparent cohesion in presence of water and lesser
friction angle than stones. Also the higher stiffness of stone aggregates contributes to a better response. Further, it
can be observed that with decreasing height, the effect of infill material decreases in terms of load carrying capacity.
As the height of cell decreases, friction between cell wall and infill material acts over a smaller surface area. As a
consequence, effect of infill material becomes negligible for smaller height cells unlike the cells of higher heights
where friction between cell wall and infill material acts over a larger surface area.

Compressive stress (kPa)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0

10

20

30
Deformation (mm)

h = 50 mm, stone
40
h = 50 mm, fly ash
50
h = 100 mm, stone
60
h = 100 mm, fly ash
70
h = 200 mm, stone
80
h = 200 mm, fly ash
90

Fig. 10. Effect of infill material on load carrying capacity of cells based on the pressure-settlement responses of 75 mm diameter bottle cells
(After Dutta and Mandal 2013)

6.0 Conclusions

Two different types of plastic bottle cells of varying diameters and heights with different filling materials as
stone aggregates and fly ash were subjected to unconfined compression. The conclusions are relevant and valid only
for the materials used in the study. However, further research is required in this direction for its actual application in
the field. Use of plastic bottle cells to form geocell mattresses with fly ash as infill material over soft clay can be
found from Dutta and Mandal (2015). From the discussion in this paper, the following conclusions are drawn.

1) Water bottles can be available with different diameters. Different sizes of encasements can be prepared by
cutting them in required sizes.
2) Cells made with used waste plastic water bottles and filled with proper infill material can carry huge
compressive load before failure as well as can sustain very large strains. As observed from laboratory
compression tests, plastic bottles not only sustain 30%-40% axial strain before failure but also it fails at a high
compressive pressure of 4000 kPa to 5000 kPa. It suggests that these materials can be used for supporting
higher loads as well as can permit higher settlements if required.
690 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691

3) The bottle cells failed by making folds in cell wall while deforming in both vertical and radial direction. It is
very important to observe the basic failure pattern before using it in soft foundation soil which is very complex
in nature.
4) As all the tests have been carried out on a rigid base, deformation of the base did not take place. Only the bottle
cells deformed and failed after reaching its ultimate failure state under a very high compressive pressure. It does
not simulate the tests on soft foundation soil base where the soil base will also deform along with the
encasements and consequently, the system will fail at a lower pressure compared to the present investigation.
5) The study shows an easy way of recycling the waste plastic water bottles as reinforcement materials in the field
of Geotechnical engineering.

References

1) ASTM C618 (2012). Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM International, 04.02, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
2) ASTM D4595 (2011). Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the wide-width strip method. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM International, 04.13, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
3) ASTM D5035 (2011). Standard test method for breaking force and elongation of textile fabrics (strip method). Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM International, 07.02, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
4) ASTM D5199 (2012). Standard test method for measuring nominal thickness of geosynthetics. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM
International, 04.13, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
5) ASTM D5261 (2010). Standard test method for measuring mass per unit area of geotextiles. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM
International, 04.13, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
6) ASTM D698 (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400-lbf/ft3 (600
kN-m/m3)). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
7) ASTM D7181 (2011). Standard Test Method for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test for Soils. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM International, 04.09, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
8) ASTM D854 (2010). Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
9) Chu, T. Y., Davidson, D. T., Goecker, W. L. and Moh, Z. C. (1955). Soil stabilization with lime fly ash mixtures: Preliminary studies with
silty and clayey soils. Highway Res. Board Bull. (108): 102-112.
10) DiGioia, A. M. and Nuzzo, W. L. (1972). Fly ash as structural fill. J. Power Div., ASCE, 98(1): 7792.
11) Dolat Capital (2011). Plastics: Commodity to Custom Products, Redefining Perception. Plastic Industry Sector Note, N. Shah, analyst and
M. Ariyanfar, associate, 90 p.
12) Dutta, S. and Mandal, J. N. (2013). Feasibility study on waste plastic water bottles as encasements of stone columns for ground
improvement. Int. Symp. on Design and Practice of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, 379-
388.
13) Dutta, S. and Mandal, J. N. (2015). Model Studies on Geocell Reinforced Fly Ash Bed Overlying Soft Clay, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001356 , 04015091.
14) FAU (2013). 2nd Annual International Summit, FLYASH Utilisation, Supported by Ministry of Coal, Ministry of Power, Ministry of
Environment & Forest and Ministry of Science & Technology, NDCC II Convention Centre, NDMC Complex, Parliament Street, New
Delhi, India.
15) Ghosh, A. and Dey, U. (2009). Bearing ratio of reinforced fly ash overlying soft soil and deformation modulus of fly ash. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 27: 313-320.
16) Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A. and Bera, A. K. (2005). Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash reinforced with jute-geotextiles. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 23(2): 144-173.
17) Goecker, W. L., Moh, Z. C., Davidson, D. T. and Chu, T. Y. (1956). Stabilization of fine and coarse-grained soils with lime-fly ash
admixtures. Highway Res. Board Bull. (129): 63-82.
18) Gray, D. H. and Lin, Y. K. (1972). Engineering properties of compacted fly ash. J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., ASCE, 98(4): 361-380.
19) Joshi, R. C., Duncan, D. M. and McMaster, H. M. (1975). New and conventional engineering uses of fly ash. J. Trans. Eng., ASCE, 101(4):
791-806.
20) Kanojia, R. K., Kanawjia, S. K. and Srivastava, P. C. (2001). Utilisation of fly ash in agriculture: A potential soil amendment for increasing
crop yields. Indian Farming, 29-32.
21) Kaushik, N. P. and Ramasamy, G. (1999). Performance of compacted ash test fills. In: Dayal et al. (Ed.), Fly Ash Disposal and Deposition;
Beyond 2000 A.D. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 149-155.
22) Kaushik, N. P. and Ramasamy, G. (1999). Performance of compacted ash test fills. In: Dayal et al. (Ed.), Fly Ash Disposal and Deposition;
Beyond 2000 A.D. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 149-155.
23) Kim, B., Prezzi, M. and Salgado, R. (2005). Geotechnical properties of fly and bottom ash mixtures for use in highway embankments.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(7): 914-924.
24) Kim, B., Prezzi, M. and Salgado, R. (2005). Geotechnical properties of fly and bottom ash mixtures for use in highway embankments.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(7): 914-924.
25) Kim, S. S. and Chun, B. S. (1994). The study on a practical use of wasted coal fly ash for coastal reclamation. 13th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, India, New Delhi, 1607-1612.
 Sushovan Dutta et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016) 681 691 691

26) NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES (NPCS). Pet Bottle Recycling. Project Report & Profiles, An ISO 9001:2008 Company,
<http://www.niir.org/profiles/profile/2045/pet-bottle-recycling.html> (Dec. 9, 2013).
27) Perpetual Global Ltd. We have the ability to treat the 'untreatable'. Feedstock, <http://www.perpetual-global.com/our-approach/feedstock>
(Dec. 9, 2013).
28) Pokharel, S. K., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Parsons, R. L. and Halahmi, I. (2010). Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single
geocell-reinforced bases under static loading. J. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(6): 570-578.
29) Ram Rathan Lal, B. and Mandal, J. N. (2012). Feasibility Study on Fly ash as Backfill Material in Cellular Reinforced Walls. Electronic J.
Geotechnical Engineering, 17(J): 1637-1658.
30) Ram Rathan Lal, B. and Mandal, J. N. (2013). Study of cellular reinforced fly ash under triaxial loading conditions. Int. J. Geotechnical
Engineering, 7(1): 91-104.
31) Ram Rathan Lal, B. and Mandal, J. N. (2014a). Behavior of cellular-reinforced fly-ash walls under strip loading. J. Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Management, ASCE, 18(1): 45-55.
32) Ram Rathan Lal, B. and Mandal, J. N. (2014b). Model tests on geocell walls under strip loading. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM,
37(3): 477-48.
33) Raymond, S. (1958). The utilisation of pulverised fuel ash, Civ. Engg. and Public Works Rev., London, England, (53): 1013-1016.
34) Tastan, E. O., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H. and Aydilek, A. H. (2011). Stabilization of Organic Soils with Fly Ash. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(9): 819-833.
35) Trani, J-P and Tandon, V. (2012). Recycling and innovation in India: PerPETual Global. Waste: the challenges facing developing
countries, Issue 15, Private Sector & Development (PS&D) Magazine, quarterly publication, C. Priou, ed., PROPARCO, Group Agence
Franaise de Dveloppement (AFD).
36) Vasquez, E. and Alonso, E. E. (1981). Fly ash stabilization of decomposed granite. 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 391-395.
37) Viskochil, R. K., Handy, R. L. and Davidson, D. T. (1957). Effect of density on strength of lime-fly ash stabilized soil. Highway Res. Board
Bull. 183, 5-15.