Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1134–1138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Technical Note

Unconfined compressive strength and ductility of fiber-reinforced cemented sand

Sung-Sik Park *
Department of Civil Engineering, Kyungpook National University 1370, Sangyeok-dong, Buk-gu, Daegu 702-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A series of unconfined compression tests were performed on specimens of fiber-reinforced cemented
Received 5 December 2009 sand (FRCS) to evaluate how fiber inclusion affects the measured strength and ductility characteristics
Received in revised form 15 July 2010 of cemented sand. Lightly cemented sand with three different cement ratios (2, 4, and 6% by weight of
Accepted 18 July 2010
soil) was mixed with four different fiber ratios (0, 0.3, 0.6, and 1% by weight of soil) and then compacted
Available online 14 August 2010
into a cylindrical specimen. Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber, which adheres well to cement, was randomly
distributed throughout the cemented sand. The test results indicate that the inclusion of PVA fiber has a
Keywords:
significant effect on both the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and the axial strain at peak
Fiber-reinforced cemented sand
Ductility
strength. The increase in the UCS was most apparent in the 2% cemented specimen wherein the UCS
Unconfined compressive strength increased more than three times as the fiber ratio increased up to 1%. The ductile behavior of the FRCS
is quantified by the deformability index, D, which is a ratio of the axial strain at peak strength of fiber-
reinforced specimen to that of non-fiber-reinforced specimen. In the cases of 1% fiber ratio, the values
of D were greater than four, regardless of cement ratios.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Natural or artificial cementation of soil particles contributes to
settlement reduction and bearing capacity increase [4], which are
the two key design considerations in the field of geotechnical engi-
neering. Owing to such advantages, artificially cemented soils are
increasingly used in various construction sites. For example, Horiu-
chi et al. [12] and Kawasaki et al. [15] used cemented fly ash for the
construction of a man-made island, and Kitazume [17] also used
cemented fly ash for back-filling waterfront structures, while Is-
mail [13] used cemented in situ soil for retaining walls. While
the cemented soils markedly increase the elastic modulus and
the peak strength, they exhibit more brittle stress–strain behavior
at lower initial mean effective stresses or higher cement contents
[27]. The brittle failure pattern can cause the sudden failure of soil
structures that are stabilized with cemented materials; hence, the
usage of cemented soils may not be permitted. In particular, when
applying cemented soils at a shallow depth, the degree of brittle
failure may be more pronounced due to a low confining stress.
To overcome such a brittle nature of cemented soils, either natural
or synthetic fibers have been included in cemented soils
[7,8,14,20]. The addition of fiber to cemented soil produces bond-
ing and friction between the soil and the fibers. A fiber-reinforced
cemented soil can sustain a load even after the debonding or fail-
ure of a cemented soil and thus, can effectively improve the brittle
behavior of the soil.
* Tel.: +82 53 950 7544; fax: +82 53 950 6564.
E-mail address: sungpark@knu.ac.kr
Polypropylene (PP), polyester (PE), and glass fibers have been
commonly used for reinforcing soils because they are readily avail-
able [16,25,28,30]. Consoli et al. [6] examined the effect of these
three fibers on the mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced cemen-
ted soils. Their results showed that the inclusion of PP fiber signif-
icantly improved the brittle behavior of cemented soils, whereas
the deviatoric stresses at failure slightly decreased. Unlike the case
of PP fiber, the inclusion of PE and glass fibers slightly increased the
deviatoric stresses at failure and slightly reduced the brittleness.
Maher and Ho [21] studied the behavior of Kaolinite-fiber (PP
and glass fibers) composites, and found that the increase in the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) was more pronounced in
the glass fiber-reinforced specimens. Conversely, Al-Refeai [2] re-
ported that PP fiber outperformed glass fiber. Maher and Ho [20]
found that the inclusion of 1% glass fiber to 4% cemented sand re-
sulted in an increase of 1.5 times in the UCS when compared to
non-fiber-reinforced cemented sand. Park [23] found that the addi-
tion of 1% polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber to 4% cemented sand re-
sulted in a two times increase in both the UCS and the axial
strain at peak strength when compared with the non-fiber-rein-
forced specimen. The inclusion of PVA fiber seems to produce more
effective reinforcement in terms of strength and ductility when
compared to other fibers under the same cementation.
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of unconfined
compression (UC) tests on cemented sand in which PVA fibers are
randomly distributed. The PVA fiber adheres well to cement and
also has strong anti-alkaline characteristics. The effect of the inclu-
sion of PVA fiber in cemented sand is evaluated in terms of the UCS
and the ductility of cemented sand.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.07.017
 S.-S. Park / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1134–1138 1135

2. Unconfined compression tests 1500

Unconfined compressive stress (kPa)

A-0(ρf =0%)
The confining stresses in triaxial testing may destroy bonding or A-1(ρf =0.3%)
1200 A-2(ρf =0.6%)
cementation between weakly cemented soil particles [26]. Under
A-3(ρf =1%)
such triaxial testing conditions, the soil is already stiff and the ce-
ment and/or reinforcement by fibers are not as effective as ob- 900
served under unconfined conditions [20]. Hence, a number of
researchers [3,11,14,16,18,19,21,23,25,28] have conducted UC
600
tests to isolate various effects on the strength of fiber-stabilized
sandy or clayey soils. The UC test also determines the strength of
cohesive or cemented soils in an inexpensive and practical manner 300
without the need for applying a confining stress, while maintaining
soil bonding or cementation prior to shearing.
Even though most of the experimental research has used PP and 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
PE fibers, PVA fiber, which is suitable for mixing alkaline materials Axial strain (%)
such as cement, is adopted in this study. PVA fibers are generally
considered to have a good durability in alkaline environments Fig. 1. UC results of 2% cemented specimens reinforced with different fiber ratios (A
[24] and superior creep characteristics [9]. The PVA fiber is series).
0.1 mm in diameter and 12 mm in length. It is produced by Kuraray
in Japan and its properties are shown in Table 1. Nakdong river
1500
sand is used in the tests and its material properties are summa-

Unconfined compressive stress (kPa)

B-0(ρf =0%)
rized in Table 2. It consists of silica sand with more than 76% silica
B-1(ρf =0.3%)
and is a sub-rounded sand with a particle size distribution between 1200 B-2(ρf =0.6%)
2 mm and 0.075 mm. Ordinary Portland cement was used to bond B-3(ρf =1%)
sand particles and fibers. Dry sand and cement with an optimum
water content of 14% was mixed and then divided into five por- 900
tions. Each portion of cemented sand was mixed by hand with a
predetermined amount of fiber to obtain a uniform fiber distribu- 600
tion throughout the entire specimen. Cemented sand mixed with
PVA fibers was compacted in five equal layers and then cured for
7 days. The procedure for the preparation of the specimen is also 300
referred to as Park [23]. The cement ratio, qc, and the fiber ratio,
qf, are defined as follows:
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
W W
qc ¼ c  100ð%Þ qf ¼ f  100ð%Þ ð1Þ Axial strain (%)
Ws Ws
Fig. 2. UC results of 4% cemented specimens reinforced with different fiber ratios (B
In Eq. (1), Wc is the weight of cement, Ws is the weight of dry series).
soil, and Wf is the weight of fiber. The samples were prepared at
three cement ratios, viz., 2, 4, and 6%, and four fiber ratios, namely,
0, 0.3, 0.6, and 1%. A series of UC tests on 140 mm high  70 mm 2, 4, and 6%, respectively. Table 3 gives a summary of the measured
diameter fiber-reinforced cemented sand (FRCS) were carried out peak strength (UCS) and the axial strain at peak strength. Fig. 4
at a shearing rate of 1%/min to evaluate its strength and indicates that the UCS is proportional to the cement ratio and fiber
deformability. ratio. As the fiber ratio increases, the UCS of FRCS increases to more
than three times that of the non-fiber-reinforced cemented speci-
men. From various studies [7,8,20,28] wherein other fibers were
3. Results of unconfined compression tests
added to cemented soils, it is anticipated that the inclusion of
PVA fiber to cemented sand can increase the UCS. However, the ex-
3.1. Strength characteristics
tent of the increase that is due to the inclusion of PVA fiber cannot
be determined. The increase in the UCS that is due to the inclusion
Figs. 1–3 show the stress–train behavior of fiber-reinforced ce-
of PVA fiber is quantified by R in Eq. (2). It is the ratio of the UCS of
mented specimens prepared with different cement ratios, namely,
PVA fiber-reinforced cemented specimens to that of the non-fiber-
reinforced specimens. That is,
Table 1
Properties of PVA fiber. UCSðqf ¼0; 0:3; 0:6; 1%Þ
R¼ ð2Þ
Type Specific Cut Diameter Tensile Young’s UCSðno fiberÞ
gravity length (mm) strength modulus
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) The values of R for three different cement ratios are compared
in Fig. 5. A maximum value of R of 3.5 was obtained for the case
RECS100L 1.3 12 0.1 1078 25 000
with 1% fiber ratio and 2% cement ratio. Maher and Ho [20] tested
a specimen of 1% glass fiber that was mixed with 4% cemented Ot-
tawa sand, and found that R was approximately 1.5. Maher and Ho
Table 2 [21] mixed 1% glass fiber and 1% PP fiber with Kaolinite clay, and
Material properties of Nakdong river sand. found that R was approximately 1.2. Kumar et al. [19] mixed 1%
D10 (mm) D50 (mm) Cu Gs USCS PE fiber and clay with 10% sand, and found that R was approxi-
mately 1.2. The R that is obtained from this study is significantly
0.17 0.28 1.94 2.65 SP
higher than those from other specimens that are reinforced with
1136 S.-S. Park / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1134–1138

1500
Unconfined compressive stress (kPa)

C-0(ρf =0%)

Unconfined compressive strength, UCS (kPa)

C-1(ρf =0.3%)
1200 C-2(ρf =0.6%)
C-3(ρf =1%)

900

600

300

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain (%) )
(%
, ρf
Fig. 3. UC results of 6% cemented specimens reinforced with different fiber ratios (C Ceme r ati o
series). nt ratio er
, ρc (% F ib
)

1% fiber ratio. This could be partially attributed to PVA fiber’s adhe- Fig. 4. Correlation among UCS, cement ratio and fiber ratio.
sive properties with regard to cement, which causes more friction
between the fibers and the cemented sand.
The secant elastic modulus, E50, was calculated from one half of
Unconfined compressive strength ratio, R
4.0
the axial strain at peak strength and was then compared against Cement ratio=2%
3.5 Cement ratio=4%
the cement ratio in Fig. 6. The secant elastic modulus depends on
the cement ratio rather than on the fiber ratio. For a given cement 3.0
Cement ratio=6%
ratio, the secant elastic modulus of each specimen, each with a dif-
ferent fiber ratio, falls within a narrow band of values as shown in 2.5
Fig. 6, whereas the axial strain associated with peak strength grad- 2.0
ually increases with increasing fiber ratio as shown in Figs. 1–3.
This kind of increasing stress–strain behavior has been similarly 1.5
observed in the results of triaxial compression tests on cemented
1.0
specimens with increasing confining stress [1,5]. From these exper-
imental results, it can be inferred that in terms of an increase in 0.5
strength, an increase in the fiber ratio in fiber-reinforced cemented
sand has the same effect as an increase in the confining stress in 0.0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
non-fiber-reinforced cemented sand. The horizontal deformation
Fiber ratio (%)
of fiber-reinforced samples was restrained by the included fibers.
The increase in the confining stress can also restrain the horizontal Fig. 5. Strength increase due to fiber inclusion.
deformation of the samples. This result has been ascertained by
Yang [29] who pointed out that the increase in the maximum prin-
cipal stress at failure in the fiber-reinforced sample was attribut- concept of ductility is introduced herein and used to determine
able to the increase in the confining stress. the performance of fiber-reinforced cemented soils. For structural
materials including FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer), the ductility
measures the ability of a material to sustain inelastic deformation
3.2. Deformation characteristics prior to collapse without a significant loss in the resistance [22].
For example, ductility can be defined as the ratio of the final defor-
As shown in Figs. 1–3, the axial strain at peak strength increases mation or deflection at the ultimate state to that at the yield state.
as the fiber ratio increases. This result indicates that the addition of There are some cases in soil-based inelastic materials, unlike the
PVA fibers delays failure and improves the brittle behavior. The elastic materials mentioned earlier, where no such clear distinction

Table 3
Summary of unconfined compression tests.

Specimens Cement ratio, qc (%) Fiber ratio, qf (%) UCS (kPa) Axial strain at peak strength (%) Strength increase ratio, R Deformability index, D
A-0 2 0 155 1.07 1 1
A-1 0.3 188 1.83 1.2 1.7
A-2 0.6 390 3.21 2.5 3
A-3 1 548 4.29 3.5 4
B-0 4 0 296 1.11 1 1
B-1 0.3 414 2.35 1.4 2.1
B-2 0.6 646 3.17 2.2 2.9
B-3 1 860 4.78 2.9 4.3
C-0 6 0 444 1.10 1 1
C-1 0.3 574 2.13 1.3 1.9
C-2 0.6 794 3.18 1.8 2.9
C-3 1 1254 4.93 2.8 4.5
 S.-S. Park / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1134–1138 1137

50 for different cement ratios in Table 3. The value of D increases from

Fiber ratio=0% 1.7 to 4.5, as the fiber ratio increases from 0.3% to 1%. However, the
Fiber ratio=0.3% D value seems not to depend on the cement ratio at relatively low
40 Fiber ratio=0.6%
fiber ratios (i.e., 0.3% and 0.6%). The results obtained by Tang et al.
Fiber ratio=1%
[28] of UC tests on cemented clays with PP fiber showed that the
value of D for a specimen with 5% cement ratio and 1.5% fiber ratio
E50 (MPa)

30
20
10
0 tends to decrease gradually following the peak strength as the fiber
0 2 4 6
Cement ratio (%)
Fig. 6. Secant elastic modulus, E50, of FRCS with different cement ratios.
appears between the yield and ultimate states. Maher and Ho [20]
and Consoli et al. [7] defined a stress based index called the brittle-
ness index (IB), which is the ratio of the failure (or peak) deviatoric
stress to the ultimate (or steady) state deviatoric stress in triaxial
testing, described as a ‘‘brittle component” by Fang and Harrison
[10]. However, there is still a difficulty in defining an ultimate state
(or steady state) for soils, especially for unconfined compression
tests as shown in Figs. 1–3.
In this study, the term ‘deformability index’ is proposed and de-
fined to describe the ductility of FRCS as follows:
Dfiber
is approximately 3, which is lower than that of 4.3 for the speci-
men in this study with 4% cement ratio and 1% fiber ratio. This in-
dex can be applied to evaluate the ductility or deformability of
cemented sand that is reinforced by various fibers. This index
may indicate the degree of fiber extensibility in cemented sand
and aid in the selection of suitable fibers for a given cementation.
When the cement ratio is constant, the stress–strain curve
8
ratio increases. In the case of qc = 6%, the fiber ratios of 0.3% and
0.6% may not be enough to satisfy the ductility that is required
of the cemented specimen. Fig. 8a and b describe the axial strain
at peak strength for a specimen with the same cement ratio but
different fiber ratios in 2D and 3D plots. It is found that, when
the fiber ratio is constant, the peak strain at peak strength is almost
the same, regardless of the cement ratio. Fig. 9 shows the 1% fiber-
reinforced cemented sample before and at failure. The failure of the
fiber-reinforced cemented specimen occurred due to slippage be-
tween the sand particles and the fibers. For lightly cemented soils,
the use of PVA fiber seems to produce a strong frictional interac-
tion between the fibers and the soil particles. As a result, PVA fi-
(a) 6.0
Cement ratio=2%
Cement ratio=4%
Axial strain at peak strength (%)

D¼ ð3Þ 5.0
Cement ratio=6%
Dno fiber
In Eq. (3) Dfiber is the axial strain at peak strength in FRCS, and 4.0
Dno fiber is the axial strain at peak strength in non-fiber-reinforced
cemented sand. The strain-based index, D, can be determined by 3.0
comparing the axial strain at peak strength of any fiber-reinforced
cemented specimen to that of a non-fiber-reinforced cemented
2.0
specimen. Even though most definitions are usually defined on
one curve, the index, D, uses two stress–strain curves, one each
1.0
from non-fiber-reinforced and fiber-reinforced cemented speci-
mens, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The index is useful when either a peak
stress or a residual stress state is not clearly observed. However, its 0.0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
applications are limited to the cemented specimens that have the
Fiber ratio (%)
same cement ratio. The index, D, is calculated and summarized

(b)
Axial strain at peak strength (%)

Stress

Fiber-reinforced specimen

Non-fiber-reinforced specimen

)
(%
, ρf
Δ no fiber Strain Ceme
nt ratio tio
, ρ (% er ra
) Fib
c
Δ fiber
Fig. 8. Axial strain at peak strength of FRCS with different fiber ratios: (a) 2D plot
Fig. 7. Deformability index, D, under unconfined compression test. and (b) 3D plot.
1138 S.-S. Park / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 1134–1138
Fig. 9. Specimen with 2% cement ratio and 1% fiber ratio: (a) before shearing and
(b) after failure.
ber-reinforced cemented sand failed at relatively large strain levels
of up to 5% compared to PP fiber-reinforced cemented specimen
that failed at an axial strain of 1.5% [28].
4. Conclusions
Cemented sand was reinforced with randomly distributed PVA
fibers for improving the strength and the brittle behavior of the
sand. A series of unconfined compression tests were carried out
on lightly cemented specimens with randomly distributed PVA fi-
bers that adhere well to cement. The effect of the fiber ratio and the
cement ratio on the strength and the ductility of cemented sand
were investigated. The following conclusions were drawn.
1. The fiber-reinforced cemented sand with 2% cement ratio was a
maximum of 3.5 times stronger than non-fiber-reinforced
cemented sand. The effect of fiber inclusion is most apparent
in the 2% cemented samples.
2. Owing to the ductile behavior of the fiber-reinforced specimens,
the axial strain at peak strength of specimens with 6% cement
ratio increases up to 5% as the fiber ratio increases.
3. A deformability index, D, was proposed for defining the ductil-
ity that is induced by fiber inclusion in the cemented specimen.
D significantly increases with increasing fiber ratio. At low lev-
els of the fiber ratio (qf < 1%), D was not influenced by the
cement ratio.
References
[1] Abdulla AA, Kiousis PD. Behavior of cemented sands-I testing. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 1997;21:533–47.
[2] Al-Refeai T. Behavior of granular soils reinforced with discrete randomly
oriented inclusions. Geotext Geomembranes 1991;10:319–33.
[3] Ang EC, Loehr JE. Specimen size effects for fiber-reinforced silty clay in
unconfined compression. Geotech Testing J 2003;26(2):191–200.
[4] Asghari E, Toll DG, Haeri SM. Triaxial behaviour of a cemented gravely sand,
Tehran alluvium. Geotech Geol Eng 2003;21:1–28.
[5] Clough GW, Sitar N, Bachus RC, Rad NS. Cemented sands under static loading. J
Geotech Eng Div 1981;107(GT 6):799–817.
[6] Consoli NC, Montardo JP, Donato M, Prietto PDM. Effect of material properties
on the behaviour of sand–cement–fibre composites. Ground Improv
2004;8(2):77–90.
[7] Consoli NC, Prietto PDM, Ulbrich LA. Influence of fiber and cement addition on
behavior of sandy soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(12):1211–4.
[8] Consoli NC, Vendruscolo MA, Prietto PDM. Behavior of plate load tests on soil
layers improved with cement and fiber. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2003;129(1):96–101.
[9] European Patent EP0477958, 1995. Surgical sutures made from polyvinyl
alcohol fibers.
[10] Fang Z, Harrison JP. A mechanical degradation index for rock. Int J Rock Mech
Mining Sci 2001;38:1193–9.
[11] Freitag DR. Soil randomly reinforced with fibers. J Geotech Eng
1986;112(8):823–6.
[12] Horiuchi S, Taketsuka M, Odawara T, Kawasaki H. Fly-ash slurry island: I.
Theoretical and experimental investigations. J Mater Eng 1992;4(2):117–33.
[13] Ismail MA. Performance of cement-stabilized retaining walls. Canadian
Geotech J 2005;39:876–91.
[14] Kaniraj SR, Havanagi VG. Behavior of cement-stabilized fiber-reinforced fly
ash–soil mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(7):574–84.
[15] Kawasaki H, Horiuchi S, Akatsuka M, Sano S. Fly-ash slurry island: II.
Construction in Hakucho Ohashi project. J Mater Eng 1992;4(2):134–52.
[16] Khattak MJ, Alrashidi M. Durability and mechanistic characteristics of fiber
reinforced soil–cement mixtures. Int J Pavement Eng 2006;7(1):53–62.
[17] Kitazume M. Centrifuge model tests on failure of cement stabilized fly ash
ground. Soils Found 1998;38(3):143–52.
[18] Kumar R, Kanaujia VK, Chandra D. Engineering behaviour of fiber-reinforced
pond ash and silty sand. Geosynth Int 1999;6(6):509–18.
[19] Kumar A, Walia BS, Mohan J. Compressive strength of fiber reinforced highly
compressible clay. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:1063–8.
[20] Maher MH, Ho YC. Behavior of fiber-reinforced cemented sand under static
and cyclic loads. Geotech Testing J 1993;16(3):330–8.
[21] Maher MH, Ho YC. Mechanical properties of Kaolinite/fiber soil composite. J
Geotech Eng 1994;120(8):1381–93.
[22] Naaman AE, Harajli MH, Wight JK. Analysis of ductility in partially prestressed
concrete flexural members. PCI J 1986;31(3):64–87.
[23] Park S-S. Effect of fiber reinforcement and distribution on unconfined
compressive strength of fiber-reinforced cemented sand. Geotext
Geomembranes 2009;27(2):162–6.
[24] Sahmaran M, Li VC. Durability of mechanically loaded engineered
cementitious composites under highly alkaline environments. Cem Concr
Compos 2008;30:72–81.
[25] Santoni RL, Tingle JS, Webster SL. Engineering properties of sand–fiber
mixtures for road construction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2001;127(3):258–68.
[26] Saxena SK, Lastrico RM. Static properties of lightly cemented sand. J Geotech
Eng Div 1978;104(12):1449–64.
[27] Schnaid F, Prietto PDM, Consoli NC. Characterization of cemented sand in
triaxial compression. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2001;127(10):857–68.
[28] Tang C, Shi B, Gao W, Chen F, Cai Y. Strength and mechanical behavior of short
polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil. Geotext
Geomembranes 2007;25:194–202.
[29] Yang Z. Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced sand. PhD
thesis, University of California: Los Angeles; 1972.
[30] Yetimoglu T, Salbas O. A study on shear strength of sands reinforced with
randomly distributed discrete fibers. Geotext Geomembranes
2003;21(2):103–10.