Project & Thesis

CE 4000

SUBGRADE SOIL STABILIZATION THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION

OF GOETEXTILE & NATURAL COIR FIBRE ALTERNATIVELY

A Project Report Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of

Engineering and Technology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Submitted by
HABIBUL FERDOUS PRINCE (1001109)

Supervised by
MD. HUMAYUN KABIR (Assistant Professor)

© Department of Civil Engineering

Khulna University of Engineering and Technology
Khulna, Bangladesh
August, 2015

1
 ABSTRACT

Design and construction of pavements on weak soils pose lot of problems due to its low load
carrying capacity. The emphasis is, to investigate the feasibility of using abundantly available
indigenous resources, natural coir and Geotextile which is more ecofriendly and can be used in
road works cost effectively. Laboratory California Bearing ratio (CBR) tests were performed to
investigate the load – penetration behavior of stabilized soil. This presents the results of a series
of California Bearing ratio (CBR) tests for the beneficial effects of placing layers of
Geosynthetic horizontally at varying depths from the top surface of the subgrade soil & mixing
with natural coir fiber at varying percentages. The results are analyzed effectively by introducing
two non-dimensional factors namely, Effective Depth Ratio (EDR) and Strength Benefit Ratio
(SBR). Maximum SBR% of soil with geotextile found at 1 layer and that of soil with coir fiber
was found 2%.

2
 Table of Contents

Title Page No

Abstract 2

Contents 3

List of tables 5

List of figures 6

Acknowledgement 8

CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 9
1.2 Objectives of this Study 10

CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 SOIL REINFORCEMENT & EARLIER PRACTICES 11

2.2PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCED EARTH/SOIL 12

2.3 COMPONENTS OF REINFORCED EARTH 12

2.4 SOIL FOR REINFORCED EARTH 12

2.5 REINFORCEMENT FOR REINFORCED EARTH 12

2.6 TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT 13

2.7 FAILURE MODES 14

2.8 TYPES OF NATURAL FIBER 14

2.9 MICROSTRUCTURE OF THE FIBERS 14

2.10 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF NATURAL FIBERS 14

2.11 FACTORS AFFECTING THE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS

OF FIBER REINFORCED SOIL 15

3
2.12 GEOTEXTILE 15
2.13 SEPERATION & STABILIZATION USING GEOTEXTILES 15
2.14 DESIGN CONSIDERATION 16
2.15 APPLICATIONS OF GEOTEXTILES 16

2.16 FUNCTIONS GEOTEXTILE IN ROAD CONSTRUCTION 16

CHAPTER-3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Materials 17

3.2 Methods 17

3.3 Determination of Atterberg limits 18

3.4 Determination of optimum water content by Compaction test 20

3.5 Determination of Specific gravity 22

3.6 Grain size analysis by Hydrometer 24

3.7 Determination of California Bearing Ratio test 26

CHAPTER-4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Basic Properties of the sample 29

4.2 Results of CBR test 30

CHAPTER-5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions 44

5.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDIES 45

REFERENCES 46

4
 List of Tables

Table No. & Contents Page No.

4.1: VARIATION OF CBR VALUES FOR RESPECTIVE NO OF BLOWS 30

4.2: VARIATION OF CBR VALUES FOR RESPECTIVE NO OF BLOWS 31

4.3: VARIATION OF CBR VALUES FOR RESPECTIVE NO OF BLOWS 39

4.4: CBR – DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED DATA (UNREINFORCED SOIL) 34

4.5: CBR – DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED DATA (REINFORCED SOIL) 35

4.6: CBR – DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED DATA (REINFORCED SOIL) 36

4.7: SWELL DATA OF UNREINFORCED SOIL 39

4.8: SWELL DATA OF REINFORCED SOIL (GEOTEXTILE) 40

4.9: SWELL DATA OF REINFORCED SOIL (COIR FIBER) 41

4.10: SBR% Comparison of Reinforced Soil (Geotextile) 43

4.11: SBR% Comparison of Reinforced Soil (Coir Fiber) 43

5
 List of Figures

Figure No. & Contents Page No.

3.1 Compaction Curve 27

4.1 Grain Size Analysis 29

4.2 Compaction Curve 30

4.3 PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR UNREINFORCED SOIL 31

4.4 PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR REINFORCED

SOIL (GEOTEXTILE) 32

4.5 PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL

(COIR FIBER) 33

4.6 CBR VS DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED CURVE FOR

UNREINFORCED SOIL 34

4.7 CBR VS DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED CURVE FOR REINFORCED

SOIL (GEOTEXTILE) 35

4.8 CBR VS DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED CURVE FOR REINFORCED

SOIL (COIR FIBER) 36

4.9 VARIATION OF PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR

10 BLOWS 37

4.10 VARIATION OF PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR

30 BLOWS 37

4.11 VARIATION OF PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR

65 BLOWS 38

4.12 SWELL VS ELAPSED TIME CURVE FOR UNREINFORCED SOIL 39

4.13 SWELL VS ELAPSED TIME CURVE FOR REINFORCED

SOIL(Geotextile) 40

6
4.14 SWELL VS ELAPSED TIME CURVE FOR REINFORCED
SOIL(Coir fiber) 41

4.15: CBR% Comparison of tested samples 42

7
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project report was prepared under the guidance and supervision of Md. Humayun Kabir,
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering &
Technology, Khulna, the author express sincere appreciation and profound gratitude to him for
his affectionate guidance and valuable suggestion in the preparation of this report.

The author tender his best regards and profound compliments to Professor Dr. Md. Saiful Islam,
Head of Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, for
granting the permission to use Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory.

Special thanks to Mr. Munir Hussain, laboratory assistant, for his help during the laboratory
tests.

Augast, 2015

Author

8
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

The concept of fiber reinforcement was recognized more than 5000 years ago. There are several
examples of reinforcing the soil like Great Wall of China (earliest example of reinforced earth
using branches of trees as tensile elements), ziggurats of Babylon (woven mats of read were
used). In the modern history of soil stabilization, the concept and principle of soil reinforcement
was first developed by Vidal. He demonstrated that the introduction of reinforcing elements in a
soil mass increases the shear resistance of the medium. Since the invention by Vidal in 1966,
nearly 4000 structures have been built in more than 37 countries so far using the concept of earth
reinforcement. Firstly, polyester filaments before staple fibers entered to the geotechnical
engineering market under the traditional brand of „„Texsol‟‟. This product was used in retaining
walls and for slope protections. However, randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soils, known as
short fiber soil composites, have recently attracted Increasing attention in many geotechnical
engineering applications, not only in scientific research environment, but also at executive real
field .Synthetic staple fibers have been used in soil since the late 1980s, when the initial studies
using polymeric fibers were conducted. Short natural and synthetic fiber soil composites have
recently attracted increasing attention in geotechnical engineering for the second time. Therefore,
they are still a relatively new technique in geotechnical projects.

Now aday, due to urbanization population is increasing day by day but the amount of land cannot
cope with the construction of structure on it.On the other hand,many lands are available now
which possess soft soil like clay soil.It has got much possibilities of the structures to be failed if
constructed on soft soil because this type of soil is less stable (Bauer and Fatani,1991).
Generally, clay soil has low shear strength, low tensile strength and high compressibility.As a
result, it may cause excessive settlement of the structure constructed on it.In order to use the land
having soft soil for construction purposes,improvement technique must be applied to the
soil.There are several soil improvement method have been applied icluding soil replacement,
dynamic compaction, lime/cement column, stone column and soil reinforcements with fibrous
materials.Using fiber reinforcement in soft soil is one of the most effective improvement
techniques(Anderson and Khattak, 1979).

Natural geotextiles made of coconut fiber, jute fiber; sisal, etc. can be used as an alternative to
polymeric geosynthetic materials (Ling, Hoe I. and Liu, Zheng 2001). Geotextiles form one of
the largest groups of geosynthetics. One of the most popular applications of Geotextiles is in the
construction of pavements and embankments on soft soil. They are indeed textiles in the
traditional sense, consisting mainly of synthetic fibers, though natural fibers are also used for
manufacturing. They can be Woven or Non-woven type (Subaida et al 2009). There are
enormous specific application areas for geotextiles. Generally the fabric performs at least one of
the four discrete functions viz., separation, reinforcement, filtration, drainage (IRC: SP: 59-
2002). The three primary uses of a geogrid in a pavement system are to –

9
a. Serve as a construction aid over soft subgrades
b. Improve or extend the pavements projected service life, and
c. Reduce the structural cross section for a given service life.

The low cost of natural fibers, the growing concern over the impact of the use and disposal of
synthetic materials has recently led to a renowned interest in the possible advantages of natural
geotextiles (Ravi Shankar et al 2012). Coir net is readymade material, cheap, easy laying in field
and biodegradable. Coir geotextiles find application in a number of situations in geotechnical/
highway engineering practice. Coir geotextiles can be used as an overlay or interlay, the former
protecting the surface from runoff and the latter performing the functions of separation,
reinforcement, filtration and drainage. Thus, the method of preparation of fiber reinforced soil is
similar to the conventional stabilization techniques (Gray and Al-refeai, 1986).Fiber reinforced
soil is different from the other soil- reinforcing methods in its orientation. In reinforced earth, the
reinforcement in the form of strips, sheets, etc. is laid horizontally at specific intervals, where as
in fiber reinforced soil fiber are mixed randomly in soil thus making a homogeneous mass and
maintain the isotropy in strength (Gray and Ohashi, 1983).Modern geotechnical engineering has
focused on the use of planar reinforcement (e.g. metal strips, sheet of artificial fabrics). However
reinforcement of soil with discrete fiber is still a relatively new technique in geotechnical project
(Gray and Ohashi, 1983).

Specially, tri-axial compression tests, unconfined compression tests, direct shear tests and CBR
tests had been conducted to study the effect of fiber reinforcement on strength characteristics and
other engineering properties of fiber reinforced soil. During the last twenty-five years, much
work has been done on strength deformation behavior of fiber reinforced soil and it has been
established beyond doubt that addition of fiber in soil improves the overall engineering
performance of soil (Kaniraj and Gayathri, 2004). Among the notable properties that improve are
greater extensibility, small loss of post peak strength, isotropy in strength and absence of planes
of weakness. Fiber reinforced soil has been used in many civil engineering projects in various
countries in the recent past and the further research is in progress for many hidden aspects of it.

Over the last decade the use of waste material and fiber has recorded a tremendous increase.
Keeping this in view an experimental study is conducted on locally available i.e. clayey soil
mixed with varying percentage of coir fiber & geo-textile at varying depths from top of the
subgrade.

1.2 Objectives of this Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To analyze the strength properties for both the unreinforced and reinforced soil
samples.
2. To observe the variation in the result of CBR value for soil reinforced with coir fiber
& geo-textile.

10
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 SOIL REINFORCEMENT & EARLIER PRACTICES:

The concept of reinforcement is not new. Early civilizations commonly used sun-dried soil
bricks as a building material. Somewhere in their experience it became an accepted practice to
mix the soil with straw or other fiber available to them to improve the properties (Dean, 1986).
Various materials were used in reinforcement of both pavement materials and sub-grade soils.
They can vary greatly, either in form (strips, sheets, grids, bars, or fibers), texture (rough or
smooth), and relative stiffness (high such as steel or relatively low such as polymeric fabrics),
(Donald and Ohashi, 1983). Haas (1985) showed that flexible pavements could be effectively
reinforced with the polymer geo-grid. This involves asphalt thickness savings from 50 mm to
100 mm, or the ability to carry two or three times more traffic loads for equal thicknesses. Nejad
and Small (1996) investigated the influence of geogrid reinforcement of the granular base of a
flexible pavement constructed on sand. They found that geogrid could significantly decrease the
permanent deformation in the pavement by 40% to 70%. Ling and Liu (2001) carried out some
static and dynamic tests on model sections to find out the contribution of geo-synthetic
reinforcement to the stiffness and strength of asphalt pavements. The reinforcement layer (geo-
grid) was laid above the sub-grade and a final layer of asphalt concrete was placed. The study
showed that the settlement over the loading area of reinforced pavement was reduced when
compared with un-reinforced pavement. Srinivas Rao, B. and Jagloxshmi S (2008), carried out
effect of fiber reinforcement of soil sub-grade beneath flexible pavements, in this work the study
on strengthening of soil sub-grade with polymer reinforcement was carried out. The CBR test
was carried out without fiber reinforcement. The CBR value of soil without fiber is 3.3%. After
addition of fiber reaction the high CBR value was achieved. Raju, N. Ramakrishna (2010)
reported that the usage of geo-synthetics in earth dams and embankments to provide additional
stability. Reinforcement of embankment/filling on soft soil reduces construction material
quantities, reduces land acquisition and reduces construction time.

11
2.2 PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCED EARTH/SOIL:

Reinforced earth is a composite material formed by the friction between the earth and the
reinforcement. By means of friction the soil transfers to the reinforcement the forces built up in
the earth mass. The reinforcement thus develops tension and the earth behaves as if it has
cohesion.

2.3 COMPONENTS OF REINFORCED EARTH

 SOIL
 SKIN
 REINFORCEMENT

2.4 SOIL FOR REINFORCED EARTH

 Development of sufficient friction between earth and reinforcement.

o No interstitial pore water pressure develops within the reinforced earth
structures
o The placing and compaction of the earth fill layers can be accomplished
easily
o The soil must conform to certain electro-chemical conditions to avoid
corrosion

2.5 REINFORCEMENT FOR REINFORCED EARTH

 Reinforced members are composed of thin wide strips also called ties.
 Should be flexible to ease placement.
 Should have adequate tensile strengths.
 Should have adequate service life taking in to account corrosion and weathering.

12
2.6 TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT:

Reinforcement of Soil can generally be subdivided into 2 categories: Reinforced Soils and In-
situ Reinforcement. The latter is often termed “soil nailing”. You should be aware of its
existence (see page 745-748 of Codutto) but we will not be doing any design problems with soil
nailing. Many “proprietary” systems and products are on the market – just like geosynthetics, a
good rule is “caveat emptor”!!

Soil Reinforcement may be made with a number of materials:

• Woven Geotextiles

• Polymer Geogrids of Polyethylene (usually uniaxial) & polypropylene (usually biaxial)

• Polyester and Fiberglass Geogrids (often knitted or stitched at junctions) and usually coated
with a polymer such as polyethylene or PVC or with bitumen.

• Steel Strips (the original “Reinforced EarthTM”)

• Welded wire mesh

Reinforced Soil Structures Fall, Broadly, into 3 classes:

• Mechanically-Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls

• Reinforced Slopes and Embankments

• Reinforced Foundations

Selection of Reinforcement should include an evaluation of candidate products for survivability

during construction. In some instances, considerations of survivability will dictate a
heavier/more durable/stronger/higher-modulus product than would be required by considering
reinforcement alone. Thus, Design by Function means the requirement of the critical function
(reinforcement) must be used in design, and survivability should also be considered.

13
2.7 FAILURE MODES:

External Stability (as for any earth-retaining structure)

 Sliding
 Overturning
 Bearing Capacity

Internal Stability (MSE retaining structures)

 Reinforcement Failure
 Pullout
 Failure of Reinforcement/Facing Connection

2.8 TYPES OF NATURAL FIBER

Natural fibers are grouped into three types: seed hair, bastfibers and leaffibers, depending upon
the source. Some examples are cotton (seed hairs), ramie, jute, and aflax (bast fibers), and sisal
and abaca (leaffibers). Of these fibers, jute,ramie, flax, and sisalare the most commonly used
fibers for polymer composites. Natural fibers in the form of wood flour have also been often used
for preparation of natural fiber composites.

2.9 MICROSTRUCTURE OF THE FIBERS

Natural fibers themselves are cellulose fiber reinforced materials as they consist of microfibrils in
an amorphous matrix of lignin and hemicellulose. These fibers consist of several fibrils that run
all along the length of the fiber. The hydrogen bonds and other linkages provide the necessary
strength and stiffness to the fibers.

2.10 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF NATURAL FIBERS

The chemical composition of natural fibers varies depending upon the type of fiber. Primarily,
fibers contain cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin, and lignin. The properties of each constituent
contribute to the overall properties of the fiber. Hemicellulose is responsible for the
biodegradation, moisture absorption, and thermal degradation of the fiber as it shows least
resistance whereas lignin is thermally stable but is responsible for the UV degradation. The
percentage composition of each of these components varies for different fibers. Generally, the
fibers contain 60–80% cellulose, 5–20% lignin, and up to 20% moisture.

14
2.11 FACTORS AFFECTING THE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF FIBER
REINFORCED SOIL

The factors on which the strength characteristics and other engineering properties of fiber
reinforced soil depend:

 Type of soil
 Type of fiber
 Fiber length
 Aspect ratio: It is defined as the ratio of the length of fiber to its diameter
 Fiber soil surface friction

2.12 GEOTEXTILE

Geotextiles are permeable fabrics which, when used in association with soil, have the ability to
separate, filter, reinforce, protect, or drain. Typically made from polypropylene or polyester,
geotextile fabrics come in three basic forms: woven (resembling mail bag sacking), needle
punched (resembling felt), or heat bonded (resembling ironed felt). Geotextile composites have
been introduced and products such as geogrids and meshes have been developed. Overall, these
materials are referred to as geosynthetics and each configuration geonets, geogrids and others
can yield benefits in geotechnical and environmental engineering design.

2.13 SEPERATION & STABILIZATION USING GEOTEXTILES

Soil stabilization is an integral part to any roadway, railway, or load bearing construction project,
as poor drainage and co-mingling of materials can lead to rapid structural disintegration and
subsequent project failure. With the cost of aggregate continuing to rise, engineers and
contractors are looking for a solution that will allow them to continue to provide the structurally
sound results customers rely on, without having to raise their prices. Geotextiles are rapidly
becoming the key component to this dilemma, as their use allows roads and other load bearing
projects to be designed and installed in much the same manner as before, with the exception
being that far less aggregate is required in order to accomplish the desired results. Geotextiles
work by separating two layers of material that need to have sustained separation in order to co-
exist in a structurally effective manner. Examples include aggregate over soil and good soil over
poor soil, both of which are common occurrences in roadway and railway construction. They can
help in a multitude of soil stabilization situations, as they perform many different tasks,
including, but not limited to:

15
 Non-permanent roadways, as geotextile fabrics can be perfect for applications such as haul roads
that only need to be used for a season or two.
 Maintaining soil integrity in long term projects such as road building, where it is crucial that the
aggregate laid on top of the soil have a breathable and porous layer that will allow drainage yet
not allow the rock to co-mingle with the soil. This, obviously, reduces the lifetime of the road
and can lead to premature cracking.
 Reinforcing the soil below the geotextile fabric so as to enable it to be able to carry high tensile
loads without collapsing or spreading. This is one of the key factors in how geotextiles can
extend roadway and railway lifespans.
 Increasing the longevity of retaining walls by allowing the passing and transmission of liquids
and gasses through the geotextile fabric itself, this lessens the impact on the wall itself.
 Reinforcement of soil in slopes of just about any slope angle so that projects with previously
unmanageable slope ratios can now be accomplished with confidence.

2.14 DESIGN CONSIDERATION

To use geotextiles to reinforce weak soil, two components have to be calculated:

 The tension required for equilibrium

 The appropriate layout of the geotextile reinforcement.

2.15 APPLICATIONS OF GEOTEXTILES

 Access Roads
 Backfills and Slopes Reinforcement
 Dams and Dikes
 Geomembranes Protection
 Loading and Storage Pads
 Railroad Track Construction and Rehabilitation
 Soil Separation
 Soils and Slopes Stabilization

2.16 FUNCTIONS GEOTEXTILE IN ROAD CONSTRUCTION

 Horizontal and Vertical Drainage

 Moisture Barrier for Concrete Curing
 Protecting Sumps and Manholes
 Retaining Walls
 Road Foundation Stabilization and Reinforcement

16
 CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 MATERIALS:

The materials (soil) used for the study was obtained from KUET campus (In front of Old Central
Cafeteria). The soils were excavated from the depth of about 1m below the ground surface to
avoid humus layer and roots, placed in buckets and transported to the geotechnical engineering
laboratory of KUET.

3.2 METHODS:
To have appropriate results the following procedures may be taken –

i. Basic properties:

Basic properties such as Atterberg limit (ASTM D4318), Specific gravity (ASTM D854),
Grain size analysis (ASTM D2487) were taken to classify the soil.

ii. Compaction test:

The standard proctor test was carried out to determine the compaction properties of soil
by ASTM D2216.

iii. California Bearing Ratio test: The California Bearing Ratio Test (ASTM D1883) is a
penetration test developed by California State Highway Department (U.S.A.) for
evaluating the bearing capacity of subgrade soil for design of flexible pavement. Tests are
carried out on compacted soils under soaked conditions and the results so obtained are
compared with the curves of standard test to have an idea of the soil strength of the
subgrade soil.

17
3.3 DETERMINATIONS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS:

Atterberg defined the boundaries of four states in terms of "limits," as follows:

a. Liquid limit - The boundary between the liquid and plastic state.

b. Plastic limit - The boundary between the plastic and semi-solid state.

c. Shrinkage limit - The boundary between the semi-solid and solid state.

Apparatus and supplies:

Special:

1. Liquid limit device and grooving pool.

2. Shrinkage limit set consists of:

a. Petri dish,

b. Glass plate with prongs,

c. Mercury supply,

d. Large evaporating dish,

e. Medicine dropper.

3. Large glass plate for plastic limit.

General:

1. Distilled water,

2. Balance, (0.01g sensitivity and O.1 g sensitivity)

3. Drying oven,

4. Desiccators,

5. Watch glasses or drying cans,

6. Evaporating dishes,

7. Spatula.

18
Recommended procedures:

Since the water-plasticity ratio requires the natural water content, we should first obtain the natural water
content of the soil sample. The limits should be determined on that portion of the soil finer than a No.40
sieve. If the test specimen contains clay, it should never have been drier than approximately its plastic
limit.

i. Liquid limit determination:

1. 100gm of moist soil have to be taken and mixed it thoroughly with distilled water to form a
uniform paste.

2. A portion of the paste have to be placed in the cup of the liquid limit device, the surface have
to smoothened off to a maximum depth of 1/2 inch and the Braving tool has to be drawn.

3. The crank have to be turned at a rate of about two revolutions per second, and the blows have
to count necessary to close the groove in the soil for a distance of 1/2 inch.

4. The sample have to be mixed in the cup and step 2 and 3 have to repeated until the number of
blow required to close the gap is substantially the same. (A difference of two or three blows probably
indicates poor mixing of the sample.)

5. When a consistent value in the range of ten to forty blows has been obtained, approximately
10gm of soil have to be taken from near the closed groove for a water content determination.

6. By altering the water content of the soil and step 2-5 have to be repeated, four water contents
have to be obtained in the range of ten to forty.

7. A plot of water content against log of blows has to be made. Such a plot is known as a "flow
curve."

ii. Plastic limit determination:

1. A sample of 15 kg of the moist soil has to be mixed thoroughly.

2. The soil has to be rolled on a glass plate with the hand until it is 1/8 inch in diameter.

3. Step 2 have to be repeated until 1/8inch diameter thread shows signs of crumbling.

4. Some of the crumbling material has to be taken which is obtained in step-3 for a water content
determination.

5. Steps 2-4 have to be repeated to obtain three determinations which can be averaged to give the
plastic limit.

19
iii. Shrinkage limits determination:

1. A pat of dry soil has to be weighted soon after it has been removed from desiccators (it picks
up moisture from the air).

2. A small dish has to be placed in a larger one and fill the small one to overflowing the mercury.
The dish has to be covered with a glass plate with prongs in such a way that the plate is flush with the top
of the dish and no air is entrapped.

3. The outside of the small dish has to be wiped to remove adhering mercury, then placed it
another large dish which is clean and empty.

4. The soil pat has to be placed on the mercury and submerge it with the prongs glass plate, which
is again made flush with the top of the dish.

5. The mercury has to be weighted that is displaced by the soil pat.

3.4 DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT BY COMPACTION TEST:

Many types of earth construction such as dams, retaining walls, high ways, and airports, require man
placed soil or fill. To compact a soil, that is, to place it in a dense state, is desirable for three reasons:

a) to decrease future settlement,

b) to increase a shear strength, and

c) to decrease permeability.

In 1933, Proctor published a series of four articles on soil compaction. In the second of this series, he
described a laboratory compaction test which is now called the "Standard proctor" compaction test.

Apparatus and Supplies

Special:

1. Compaction device:

a) Mold 4.6 in high, 4 in diameter, 1/30 cu feet volume.

b) Removal mold collar 2.5 in high, 4 in diameter.

c) Hammer 2 in diameter face, 5.5 or 10 lb weight and means for controlling in drop.

20
General:

1. Moisture sprayer

2. No. 4 sieve

3. Rubber-tipped pestle

4. Scoop

5. Straight edge and knife

6. Large mixing pan

7. Balance (0.01 lb sensitivity and 0.01 gm sensitivity)

8. Drying oven

9. Desiccator

10. Drying cans

Recommended procedures:

Since the commonly used dynamic compaction tests are alike except for the size of mold and
compaction energy employed, only the standard proctor or standard AASHO (American
Association of State Highway Officials) test is presented below. This procedure can be easily
altered to any of the other ones by changing the mold and or energy.

1. Firstly the empty mold has to be weighted (with the base but without the collar) to 0.01
lb.

2. A six pound representative specimen has to be obtained of the soil sample which is to
be tested. All soil lumps has to be broken in a mortar with a rubber-covered pestle and the soil
has to be sieved through a No.4 sieve.

3. With the soil passing the No.4 sieve, A 2- to 3-inch layer has to be formed in the mold.

4. The soil has to be gently pressed to smooth its surface and then was compacted it with
twenty five evenly distributed blows of the hammer, using a one foot free drop. Between each
drop of the hammer either the mold or the hammer should be rotated slightly to insure a uniform
distribution of blows.

21
 5. The procedure has to be repeated with a second and third layer, adjusting the drop of
the hammer to one foot above the soil layer. After one foot above the third layer, the surface of
the soil should be slightly above the top rim of the mold.

6. The collar has to be removed and trimmed off the soil even with the top of the mold. In
removing the collar it has to be rotated to break the bond between it and the soil before lifting it
off the mold; this prevents removing some of the compacted soil when the collar is taken off.
The trimming should consist of many scrapping operations with the straight edge, beginning at
the central axis and working towards the edge of the mold.
7. After the soil has been made even with the top of the mold and all loose soil cleaned
from the outside, the cylinder has to be weighted and sample to 0.011b.

8. The soil has to be removed from the cylinder and a representative sample of
approximately 100 gm is to be obtained for a water content determination. The water content
sample should be made up with specimens from the top, middle and bottom of the compacted
soil.

9. Broken by hand, the soil has to be removed from the cylinder, has to be remixed with
original sample, and raise its water content approximately 3% by adding water to the sample
with sprayer. It was carefully taken to distribute the water evenly and to mix the soil thoroughly.
After spraying, we could estimate the amount of water added by weighting the sprayer before.
Knowledge of water added helps us to control the water content.

10. The compaction process has to be repeated, each time raising the water content
approximately 3%, until five or six runs have been made and the soil becomes very wet and
sticky.

3.5 DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY:

The specific gravity of a soil is the ratio of the weight in air of a given volume of soil particles to
the weight in air of an equal volume of distilled water at a temperature of 4°c. The specific
gravity of a soil is often used in relating a weight of soil to its volume. Thus, knowing its void
ratio, the degree of saturation and the specific gravity, we can compute the unit weight of a moist
soil.

Apparatus and supplies:

1. Pycnometer (volumetric bottle),

2. Distilled water,

3. Vacuum source (optional),

22
 4. Heat source (such as burner or hot plate),

5. Balance (0.01 sensitivity),

6. Drying oven,

7. Desiccator,

8. Thermometer (graduated to 0.1 °c)

9. Evaporating dishes,

10. Medicine dropper or pipette.

Recommended procedures:

In the computation of specific gravity of a soil from laboratory data, the weight of the
pycnometer filled with distilled water at the test temperature will be needed. This value is usually
taken from a plot of temperature versus weight of bottle plus water. The plot or calibration curve
can be determined either by experimental or by theoretical means.

i. Bottle calibration

This procedure consists of obtaining at least three sets of concurrent temperature and weight
measurement about 40oc and within the temperature range of 20oc to 30oc. Each representing the
coordinates for a point on the calibration curve is obtained as follows:

1. To a clean pycnometer desired, distilled water at room temperature until the bottom of
the meniscus is at the calibration mark.

2. The outside of the bottle and the inside of the neck above the water surface have to be
dried carefully.

3. The bottle plus water to 0.01g have to be weighted.

4. The water temperature to 0.1°c has to be measured. The tip of the thermometer has to
be hold at different elevations within the water to see if the temperature is uniform. The recorded
temperature is taken with the thermometer inserted to the depth at which the thermometer
designed to read. (The depth is usually marked on the thermometer).

5. If the temperature is non-uniform, the thumb has to be placed over the open end of the
bottle and turned it upside down and back to mix the water thoroughly for a temperature
observation.

23
 6. The bottle of water has to be heated slightly by placing it in a warm water bath and
steps 2-5 have to be repeated, each time removing enough water to bring the meniscus down to
the calibration mark. This procedure has to be repeated until enough points are obtained to point
the calibration curve.

ii. Specific gravity determination:

1. A sample of the soil has to be worked to be tested into a smooth paste by mixing it
with distilled water. The sample used should contain approximately 50g in dry weight.

2. The paste has to be poured into a calibrated pycnometer.

3. All of the air have to be removed which is entrapped in the soil by 10 minutes boiling,
accompany the boiling with complete agitation. The application of a partial vacuum to the
suspension of the soil in water to lower the boiling temperature is desirable, since the lower the
temperature at which the suspension is boiled, the less the cooling which will have to be done
later.

4. The bottle and suspension have to be cooled to some temperature within the range of
the calibration curve for the bottle.

5. Water has to be added to bring the bottom of the meniscus to the calibration mark.

6. The outside of the bottle and the inside of the neck above the meniscus have to be
dried.

7. The bottle with water and the soil in it to 0.01g have to be weighted.

8. After checking to be sure that the contents of the bottle are at a uniform temperature,
the temperature has to be recorded.

9. The entrapped air have to be removed, cooled and obtained the weight and temperature
as was done in steps 3-8.

10. The entire mixture of the soil and water have to be poured into a large evaporating
dish of known weight, the pycnometer has to be rinsed carefully to insure the collection of all the
soil.

11. The soil has to be dried in the oven, cooled and weighted. The dry weight of the soil
grain can be obtained by subtracting the weight of the empty dish from the weight of the dish
with soil in it.

24
3.6 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS BY HYDROMETER:

The hydrometer method is based on Strokes equation for the velocity of a freely falling sphere;
the definition of particle diameter for a hydrometer test is, therefore, the diameter of a sphere of
the same density which falls at the same velocity as the particle in question.

Apparatus and supplies:

1. Hydrometer,

2. Mixer,

3. Deflocculating agent,

4. Constant-temperature bath (optional),

5. Two graduated cylinders (1-litre capacity),

6. Distilled water supply,

7. Balance (0.1g sensitivity),

8. Drying oven,

9. Desiccator,

10. Thermometer (graduate to 0.1°c)

11. Syringe, Large evaporating dishes,

12. Timer

13. Spatula.

Recommended procedures:

1. A moist specimen of soil has to be mixed, representing approximately 50g dry weight,
with distilled water to form a smooth thin paste.

2. A deflocculating agent has to be added to the paste and the mixture has to be washed
into the cup of the mixing machine by using a syringe.

3. The suspension has to be mixed in the machine until the soil is broken down into its
individual particles approximately for 10 minutes.

25
 4. While the soil and the water are being mixed, a graduated jar has to be filled up with
distilled water. This jar of water has to be used to store the hydrometer in between readings.

5. After mixing, the specimen has to be washed into a graduated cylinder and enough
distilled water has to be added to bring the level to the 1000cc mark.

6. The soil and the water have to be mixed in the graduate by placing the palm of the
hand over the open end and turning the graduate upside down and back. When the graduate is
upside down be sure no soil is stuck to the base of the graduate.

7. After shaking it for approximately 30 seconds, the graduate has to be replaced on the
table, the hydrometer has to be inserted in the suspension and the timer has to be started.

8. The hydrometer reading has to be taken at total elapsed times of 1/4, 1/2, and 1 and 2
minutes without removing the hydrometer. The suspension should be remixed, and this set of
four readings repeated until a consistent pair of sets has been obtained.

9. After the 2 minutes reading, the hydrometer has to removed, remixed, and restarted the
test, but no reading has to be taken until the 2 minute one, the hydrometer has to be inserted just
before the reading. Before each insertion of the hydrometer, the stem has to be dried.

10. Hydrometer reading has to be taken at total elapsed time intervals of 2, 5, 10, 20
minutes etc. approximately doubling the previous time interval. The hydrometer should be
removed from the suspension and stored in the graduate of distilled water after each reading.
Frequent temperature measurement of the suspension has to be taken.

11. Temperature observations and hydrometer readings in the jar of distilled water every
20 or 30 minutes; warm or cool water has to be added to keep it at the same temperature as that
of the suspension. Attempt to minimize temperature variations by keeping the test graduates
away from heat source such as radiators, sunlight and open windows.

12. The top of the jar containing the soil suspension covered has to be kept to retard
evaporation and to prevent the collection of dust etc. from the air.

13. The height of meniscus rise of pure distilled water has to be obtained on the stem of
the hydrometer. This height known as the meniscus correction is used in calculation.

14. The observations have been taken continuous until the hydrometer reads
approximately one or reading have been obtained at elapsed times large enough to give the
minimum soil particle diameter desired.

15. After the final reading, the suspension has to be poured into large evaporating dishes;
unusual care has to be taken to avoid losing of soil.

26
 16. The suspension has to be evaporated to dryness in the oven, the dishes have to be
cooled and weighted to 0.1g.

17. The dishes have to be cleaned and weighted them. The weight of the dishes
subtracted from that determined in step 16 gives the weight of dry soil used.

3.7 Determination of California Bearing Ratio test:

The laboratory CBR test consists essentially of preparing a sample of soil in a cylindrical steel
mold and then forcing a cylindrical steel plunger, of nominal diameter 50 mm, into the sample at
a controlled rate, whilst measuring the force required penetrating the sample.

A pictorial view of the general test arrangement is shown in Figure 3.1

CBR values may vary from less than 1% on soft clays to over 150% on dense crushed rock
samples. Preparation of remolded samples for the CBR test can be made in several ways.
However, commonly used methods are described here:

(1) Static compression

(2) Dynamic compaction by

(a) using 2.5 or 4.5 kg rammer and

(b) using vibrating hammer.

Material:

The CBR test is carried out on material passing a 20mm test sieve. If soil contains particles
larger than this the fraction retained on 20mm shall be removed and weighed before preparing
the test sample. If this fraction is greater than 25% of the original sample the test is not
applicable. The moisture content of the specimen or specimens can be adjusted as necessary
following the procedure discussed earlier on this chapter. The moisture content used is normally
to the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), but obviously this can be varied to suit particular
requirements.

Sample Preparation:

The conventional CBR test procedure for both reinforced and unreinforced soil was carried out
to evaluate swell% and soaked CBR% for both reinforced and unreinforced soil sample. During
CBR test; soil reinforced with Geotextile layers were placed horizontally at varying depth, i.e.
H/6; 2H/6 & at top, from the top of mold. At the same time soil with coir fiber was mixed
thoroughly with varying percentages, i.e. 1%, 2% & 3% by weight.

27
Figure 3.1: Pictorial View of CBR test setup

28
 Apparatus:

 Mold
 Steel Cutting collar
 Spacer Disc
 Surcharge weight
 Dial gauges
 IS Sieves
 Penetration Plunger
 Loading Machine
 Miscellaneous Apparatus

Recommended procedures:

1. Normally 3 specimens each of about 5 kg must be compacted so that their compacted

densities range from 95% to 100% generally with 10, 30 and 65 blows.

2. Weight of empty mold.

3. Add water to the first specimen (compact it in three layers altering blows i.e.10, 30, 65
blows per layer with 2.5 kg hammer).

4. After compaction, remove the collar and level the surface.

5. Take sample for determination of moisture content.

6. Weighing of mold + compacted specimen.

7. Place the mold in the soaking tank for four days.

8. Take other samples and apply different blows and repeat the whole process.

9. After four days, measure the swell reading and find percentage swell.

10. Remove the mold from the tank and allow water to drain.

11. Then place the specimen under the penetration piston and place surcharge load of 10lb.

12. Apply the load and note the penetration load values.

13. Draw the graphs between the penetration (in) and penetration load (in) and find the value
of CBR.

14. Draw the graph between the percentage CBR and Dry Density, and find CBR at required
degree of compaction.

29
 Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 BASIC PROPERTIES OF SAMPLE:

 Liquid limit = 33%

 Plastic limit=20%
 Shrinkage limit= 17%
 Plasticity index=13%
 Specific Gravity=2.67
 Flow Index= 7.5
 Toughness index= 1.6
#200

#100

#10
#40

#4
100

80
Sand=43.66%
Percent finer by weight

Silt=23.34%
Clay=33%
60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain size (mm)

Figure 4.1: Grain Size Analysis

30
The grain size distribution curve shown in figure 4.1 shows that the soil sample consists of 33%
of clay (smaller than 0.002 mm), 23.34% of silt (0.002 mm to 0.075mm) and 43.66% of sand
(0.075mm to 4.75mm).

Soil type: According to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) it is inorganic Sandy lean
clay, CL.

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Dry density (gm/cc)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40
18.35

% Moisture Content

Figure 4.2: Compaction Curve

From The Figure 4.2;

Maximum Dry Density =1.59 gm/cc

Optimum Moisture Content = 18.35%

31
4.2 Results of CBR test:

900

800

700

Resistance for 10 blows

600
Resistance,kpa

500

400 Resistance for 30 blows

300

200
Resistance for 65 blows
100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration,mm

FIG 4.3: PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR UNREINFORCED SOIL

Table 4.1: VARIATION OF CBR VALUES FOR RESPECTIVE NO OF BLOWS

No. of Blows Penetration, mm Corrected load, Standard load, CBR, % Accepted

kPa MPa CBR, %

10 2.5 186 6.9 2.7 3.31

5.0 341 10.3 3.31
30 2.5 206.7 6.9 3.00 3.68
5.0 379 10.3 3.68
65 2.5 248 6.9 3.59 4.14
5.0 423.8 10.3 4.14

32
 900

800

700

600
Resistance,kpa

RESISTANCE for
500 10 blows

400

300 RESISTANCE for

30 blows
200

100
RESISTANCE for
65 blows
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration,mm

FIG 4.4: PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL

(GEOTEXTILE)

Table 4.2: VARIATION OF CBR VALUES FOR RESPECTIVE NO OF BLOWS &

GEOTEXTILE LAYERS AT DIFFERENT POSITION

Geotextile No. of Penetration, Corrected Standard load, CBR, % Accepted

Position from top Blows mm load, kPa MPa CBR, %

1 layer at 10 2.5 268.73 6.9 3.89 4.42

H/6
5.0 454.78 10.3 4.42
2 Layers at 30 2.5 299.74 6.9 4.34 4.72
H/6 & 2H/6 5.0 485.79 10.3 4.72
3 Layers at Top, 65 2.5 320.41 6.9 4.64 4.92
H/6, 2H/6 5.0 506.46 10.3 4.92

33
 1200

1000

800 RESISTANCE for 10

Resistance,kpa

blows

600

RESISTANCE for 30
400 blows

200
RESISTANCE for 65
blows
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration,mm

FIG 4.5: PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL

(COIR FIBER)

Table 4.3: VARIATION OF CBR VALUES FOR RESPECTIVE NO OF BLOWS & AMOUNT
OF COIR FIBER ADDED

Coir No. of Penetration, Corrected load, Standard load, CBR, % Accepted

fiber % Blows mm kPa MPa CBR, %
1 10 2.5 299.74 6.9 4.34 5.12
5.0 527.13 10.3 5.12
2 30 2.5 330.75 6.9 4.79 5.92
5.0 609.82 10.3 5.92
3 65 2.5 351.42 6.9 5.09 6.52
5.0 671.83 10.3 6.52

34
 4.5

3.5
Soaked CBR, %

2.5

2
Soaked CBR, %
1.5

0.5

0
1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Dry density as Molded, Kg/m3

Fig 4.6: CBR VS DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED CURVE FOR UNREINFORCED SOIL

Table 4.4: CBR – DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED DATA (UNREINFORCED SOIL)

No. of Blows/Layer 10 30 65

Dry density as Molded, Kg/m3 1181.35 1241.33 1371.13

Soaked CBR, % 3.31 3.68 4.14

Design CBR 3.91%

35
 5

4.9

4.8
Soaked CBR, %

4.7

4.6 Soaked CBR, %

4.5

4.4

4.3
1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300
Dry density as Molded, Kg/m3

Fig 4.7: CBR VS DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL
(GEOTEXTILE)

Table 4.5: CBR – DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED DATA (REINFORCED SOIL WITH
GEOTEXTILE)

No. of Blows/Layer; (Geotextile 10; (H/6) 30; (H/6 & 2H/6) 65; (Top, H/6 & 2H/6)
position from top)
Dry density as Molded, Kg/m3 1165.19 1210.62 1285.57

Soaked CBR, % 4.42 4.72 4.92

Design CBR 4.52%

36
 7

5
Soaked CBR, %

3 Soaked CBR, %

0
1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200
Dry density as Molded, Kg/m3

Fig 4.8: CBR VS DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL (COIR
FIBER)

Table 4.6: CBR – DRY DENSITY AS MOLDED DATA (REINFORCED SOIL WITH COIR
FIBER)

No. of Blows/Layer; (Coir fiber %) 10, (1) 30, (2) 65, (3)

Dry density as Molded, Kg/m3 1074.45 1116.59 1177.78

Soaked CBR, % 5.12 5.92 6.52

Design CBR 5.75%

37
 1000

900

800

700
Resistance, kpa

RESISTANCE,10 blows
600 for SOIL

500

400 RESISTANCE,10 blows

for GEOTEXTILE
300

200
RESISTANCE,10 blows
100
for COIR FIBER
0
0 5 10 15
Penetration,mm
FIG 4.9: VARIATION OF PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR 10 BLOWS

1200

1000
Resistance, kpa

800
RESISTANCE,30 blows
for SOIL
600

RESISTANCE,30 blows
400 for GEOTEXTILE

200
RESISTANCE,30 blows
for COIR FIBER
0
0 5 10 15

Penetration,mm

FIG 4.10: VARIATION OF PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR 30 BLOWS

38
 1200

1000
RESISTANCE,65 blows
Resistance, kpa

for SOIL
800

600
RESISTANCE,65 blows
400 for GEOTEXTILE

200
RESISTANCE,65 blows
0 for COIR FIBER
0 5 10 15
Penetration,mm

FIG 4.11 : VARIATION OF PENETRATION VS RESISTANCE CURVE FOR 65 BLOWS

39
 0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6 SWELL %,10 blows

Swell, %

0.5

0.4
SWELL %,30 blows
0.3

0.2

0.1 SWELL %,65 blows

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed Time, hrs

FIG 4.12: SWELL VS ELAPSED TIME CURVE FOR UNREINFORCED SOIL

Table 4.7: SWELL DATA OF UNREINFORCED SOIL.

% Swell

Elapsed time, hrs 10 blows 30 blows 65 blows

24 .70 .54 .33

48 .73 .56 .35

72 .76 .58 .37

96 .76 .59 .38

40
 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 SWELL %,10 blows

Swell, %

0.4

0.3 SWELL %,30 blows

0.2

0.1 SWELL %,65 blows

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed Time, hrs

FIG 4.13: SWELL VS ELAPSED TIME CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL(Geotextile)

Table 4.8: SWELL DATA OF REINFORCED SOIL (Geotextile)

% Swell % Swell Decrease

Geotextile H/6 H/6, 2H/6 Top, H/6, 2H/6 H/6 H/6, 2H/6 Top, H/6, 2H/6
position
Elapsed 10 blows 30 blows 65 blows 10 blows 30 blows 65 blows
time, hrs
24 .61 .39 .25 12.86 27.78 24.24

48 .66 .47 .28 9.59 16.07 20

72 .67 .50 .28 11.84 13.79 24.32

96 .69 .51 .29 9.21 15.68 23.68

41
 0.35

0.3

0.25 SWELL %,10 blows

Swell, %

0.2

0.15 SWELL %,30 blows

0.1

SWELL %,65 blows

0.05

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed Time, hrs

FIG 4.14 : SWELL VS ELAPSED TIME CURVE FOR REINFORCED SOIL(Coir fiber)

Table 4.9: SWELL DATA OF REINFORCED SOIL (Coir fiber)

% Swell % Swell Decrease

Coir fiber % 1 2 3 1 2 3

Elapsed 10 blows 30 blows 65 blows 10 blows 30 blows 65 blows

time, hrs
24 .17 .15 .12 75.71 72.22 63.64

48 .24 .23 .22 67.12 58.93 37.14

72 .28 .26 .24 63.16 54.39 35.13

96 .31 .29 .28 59.21 50.85 26.32

42
The effects of Coir Fiber Content on decrease in swelling pressure were more in comparison to
the Geotextile layer. The swelling pressure decreases may be due to the following reason, the
aspect ratio of Coir Fiber was more than Geotextile.

7 6.52
5.92
6 SOAKED CBR,% for
5.12 10 blows
4.92
5
4.72
4.42
Soaked CBR%

4.14
4 3.68
3.31 2.SOAKED CBR,%
for 30 blows
3

2
3.SOAKED CBR,%
for 65 blows
1

0
SOIL GEOTEXTILE COIR FIBER

Fig 4.15: CBR% Comparison of tested samples

The soaked CBR values are determined in the laboratory for soil mixed with varying percentage
of coir fiber content and no. of horizontally placed geotextile layers are shown in Table 4.4, 4.5
& 4.6 respectively. It is clear from the tests results of that soaked CBR value of soil increases as
the coir fiber content and no. of geotextile layaer increases. This is due to reason that randomly
distributed fiber and horizontally placed geotextile layers incorporated into soil mass improves
its load deformation behavior by interacting with the soil particles mechanically through surface
friction and also by interlocking. Further, addition of coir fiber and geotextile layer makes the
soil a composite material whose strength and stiffness is greater than that of unreinforced soil.
The strength and stiffness of reinforced soil increases may be due to this reason also the CBR
value of reinforced soil was observed to be greater than that of unreinforced soil.

43
The results are analyzed effectively by introducing two non-dimensional factors namely,
Effective Depth Ratio (EDR) and Strength Benefit Ratio (SBR).

The Strength Benefit Ratio (SBR) is defined as the per cent increase in CBR value of soil due to
the presence of reinforcement when compared to the CBR value of unreinforced soil.

( ) ( )
( )

The Effective Depth Ratio (EDR) is defined as the ratio of depth of reinforcing layer from the
top to total height of soil specimen.

Table 4.10: SBR% Comparison of Reinforced Soil (Geotextile)

Geotextile position 1 layer at H/6, 2 layers at H/6 & 3 layers at Top, H/6 &
10 blows 2H/6, 30 blows 2H/6, 65 blows
Soaked CBR% 4.42 4.72 4.92

SBR% 33.53 28.26 18.84

Table 4.11: SBR% Comparison of Reinforced Soil (Coir Fiber)

No. of blows Soil: Coir (%) Soaked CBR% SBR%

10 99:1 5.12 54.68
30 98:2 5.92 60.87
65 97:3 6.52 57.49

Table 4.10 & 4.9 gives the SBR values obtained with varied number of coir percentage and
reinforcing layers for geotextile. It was observed that geotextile results in less CBR values when
compared to coir fiber even though the geotextile has six to seven times more tensile strength

44
than natural fabrics. But, to develop full tensile stress within the geotextile, it should interlock
with the aggregates. Otherwise, it will slip due to its smooth nature resulting in low CBR value.

It is quite obvious that much tensile stress will mobilize as more number of layers intercepts the
effective pressure bulb. It is due to the presence of one of the layers at depth of H/6 from the top.
The layers proved to be more effective in improving the CBR values of the soil irrespective of
type of fabric, as per this study. The maximum SBR i.e., for the soil with coir, geotextile are of
the order of 60.87% and 33.53% respectively.

45
 Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEMDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS:

 The CBR value increases with increase in number of reinforcing layers due to
mobilization of more tensile strength as more number of layers intercepts the effective
pressure bulb.

 The rate of increase in CBR value is high for varying percentages in case of natural
fabric, whereas the rate of increase in CBR value is high from two to three layers in case
of synthetic fabric i.e., geotextile.

 The maximum SBR% for soil with coir and geotextile are of the order of 60.87% and
33.53% respectively.

 Maximum SBR% of soil with geotextile found at 1 layer and soil with coir fiber it was
found 2% of coir fiber.

 Geotextile has less CBR value than natural fabrics in the conventional CBR test
procedure.

 For complete mobilization of tensile stress within the geotextile, it should interlock with
aggregate. Hence, the conventional CBR test procedure should be modified by replacing
the surcharge weight with the compacted aggregate with geotextile at zero EDR.

 Coir fiber is more suitable for low load bearing soft soils. This may be due to the
presence of higher percentages of clay fraction in soft soils which is responsible for
greater mobilization of tensile strength.

46
5.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDIES:

For effective functioning of structures made up of reinforced soil, some more aspects have to be
investigated.

1. Effect of aspect ratio that is different fiber length on strength parameters and to arrive at
an optimum value.

2. Compressibility and Consolidation characteristics of soil-coir & soil- geotextile sample.

3. Study of UCS characteristics for both reinforced and unreinforced soil.

4. Effect of other natural and synthetic fibers on geo-engineering properties.

5. Liquefaction Succesbility of fiber reinforced soil.

6. The decay of organic fibers, creep effect in fibers to be studied.

47
REFFERENCES:

Bowles, J. E. (1992). “Engineering Properties of Soils & their Measurement” International

Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, Singapore.

Charan H.D. (1995), “Probabilistic analysis of randomly distributed fiber soil.” Ph.D. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Egg. I.I.T Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Das Braja M. (1983).” Advanced Soil Mechanics”, International Edition, Mc Graw-Hill,

Singapore.

Fatani, N.M., Bauer, G.H., and Al-Joulani, N.(1999) . “Reinforcing soil with aligned and
randomly oriented metallic”, Journal of ASTM Geotech Testing (1), pp 78-87.

Gray, D.H., and Al-Refeai, T.(1986), “Behaviour of fabric- versus fiber-reinforced sand, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering,” ASCE, 112(8): 804-820.

Gray, D.H., and Ohashi, H. (1983), “Mechanics of fiber reinforcing in sand, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering”,ASCE 112(8): 335-353.

Gillot,J.E. (1968), “Clay in Engineering Geology”, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam-

London-New York, 296 pages.

Gosavi, M., Patel, K.A, Mittal, S. and Saran, S (2004). “Improvements of properties of black
cotton soil subgrade through synthetic reinforcement”, Journal of Institution of reinforced with
randomlydistributed fibers”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. 716 (11), 1661-1677

Goutam Kumar Pothal and G. Venkatappa Rao, “Model Studies on Geosynthetic Reinforced
Double Layer System with Pond Ash Overlain by Sand”, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engg., Vol. 13, 2008, pp.1-13.

Hoe I. Ling and Zheng Liu, “Performance of GeosyntheticReinforced Asphalt Pavements”,

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No.2, 2001.

Indian Roads Congress, “Guidelines for use of Geotextiles in Road Pavements and Associated
Work”, Special Publication: 59, 2002.

IS 1498-1970, Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes.

IS: 2720, Part XVI, 1965. Laboratory determination of CBR, Bureau of Indian Standards; New
Delhi.

IS 2720 (Part XVI)-1987, Method of Test for Soils, Laboratory Determination of CBR.

48
IS 2720 (Part X)-1991, Method of Test for Soils, Determination of Unconfined Compressive
Strength

J.G. Zornberg, & R. Gupta, “Geosynthetics in pavements: North American contributions”, 9th
International Conf. on Geosynthetics, Brazil, 2010

Jones D.E. and Holtz W.G.(1973), “Expansive Soils- the Hidden Disaster”, Journal of Civil
Engineering, Issue 8, Vol.43, pp 49-51.

Lawton E.C., Khire, M.V. and Fox, N.S. (1993). “Reinforcement of soils by multioriented
geosynthetic”, inclusion. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 119(2),257-275

Michalowski, R.L. & Cerma'k, J. (2002). “Strength anisotropy of fiber reinforced sand”,
Compute. Geotech. 29, No. 4,279-299.

Popescu, M.E., (1986), “A comparison between the Behavior of Swelling of Clayey Soils”,
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 19-39.

Proctor, R. R., (1933). Fundamental Principles of Soil Compaction, Eng. News-Record, Aug. 31,
Sept. 7, 21 and 28.

Ranjan, G., Vasan, R.M. and Charan, H.D. (1996),” Probabilistic analysis of randomly
distributed fiberreinforced soil”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(6): 419-426

Rao, A.S. Rao, K.V.N., Sabetha, G. and SurestL K. (2006).” Load deformation behavior of
fiberreinforced gravel beds overlying soft clay”. A National Conference on Corrective
Engineering Practices in Troublesome Soils (CONCEPTS), Kakinad4 8-9 luly, 2006, 187 -190

Shroff A.V and. Singh G.N. (1989), “Load-Deformation characteristics of fabric reinforced on
weak soil subgrades”, International workshop on geotextiles, pp 144-147.

Sing A. (1975). Soil Engineering, Second Edition, Asia Publication House, India

Singh, H.P., Sharma, A., and Chanda, N.(2011), “Study Of Strength Characteristics of Coir
Reinforced Soil”, International Conference on Advances in Material and Techniques for
Infrastructure Development held at NIT Calicut Kerala, India. Paper No.: G002, 28-30
September.

Singh, H.P., (2013), Effects of Coir Fiber on CBR Value of Itnagar Soil, International Journal
of current and Engineering and Technology, ISSN 2277 - 4106.

SP 20 (1997): “Manual on route location design construction maintenance of rural roads (other
districts roads and village roads)” Publication, Indian Road Congress, New Delhi.

2720 (Part VII)-1980, Method of Test for Soils, Determination of Water Content-Dry Density
relation using Light Compaction. [6]..

49
50