Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 April 2014
Revised 1 September 2014
Accepted 5 September 2014
Available online 17 September 2014
Keywords:
SoilcementArecanut coir
UCS
CBR
Fatigue life
Durability
KENPAVE
a b s t r a c t
Soil stabilization is a common method used by engineers and designers to enhance the
properties of soil with different stabilizers. From ancient times, usage of natural ber in soil
as reinforcement is an effective technology adopted. This paper presents the effect of
including randomly spaced Arecanut coir to the soil mix. The engineering properties and
bearing capacity of a soil get enhanced by stabilizing it with Arecanut coir and a binding
material (cement). The information available on experiments and research on the behavior
of soil cement mixtures were collected and a few studies conducted on ber reinforcement
were referred. The current study mainly focuses on the durability test and physical evaluation of soil cement mixtures reinforced with Arecanut coir. Coir content was varied from
0.2% to 1% with an increment of 0.2%. For further improvement, a uniform dosage of 3%
cement was added to soil. Laboratory tests including the Unconned Compressive Strength
(UCS), California Bearing Ratio (CBR), durability and fatigue behavior, were conducted as
per standards. The test results indicated that the improvement in characteristics of the soil
cement coir mixtures were functions of coir dosage, soil type and curing days. Durability
test satised at 1% Arecanut coir with 3% cement. The stressstrain values were determined and damage analysis was conducted for the higher dosage of Arecanut coir using
KENPAVE software. From the results it is observed that, the Arecanut coir reinforced
cement soil mix can be used for low volume roads (trafc 61 million standard axles)
and few design cases have been discussed.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Subgrade is a structure formed by natural or borrowed
soil, on which other granular layers of pavement such as
sub-base, base and surface courses are laid. The quality
and stability of subgrade is a major factor responsible for
the adequate performance and service of any road during
its life span. Lateritic soils have been found in the coastal
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, National
Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Srinivasnagar P.O., Mangalore 575025, India.
E-mail addresses: lekhabm@gmail.com (B.M. Lekha), gouthamsarang@
gmail.com (S. Goutham), aurshankar@gmail.com (A.U.R. Shankar).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2014.09.001
2214-3912/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
appears to be a promising material because it is inexpensive, abundantly available and the crop is very high potential perennial. The husk of the Arecanut is a hard brous
portion covering the endosperm. It constitutes 3045% of
the total volume of the fruit. Areca husk bers are predominantly composed of hemicelluloses.
The concept of soil reinforcement was rst developed by
Vidal (1996). It was established that the introduction of
reinforcement elements in a soil mass increases the shear
resistance of the soil matrix. Lekha and Sreedevi (2005)
studied on coir ber for stabilization of weak subgrade soils,
which included treating the weak soil with coir bre at different quantities and studying the changes in Optimum
Moisture Content (OMC), Maximum Dry Density (MDD)
and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. The OMC was
found to be increased with the increase in the percentage
of coir bre content and correspondingly, MDD decreased.
Tang et al. (2007) investigated the effects of discrete short
polypropylene ber (PP-ber) on the strength and mechanical behavior of uncemented and cemented clayey soil. The
test results indicated that the inclusion of ber reinforcement within uncemented and cemented soil caused
increase in the Unconned Compressive Strength (UCS),
shear strength and axial strain at failure, decrease in the
stiffness and the loss of post-peak strength, and change in
the behavior of cemented soils from brittle to more ductile.
Kumar and Singh (2008) tried different combinations of
polypropylene ber and y ash on soil. It was observed
that the addition of ber to soil satisfy all the geotechnical
properties to meet the requirements of sub base layer.
Bijayananda et al. (2011) conducted a series of laboratory
soaked and unsoaked CBR tests on randomly oriented ber
reinforced and unreinforced specimens of clayey soil, compacted at OMC and MDD. Coir ber has been used as a reinforcing material to investigate its benecial use in rural
road subgrade soil. From CBR test results, the engineering
performance of coir ber inclusion was examined. The
results indicated that the inclusion of coir ber enhanced
the CBR strength of the soil specimens signicantly. Clayey
soils mixed with bers showed remarkable increase in the
CBR strength in comparison with the same soils without
ber inclusions. That is, randomly oriented discrete ber
reinforcements in clayey subgrade offered higher resistance to penetration than unreinforced one, under similar
loading conditions. Shankar et al. (2012) studied on lithomargic clay stabilized with different percentages of sand
and coir and improvement in almost all properties was
observed. The CBR both in soaked and unsoaked condition,
increased as the percentage of sand increased from 0 to 40
and coir from 0 to 0.5. When the sand content increased
from 0 to 40%, the UCS values of blended soil for both light
and modied compaction densities increased up to a certain limit, whereas, the increase of coir content from 0 to
0.5% resulted in a continuous increase in UCS. Even though
Arecanut coir is a biodegradable material, according to
Ramaswamy and Aziz (1989) its strength and condition
beyond a period of one year after placement should not
be of any concern as by that time the coir would have
already played a very important role in providing a selfsustaining subgrade for most types of soils. The loss of
strength of the coir with time can be well compensated
21
22
Table 1
Properties of lateritic soil.
S. No.
Property
Value
56
29
27
28
1.69
17
Plate 1. Arecanut coir.
1.63
19.2
Table 2
Physical properties of Arecanut coir.
138
206
5.26
3.18
Diameter
(mm)
Length
(mm)
Density
(g/cc)
Young modulus
(kN/mm2)
Tensile
strength (kN/m2)
0.35
28
1.09
27
2.2
3.14
2.04
Table 3
Chemical composition of Arecanut coir.
that the soil consists of 9% gravel, 44% sand, 32% silt and
15% clay. As per Indian standard classication the lateritic
soil belongs to SC group (clayey sand) and having a specic
gravity of 2.45.
Cellulose
(%)
Hemicellulose
(%)
Lignin
(%)
Ash
(%)
Pectin
(%)
Wax
(%)
Nil
3564.8
1324.8
4.4
Nil
Nil
Arecanut coir
GRAVEL SIZE
0.1
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
0.01
SILT SIZE
CLAY SIZE
0.001
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
The quantity of coir to be used is an important parameter. Different quantities of coir can cause different effect
in the same soil sample. Insufcient quantity of coir may
lead to less stabilization of the soil whereas excess quantity may result in ineffective stabilization and decrease
the strength of the soil. Hence, to determine the optimum
quantity of coir the CBR and UCS tests were conducted on
each of the soil sample with varying percentages of coir by
weight of soil. The different percentages of coir considered
in the present study are listed in Table 4.
Arecanut coir was collected from Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District, Karnataka State, India. The dry Arecanut
shells, which are brown in color, were collected for the
present work and the coir from the shell was extracted
manually in the laboratory. Plate 1 shows the physical
appearance of Arecanut coir. The physical and chemical
compositions of Arecanut coir are tabulated in Tables 2
and 3. The aspect ratio and specic gravity of Arecanut coir
considered for the study are 80 and 0.67 respectively.
% by weight of soil
1
2
3
4
5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2
4
6
8
10
23
ing periods by maintaining the moisture content. After completion of curing period, specimens for soaked CBR test were
placed in water for 4 days and then taken out and allowed to
drain before being loaded. In case of eld construction, the
soil can be graded rst and then it can be mixed with Arecanut coir and cement in dry state using graders/dozers/rotavators, etc. (Santoni and Webster, 2001).
Durability test
Cement
In this investigation, 3% of OPC 43 grade cement, collected from the local market, was used based on earlier
studies.
Stabilization using Arecanut coir with 3% cement
The soil mixed with coir does not require any curing as
there is no chemical reaction takes place between soil and
coir. In the present study the soil has been stabilized further by adding 3% cement to enhance the bonding and
strength. The addition of cement enhances the bonding
and friction between soil and coir. The strength of the soil
in terms of CBR, UCS and fatigue life has been evaluated for
3, 7 and 28 days curing periods.
Sample preparation
The preparation of soil specimens for UCS and CBR tests
in laboratory was carried out according to the standard procedure. CBR tests were carried out under both moist and
soaked conditions. OMC, obtained from the modied proctor test, was about 17% for plain soil specimens. To prepare
soil-coir mixtures, required quantity of Arecanut coir was
added and thoroughly mixed with dry soil and then water
was added in two stages to prepare more homogenous specimens. In the rst stage, half of the water was added to the
mixture, followed by 15 min continuous hand mixing and
then the remaining water was added, followed by 5 min
hand mixing. In the case of soil cement coir mix, dry soil,
cement and coir were added and mixed together and then
required quantity of water was added. For each mixture
specimens with different dosages, corresponding OMC and
MDD was maintained. Samples were cured for varying cur-
24
The loading level in the present study was taken as a fraction of the respective UCS value of each specimen at the
same condition of dosages. The untreated and treated soil
specimens with varying curing periods were tested for
repeated loading with 1/3rd, 1/2 and 2/3rd of their UCS
values.
Test procedure
The cylindrical specimen (38 mm diameter and
75 mm height) was mounted on the loading frame
and the deection sensing transducers (Linear Variable Deection Transducer LVDT) were set to read
the deformation of the specimen. The load cell was
brought in contact with the specimen surface.
In the control unit, through the dedicated software,
the selected loading stress level, frequency of loading and the type of wave form were fed into the
loading device.
The loading system and the data acquisition system
were switched on simultaneously and the process of
fatigue load application on the test specimen was
initiated.
The repeated loading, at the designated excitation
level (i.e. at the selected stress level and frequency)
was continued till the failure of the test specimen.
The analysis was done using the computer package software called KENPAVE for pavement design and analysis,
developed by Yang (2004) at the University of Kentucky.
The KENLAYER computer program applies only to exible
pavements with no joints or rigid layers. The backbone of
KENLAYER is the solution for an elastic multilayer system
under a circular loaded area. The software does linear elastic multi-layer analysis to obtain the results including
stresses, strains and deections. It can be applied to layered systems under single, dual, dual-tandem and dual-tridem wheel congurations with different layer behaviors
like linear elastic, nonlinear elastic and visco-elastic. Damage analysis can be made by dividing each year into a maximum of 12 periods, each with a different set of material
properties. Each period can have different loading conditions, with single or multiple wheeled. The damage caused
by fatigue cracking and permanent deformation in each
period over all load groups can be summed up to evaluate
the design life.
There are several input parameters for analysis of pavement in KENPAVE and some of them are listed below.
Number of layers and thickness of each layer
Materials like linear, non-linear, visco-elastic and
combined
Vertical coordinates for analysis
Elastic modulus and Poissons ratio of each layer
Response points
Contact pressure, contact radius and spacing of wheels
The pavement structure was
adopted from
IRC:SP:72,2007, for a CBR of 34% (case S2) and four trafc
load cases, as tabulated in Table 5. The structure consists of
a thin bituminous surface course, a WBM layer, a granular
Table 5
Pavement design catalog as per IRC: SP: 72-2007 and modied case.
Subgrade strength (CBR)
Modied subgrade;
All thickness are in mm.
75
100
100
100
75
100
75
100
WBM;
75
100
100
75
150
75
150
150
100
150
150
75
100
100
75
125
150
granular sub-base;
100
150
150
75
150
150
125
25
MR 10 CBR
for CBR 5
MR 17:6 CBR0:64
Egb MR 0:2 h
0:45
NR Number of cumulative standard axles to produce rutting of 20 mm; ez Vertical subgrade strain (micro strain).
For modied design, mixture with soil3% cement1%
Arecanut coir combination with 19% soaked CBR was
adopted, since it passed durability criteria. Modied pavement thickness was arrived using trial and error method.
The economic thickness of pavement sections have been
Table 7
Variation of UCS with curing period for soil with cement and coir.
Dosage
Table 6
Compaction test results.
UCS (kPa)
3 days
Modied compaction
Standard compaction
MDD (g/cc)
OMC (%)
MDD (g/cc)
OMC (%)
1.69
1.68
1.66
1.64
1.58
1.47
17.0
19.6
20.0
20.6
21.0
23.0
1.63
1.63
1.59
1.55
1.51
1.43
19.2
19.9
20.5
21.2
22.2
23.8
Modified Compaction
300
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
cement + 0% coir
cement + 0.2% coir
cement + 0.4% coir
cement + 0.6% coir
cement + 0.8% coir
cement + 1.0% coir
7 days
S
373
441
532
559
501
475
288
350
456
502
291
295
489
520
615
717
608
543
328
376
495
514
417
383
540
602
687
896
704
622
386
485
522
600
519
470
Standard Compaction
200
150
100
50
0
LS
28 days
250
UCS (kPa)
Sample
LS + 0.2% coir LS + 0.4% coir LS + 0.6% coir LS + 0.8% coir LS + 1.0% coir
Soil Mix
Fig. 2. UCS values for Arecanut treated with 7 days curing period.
26
14
12
CBR (%)
10
MC at OMC
MC at Soaked
SC at OMC
SC at Soaked
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Areca nut coir Content (%)
MC : Modified compaction; SC : Standard Compaction
Fig. 3. CBR values for Arecanut coir treated soil with 7 days curing period.
Table 8
Variation of CBR with curing period.
Dosage
CBR (%)
3 days
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
LS + 3%
cement + 0.2%
cement + 0.4%
cement + 0.6%
cement + 0.8%
cement + 1.0%
coir
coir
coir
coir
coir
7 days
28 days
OMC
Soaked
OMC
Soaked
OMC
Soaked
30
36
39
31
24
16
18
24
21
17
50
54
63
50
45
18
24
40
24
19
51
55
64
52
46
19
26
42
25
20
Table 9
Durability test results for stabilized soil.
No. of cycles
LS
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Dosage 2
Dosage 3
Dosage 4
Dosage 5
Collapsed
2.04
Collapsed
8.98
1.78
0.67
Collapsed
9.93
12.94
1.21
0.58
0.94
Collapsed
10.23
11.56
14.32
1.86
2.12
1.28
5.64
7.61
9.85
Collapsed
7.69
8.95
10.24
12.38
14.56
16.58
2.36
3.26
2.52
0.50
1.13
3.57
9.67
10.25
11.18
12.66
8.91
9.16
10.72
13.33
14.68
19.97
20.12
21.45
21.98
22.23
27
Modied compaction
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.33
0.50
0.67
0.33
0.50
0.67
UCS (kg)
14,098
13,985
13,241
58
19
29
39
36,024
35,876
35,241
15,758
15,023
14,322
60
20
30
40
36,453
35,985
35,324
25,874
24,925
24,764
72
24
36
48
56,672
56,124
55,824
25,965
25,572
24,897
84
28
42
56
66,947
66,452
66,325
36,045
35,982
35,421
73
24
37
49
67,087
66,941
66,547
46,125
46,010
45,872
65
22
33
44
77,104
76,854
76,358
Table 11
Displacement values using KENPAVE for conventional and modied soil.
Trafc conditions
S2T4
S2T5
S2T6
S2T7
Vertical coordinate
(cm)
Vertical displacement
(cm)
0
7.5
17.5
27.5
37.5
0
7.5
17.5
27.5
42.5
0
7.5
22.5
32.5
47.5
0
7.5
22.5
37.5
52.5
0
7.5
17.5
25
35
0
7.5
17.5
27.5
42.5
0
7.5
20
30
45
0
7.5
27.5
37.5
50
0.181
0.174
0.153
0.134
0.116
0.177
0.170
0.149
0.129
0.105
0.160
0.153
0.127
0.112
0.093
0.144
0.139
0.116
0.098
0.083
0.154
0.150
0.136
0.125
0.112
0.148
0.144
0.130
0.119
0.100
0.130
0.128
0.113
0.102
0.088
0.119
0.116
0.102
0.090
0.078
80
Vertical stress, kPa
Conventional
Modified
60
40
20
0
S2T4
S2T5
S2T6
Traffic Conditions
S2T7
Fig. 4. Vertical stress values over subgrade for different trafc conditions.
Table 12
Damage analysis values for conventional and modied soil.
Trafc conditions
S2T4
S2T5
S2T6
S2T7
Nf (in millions)
Nr (in millions)
16.2
15.0
24.4
30.8
76.2
67.0
116.0
121.0
0.053
0.122
0.348
0.913
0.072
0.172
0.526
1.420
C conventional; M modied.
C conventional; M modied.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Conventional
Modified
No. of years
28
S2T4
S2T5
S2T6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Conventional
S2T7
S2T4
Traffic Conditions
S2T5
Modified
S2T6
S2T7
Traffic Conditions
Fig. 5. Variations of design life damage ratio for different trafc conditions.
Conventional
2.50E-03
Modified
CS - Compressive Strain
TS - Tensile Strain
Strain
2.00E-03
1.50E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
0.00E+00
CS
TS
S2T4
CS
TS
S2T5
CS
TS
S2T6
CS
TS
S2T7
Traffic Conditions
Fig. 6. Compressive and tensile strain values for different trafc conditions.
29
stabilization. Hence, overall cost of the road construction can be reduced while comparing with
the conventional methods.
References
Amadi AA. Enhancing durability of quarry nes modied black cotton soil
subgrade with cement kiln dust stabilization. Transp Geotech 2014.
ASTM D559-1996. Standard test methods for wetting and drying
compacted soil cement mixtures. Philadelphia.
ASTM D560-1996. Standard test methods for freezing and thawing
compacted soil cement mixtures. Philadelphia.
Bijayananda M, Mahipal S.C, Satyendra M, California bearing ratio of
randomly oriented ber reinforced clayey subgrade for rural roads,
Proc. of Ind. Geotech. Conf. 2011: 611614.
Deepthi MD, Praveen R, Babu GLS. Life-cycle cost analysis of long lasting
pavements. Indian Highways; 2013. 514.
Dempsey BJ, Thompson MR. Durability properties of lime soil mixtures.
High Res Rec 1968;235:6175.
Grogan WP, Johnson WG. Stabilization of high plasticity clay and silty
sand by inclusion of discrete brillated polypropylene bers for use in
pavement subgrades. Technical report CPAR-GL-94-2. Vicksburg: US
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station; 1994.
Hufenusa R, Rueeggerb R, Banjacc R, Mayorc P, Springmanc SM,
Bronnimannd R. Full-scale eld tests on geosynthetic reinforced
unpaved roads on soft subgrade. J Geotext Geomembr
2006;24:2137.
IRC: 37-2012. Tentative guidelines for the design of exible pavements.
The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
IRC: SP: 72-2007, Guidelines for the design of exible pavements for low
volume rural roads, The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
Kar RK, Pradhan PK. Laboratory tests of reinforced y ash mix for use as
sub-base in low volume rural roads. Indian Highways; 2012. p. 2935.
40(1).
Kumar P, Singh SP. Fiber-reinforced y ash subbases in rural roads. J
Transp Eng 2008;134:17180.
Lekha KR, Sreedevi BG. Coir ber for the stabilization of weak subgrade
soils. Kerala, India: Highway Engineering Lab, NATPAC; 2005.
Lekha BM, Shankar AUR, Goutham S. Fatigue and engineering properties
of chemically stabilized soil for pavements. Ind Geotech J
2013;43(1):96104.
Maheshwari K, Desai A.K, Solanki C.H. Analytical modeling of exile
pavement resting on ber reinforced clayey soil. Proc of Ind. Geotech.
Conf. 2012: 11731176.
Newman K, White J. Rapid assessment of cement/ber stabilized soil
using roller-integrated compaction monitoring. Washington,
DC: Trans Res Board, 87th annual meeting; 2008. p. 95102. 2059.
Ramaswamy S, Aziz M, Jute geotextile for roads. Proc. of Int. workshops
on Geotextile. 1989. p.137143.
Santoni RL, Webster SL. Airelds and roads construction using ber
stabilization of sands. J Transp Eng 2001;127:96104.
Santoni RL, Tingle JS, Webster SL. Engineering properties of sand-ber
mixtures for road construction. J Geotech Geoenvir Eng
2001;127(3):25868.
Sarbaz H, Ghiassian H, Heshmati AA. CBR strength of reinforced soil with
natural bres and considering environmental conditions. Int J Pav Eng
2014;15(7):57783.
Shankar AUR, Chandrashekhar A, Prakash BH. Experimental
investigation on lithomargic clay stabilized with sand and
coir. Indian Highways; 2012.
Tang C, Shi B, Gao W, Chen F, Cai Y. Strength and mechanical behaviour of
short polypropylene ber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey
soil. Geotext Geomembr 2007;25:194202.
Tingle JS, Santoni RS, Webster SL. Full-scale eld tests of discrete berreinforced sand. J Transp Eng 2002;128(1):916.
Vidal H. The principle of reinforced earth. Highway research
record. Washington, DC: NCR-HRB; 1996. p. 116. 282.
Yang HH. Pavement analysis and design. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall; 2004. p. 67781.
Zhang Z, Farrag K, Morvant M. Evaluation of the effect of synthetic bers
and nonwoven geotextile reinforcement on the stability of heavy clay
embankments. Technical Report, FHWA/LA.03/373. USA: Louisiana
Transportation Research Center; 2003.