comprative study of reinforced soil of bidar dirstic … · the above graph shows sieve analysis...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 61 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 9, September 2017, pp. 61–70, Article ID: IJCIET_08_09_009

Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=9

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPRATIVE STUDY OF REINFORCED SOIL

OF BIDAR DIRSTIC WITH GEOGRID-1,

GEOGRID-2 & GEO-MEMBRANE

N. Vijay Kumar

Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, K L University,

Vaddeswaram, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

SS. Asadi

Associate Dean Academics & Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

K L University, Vaddeswaram, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

A.V.S. Prasad

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K L University,

Vaddeswaram, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT

Road pavements are vulnerable (weak) to soil performance because the foundation

of the pavement sub-grade soil is most important element. And if the sub-grade layer

of pavement consists of Black cotton soil and lateritic soil, due to changes in moisture

content and subsequent shrinkage and swelling, it undergoes failure. Thus, for the

construction on such type of soil it is required to improve the engineering properties

of soil or to replace the soil itself. Replacing the existing soil might not be a practical

and feasible option, thus it is required to stabilize the soil with suitable stabilizer.

However the selection of stabilizer depends upon the type of sub-grade soil, type of

soil improvement desired, availability of stabilizer, the required strength and

durability of stabilized layer, various stabilizing techniques, environmental conditions

and the most important cost factor. This paper reviews the work of various

researchers on stabilization of soil and use of geo-synthetic materials in improving its

strength.

Keywords: BC soil, Particle size Distribution, shear strength, California bearing ratio,

Compressibility.

Cite this Article: N. Vijay Kumar, SS. Asadi and A.V.S. Prasad, Comprative Study of

Reinforced Soil of Bidar Dirstic With Geogrid-1, Geogrid-2 & Geo-Membrane,

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(9), 2017, pp. 61–70.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=9

N. Vijay Kumar, SS. Asadi and A.V.S. Prasad


1. INTRODUCTION

Maintenance and development is the major issue in the pavement infrastructure. In General

practices, higher quality of materials are to satisfy standards in the permanent pavement

Construction and sub-grade soil doesn’t satisfy in many regions in the world. It requires

alternative Solution for the use of weaker sub grade soil. The load is transferred from the

pavement toward the second stratum of soil which should have enough strength. This can be

achieved by using Geo-synthetics in terms of Geogrids & Geomembrane which are capable to

increases the strength at the sub grade sail. Geogrids are mainly used as reinforcement

materials in the structures like embankments, retaining walls, slopes and pavements etc. can

be placed in between base coarse and sub base coarse.

Many researchers have suggested that by inclusion of Geogrids between the base coarse

and sub base coarse will significantly increase the performance of the pavement. It has been

observed in both field and laboratory experiments. Their studies have shown that there was

increase in CBR values for both unasked & soaked conditions using reinforcement in the

soils.

2. OBJECTIVES

The Prime Aim of the Present Investigation Is to Assess the Usefulness of Geo-grid and Geo-

membrane As Soil Reinforcement. The present investigation has been limited to the following

studies.

1. To Study the Comparison of Road pavements Constructed With Geo-grid and Geo-

membrane.

2. To Study The Strengthening Of Soil Of Low BearingCapacity.

3. To Study The Effect Of Geotextile As An Arrests MigratingOf Soil Particle And

Allows Water To Permeate Across It.

4. To Study the Influence of Geo-grid and Geo-membrane On California bearing ratio.

3. MATERIALS USED

3.1. Here mainly five materials were used, namely

1. Lateritic and Black cotton soil.

2. Geogread.1

3. Geogread.2

4. Geo-membrane.

3.1.1. Collection of lateritic soil.

Lateritic soil was collected from Shivanagar area of Bidar District in Karnataka State. The

sample was collected from depth of 0.8m from ground level with the help of crow bars and

powdy. Bigger size lumps were broken down with the help of pick axed and rammer. The soil

was pulverized with wooden mallet then air dried.

3.1.2 Collection of black cotton soil.

Black cotton soil was collected from cross road of Bhalki taluk, Bidar district in Karnataka

state as was used for this study. The sample was collected manually from depth of0.9m with

the help of crow bars and powdy. Bigger size lumps are broken down with the help of pick

axed and rammer. The soil was pulverized with wooden mallet then air dried.

Comprative Study of Reinforced Soil of Bidar Dirstic With Geogrid-1, Geogrid-2 & Geo-Membrane


3.2. Geogrid-1.

Figure 1 Sample of Geogrid-1

3.2.1Physical properties:

Many of the physical property of Geogrids can be calculated directly & relatively straight

forwards. it contain the type of arrangement, connection type, opening size and width.

Additional property that are of interest are density, mass per unit area etc. Aperture size is the

25.4mm, thickness is 2mm, density will be 0.897g/cm3 & 0.066g/cm2 is the mass per unit

area of the Geogread-1.

3.2.2Chemical properties:

Polyolefin Polypropylene, polyethylene & polyesters used in Geogrids have elevated

Exceptional resistance to a broad collection of chemicals.

3.3. Geogrids

Figure 1 Sample of Geogrid-1 Figure 2 Sample of Geogrid-2

3.3.1Physical properties:

This is woven by high tenacity, multifilament polyester yarns and coated with durable

Polymer which can provide the best resistance of UV and durability. Advantage is high

tensile modulus and low creep behavior.Etc. successfully offers the stability to earth

structures, such as reinforced retaining wall or steep slope, road, bridge or pavement

construction. Tensile strength is 2053lb/ft, elongation 10%, and long term design strength

1214 lb/ft.

3.3.2 Chemical properties:

Polyolefin Polypropylene, polyethylene and polyesters used in Geogrids have high excellent

resistance to a wide range of chemicals.



3.3.1. Geo-membrane.

Figure 3 Sample of Geo-membrane

3.3.2 Physical properties:

Thickness -500 micron, density-0.94 g/cm3, mass per unit area 6.4 kg/m2, uv radiation-2%,

compressive strength-2200 mpa, type -HDPE virgin, color-black.

3.3.3 Chemical properties:

HDPE-35%,LLDPE-25%,PVC-25%,Flexiblepolypropylene-

10%,chlorosulfonatedpolyethylene-2%, ethylenepropylenedine+polymer-3%.

3.4. METHODOLOGY

3.4.1. Preparation of samples.

Specimen for testing the CBR has done by taking the soil mass of about 4.5 kg, which was

passed through a sieve of size 20mm. OMC which we had gotten from standard proctor test

will added in the soil mass and mixed thoroughly until lumps vanishes. keep the CBR mould

ready by fixing it to base plate and spacer disc of size 3,7cm will be placed at the bottom of

the mould, after being mixed the soil mass is poured in CBR mould which is having a size of

diameter 15cm and height of 17.5cm and it will compacted in three layers by giving 25 blows

for each layer for light compaction. After compacting the second layer collar will be placed

and compacting third layer is carried out and for the compacting the 3rd layer the collar will

be removed and the extra part of soil mass is trimmed until it gets to smooth surface.

Reinforcement is done at certain depth from top of the specimen.

Index properties on the BC soil were carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in

IS 2720, step different types of geosynthetic materials introduced into the soil.

3.4.1 The following tests were carried out on the natural BC soil:

Natural moisture content, Specific gravity, Grain size analysis, Atterberg’s limits.

Compaction test, California Bearing Ratio Test.

A. Geotechnical properties (Results of tests carried out in natural BC soil are summarized

Table 1) S.NO Parameters Lateritic soil Black cotton soil

1 Specific gravity Gs 2.7 2.6

2 Atterberg’s limits %

Liquid limit 44.5 60

Plastic limit 35.3 45

Plasticity index 9.2 15

3 Sieve analysis%

Sand 40 30.5

Silt 25.5 44.3

Clay 34.8 24.5



Effective particle size (D10) mm 0.17 0.275

(D30)mm 0.5 0.69

(D60)mm 1.4 61.8

Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 8.23 6.5

Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.05 0.96

4 Optimum moisture content 12 24

5 Maximum dry density kN/m3 20.405 15.901

6 IS classification CH CH&MH

Table 1 Geotechnical Properties of the Untreated Black Cotton Soil.

B. Atterberg’s Limits

Liquid limit = 44.5

Plastic limit = 35.3

Plasticity index = 9.2

Plasticity index of BC and laterite soils 9.2% and 15%. So according to unified soil

classification system (USCS) clay is classified as inorganic clays of high compressibility

(CH) and (CH&MH)

C. Compaction Test (Standard Proctor test).

Fig 4 shows the relation between water content and dry density. The optimum moisture

content of block cotton soil has been found Wo = 24% and max .Dry density has been found

15.901%

Figure 1 Graph for sieve analysis of Black cotton soil

The above graph shows sieve analysis test of BC soil content sand is 30.5%, silt is 44.37%

and 24.5% of clayey content.

Figure 2 Graph for Sieve Analysis of Lateritic soil.



The above graph shows sieve analysis test of lateritic soil content sand is 40%, silt is

25.5%&clay content is 34.8%.

Figure 3 Graph for compaction test of BC soil.

Above graph shows the compaction test of BC soil is 24% of Optimum moisture content

&15.901% maximum dry density.

Figure 4 Graph for compaction test for lateritic soil.

The above graph shows the compaction test of lateritic soil is 12% is Optimum moisture

content and 20.405% maximum dry density.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.

5.1. For this project the samples are prepared for following proportions.

1. Geogrid-1, Geogrid-2, & Geomembrane are the reinforcement which is placed at

different depths from the top of the CBR mould at 4cm, 8cm &12cm for both lateritic

soil as well as Black cotton soil. The test is conducted single layer reinforcement as in

4cm depth, 8cm depth &12cm depth. And in multi-layer reinforcement two layers will

be reinforced with a depth of 8cm and 12cm and other one will be the 4cm, 8cm and

12cm depth. The soil will be reinforced with the top of the mould.

2. The CBR tests will be conducted with and without reinforcement. Specimen for

testing the CBR has done by taking the soil mass of about 4.5 kg, which was passed

through a sieve of size 20mm.OMC which we had gotten from standard proctor test

will added in the soil mass and mixed thoroughly until lumps vanishes. keep the CBR

mould ready by fixing it to base plate and spacer disc of size 3,7cm will be placed at

the bottom of the mould, after being mixed the soil mass is poured in CBR mould

which is having a size of diameter 15 cm and height of 17.5cm and it will compacted

in three layers by giving 25 blows for each layer for light compaction. After

compacting the second layer collar will be placed and compacting the 3rd

layer the

collar will be removed and the extra part of soil mass is trimmed until it gets to

smooth surface Reinforcement is done at certain depth from top of the specimen.



3. After conducting without reinforcement CBR strength is higher in lateritic soil as

comparing to the Black cotton soil.

4. With reinforcement also CBR strength is higher in lateritic soil as comparing to the

Black cotton soil.

5. After the reinforcement Physical and strength characteristics of the soil are improved.

5.1.1. For the single layer reinforcement in lateritic soil.

1. In the black soil the geogrid-1 is more strength as comparing to Geogrid-2 & geo-

membrane the strength of the Geogrid-1 is increases at 8cm depth from the top of the

specimen.

2. As comparing to Geogride-1 the strength of the Geogrid-2 is low but higher than the

geo-membrane. The strength of the Geogrid-2 increases at 4cm depth at the top of the

specimen.

3. The strength of the geo-membrane is low as comparing to Geogrid-1 & Geogrid-2

4. The geo-membrane strength increases at the 4cm depth from the top of the specimen.

5.1.2. For multi-layer reinforcement of BC soil.

1. In multi-layer reinforcement also Geogrid-1 is more strength as comparing Geogrid-1

& geo-membrane. The strength is high at the depth 4cm, 8cm & 12cm from the top of

the specimen.

2. As per comparing to Geogrid-1 the strength of Geogrid-2 is low but higher than the

geo-membrane. The strength is increases at 4cm, 8cm & 12cm depth of the specimen.

3. The strength of the Geo-membrane is low as comparing to the Geogrid-1 & Geogrid-

2.It’s Strength is increases similarly at the depth of 4cm, 8cm & 12cm top of the

specimen.

Sample Penetration at 2.5mm Penetration at 5mm

Lateritic soil 8.85 8.43

Black cotton soil 3.48 3.12

Table 2 CBR for without Reinforcement of lateritic soil & B.C Soil specimen

Figure 5 CBR for without Reinforcement lateritic soil & B.C Soil specimen

Sample Sample

1withoutgeogrid-1

4cm &8cm

depthSample-2

4cm,8cm&12cm

depth sample-3

Black cotton soil 3.48 30.37 37.9

Lateritic soil 8.85 36.7 37.9

Table 3 Summary of CBR Values with and without reinforcement Geogrid-1 for multi layers



Figure 6 Summary of CBR Values with and without reinforcement Geogrid-1 for multi layers.

Sample Soil without

geogrid-1 4cm depth 8cm depth 12cm depth

Black cotton soil 3.48 7.59 5.37 4.42

Lateritic soil 8.85 15.18 12.65 11.39

Table 4 Summary of CBR Values with and without reinforcement Geo-membrane

Figure 7 Summary of CBR Values with and without reinforcement Geo-membrane

Sample Soil without geogrid-1 4cm&8cm depth 4cm,8cm&12cm

Depth

Geogrid-1 3.48 30.37 32.27

Geogrid-2 3.48 24.06 26.5

Geo-membrane 3.48 9.48 12.63

Table 5 Summary of CBR Values with and without reinforcement for multi-layer in BC soil with

different depth.

Figure 8 Summary of CBR Values with and without Reinforcement of multi-layer in BC soil with

different depth



Sample Soil without

geogrid-1 4cm depth 8cm depth 12cm depth

Geogrid-1 8.85 31.64 35.43 29.11

Geogrid-2 8.85 49.00 38.60 28.47

Geo-membrane 8.85 15.18 12.65 11.39

Table 6 Summary of CBR Values with and without Reinforcement of lateritic soil with different depth

Figure 9 Summary of CBR Values with and without Reinforcement of lateritic soil with different

depth.

6. CONCLUSION

The investigation that has been performed on geo-grid reinforced soil gives wide variety of

results on several issues from which the following qualitative conclusions can be drawn:-

1. CBR value increased up to 27.84% and 35.43% when sample was reinforced with

geogrids-1 at a depth of 8 cm for B C soil and lateritic soil respectively.

2. CBR value increased up to 22.07% and 49% when sample was reinforced with

geogrids-2 at a depth of 4 cm for B C soil and lateritic soil respectively.

3. CBR value increased up to 7.59% and 15.18% when sample was reinforced with geo-

membrane at a depth of 4 cm for B C soil and lateritic soil respectively.

4. Maximum CBR value was observed, up to 30.37% and 36.7% when sample was

reinforced with geogrids-1 in 3 layers at a depth 4cm, 8cm and 12cm for B C soil and

lateritic soil respectively.

5. CBR value increased up to 24.06% and 39.77% when sample was reinforced with

geogrids-2 in 3 layers at a depth 4cm, 8cm and 12cm for B C soil and lateritic soil

respectively.

6. CBR value increased up to 9.49% and 12.65% when sample was reinforced with geo-

membrane in 3 layer at a depth 4cm, 8cm and 12cm f B C or soil and lateritic soil

respectively

7. Increase in CBR value was higher by providing reinforcement of geogrids-1 at a 8cm

depth is than 4cm & 12cm depth for both lateritic soil & B C soil.

8. CBR value increased by placing reinforcement of geogrids-2 at a depth of 4cm in both

lateritic soil and Black cotton soil.

9. CBR value increased by placing reinforcement of Geomembrane at 4cm depth as

compared to 8cm and 12cm depth.



10. Comparing all three types of geosynthetic materials, geogrids-1 is more effective than

Geogrids -2 & Geomembrane.

11. Three layers reinforcement at depth 4cm & 8cm&12cm is more effective under CBR

test as compared to two layers reinforcement at 4cm & 8cm depth.

REFERENCES

[1] Srinivas Rao, B. and Jagloxshmi S (2008), Neetu B. Ramteke, Prof. Anil Saxena and Prof.

T.R. Arora (2014) Stabilization of Black Cotton Soil with sand and cement as a subgrade

of pavement” IJESRT pg. (688-692)

[2] S. A. Naeini & R. Ziaie Moayed (2009) Effect of plasticity index and reinforcement on the

CBR value of soft clay. International journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 7, No.2.

[3] Hossein Moayedi et.al (2009 Sina Kazemian, Arun Prasad, Bujang B. K. Huat (2009)

Effect of Geo-grid Reinforcement Location in Paved Road Improvement EJGE Vol. 14.

[4] J.G. Zornberg et.al (2009) & R .Gupta (2009) Reinforcement of pavements over

expansiveclay subgrade Proceeding of the 17th International conference on soil mechanics

and Geotechnical engineering. Pg (765-768)

[5] Dr. D.S.V. Prasad et.al (2010) and Dr M. Anjan Kumar (2010) Behavior of reinforced sub

bases on expansive soil sub-grade GJRE Vol. 10.

[6] Professor Stelin, V.K., Prof. Ravi, E. and Arun Murugen, R.B (in 2010) [6] Effect of geo-

grid on Compressive strength and Elasticity modulus of Lime/ Cement treated soil EJGE

Vol.15.

[7] Sarika Dhule et.al (2011) [7] Sarika B. Dhule and S.S. Valunjkar Improvement of flexible

pavement with use of geo-grid EJGE Vol.16.

[8] A. K. Choudhary, K. S. Gill and J. N. Jha (2011) Improvement in CBR values of

expansive soil sub-grades using geo-synthetics IGC J-233.

[9] Pradeep Singh and K.S. Gill (2012) [9] CBR Improvement of clayey soil with Geo-grid

Reinforcement IJETAE Vol.2 (315-318)

[10] Dr. P Senthil kumar & R. Rajkumar (2012) [10].Effect of Geo-textile on CBR Strength of

Unpaved Road with Soft Sub-grade EJGE Vol. 17.

[11] Evangelin Ramani Sujatha and Vignesh Jayaraman (2012) Improving the strength of sub-

grade using geo-grids.

[12] Rakesh Kumar and P.K.Jain (2012) [12].Mihai Iliescu and Ioan Ratiu (2012) Geo-grid

reinforced road sub-grade stabilization design methodology.

[13] Prof Mayura Yeole and Dr. J. R. Patil (2013)) Reinforcement of pavements over

expansive clay subgrade Proceeding of the 17th International conference on soil

mechanics and Geotechnical engineering. Pg (765-768).

[14] K. Vasudhar, CH. Rama Krishna and Afshan sheikh, Analysis of Structure with the Pile

Foundation on Low Safe Bearing Capacity of Soils, International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 4, April 2017, pp 1677-1686

[15] S. Siva Gowri Prasad, Ch. Vasavi and K. Praveen Sai, Behaviour of Stone Column in

Layered Soils Using Geotextile Reinforcement, International Journal of Civil Engineering

and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2017, pp 453-462

comprative study of reinforced soil of bidar dirstic … · the above graph shows sieve analysis...

Documents