Reinforcement of flexible pavements using geosynthetics is gaining widespread application. However, there is inadequate understanding of strength development for non-woven geotextile and geogrid as reinforcement in Black Cotton Soil (BCS) and granular material in relation to cement stabilization method. Therefore, this paper presents experimental study to investigate strength development for BCS and granular material reinforced with geogrid and non-woven geotextile using California Bearing Ratio approach. The categories of samples tested were; neat, reinforced and cement stabilized. All samples were tested after 4 days’ soak. Placement of reinforcement material in BCS was done at 0.3H and 0.6H for single layer reinforcement while for double layer reinforcement, it was done at both 0.3H and 0.6H. In granular soil, single layer reinforcement condition only was considered at 0.2H, 0.4H and 0.6H. Cement stabilization for both BCS and granular soil was done by the following percentages of cement increment; 1%, 2%, 3% and 4%. From the study, the strength improvement considering single layer reinforcement by geogrid and non-woven geotextile in BCS was 37.5% and 45% respectively. In granular material, CBR strength increased by 21% and 14% due to geogrid and non-woven geotextile respectively. Percentage increase in CBR of reinforced BCS corresponded to that of over >1% cement stabilization. To further enhance decision making between these strength development alternatives, it is recommended to advance it to cost analysis.
| Published in | International Journal of Materials Science and Applications (Volume 11, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11 |
| Page(s) | 1-8 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Geogrid, Non-woven Geotextile, Black Cotton Soil, Granular Material, California Bearing Ratio
| [1] | J. N. Mukabi, S. Kotheki, and A. Ngigi, “Characterization of Black Cotton Soil under static and dynamic loading conditions – Discussions and Applications,” 2nd Int. Conf. Geotech. Eng., no. October 2010, pp. 1–11, 2010. |
| [2] | K. H. Mamatha and S. V. Dinesh, “Resilient modulus of black cotton soil,” Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 171–184, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.008. |
| [3] | Y. Cheng and X. Huang, “Effect of mineral additives on the behavior of an expansive soil for use in highway subgrade soils,” Appl. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.3390/app9010030. |
| [4] | S. Miao, Z. Shen, X. Wang, F. Luo, X. Huang, and C. Wei, “Stabilization of Highly Expansive Black Cotton Soils by Means of Geopolymerization,” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., vol. 29, no. 10, p. 04017170, 2017, doi: 10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002023. |
| [5] | Pavement Design Guideline for Low Volume Sealed Roads. Nairobi: Republic of Kenya Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, 2017. |
| [6] | P. Zhang et al., “Fired hollow clay bricks manufactured from black cotton soils and natural pozzolans in Kenya,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 141, pp. 435–441, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.018. |
| [7] | P. Zhang et al., “Swelling suppression of black cotton soil by means of liquid immersion and surface modification,” Heliyon, vol. 5, no. 12, p. e02999, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02999. |
| [8] | S. Yang and S. Yang, “Effectivess of Using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements : Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Effectivess of Using Geotextiles in Flexible Pavements : Life-Cycle Cost Analysis,” Thesis, 2006. |
| [9] | S. M. Mounes, M. R. Karim, A. Mahrez, and A. Khodaii, “An overview on the use of geosynthetics in pavement structures,” Sci. Res. Essays, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 2251–2258, 2011, doi: 10.5897/SRE10.960. |
| [10] | H. Wu et al., “Review of application and innovation of geotextiles in geotechnical engineering,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1–21, 2020, doi: 10.3390/MA13071774. |
| [11] | S. Y. Evangeline, M. K. Sayida, and M. S. Girish, “Long-Term Performance of Rural Roads Reinforced with Coir Geotextile–A Field Study,” J. Nat. Fibers, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1419–1436, 2021, doi: 10.1080/15440478.2019.1691117. |
| [12] | P. Rimoldi, J. Shamrock, J. Kawalec, and N. Touze, “Sustainable use of geosynthetics in dykes,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1–31, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13084445. |
| [13] | T. Imjai, K. Pilakoutas, and M. Guadagnini, “Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements in full-scale field trials,” Geotext. Geomembranes, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 217–229, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.12.012. |
| [14] | S. K. Shukla, Fundamentals of geosynthetics. 2012. |
| [15] | M. R. Krishna and B. N. M. Rao, “Evaluation of CBR using Geosynthetics in Soil Layers,” Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol., vol. 04, no. 05, pp. 423–427, 2015, doi: 10.15623/ijret.2015.0405079. |
| [16] | C. A. Adams, E. Apraku, and R. Opoku-boahen, “Effect of Triaxial Geogrid Reinforcement on CBR Strength of Natural Gravel Soil for Road Pavements,” no. July 2017, 2015, doi: 10.5923/j.jce.20150502.05. |
| [17] | P. A. Sudam, M. Padmavathi, K. Ravikumar, and M. Nagaraju, “An Experimental Study on CBR of Expansive Soil Subgrades using Geotextiles,” no. August, 2019. |
| [18] | M. S. Negi and S. K. Singh, “Experimental and numerical studies on geotextile reinforced subgrade soil,” Int. J. Geotech. Eng., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1106–1117, 2021, doi: 10.1080/19386362.2019.1684654. |
| [19] | S. A. Naeini and M. Mirzakhanlari, “The effect of geotextile and grading on the bearing ratio of granular soils,” Electron. J. Geotech. Eng., vol. 13 J, no. 1996, 2008. |
| [20] | U. Rajesh, S. Sajja, and V. K. Chakravarthi, “Studies on Engineering Performance of Geogrid Reinforced Soft Subgrade,” in Transportation Research Procedia, 2016, vol. 17, no. December 2014, pp. 164–173, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.072. |
| [21] | S. Abdi Goudarzi, R. Ziaie Moayed, and A. Nazeri, “Experimental Investigation on Geosynthetic- Reinforced Soil Sections via California Bearing Ratio Test,” Int. J. Geotech. Geol. Eng., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–24, 2020. |
| [22] | M. R. Sharbaf and N. Ghafoori, “Laboratory evaluation of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements,” Transp. Eng., vol. 4, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.treng.2021.100070. |
| [23] | D. Kiptoo, J. Aschrafi, D. Kalumba, J. Lehn, C. Moormann, and E. Zannoni, “Laboratory investigation of a geosynthetic reinforced pavement under static and dynamic loading,” J. Test. Eval., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 76–84, 2017, doi: 10.1520/JTE20160170. |
| [24] | J. B. Park, H. S. Park, and D. Kim, “Geosynthetic reinforcement of sand-mat layer above soft ground,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 5314–5334, 2013, doi: 10.3390/ma6115314. |
| [25] | British Standard. Methods of test for Soils for civil engineering purposes —Part 2: Classification tests, no. BS 1377-2: 1990. 1990. |
| [26] | AASHTO, Standard Method of Test for Moisture – Density Relations of Soils a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop Moisture – Density Relations of Soils: T 99, vol. 3. 2017. |
| [27] | AASHTO, Standard Method of Test for Moisture – Density Relations of Soils Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop. 2011. |
| [28] | AASHTO, Standad Method of Test for The California Bearing Ratio: T 193. 2003. |
| [29] | Ministry of public works kenya, “Part III - Materials & Pavement Design.pdf,” Ministry of Public Works Kenya. Ministry of Transport and Communication Roads Departmenet, 1999. |
APA Style
Kevin Maraka Ndiema, Yin Zihong, Raymond Leiren Lekalpure, Mouhamed Bayane Bouraima, Clement Kiprotich Kiptum. (2022). Experimental Study of Strength Development in Black Cotton Soil and Granular Material Reinforced with Geogrid and Non-Woven Geotextile. International Journal of Materials Science and Applications, 11(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11
ACS Style
Kevin Maraka Ndiema; Yin Zihong; Raymond Leiren Lekalpure; Mouhamed Bayane Bouraima; Clement Kiprotich Kiptum. Experimental Study of Strength Development in Black Cotton Soil and Granular Material Reinforced with Geogrid and Non-Woven Geotextile. Int. J. Mater. Sci. Appl. 2022, 11(1), 1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11
AMA Style
Kevin Maraka Ndiema, Yin Zihong, Raymond Leiren Lekalpure, Mouhamed Bayane Bouraima, Clement Kiprotich Kiptum. Experimental Study of Strength Development in Black Cotton Soil and Granular Material Reinforced with Geogrid and Non-Woven Geotextile. Int J Mater Sci Appl. 2022;11(1):1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11,
author = {Kevin Maraka Ndiema and Yin Zihong and Raymond Leiren Lekalpure and Mouhamed Bayane Bouraima and Clement Kiprotich Kiptum},
title = {Experimental Study of Strength Development in Black Cotton Soil and Granular Material Reinforced with Geogrid and Non-Woven Geotextile},
journal = {International Journal of Materials Science and Applications},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
pages = {1-8},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijmsa.20221101.11},
abstract = {Reinforcement of flexible pavements using geosynthetics is gaining widespread application. However, there is inadequate understanding of strength development for non-woven geotextile and geogrid as reinforcement in Black Cotton Soil (BCS) and granular material in relation to cement stabilization method. Therefore, this paper presents experimental study to investigate strength development for BCS and granular material reinforced with geogrid and non-woven geotextile using California Bearing Ratio approach. The categories of samples tested were; neat, reinforced and cement stabilized. All samples were tested after 4 days’ soak. Placement of reinforcement material in BCS was done at 0.3H and 0.6H for single layer reinforcement while for double layer reinforcement, it was done at both 0.3H and 0.6H. In granular soil, single layer reinforcement condition only was considered at 0.2H, 0.4H and 0.6H. Cement stabilization for both BCS and granular soil was done by the following percentages of cement increment; 1%, 2%, 3% and 4%. From the study, the strength improvement considering single layer reinforcement by geogrid and non-woven geotextile in BCS was 37.5% and 45% respectively. In granular material, CBR strength increased by 21% and 14% due to geogrid and non-woven geotextile respectively. Percentage increase in CBR of reinforced BCS corresponded to that of over >1% cement stabilization. To further enhance decision making between these strength development alternatives, it is recommended to advance it to cost analysis.},
year = {2022}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Experimental Study of Strength Development in Black Cotton Soil and Granular Material Reinforced with Geogrid and Non-Woven Geotextile AU - Kevin Maraka Ndiema AU - Yin Zihong AU - Raymond Leiren Lekalpure AU - Mouhamed Bayane Bouraima AU - Clement Kiprotich Kiptum Y1 - 2022/01/08 PY - 2022 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11 T2 - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications JF - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications JO - International Journal of Materials Science and Applications SP - 1 EP - 8 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2643 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmsa.20221101.11 AB - Reinforcement of flexible pavements using geosynthetics is gaining widespread application. However, there is inadequate understanding of strength development for non-woven geotextile and geogrid as reinforcement in Black Cotton Soil (BCS) and granular material in relation to cement stabilization method. Therefore, this paper presents experimental study to investigate strength development for BCS and granular material reinforced with geogrid and non-woven geotextile using California Bearing Ratio approach. The categories of samples tested were; neat, reinforced and cement stabilized. All samples were tested after 4 days’ soak. Placement of reinforcement material in BCS was done at 0.3H and 0.6H for single layer reinforcement while for double layer reinforcement, it was done at both 0.3H and 0.6H. In granular soil, single layer reinforcement condition only was considered at 0.2H, 0.4H and 0.6H. Cement stabilization for both BCS and granular soil was done by the following percentages of cement increment; 1%, 2%, 3% and 4%. From the study, the strength improvement considering single layer reinforcement by geogrid and non-woven geotextile in BCS was 37.5% and 45% respectively. In granular material, CBR strength increased by 21% and 14% due to geogrid and non-woven geotextile respectively. Percentage increase in CBR of reinforced BCS corresponded to that of over >1% cement stabilization. To further enhance decision making between these strength development alternatives, it is recommended to advance it to cost analysis. VL - 11 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: