Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No.

Technical note

Behavior of cement-stabilized clay reinforced with

nylon fiber
A. R. Estabragh1 , P. Namdar2 and A. A. Javadi3
1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Soil and Water Engineering, University of Tehran, PO Box 4411, Karaj
31587-77871, Iran, Telephone: +98 261 2241119, Telefax: +98 261 2226181, E-mail: raeesi@ut.ac.ir
2
Postgraduate Student, Faculty of Soil and Water Engineering, University of Tehran, PO Box 4411,
Karaj 31587-77871, Iran, Telephone: +98 261 2241119, Telefax: +98 261 2226181,
E-mail: namdar.p@ut.ac.ir
3
Associate Professor, Computational Geomechanics Group, College of Engineering, Mathematics and
Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Devon EX4 4QF, UK, Telephone: +44 1392 723640,
Telefax: +44 1392 217965, E-mail: A.A.Javadi@exeter.ac.uk

Received 30 June 2011, revised 28 November 2011, accepted 2 December 2011

ABSTRACT: A series of experiments were carried out to investigate the behavior of cement-
stabilized fiber-reinforced clay with different cement and fiber contents. Three groups of tests were
conducted, on: (1) reinforced samples with four different fiber contents (0.5%, 0.75%, 1% and
1.25%); (2) cement-stabilized samples with three different cement contents (5%, 8% and 10%); and
(3) cement-stabilized, fiber-reinforced samples with the same fiber contents as the uncemented
reinforced samples. Unconfined compression tests (UCT) were carried out on the uncemented
samples. These UCT tests were also conducted on the cement-stabilized samples with and without
fiber inclusions after 3, 7, 14 and 28 days of curing time. The results indicated that the inclusion
of fibers within uncemented and cement-stabilized soil caused an increase in the unconfined
compressive strength and axial strain at failure, and changed the brittle behavior of the cement-
stabilized soil to a more ductile behavior. It was also shown that the mechanical characteristics of
the soil–cement–fiber mixtures are functions of fiber content and curing time.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Reinforced soil, Cement-stabilized soil, Clay, Fiber, Unconfined

compression test

REFERENCE: Estabragh, A. R., Namdar, P. & Javadi, A. A. (2012). Behavior of cement-stabilized clay
reinforced with nylon fiber. Geosynthetics International, 19, No. 1, 85–92. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
gein.2012.19.1.85]

mixture (Al-Rawas 2002; Ismail et al. 2002; Tremblay et

1. INTRODUCTION
Stabilized soil is a composite construction material in
which the desired properties, such as bearing capacity,
shear strength and permeability, are improved. Applica-
tions of soil stabilization range from mitigating complex
slope hazards to increasing the stability of subgrades
(Kumar and Tabor 2003). The methods of soil stabilization
can in general be divided into three categories: chemical
stabilization; mechanical stabilization; and combinations
of the chemical and mechanical methods. Chemical
stabilization can be carried out by mixing an agent such
as lime, cement or polymer (resin) with soil. This involves
modification of the actual chemical make-up of the soil
1072-6349 # 2012 Thomas Telford Ltd
al. 2002; Bahar et al. 2004; Basha et al. 2005). Chemical
stabilization by cement or lime is a proven method for
stabilization of soil (Al-Rawas 2002; Ismail et al. 2002;
Basha et al. 2005). The addition of chemical agents
usually results in brittle behavior and high strength (Basha
et al. 2005). Mechanical stabilization techniques reinforce
the soil by the inclusion of reinforcement materials or
elements, such as polymers and plastic fibers. The
traditional methods of mechanical stabilization of soils
consist in placing continuous inclusions such as geosyn-
thetic strips, bars, grids or geotextiles within the soil.
These inclusions are usually oriented in a preferred
direction, and are introduced in layers. One of the most
85
86
attractive qualities of randomly distributed fibers is the
absence of the potential planes of weakness that can
develop parallel to the oriented reinforcement (Maher and
Gray 1990; Shukla et al. 2009).
Soil-cement is a material that results from the chemical
stabilization of soil, and is composed of pulverized soil,
Portland cement and water. When cement is added to
cohesive soils such as silt and clay, shrinkage micro-cracks
are developed in the material owing to the loss of water
content during drying or hydration of the cement. The
tensile strength of the material usually prevents these
cracks, but if the tensile strength is not sufficient, these
cracks will develop, particularly under loading, and da-
mage could result. Kuhlman (1994), Ashraf and George
(1999) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI 1990)
also studied the mechanism of this kind of cracks. The
American Concrete Institute (ACI 1990) presented various
methods for overcoming these cracks, one of which was to
use a lower cement content with this kind of soil. How-
ever, in some cases, where the desired strength of the soil-
cement is high, greater cement contents may be required.
This could result in a high amount of heat from hydration
of the cement, and the production of excessive micro-
cracks owing to high shrinkage strains. Some previous
studies have shown that the inclusion of fibers in soil-
cement improves the tensile strength and reduces the
potential for shrinkage cracks (e.g. Sobhan et al. 1999;
Gaspard et al. 2003; Khattak and Alrashidi 2006).
Gaspard et al. (2003) concluded from the results of
unconfined compression tests (UCT) on sandy soil-cement
samples with inclusion of 0.1% and 0.2% fibers that the
addition of fibers does not increase the strength signifi-
cantly. Researchers such as Park (2009), Izawa et al.
(2009) and Consoli et al. (2010, 2011) also studied the
behavior of cemented sandy soil with and without fiber
reinforcement, and concluded that inclusion of fibers
causes an increase in the strength of samples. Studies on
the behavior of reinforced cemented clay soil are limited
to the work that has been carried out by Khattak and
Alrashidi (2006) and Tang et al. (2007). They concluded
that the inclusion of fibers can improve the strength of the
Table 1. Physical properties of soil
Property
Specific gravity, Gs
Consistency limits
Liquid limit, LL (%)
Plastic limit, PL (%)
Plastic index, PI (%)
Shrinkage limit, SL (%)
Swelling potential (%)
USCS classification
Compaction characteristics
Optimum water content, w (%)
Maximum dry unit weight, ªdmax (kN/m3 )
Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1
Estabragh, Namdar and Javadi
soil-cement. A review of the above literature indicates that
whereas a large amount of work has been done on
cemented sandy soil reinforced with fibers, the work on
clay soil is limited, and also the effect of the weight of
fibers on the strength of clayey soil-cement has not been
adequately investigated.
It is the aim of this work to study the mechanical
behavior of reinforced soil and reinforced soil-cement
with different cement and fiber contents through a series
of experimental tests in order to quantify the effect of
cement and fibers on cohesive soil.
2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
2.1. Material properties
2.1.1. Soil
The soil that was used in this experimental work was a
clay soil. The physical and chemical properties of the soil
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The soil is composed
of 32% clay, 61% silt and 7% sand. The optimum water
content in the standard compaction test was 17.5% at a
maximum dry unit weight of 17.2 kN/m3 :
2.1.2. Cement
The cement used in the experiments was Portland type 2.
It had a specific gravity of 3.15 with Blain fineness of
approximately 4200 cm2 /g. The properties of the cement
are shown in Table 3.
2.1.3. Fibers
Nylon fibers were used as the reinforcement material in
this work. They were manufactured from polypropylene in
filament form. They have excellent resistance against
acids, alkalis, corrosion and deterioration in the soil. The
fibers used were 20 mm long and 0.28 mm in diameter.
The fiber strength characteristics were determined through
tensile strength test according to ASTM D 2256 and
ASTM D 2101. The physical and mechanical properties of
the fibers are shown in Table 4, and Figure 1 shows a
photograph of loose nylon fibers.
Standard designation Value
ASTM D 854-10 2.7
ASTM D 4318-10 49
ASTM D 4318-10 25
ASTM D 4318-10 24
ASTM D 427-04 12
ASTM D 4546-08 20
ASTM D 2487-11 CL
ASTM D 698-07e1 17
17.2
Behavior of cement-stabilized clay reinforced with nylon fiber 87

Table 2. Chemical composition of soil

wc
rc ¼ (2)
w
Chemical component Amount Chemical component Amount where wf , wc and w are the weights of fiber, cement and
natural soil, respectively. The values of rf considered in
SO2

4 (meq/L) 19.3 Naþ (meq/L) 43.0
HCO
Ca2þ (meq/L) the experiments were 0.5%, 0.75%, 1.0% and 1.25%, and
3 (meq/L) 3.7 4.6
CO2

3 (meq/L) 0.3 K þ (meq/L) 0.4 those of rc were 5%, 8% and 10%. For the standard
Cl
(meq/L) 26.6 Mg2þ (meq/L) 2.1 Proctor compaction tests on natural soil, the soil was
mixed with an appropriate amount of water. The mixing
was done by hand, and then the compaction procedure was
Table 3. Properties of cement used carried out according to ASTM D 6980. For the fiber-
reinforced samples, the measured amount of water was
Property Standard designation Value first added to the natural soil in increments and mixed by
hand, and then the predefined quantity of fibers was mixed
Normal consistency (%) ASTM C 187-10 25.5 by hand in small increments, making sure that all the
Primary setting time (min) ASTM C 191-08 165
fibers were mixed thoroughly to achieve a good uniform
Final setting time (min) ASTM C 191-08 220
Compressive strength (MPa) ASTM C 109-08 mixture. Then the compaction tests were performed. For
7 days 19.2 the cement-treated soil samples (with no fibers), soil with
28 days 25.8 the prescribed amount of cement was mixed, and then the
Tensile strength (MPa) ASTM C 190-85 required amount of water was added and mixed by hand.
7 days 1.6
After achieving a uniform mixture, the compaction tests
28 days 2.22
were carried out. For the fiber-reinforced cement-treated
samples, a moist soil-cement was prepared as described
above; it was mixed with fiber, and then a compaction
Table 4. Physical and mechanical properties of the fiber procedure was carried out similar to that used for the
natural soil. The maximum dry density and optimum
Property Standard designation Value
water content were determined for soil, soil-cement and
Fiber type Single fiber reinforced soil-cement. The test samples for the uncon-
Specific gravity, Gs 0.91 fined compression tests were compacted at their respective
Water absorption Nil maximum dry density and optimum water content, corre-
Resistance to acids Excellent sponding to the values obtained in the standard Proctor
Resistance to alkaline Excellent
compaction tests. The mixing of the different components
Length (mm) 20
Diameter (mm) 0.28 for sample preparation was done by hand. Various
Aspect ratio 70 researchers, such as Ranjan et al. (1996), Consoli et al.
Tensile strength (MPa) ASTM D 2256-97 400 (2002) and Khattak and Alrashidi (2006), have adopted
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) ASTM D 2101-94 2350 hand-mixing methods for mixing fibers with soil.
The following procedures were adopted in preparing the
different samples. In the preparation of unreinforced
(natural) soil samples (with no cement and no fiber), the
soil was mixed with an amount of water corresponding to
the optimum water content. The moist soil was kept in
closed plastic bags and allowed to cure for 24 h. Soil-
cement samples were prepared according to the method
used by Estabragh et al. (2011). After weighing the soil
and cement, they were mixed in a container, and water
was added up to the optimum water content. To ensure
uniform distribution of water, the soil-cement mixture was
kept in a covered container for less than 30 min. The
above procedure was used for the reinforced soil-cement.
10 mm
All mixing was done manually, and proper care was taken
to prepare homogeneous mixtures at each stage of mixing.
Figure 1. Loose nylon fibers Static compaction was used for preparing cylindrical
samples. A split compaction mould was designed and
fabricated from stainless steel, and used for preparing the
2.2. Preparation of samples samples. Compaction was achieved by applying a static
The fiber and cement contents used in the experimental pressure, using a compression loading machine, on mater-
program are defined as (Khattak and Alrashidi 2006; Tang ial placed in three layers. Each layer was compacted at a
et al. 2007) fixed displacement rate of 1.5 mm/min until the maximum
dry density was achieved. Therefore the samples were
wf statically compacted at their respective standard Proctor
rf ¼ (1)
w compaction optimum water content and maximum dry
Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1
88 Estabragh, Namdar and Javadi

density. After compaction, the cement-treated samples
were stored in a curing cabinet at constant temperature
and relative humidity according to ASTM D 1632 for
curing times of 3, 7, 14 and 28 days.
3. TEST PROGRAM
The unconfined pressure testing was carried out according
to ASTM D 1633 on samples 50 mm in diameter and
100 mm long. A compression testing machine was used
for loading, and the samples were loaded at an axial
displacement rate of 1 mm/min. The load was recorded
continuously, and the tests were continued until the
unconfined compressive strength was determined.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of compaction tests on the soils with different
compositions are shown in Table 5. For the soil with fiber
inclusions, the maximum dry density and optimum water
content decreased with increasing fiber content. The
results of compaction tests on soils with different composi-
tions showed that by increasing the fiber content the
optimum water content changed from 17% to 16.6%, and
the maximum dry density from 17.2 kN/m3 to 16.2 kN/m3 :
The variations of optimum water content for samples
with cement only (soil-cement) were minor (17.16% for
5% cement and 17.35% for 10% cement), but the maxi-
mum dry density decreased from 17.7 kN/m3 (17.7 kN/m3
for soil with 5% cement) to 17.1 kN/m3 (17.1 kN/m3 for
soil. However, the optimum water content increased and
the maximum dry density decreased with increasing ce-
ment content. The reason for this behavior could be
flocculation and agglomeration of the clay particles by
cation exchange, which leads to an increase in voids
volume and a decrease in unit weight. Also, a greater
specific surface of cement leads to greater water absorp-
tion and an increase in the optimum water content with
increasing cement content (Kumar et al. 2007), although
for the soils tested in this study the variation of optimum
water content is relatively small.
The stress–strain curves obtained from the unconfined
pressure tests on the natural soil and the reinforced soil
with different fiber contents are shown in Figure 2. It can
be seen from this figure that the inclusion of fibers
moderately increased the peak strength of the soil. The
effect of 0.5%, 0.75%, 1.0% and 1.25% fiber on the
increase in peak strength is 8%, 15.7%, 18.5% and 21%,
respectively. The peak strength increased with increasing
fiber content up to about 1%, beyond which further
increase in the fiber content did not have a significant
effect on the strength. It can be seen that the fiber-
reinforced (uncemented) soil exhibits a limited improve-
ment in the ductility of the soil (ductility is defined as the
maximum axial strain of the stress–strain relationship)
compared with the natural soil. In other words, the
inclusion of fibers makes the strain-softening less pro-
nounced, and any failure less dramatic. The figure also
400

soil with 10% cement). The variations of optimum water

Compressive stress (kPa)

content and maximum dry density for reinforced soil- 300

cement were minor (see Table 5). The results for the
mixture of soil-cement with fibers showed only a minor
variation in optimum water content and maximum dry 200
Soil
density. For the soil with fiber inclusions, the maximum
Soil ⫹ 0.5% fibers
dry density and optimum water content decreased with 100 Soil ⫹ 0.75% fibers
increasing fiber content. This can be explained by the fact Soil ⫹ 1.0% fibers
that the replacement of soil particles with fibers, which Soil ⫹ 1.25% fibers
have lower specific gravity and nil water absorption, 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
results in a lower mass (and density) and a lower water Strain (%)
content.
The maximum dry density and optimum water content Figure 2. Stress–strain curves for soil with different fiber
for the cement-treated soil were higher than for the natural contents

Table 5. Optimum water content and maximum dry unit weight for soil with different
compositions

Soil (%) Cement (%) Fiber (%) wopt (%) ªdmax (kN/m3 )

100 0.0 0.0 17 17.2

99.5 0.0 0.5 17 16.8
99.25 0.0 0.75 16.8 16.5
99 0.0 1.0 16.65 16.4
98.75 0.0 1.25 16.6 16.2
95 5.0 0.0 17.16 17.7
92 8.0 0.0 17.33 17.4
90 10.0 0.0 17.35 17.1
94.25 5.0 0.75 17.08 16.7
91 8.0 1.0 17.1 16.9
88.75 10.0 1.25 17.0 17.0

Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1

Behavior of cement-stabilized clay reinforced with nylon fiber 89

shows that the initial stiffness of the soil does not appear
to be significantly affected by addition of the fibers. These
findings are in agreement with results reported by Tang et
al. (2007) and Attom et al. (2009). The reinforced soils
reached peak stress at axial strains between 2% and 4%. It
can be concluded that, with greater fiber inclusion and
replacement of a portion of the soil by fibers, the soil
becomes softer with lower strength, and as a result the
samples fail at higher strains. Many clay particles are
attached to the fiber surface, which contribute to the bond
strength and friction between the fibers and the soil in the
mixture (Tang et al. 2007). Consequently the strength is
improved. The fibers cannot slide easily in the soil, owing
to the bonding: therefore, they can bear tensile stresses.
The strength gain of fiber-reinforced soil is due to the
transfer of stress from soil to fibers, caused by the
interlocking of particles and the bonding between fibers
and soil. As a result, the improvement in the behavior of
clayey soil when mixed with fibers is attributed to the
effect of the fiber properties, which enhance the mechani-
cal behavior of the soil (Maher and Gray 1990; Ranjan et
al. 1996).
Typical stress–strain curves for the natural soil and the
soil-cement samples with 5%, 8% and 10% cement and a
curing time of 7 days are shown in Figure 3. It can be
observed that the addition of cement and the resulting
cementation of the soil particles increase the initial slope
(stiffness) of the stress–strain curve. The peak stress,
stiffness and brittleness of the cement-treated soil increase
with increasing cement content. These results are consis-
interfaces. In clay soils, the hydration of the cement
develops a strong linkage between the minerals and
aggregates to form a strong fabric, and prevents the
particles from sliding over each other. As a result, the
cement not only reduces the soil plasticity; it also in-
creases the shear strength, and reduces the water-holding
capacity of the clay. These observations indicate that the
improvement in the maximum strength of cemented soil is
highly dependent on the percentage of cement inclusions,
and on curing time. It can be clearly seen from Figure 4
that the compressive strength after 3 days of curing is
about 50% of that obtained after 28 days for 5%, 8% and
10% cement.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 show typical stress–strain curves for
the soils with 0.75% fibers and 5%, 8% and 10% cement
at curing times of 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. These figures
show that the peak stress and initial stiffness are increased
with increasing curing time. For example, the strength of
the soil with 5% cement and 0.75% fibers was 650 kPa
after 3 days of curing and 1278 kPa after 28 days, showing
an increase of 97% (Figure 5). This indicates the signifi-
cant effect of curing time on the strength of cemented soil
with fibers. The results also show that the ductility of the
samples decreased with increasing cement content; the
failure of the sample with 5% cement after 7 days’ curing
time occurred at 1.4% axial strain, whereas the samples
3000
Compressive strength (kPa)

2500
tent with findings were reported by Herzog and Mitchell
(1963), Croft (1967), Bahar et al. (2004) and Tang et al.
2000
(2007).
The effects of cement on the stabilization of soil can be
divided into two stages: reduction of plasticity, and 1500

cementation (Herzog and Mitchell 1963; Croft 1967).

When a cohesive soil is mixed with cement the calcium 1000 Soil ⫹ 5% cement
Soil ⫹ 8% cement
ions released during the initial hydration of the cement Soil ⫹ 10% cement
react with the soil to reduce the soil’s plasticity. These 500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
processes change the electrical charge around the soil
Curing time (days)
particles, and cause changes in the behavior of the
aggregated soil. During compaction, chemical bonds de- Figure 4. Compressive strength against curing time for soil-
velop between adjacent cement grains and soil particle cement with different percentages of cement

2000 1500
Soil
Soil ⫹ 5% cement
Soil ⫹ 8% cement
Compressive stress (kPa)

Compressive stress (kPa)

1500
Soil ⫹ 10% cement
1000

1000

500
500 3 days
7 days
14 days
28 days
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
Strain (%) Strain (%)

Figure 3. Stress–strain curves for soil and soil-cement with Figure 5. Stress–strain curves for soil with 5% cement and
different percentages of cement for 7 days’ curing time 0.75% fibers for different curing times
Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1
90 Estabragh, Namdar and Javadi
2500 3000

2000 2500
Compressive stress (kPa)

Compressive stress (kPa)

2000
1500

1500 Soil
1000 Soil ⫹ 8% cement
Soil ⫹ 8% cement ⫹ 0.5% fibers
3 days 1000 Soil ⫹ 8% cement ⫹ 0.75% fibers
7 days Soil ⫹ 8% cement ⫹ 1% fibers
500 Soil ⫹ 8% cement ⫹ 1.25% fibers
14 days
28 days 500
0
0 1 2 3 4 0
0 1 2 3 4
Strain (%)
Strain (%)

Figure 6. Stress–strain curves for soil with 8% cement and

0.75% fibers for different curing times Figure 9. Stress–strain curves for fiber-reinforced cemented
soil with 8% cement and different fiber contents for 28 days’
3500 curing time

3000 3500
Compressive stress (kPa)

2500 3000

Compressive stress (kPa)

2000 2500

1500 2000
Soil
1500 Soil ⫹ 10% cement
1000 3 days Soil ⫹ 10% cement ⫹ 0.5% fibers
7 days Soil ⫹ 10% cement ⫹ 0.75% fibers
14 days 1000 Soil ⫹ 10% cement ⫹ 1% fibers
500 Soil ⫹ 10% cement ⫹ 1.25 fibers
28 days
500
0
0 1 2 3
Strain (%) 0
0 1 2 3 4
Strain (%)
Figure 7. Stress–strain curves for soil with 10% cement and
0.75% fibers for different curing times Figure 10. Stress–strain curves for fiber-reinforced cemented
soil with 10% cement and different fiber contents for
with 8% and 10% cement at the same curing time failed 28 days’ curing time
at 1.06% and 1.02% strain, respectively, (Figures 5, 6 and
7). These results are consistent with those reported by
Kaniraj and Havanagi (2001), who concluded, from ex- ment, and fiber inclusion of 0.5%, 0.75%, 1% and 1.25%
perimental tests on samples of fly ash–soil–cement mix- for 28 days’ curing time. These figures indicate a limited
tures, that the inclusion of fibers can change the behavior increase in ductility with increasing fiber content. Figure
of the mixture from brittle to ductile. 8 shows that the failure of the soil-cement (with no fiber
Figures 8, 9 and 10 show the stress–strain curves for reinforcement) occurred at about 1.6% axial strain,
fiber-reinforced soil-cement with 5%, 8% and 10% ce- whereas the sample with 1.25% fibers failed at about
2.4% strain. This is more obvious in Figure 10 for samples
2500 with 10% cement and different fiber contents. This figure
shows that the failure of the soil-cement was at an axial
2000 strain of 0.9%, but for the sample with 1% fibers the
Compressive stress (kPa)

failure occurred at 2.28% strain. It can be seen from

1500 Figures 8, 9 and 10 that the initial slope for reinforced
cemented soil is less than that for cemented soil, and is
Soil not a function of fiber content. One of the main effects of
1000 Soil ⫹ 5% cement
Soil ⫹ 5% cement ⫹ 0.5% fibers the inclusion of fibers is an increase in the peak strength
Soil ⫹ 5% cement ⫹ 0.75% fibers of the soil and soil-cement. Figure 8 shows that the
500 Soil ⫹ 5% cement ⫹ 1% fibers
Soil ⫹ 5% cement ⫹ 1.25% fibers inclusion of 1.25% fibers increased the peak strength of
the soil-cement with 5% cement by about 60%. These
0 trends are more obvious in Figures 9 and 10 for samples
0 1 2 3 4
with 8% and 10% cement contents.
Strain (%)
The effect of fiber content on the compressive strength
Figure 8. Stress–strain curves for fiber-reinforced cemented of the uncemented and cemented soil samples for a curing
soil with 5% cement and different fiber contents for 28 days’ time of 28 days is shown in Figure 11. It is shown that the
curing time fibers play a more important role in increasing the
Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1
Behavior of cement-stabilized clay reinforced with nylon fiber
3500
3000
Compressive stress (kPa)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 applications in various engineering construction projects,
0 0.5
Fiber content (%)
Figure 11. Compressive strength against fiber content for
reinforced soil and fiber-reinforced cemented soil with 5%,
8% and 10% cement and different fiber contents for 28 days’
curing time
strength of the cemented soil than that of the uncemented
soil. The values of strength for cemented soil samples with
5%, 8% and 10% cement increased significantly, from
1278, 2020, and 2756 to 1397, 2113 and 2897 kPa with
the addition of 0.5% fibers. However, the effect of fiber
inclusion on the uncemented soil is less significant than
for the cemented soil. Figure 11 shows that, for any
amount of cement content, an increase in fiber content
induced an increase in the strength of the sample, except
for 1.25% fibers. It can be concluded that, for the soil
tested in this study, the optimum fiber content for achiev-
ing maximum strength is about 1% for soil and soil-
cement. When cement is mixed with the soil, the mixture
properties are changed, and the quantity of fibers needed
for optimum performance may change. Therefore different
percentages of fibers were added to the soil-cement
mixtures in order to find the optimum percentage of fibers
needed for maximum strength. It can be seen from Figure
11 that, for a given cement content (5%, 8% or 10%), the
peak strength increased with increasing fiber content up to
about 1%. Therefore the increase in strength is a function
of fiber content. This finding is in agreement with the
results presented by Tang et al. (2007). However, they are
inconsistent with the findings of Gaspard et al. (2003).
Gaspard et al. (2003) performed experimental tests on
three groups of different soils that were mixed with
cement (4–8%) and two different types of fiber (0.1% and
0.2%) with different lengths. They indicated that fibers do
not significantly affect the unconfined compressive
strength of the samples. Sobhan et al. (1999) also reported
a finding similar to Gaspard et al. (2003). Khattak and
Alrashidi (2006) concluded from experimental tests on
cemented soil that the inclusion of fibers increases the
strength of the composite.
These advantages of reinforced cemented soil can be
explained as follows. It is obvious that the cemented soil
and the hydration products of the cement have a higher
strength than the clay. The surface of the fibers are
adhered to by hydration products of the cement, and by
some clay minerals. During the curing process, a network
of crystal products of hydration of the cement gathers
91
around the fibers. These products tightly restrict the
relative movements of the fibers. As a result, the com-
bined inclusion of fibers and cement increases the effi-
ciency of load transfer from the composite to the fiber
(Tang et al. 2007). As a result, the static friction coeffi-
cient between the fiber and the soil composite is in-
Soil creased.
Soil ⫹ 5% cement
The results of the study have shown that the addition of
Soil ⫹ 8% cement
Soil ⫹ 10% cement nylon fibers to clayey soil and soil-cement can signifi-
cantly improve their engineering properties. This may have
1.0 1.5 such as subgrades of roads and highways, and for the
stability of highway embankments. Laboratory tests should
be performed to identify appropriate percentages of fibers
for individual soil types and soil-cement mixtures. The
fibers used in this experimental program present an
improvement of soil-cement. However, they should be
evaluated under actual field conditions.
5. CONCLUSION
In this study, the mechanical behavior of reinforced soil,
soil-cement and reinforced soil-cement was evaluated and
compared through an experimental program. The follow-
ing conclusions can be drawn from the results of this
experimental work.
1. The inclusion of fibers results in an increase in the
peak strength, but the amount of the increase in
strength is dependent on the fiber content. The
strength increased with fiber content up to about 1%,
beyond which further increase in fiber content did
not have a significant effect on the strength. The
initial stiffness of reinforced soil is not dependent on
the fiber content.
2. The increase in the strength of reinforced cemented
soil is significantly greater than the increase due to
the addition of cement or fibers alone. For the
material tested in this study, the optimum fiber
content (in terms of improving the strength) is about
1%. The initial stiffness of reinforced soil-cement is
less than that of cemented soil, and by increasing the
cement content the stiffness decreases.
3. The combination of discrete fibers and cement has
the properties of both fiber-reinforced soil and
cemented stabilized soil. Therefore the addition of
fibers and cement to soil can be considered as an
efficient technique for ground improvement.
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 230 (1990). State-of-the-
art report on soil cement. ACI Material Journal, 87, No. 4, 395–
417.
Al-Rawas, A. A. (2002). Microfabric and mineralogical studies on the
stabilization of an expansive soil using cement by-pass dust and
some types of slags. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, No. 5,
1150–1167.
Ashraf, M. & George, K. P. (1999). Optimum cracking for improved
performance of cement. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Meeting of
Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1
92
the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA (CD-
ROM).
ASTM C 109. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic
Cement Mortar, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 187. Standard Test Method for Amount of Water Required for
Normal Consistency of Hydraulic Cement Paste, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 190. Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength of Hydraulic
Cement Mortars, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
ASTM C 191. Standard Test Methods for Time of Setting of Hydraulic
Cement by Vicat Needle, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
ASTM D 427. Standard Test Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by
Mercury Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
ASTM D 698. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D 854. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids
by Water Pycnometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
ASTM D 1632. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Soil–Cement
Compression and Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D 1633. Standard Test Methods for Compression Strength of
Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders, ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D 2101. Test Method for Tensile Properties of Single Man-Made
Textile Fiber Taken from Yarns and Tows, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D 2256. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Yarns by
the Single-Strand Method, ASTM International, West Conshohock-
en, PA, USA.
ASTM D 2487. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
ASTM D 4318. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit
and Plasticity Index of Soil, ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D 4546. Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or
Collapse of Cohesive Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohock-
en, PA, USA.
ASTM D 6980. Test Method for Determination of Moisture in Plastics by
Loose Weight, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Attom, M. F., Al-Akhras, N. M. & Malkawi, A. I. H. (2009). Effect of
fibres on the mechanical properties of clayey soil. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, 162,
No. 5, 277–282.
Bahar, R., Benazzoug, M. & Kenai, S. (2004). Performance of compacted
cement-stabilised soil. Cement and Concrete Composites, 26, No. 7,
811–820.
Basha, E. A., Hashim, R., Mahmud, H. B. & Muntobar, A. S. (2005).
Stabilization of residual soil with rice husk ash and cement.
Construction and Building Materials, 19, No. 6, 448–453.
Consoli, N. C., Montardo, J. P., Priette, P. D. M. & Pasa, G. S. (2002).
Engineering behaviour of a sand reinforced with plastic waste.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128,
No. 6, 462–472.
Consoli, N. C., Bassani, M. A. A. & Festugato, L. (2010). Effect of fiber-
reinforcement on the strength of cemented soils. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28, No. 4, 344–351.
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 August 2012.
Geosynthetics International, 2012, 19, No. 1
Estabragh, Namdar and Javadi
Consoli, N. C., deMoraes, R. R. & Festugato, L. (2011). Split tensile
strength of monofilament polypropylene fiber-reinforced cemented
sandy soils. Geosynthetics International, 18, No. 2, 57–62.
Croft, J. B. (1967). The influence of soil mineralogical composition of
cement stabilization. Géotechnique, 17, No. 2, 119–135.
Estabragh, A. R., Beytolahpour, I. & Javadi, A. A. (2011). Effect of resin
on the strength of soil-cement mixture. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 23, No. 7, 969–976.
Gaspard, K., Mohammad, L. & Zhong, W. (2003). Laboratory
mechanistic evaluation of soil cement mixtures with fibrillated-
polypropylene fibers. Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Herzog, A. & Mitchell, J. K. (1963). Reaction accompanying the
stabilization of clay with cement. Highway Research Record, No.
36, 146–171.
Ismail, M. A., Joer, H. A., Sim, W. H. & Randolph, M. (2002). Effect of
cement type on shear behaviour of cemented calcareous soil.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128,
No. 6, 520–529.
Izawa, J., Ito, H., Saito, T., Ueno, M. & Kuwano, J. (2009). Development
of rational seismic design method for geogrid-reinforced soil wall
combined with fibre-mixed soil-cement and its applications.
Geosynthetics International, 16, No. 4, 286–300.
Kaniraj, S. R. & Havanagi, V. G. (2001). Behavior of cement-stabilized
fiber-reinforced flyash-soil mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127, No. 7, 574–584.
Khattak, M. J. & Alrashidi, M. (2006). Durability and mechanistic
characteristics of fiber reinforced soil-cement mixtures. Interna-
tional Journal of Pavement Engineering, 7, No. 1, 53–62.
Kuhlman, R. H. (1994). Cracking in soil cement: cause, effect, control.
Concrete International, 16, No. 8, 56–59.
Kumar, S. & Tabor, E. (2003). Strength characteristics of silty clay
reinforced with randomly oriented nylon fiber. Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 8, No. 2.
Kumar, A., Walia, B. S. & Bajaaj, A. (2007). Influence of fly ash, lime
and polyester fibers on compacted and strength properties of
expansive soil. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
19, No. 3, 242–248.
Maher, M. H. & Gray, D. H. (1990). Static response of sand reinforced
with randomly distributed fibers. Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, ASCE, 116, No. 11, 1661–1677.
Park, S.-S. (2009). Effect of fiber reinforcement and distribution on
unconfined compressive strength of fiber reinforced cemented sand.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, No. 2, 162–166.
Ranjan, G., Vasan, R. M. & Charan, H. D. (1996). Probabilistic analysis
of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil. Journal of Geo-
technical Engineering, ASCE, 122, No. 6, 419–428.
Shukla, S. K., Sivakugan, N. & Das, B. M. (2009). Fundamental concepts
of soil reinforcement: an overview. International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 3, No. 3, 329–342.
Sobhan, K., Jesick, M. R., Dedominicis, E., Mefadden, J. P., Cooper, K.
A. & Toe, J. R. (1999). A soil cement fly ash pavement base course
reinforced with recycled plastic fiber. Proceedings of the 78th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, USA.
Tang, C., Shi, B., Gao, W., Chen, F. & Cai, Y. (2007). Strength and
mechanical behavior of short polypropylene fiber reinforced and
cement stabilized clayey soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25,
No. 3, 194–202.
Tremblay, H., Duchesne, J., Locat, J. & Leroueil, S. (2002). Influence of
the nature of organic compounds on fire soil stabilization with
cement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, No. 3, 535–546.