Strength and Deformation Behavior of

Fiber-Reinforced Cohesive Soil Under

Varying Moisture and Compaction States

Suchit Kumar Patel & Baleshwar Singh

Geotechnical and Geological

Engineering
An International Journal

ISSN 0960-3182

Geotech Geol Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0207-y

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
International Publishing Switzerland. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0207-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Strength and Deformation Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced

Cohesive Soil Under Varying Moisture and Compaction
States
Suchit Kumar Patel . Baleshwar Singh

Received: 19 November 2016 / Accepted: 10 March 2017

Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Abstract An experimental study was carried out to failure with a network of minor fissures at higher fiber
investigate the effects of glass fiber reinforcement on content.
the strength and deformation behavior of a cohesive
soil under different compaction states by means of Keywords Glass fiber  Cohesive soil  Unconfined
unconfined compression tests. The specimens were compressive strength  Moisture content  Dry unit
prepared with varying fiber contents, fiber lengths, dry weight  Secant modulus  Energy absorption
unit weight and moisture content other than maximum capacity  Failure pattern
dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of the
soil. From the test results, peak strength, failure axial
Abbreviations
strain, secant modulus and energy absorption capacity
DR Deformation ratio (dimensionless)
of the reinforced soil specimens were calculated and
EAC Energy absorption capacity (kJ/m3)
compared with that of the unreinforced soil. The
fc Fiber content (%)
results showed that the relative benefits of fiber
Ib Brittleness index (dimensionless)
reinforcement are highly dependent on the moisture
L Fiber length (mm)
content and dry unit weight of the soil specimens. The
MDD Maximum dry density (kN/m3)
peak strength of the reinforced soil specimen increases
OMC Optimum moisture content (%)
gradually with increase in dry unit weight, whereas the
SR Strength ratio (dimensionless)
improvement of peak strength with moisture content
UCS Unconfined compressive strength (kPa)
occurs up to optimum moisture content. The brittle
w Moisture content (%)
failure pattern with a single distinct shear plane of the
cd Dry unit weight (kN/m3)
unreinforced soil specimens is gradually transformed
Dr Failure strain of fiber-reinforced soil (%)
to multi-shear failure pattern along with barreling
Du Failure strain of unreinforced soil (%)
shape at low fiber content, and then to plastic bulging

S. K. Patel (&)  B. Singh 1 Introduction

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India In many practical situations, when soils with poor
e-mail: p.suchit@iitg.ernet.in
bearing capacities are encountered for the construction
B. Singh of roads and foundations, modification of the soils is
e-mail: baleshwar@iitg.ernet.in

123
 Author's personal copy
carried out through the use of common cementitious
agents such as cement and lime. Another (widely used)
technique is the use of planar reinforcement, in the
form of bars, strips, meshes and fabrics, to impart
tensile strength to a constructed soil mass. The
reinforcement of in situ soils is achieved by using
nails and anchors.
Reinforcement of soils with randomly distributed
fibers is another method which has some advantages
over the traditional reinforcement methods of soils.
The advantages include the following: the mixing of
discrete fibers with soil mass is quite similar to the
mixing of admixtures like cement and lime; randomly
distributed fibers results in absence of potential weak
planes and can provide an isotropic increase in the
strength; and only the physical properties of soil mass
is changed by fiber inclusion without any ill impact on
the environment. Fiber-reinforced soil is also feasible
for use in areas of limited space or geometric
constraints, where implementation of traditional pla-
nar reinforcement is difficult.
Fiber-reinforced soil has the potential to be used in
earth retaining structures (Park and Tan 2005),
pavement structures (Webster and Santoni 1997;
Santoni and Webster 2001; Rafalko et al. 2006), earth
slopes (Gregory and Chill 1998), compacted clay
liners and cover systems (Rifai 2000; Zornberg et al.
2003) and in clay barriers (Ple and Le 2012).
The initial research work on fiber-reinforced soil
was mainly focusing on sandy soils through direct
shear tests (Gray and Ohashi 1983; Shewbridge and
Sitar 1989) and triaxial tests (Gray and Al-Refeai
1986; Maher and Gray 1990; Maher and Ho 1993).
Shear strength behavior of fiber-reinforced sandy soil
composites has been defined using force equilibrium
method (Gray and Ohashi 1983), discrete framework
model (Zornberg 2002) and energy based model
(Michalowski and Cermak 2003).
The mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced cohe-
sive soil has been investigated later on through
unconfined compressive tests (Freitag 1986; Maher
and Ho 1994; Nataraj and McManis 1997). Freitag
(1986) reported that randomly distributed fibers in a
compacted fine-grained soil can result in greater
strength and toughness for specimens compacted near
and wet of optimum. Maher and Ho (1994) found out
that randomly distributed fibers increase the peak of
unconfined compressive strength, ductility, splitting
tensile strength and flexural toughness of clayey soil
123
Geotech Geol Eng
due to soil–fiber interaction. Nataraj and McManis
(1997) found that improvement of strength of fiber-
reinforced clayey soil is a function of fiber content and
moisture content, and is also dependent on the
specimen size. They found that the shear failure mode
of unreinforced clay changes to bulging mode with
fiber inclusions.
Improvement of unconfined compressive strength
of cohesive soil with addition of randomly distributed
fibers has also been reported by other researchers (Cai
et al. 2006; Tang et al. 2007; Puppala and Musenda
2007; Dasaka and Sumesh 2011; Pradhan et al. 2012;
Mirzababaei et al. 2013). The unconfined strength of
reinforced cohesive soil was found to be dependent on
the compacted moisture content and compacted den-
sity of specimens (Mirzababaei et al. 2013; Kumar and
Tabor 2003). However, in most of the previous
research on fiber-reinforced cohesive soil, the uncon-
fined compressive strength was investigated for spec-
imens mainly compacted at the optimum moisture
content and maximum dry density obtained from
compaction tests.
1.1 Scope of Present Study
This work is intended to make a contribution to the
study of the compressive behavior of cohesive soil
reinforced with glass fibers at varying compaction
states. To this end, laboratory unconfined compression
tests were performed on fiber-reinforced specimens
consisting of four fiber contents, three fiber lengths,
and compacted at four moisture contents and five dry
unit weights. The study focuses on the analysis in
terms of strength and deformation characteristics of
the composite soil material and its failure patterns.
2 Materials and Methodology
2.1 Materials
The soil used in this study was a cohesive soil obtained
from the outskirts of Guwahati city located in North-
east India. The collected soil was air-dried, pulverized
and sieved through 2 mm sieve. The particle size
distribution curve of the soil is shown in Fig. 1. The
physical and compaction properties of the soil are
summarized in Table 1. The soil is classified as clay of
low plasticity (CL) as per ASTM D2487.
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

100 maximum dry unit weight (MDD) are 19.4% and

90 16.8 kN/m3, respectively (Table 1).
80
70 2.2 Specimen Preparation and Testing
Percentage finer

60 Programme
50
Dry soil of specified weight was first mixed with the
40
required quantity of water. Once the water was
30
uniformly mixed with the soil, the desired weight of
20
fiber was then added in small increments manually.
10 The mixing of fibers was done with proper care until a
0 homogeneous mixture was obtained. The soil–fiber
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm) mix was then transferred to polythene bags and kept in
desiccators for 24 h to ensure moisture equilibrium.
Fig. 1 Particle size distribution curve of cohesive soil Thereafter, the soil–fiber mix was compacted in a
cylindrical mold of 38 mm inner diameter having
Table 1 Properties of soil detachable collars at both ends. For this, the entire
Properties Value quantity of moist soil–fiber mixture was transferred
into the mold from one end, after fixing the collar at the
Color of soil Red other end. Thereafter, compaction was done from both
Specific gravity of soil solids, Gs 2.62 ends by giving simultaneous equal rotation to the
Sand content (%) 25 collars till the specimen length of 76 mm was
Silt content (%) 54 obtained.
Clay content (%) 21 It was noted that with 1% fiber content, uniform
Liquid limit, LL (%) 47 mixing of fibers was difficult as the fibers started to
Plastic limit, PL (%) 25 stick together and form lumps. Therefore, it was
Soil classification CL decided not to go for fiber content above 1%. Three
Optimum moisture content, OMC (%) 19.4 different fiber lengths (L = 10, 20 and 30 mm) and
Maximum dry unit weight, MDD (kN/m3) 16.8 four different fiber contents (fc = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and
1% by dry weight of the parent soil) were chosen to
prepare the soil–fiber specimens. Specimens were
prepared at the OMC–MDD compaction state as well
Commercially available glass fiber was used as as at variable conditions of moisture content and dry
reinforcing material. The glass fiber used in this study unit weight other than the OMC and the MDD.
has specific gravity of 2.57, tensile strength of 1.5 GN/ Accordingly, specimens for three series of uncon-
m2, elastic modulus of 110 GN/m2, percentage elon- fined compression (UC) tests were prepared, and the
gation at breakage as 1.7% and zero moisture absorp- parameters of each test series are presented in Table 2.
tion value. Standard proctor compaction tests were For the first test series (Series 1), the specimens were
carried out on the soil according to ASTM D698, and molded at OMC (19.4%) and MDD (16.8 kN/m3) with
the values of optimum moisture content (OMC) and combinations of all fiber lengths and fiber contents.

Table 2 Details of UCS testing programme

Series Moisture content (%) Dry unit weight (kN/m3) Fiber length (mm) Fiber content (%)

Series 1 19.4 16.8 10, 20, 30 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1

Series 2 15.4, 17.4, 21.4 16.8 20 Do
Series 3 19.4 14.3, 15.1, 16.0, 17.6 20 Do

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 3 Summary of test results for specimens compacted at OMC and MDD
cd (kN/m3) w (%) L (mm) fc (%) UCS (kPa) Standard deviation (±kPa) Av. failure strain (%) DR EAC (kJ/m3)

16.8 19.4 – – 138 4 2.65 – 318

10 0.25 157 4 4.61 1.74 626
0.5 185 2 5.44 2.05 842
0.75 205 5 7.47 2.82 1269
1 198 5 10.81 4.08 1827
20 0.25 187 1 5.26 1.98 843
0.5 239 6 6.92 2.61 1456
0.75 280 3 9.86 3.72 2080
1 262 6 11.36 4.29 2818
30 0.25 182 11 5.92 2.23 925
0.5 231 3 7.89 2.98 1625
0.75 270 5 11.18 4.22 2449
1 240 7 13.18 4.71 3074

For the second test series (Series 2), specimens were 300
prepared by keeping dry unit weight equal to MDD
and at variable moisture contents (15.4, 17.4, and 250

21.4%) on both dry and wet sides of OMC, reinforced

Axial stress (kPa)

200
with 20 mm fiber length of all fiber contents. For the
third test series (Series 3), specimens were compacted
150
by keeping moisture content equal to OMC and at
variable dry unit weights (14.3, 15.1, 16.0, and fc = 1%
100
17.6 kN/m3) which are both lower and higher than fc = 0.75%

the MDD, reinforced with only 20 mm fiber length fc = 0.5%

50
with all fiber contents. The UCS tests were conducted fc = 0.25%
No fiber
according to ASTM D2166/D2166M (ASTM 2013) at 0
axial strain rate of 1.2 mm/min. Three specimens were 0 5 10 15 20
Axial strain (%)
prepared and tested for each set of parameters and the
results were analyzed to assess the repeatability of the Fig. 2 Typical compressive curves of specimens with different
test results. fiber contents compacted at OMC and MDD

and failure axial strain. Sudden drop in stress after

3 Results and Discussions
3.1 Strength Characteristics
3.1.1 Effect of Fiber Content and Fiber Length
Figure 2 presents results of stress–strain behavior
from Series 1 only for specimens with different fiber
contents of 20 mm length, and compacted at OMC
(19.4%) and MDD (16.8 kN/m3). The response of the
unreinforced soil has changed significantly due to fiber
reinforcement in terms of both increased peak strength
peak indicates brittle nature of unreinforced specimen.
As fiber is added to the soil, the increased failure strain
of specimens is followed by reduction of post-peak
strength loss, showing gradual transformation of
brittle nature of unreinforced soil to ductile nature of
reinforced soil.
The unconfined strength of fiber-reinforced cohe-
sive soil depends on cohesion of the unreinforced soil
and the interfacial mechanical interactions of adhesion
and friction between soil matrix and fibers. As the
compressive stress on the specimen is increased, the
soil–fiber interfacial interaction stretches the fibers

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng
resulting in development of tensile resistance in them.
The observed increase in the strength of the reinforced
soil specimen could be attributed to fibers intersecting
any developing failure zone through the interlocking
and interweaving of fibers with the soil particles.
From Fig. 2, the peak strength of the reinforced
specimen is observed to increase with fiber content
and attain maximum value with 0.75% fiber content,
and the peak strength is noted to decrease at 1% fiber
content. This indicates that there is an optimum fiber
content at which reinforcement benefit is the maxi-
mum in terms of bond strength and friction between
soil particles and fiber. With increased number of
fibers in soil at 1% fiber content, the availability of soil
matrix quantity for holding the fibers may not be that
much sufficient to develop effective bond between
soil–fiber interfaces. Thus the tensile strength of fibers
may not be fully mobilized resulting in drop of peak
strength at 1% fiber content.
Figure 3 presents the effect of fiber length from
Series 1 on the stress–strain behavior of specimens
reinforced with only 0.75% fiber content, and com-
pacted at OMC and MDD. It can be noted that with the
increase of fiber length from 10 to 30 mm, there is a
noticeable increase in peak strength but the increase in
failure axial strain is marginal. However, it is observed
that the peak strength of the specimen with 20 mm
fiber length is greater than that of the specimen with
30 mm length, indicating there is an optimum fiber
length depending on the specimen diameter or size. It
was noted during specimen preparation that there was
more folding and bending of fibers at the cylindrical
300
250
Axial stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0 120
0 5 10 15
Axial strain (%)
Fig. 3 Typical compressive curves of specimens with different
fiber lengths compacted at OMC and MDD
surface of the specimen of 38 mm diameter when
30 mm long fiber was added, indicating that there is a
likelihood of partial utilization of the entire fiber
length at the time of compressive loading.
The average of the peak strength values for each set
of three identical reinforced specimens has been taken
as the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) for that
mix. Table 3 presents the UCS values of all specimens
tested in Series 1 along with their standard deviation
and average failure strain values. The maximum
standard deviation value of UCS is ±7 kPa, and this
can be considered within the permissible limit of
experimental variation. The UCS values for all
specimens of Series 1 are plotted in Fig. 4.
From Fig. 4, it can be seen that the specimens
reinforced with different fiber length are showing the
same trend with fiber content. The UCS value of
specimen initially increases with fiber content fol-
lowed by a decrease and the maximum strength is
found at 0.75% fiber content. It can also be noted that
at any fiber content, though the 20 mm long fiber
reinforced specimen gives the maximum UCS value,
longer fibers of 30 mm length show better reinforce-
ment benefit in strength than the shorter fibers of
10 mm length. The UCS of the unreinforced soil is
138 kPa, and for fiber content of 0.50%, the UCS
values are 185, 239 and 231 kPa for reinforced
specimens with 10, 20 and 30 mm long fibers,
respectively. For fiber-reinforced sandy soil, Santoni
et al. (2001) reported that increasing the length of fiber
reinforcement increased the strength of the composite
specimen only up to a certain length.
300
280
260
240
UCS (kPa)
220
200
fc = 0.75% 180
L = 30 mm 160 L = 30 mm
L = 20 mm L = 20 mm
L = 10 mm 140 L = 10 mm
No fiber
20 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Fiber content (%)
Fig. 4 Effect of fiber content on UCS of specimens compacted
at OMC and MDD
123
 Author's personal copy
It has been reported by many researchers that the
strength of unreinforced and reinforced soil specimens
improved with increase in confining pressure in
triaxial tests (Al-Refeai 1991; Ranjan et al. 1996;
Michalowski and Zhao 1996) and also with higher
normal stresses in direct shear tests (Gray and Ohashi
1983; Yetimoglu and Salbas 2003; Zaimoglu and
Yetimoglu 2012). It can be inferred that an increase in
fiber content of the reinforced specimen has internal
confinement effect in unconfined compression tests
similar to an increase in confining pressure in triaxial
tests and an increase in normal stress in direct shear
tests.
In the laboratory tests, 20 mm fiber length corre-
sponds to about 53% of the smaller dimension of the
specimen (i.e. diameter of 38 mm). In the field,
compaction would have to be carried out in successive
reinforced soil layers. The thickness of each com-
pacted soil layer would depend on the lift thickness of
uncompacted soil, the type and weight of the roller or
any other compacting equipment, and the number of
passes of the equipment. This would require a prior
knowledge of the type of field geotechnical applica-
tion. It is suggested that the fiber length should not
exceed 60% of the final thickness of the compacted
reinforced soil layer, for obtaining optimum benefit.
3.1.2 Effect of Moisture Content
Figure 5 presents results of stress–strain behavior
from Series 2 only for specimens with 20 mm fiber
length and 0.75% fiber content, compacted at dry unit
300
250
Axial stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
L = 20 mm
fc = 0.75%
0 specimen with 16.8 kN/m3 dry unit weight from
0 5 10 15
Axial strain (%)
Fig. 5 Typical compressive curves of reinforced specimens
compacted at MDD with different moisture contents
123
Geotech Geol Eng
weight equal to MDD (16.8 kN/m3) and at variable
moisture contents. For comparison, the stress–strain
plot of the specimen with 19.4% moisture content
from Series 1 is included in this figure. Overall results
showing the effect of moisture content variation on
UCS, failure strain and SR values of specimens of
Series 2 are summarized in Table 4.
From Fig. 5, one notes that the initial stiffness and
peak strength of the reinforced specimens increase
with increasing moisture content only up to 19.4%
(OMC value) with post-peak strain-softening behav-
ior. However, at the higher moisture content of 21.4%,
the initial stiffness decreases substantially, and no
peak is observed even up to 20% axial strain. From
Table 4, the UCS value of the unreinforced specimen
at 21.4% moisture content is noted to be 82 kPa with
average failure strain of 5.26%. This is probably
because at moisture content above OMC, the soil–fiber
interfacial interaction is low initially and a higher
deformation is required for development of full
adhesion and friction.
In Fig. 6, the variation of UCS with moisture
content is depicted for all reinforced specimens with
20 mm fiber length. Same trends can be seen in the
four groups of specimens with different fiber content.
As the moisture content increases, the UCS value
shows an initial increase after that it decreases and the
maximum UCS value is found at the OMC. Similar
effect of moisture content was reported by Nataraj and
McManis (1997) for cohesive soil reinforced with
polypropylene fiber, whereas Mirzababaei et al.
(2013) reported a dissimilar effect that peak strength
decreased with increase in moisture content at the
same dry unit weight for clay soil reinforced with
carpet waste fiber.
3.1.3 Effect of Dry Unit Weight
Figure 7 presents results of stress–strain behavior
from Series 3 of specimens with 20 mm fiber length
and only 0.75% fiber content, compacted at moisture
w = 21.4%
w = 19.4% content equal to OMC (19.4%) and at variable dry unit
w = 17.4% weights. For comparison, the stress–strain plot of the
w = 15.4%
20 Series 1 is included in this figure. Overall results
showing the effect of dry unit weight variation on
UCS, failure strain and SR values of specimens of
Series 3 are summarized in Table 5.
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 Summary of test results for specimens compacted at MDD and varying moisture content
fc (%) w (%) UCS (kPa) Standard deviation (±kPa) Av. failure strain (%) DR EAC (kJ/m3)

0 15.4 108 2 2.21 – 201

17.4 123 2 2.47 – 242
19.4 138 4 2.65 – 318
21.4 82 2 5.26 – 323
0.25 15.4 147 3 3.74 1.69 398
17.4 160 3 4.85 1.96 502
19.4 187 1 5.26 1.98 843
21.4 109 2 20 3.80 1081
0.5 15.4 179 3 4.26 1.93 564
17.4 217 4 5.91 2.31 896
19.4 239 6 6.92 2.61 1456
21.4 119 3 20 3.80 1815
0.75 15.4 215 6 4.62 2.09 698
17.4 249 4 8.59 3.48 1782
19.4 280 3 9.86 3.72 2080
21.4 138 3 20 3.80 1287
1 15.4 176 4 5.92 2.68 806
17.4 228 3 11.18 3.84 2016
19.4 262 6 11.36 4.29 2818
21.4 132 3 20 3.80 2965

350 300
fc = 1% L = 20 mm
3
fc = 0.75% = 16.8 kN/m
300 d 250
fc = 0.50%
fc = 0.25%
Axial stress (kPa)

250 200
UCS (kPa)

No fiber L = 20 mm
150 fc = 0.75%
200
17.6 kN/m3
100 16.8 kN/m3
150
16.0 kN/m3
50
100 15.1 kN/m3
14.3 kN/m3
0
14 16 18 20 22
0 5 10 15 20
Compacted moisture content (%) Axial strain (%)

Fig. 6 Effect of moisture content on UCS of reinforced Fig. 7 Typical compressive curves of reinforced specimens
specimens compacted at MDD with different fiber contents compacted at OMC with different dry unit weight

From Fig. 7, it can be observed that the initial
stiffness, failure axial strain and peak strength of the
reinforced specimens are observed to increase grad-
ually with dry unit weight up to 16.8 kN/m3 (MDD
value). However, at the higher dry unit weight of
17.6 kN/m3, only the peak strength is observed to
increase further whereas the initial stiffness and failure
axial strain are noted to decrease. Similar trends were
observed for all other reinforced specimens of Series 3
with different fiber contents.
In Fig. 8, the effect of dry unit weight on the
variation of UCS is depicted for all reinforced

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 5 Summary of test results for specimens compacted at OMC and varying dry unit weight
fc (%) cd (kN/m3) UCS (kPa) Standard deviation (±kPa) Av. failure strain (%) DR EAC (kJ/m3)

0 14.3 86 4 1.97 – 135

15.1 110 2 2.23 – 203
16.0 127 4 2.47 – 237
16.8 138 4 2.65 – 318
17.6 169 5 4.60 – 538
0.25 14.3 105 5 2.63 1.33 268
15.1 117 3 3.28 1.47 292
16.0 151 6 3.28 1.33 379
16.8 193 1 4.85 1.83 773
17.6 223 5 5.92 1.29 794
0.5 14.3 117 3 3.28 1.66 302
15.1 132 4 3.94 1.77 430
16.0 191 7 4.60 1.86 622
16.8 239 6 5.91 2.23 1176
17.6 268 5 6.57 1.43 1032
0.75 14.3 145 3 4.60 2.33 469
15.1 196 5 4.85 2.17 603
16.0 225 5 5.26 2.13 739
16.8 280 3 8.59 3.24 2070
17.6 318 4 7.23 1.57 1570
1 14.3 140 3 5.26 2.67 519
15.1 169 4 5.98 2.68 757
16.0 213 2 7.14 2.89 852
16.8 262 5 11.36 4.29 2418
17.6 310 4 7.89 1.72 1764

specimens with 20 mm fiber length. For four groups of

350
specimens with different fiber content, same trends are
fc = 1% L = 20 mm found. The UCS value shows a continuous increase
w = 19.4% with an increase in dry unit weight. At the time of
300 fc = 0.75%
fc = 0.5% specimen preparation, more compaction energy was
250 fc = 0.25% applied to achieve higher dry unit weight. An increase
UCS (kPa)

No fiber in dry unit weight of specimen leads to more contacts

200
between soil–fiber interfaces. Mirzababaei et al.
(2013) have also reported significant improvement in
150
UCS with increase in dry unit weight of reinforced
100 clay soil specimens prepared at a constant carpet waste
fiber content and moisture content.
50 Tang et al. (2010) conducted single fiber pull-out
14 15 16 17 18
3
tests on polypropylene fiber-reinforced cohesive soil,
Compacted dry unit weight (kN/m )
and reported that an increase of soil dry density gives
Fig. 8 Effect of dry unit weight on UCS of reinforced rise to an increase of interfacial mechanical interac-
specimens compacted at OMC with different fiber contents tions. From single particle shear tests, Dove and Frost

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng
(1999) observed that the effective contact area
between smooth geomembrane and sand particles
directly influences the internal friction and adhesion.
The development of interfacial shear strength between
soil and reinforcement has been found to be dependent
on soil properties, material surface roughness and
effective contact area of interface during pullout tests
of corrugated geotextile strips in sand (Racana et al.
2003) and of extruded geogrids embedded in a
compacted granular soil (Moraci and Recalcati 2006).
3.2 Deformation Characteristics
The deformation behavior of unreinforced and rein-
forced specimens has been studied from the axial
failure strains obtained from the stress–strain plots
under different testing series. The failure axial strain
of fiber-reinforced soil increases with fiber content for
the same fiber length (Fig. 2), with fiber length for the
same fiber content (Fig. 3), and with moisture content
for the same fiber content and length (Fig. 5),
indicating that fiber inclusion progressively increasing
ductile behavior. The average failure axial strain
values of all specimens tested in Series 1, Series 2 and
Series 3 are presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5,
respectively.
It can noted that of all specimens tested in Series 1,
the reinforcement of 0.75% fiber content and 20 mm
fiber length gives maximum UCS (280 kPa) with
corresponding average failure axial strain of 8.59%.
However, the maximum average failure axial strain in
Series 1 is 13.18% with UCS of 240 kPa for the
specimen reinforced with 1% fiber content and 30 mm
fiber length. This is because longer fiber results in
better interfacial interaction with soil matrix and
failure occurs at larger axial strain. For unreinforced
specimen, the corresponding values are 138 kPa and
2.65%.
In triaxial testing, the brittleness of specimen is
defined in term of brittleness index (Ib) (Maher and Ho
1993), which is the ratio of the difference between
failure deviatoric stress and the steady state deviatoric
stress to that of steady state deviatoric stress. In triaxial
test, the steady state stress can be obtained if the
specimen is subjected to axial strain much beyond the
peak strength. In unconfined compression testing, the
selection of steady state stress is very difficult as
specimen is not able to bear any further axial load
beyond peak stress.
Therefore, for unconfined compression test the
ductility has been introduced to study the performance
of fiber-reinforced specimen. Ductility is a measure of
the reinforced specimen’s ability to undergo defor-
mation prior to failure without a significant loss in
resistance. Increase in failure strain with reinforce-
ment indicates that the reinforced soil is progressively
becoming ductile. The deformation aspects of the
specimens have been investigated by comparing the
failure strains due to fiber reinforcement in terms of
ductility ratio (DR) defined as follows:
Dr
DR ¼ ð1Þ
Du
where Dr is axial failure strain of fiber-reinforced
specimen and Du is axial failure strain of unreinforced
specimen. The DR values of all specimens tested in
Series 1, Series 2 and Series 3 are summarized in
Table 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
In Table 3, the variation of DR with fiber content
and fiber length is depicted for all specimens of Series
1. With an increase in fiber content, the DR value
shows a continuous increase up to the highest content
of 1.0%, and the same trend is observed in the three
groups of specimens differing in fiber length with the
maximum DR values obtained for 30 mm fiber length.
It can be noted that at the four fiber contents of 0.25,
0.5, 0.75 and 1%, the corresponding maximum DR
values are 2.23, 2.98, 4.22 and 4.71.
From Table 4, the failure strain of both unrein-
forced and reinforced specimens compacted at MDD
(Series 2) is found to increase with moisture content
for any fiber content-fiber length combination indi-
cating that increasing compacted moisture content
induces ductility in the specimen. For all fiber
contents, the DR values show an increasing trend with
an increase in moisture content up to 19.4% (OMC),
and they reaches to a single value at 21.4% moisture
content as no peak strength was reached even up to
20% strain for the reinforced specimens.
From Table 5, the failure strain of unreinforced soil
specimens compacted at OMC (Series 3) is observed
to increase with increasing dry unit weight. For lower
fiber contents of 0.25 and 0.5%, the failure strain
increases continuously with dry unit weight. For
higher fiber contents of 0.75 and 1%, the failure strain
is found to increase with dry unit weight only up to
16.8 kN/m3 (MDD), and then decreases at higher dry
unit weight of 17.6 kN/m3. However, at any fiber
123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

content, the DR value shows an increasing trend with 5.5

L = 20 mm
an increase in dry unit weight up to 16.8 kN/m3 5.0
= 16.8 kN/m
3
d
(MDD) and then decreases to a minimum value at 4.5

Secant modulus (MPa)

17.6 kN/m3. 4.0
3.5
3.3 Secant Modulus 3.0
2.5
The stiffness of both unreinforced and reinforced
2.0
specimens at failure condition can be compared from fc = 0.5% fc = 1%
1.5
the secant modulus, which is the ratio of peak strength fc = 0.25% fc = 0.75%
1.0
to the failure axial strain. In Fig. 9, the variation of No fibre
0.5
secant modulus with fiber content and fiber length is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
depicted for all specimens of Series 1. With an Compacted moisture content (%)
increase in fiber content, the secant modulus value
shows a continuous decrease up to the highest content Fig. 10 Variation of secant modulus with moisture content for
reinforced specimens compacted at MDD
of 1% indicating decrease of stiffness, and the same
trend is observed in the three groups of specimens
specimens with 20 mm fiber length (Series 2). With
differing in fiber length. At any fiber content, the
an increase in moisture content, the secant modulus
secant modulus is the maximum for the specimen for
value initially increases followed by a decrease, and
20 mm fiber length, followed by the specimens with
the maximum value of the secant modulus is found at
10 mm length and 30 mm length. From Fig. 9, it can
19.4% moisture content (OMC). Same trends are
be noted that at the four fiber contents of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
observed for the four groups of specimens with
and 1%, the corresponding minimum stiffness mod-
different in fiber content, but the stiffness is noted to
ulus values are 3.49, 3.17, 2.62 and 1.83 MPa for
be the minimum for the highest fiber content at any
30 mm fiber length. The secant modulus of unrein-
moisture content. From Fig. 10, it can be noted that at
forced specimen is 5.18 MPa, whereas those of
the four variable moisture contents 15.4, 17.4, 19.4,
reinforced specimens with 1% fiber reinforcement
and 21.4%, the minimum secant modulus values are
are 2.07, 2.57 and 1.83 MPa for 10, 20 and 30 mm
2.22, 2.04, 2.57 and 0.67 MPa for the 1% fiber-
fiber lengths, respectively.
reinforced specimens.
In Fig. 10, the variation of secant modulus with
In Fig. 11, the effect of dry unit weight on the
moisture content is depicted for all reinforced
variation of secant modulus is presented for all

5.5 5.5
L = 30 mm fc = 1% L = 20 mm
5.0 L = 20 mm 5.0 fc = 0.75% w = 19.4%
L = 10 mm fc = 0.5%
4.5
Secant modulus (MPa)

4.5
Secant modulus (MPa)

fc = 0.25%
4.0 No fiber
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0

1.5 2.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 14 15 16 17 18
3
Fiber content (%) Compacted dry unit weight (kN/m )

Fig. 9 Variation of secant modulus with fiber content and fiber Fig. 11 Variation of secant modulus with dry unit weight for
length for reinforced specimens compacted at OMC and MDD reinforced specimens compacted at OMC

123
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng
reinforced specimens with 20 mm fiber length (Series
3). With an increase in dry unit weight up to 16.0 kN/
m3, the secant modulus value of reinforced specimens
shows a continuous increase followed by a decrease at
MDD, after which there is an increase again. The same
trends are found in the four groups of specimens
differing in fiber content, and the stiffness is observed
to be the minimum for the highest fiber content at any
dry unit weight. From Fig. 11, it can be seen that at the
five dry unit weights of 14.3, 15.1, 16.0, 16.8, and
17.6 kN/m3, the minimum secant modulus values of
the reinforced specimens are 2.76, 3.04, 3.60, 2.31 and
3.93 MPa for the 1% fiber-reinforced specimens.
In field application, the actual applied load level
should remain lower than the peak compressive
strength so that the failure axial strain is never
reached. Hence, it is appropriate to specify the
stiffness of the fiber-reinforced soil in terms of the
secant modulus as presented in Figs. 9, 10 and 11.
3.4 Energy Absorption Capacity
The energy absorption capacity of both unreinforced
and reinforced specimens has been obtained by
calculating the area under stress–strain curves up to
failure axial strain and then compared. An increase in
absorbed energy with reinforcement indicates the
increase in peak strength or failure strain or both.
The effects of fiber content and fiber length on the
energy absorption capacity (EAC) are summarized in
Table 3 for the specimens of Series 1. It can be noted
that the EAC of reinforced specimen is found to
improve with both fiber content and fiber length. This
indicates that uniformity of randomly distributed
fibers within the soil specimen has caused continuous
energy absorption prior to specimen failure. Thus, the
maximum EAC value is found to be 3074 kJ/m3 for
the specimen reinforced with 1% fiber content and
30 mm length, with UCS value of 240 kPa. However,
the maximum UCS value of 280 kPa in Series 1 is for
the specimen reinforced with 0.75% fiber content and
20 mm length (Table 3), and the corresponding EAC
value is 2080 kJ/m3.
The EAC of specimens tested in Series 2 is
observed to increase with increasing moisture content
(Table 4). From Series 1, it has been noted that the
EAC of reinforced specimen is found to improve with
both fiber content and fiber length. Thus, the maxi-
mum EAC values are found for the specimens
reinforced with 1% fiber content and 30 mm length,
and compacted at 21.4% moisture content. This
maximum value is 3095 kJ/m3, with UCS value of
115 kPa.
The EAC of specimens tested in Series 3 shows a
rising trend with increase in dry unit weight up to
16.8 kN/m3 (MDD) and then shows a falling trend at
higher dry unit weight (Table 5). With 1% fiber
content and 20 mm fiber length, the EAC values of the
reinforced specimens are 519, 757, 852, 2418 and
1764 kJ/m3 at the dry unit weights of 14.3, 15.1, 16.0,
16.8 and 17.6 kN/m3, respectively.
3.5 Failure Patterns
3.5.1 Effect of Fiber Content and Fiber Length
It was observed during and after the tests that different
failure characteristics developed in specimens of
different test series. Figure 12 shows typical effects
of fiber content on failure patterns of specimens
compacted at OMC and MDD with 20 mm fiber length
(Series 1). For unreinforced soil specimen (Fig. 12a),
at initial strain during loading, two shear planes appear
diagonally from the top and bottom along the length of
specimen and they join together to form a single
dominant inclined shear plane at failure, indicating
brittle behavior.
In contrast, the reinforced specimens with 0.25 and
0.5% fiber contents develop distinct multi-shear
planes along with barreling in a part of the specimen
(Fig. 12b, c). At higher fiber contents of 0.75 and 1%,
failure of the specimens involves predominantly
bulging with the formation of smaller fissures
(Fig. 12d, e). The restriction of development of shear
planes or fissures is due to the bridging effect of the
fibers, which results in redistribution of stresses inside
the reinforced soil specimen. As can be observed from
the stress–strain curves in Fig. 2, specimen failure
occurs at increasingly greater axial strain with higher
fiber content showing the inducement of ductility.
Figure 13 indicates the effect of fiber length on
failure patterns of specimens compacted at OMC and
MDD with 0.75% fiber content (Series 1). In contrast
to the single dominant shear plane at failure of the
unreinforced specimen (Fig. 13a), the failure of the
reinforced specimen with short fibers of 10 mm length
involve multi-shear planes along with barreling in a
significant part of the specimen without a distinct
123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 12 Effect of fiber content on failure patterns of specimens compacted at OMC and MDD with 20 mm fiber length: a unreinforced,
b fc = 0.25%, c fc = 0.5%, d fc = 0.75% and e fc = 1%
Fig. 13 Effect of fiber length on failure patterns of specimens compacted at OMC and MDD with 0.75% fiber content: a unreinforced,
b L = 10 mm, c L = 20 mm and d L = 30 mm
failure plane (Fig. 13b). With further increase of fiber
length to 20 and 30 mm at the same fiber content,
drum-shaped ductile failure occurs with minor fissures
(Fig. 13c, d). Due to its shorter length, 10 mm long
fibers have allowed the bulging only up to a relatively
small lateral deformation, after which formation of
fissures takes place with the fibers across them getting
pulled out. Longer fibers have adequate length which
provides more surficial interaction and they suffi-
ciently restrict the development of fissures as the
bulging increases. As have been seen in the stress–
strain curves (Fig. 3), the reinforced specimens are
capable of undergoing more pre-failure deformation
123
Geotech Geol Eng
than that of unreinforced soil specimen. Similar trends
in the failure patterns were also observed for other
reinforced specimens of Series 1 with different fiber
contents and fiber lengths.
3.5.2 Effect of Moisture Content
Figure 14 presents the effect of moisture content on
failure patterns of specimens compacted at MDD with
0.75% fiber content and 20 mm fiber length (Series 2).
At lower moisture contents of 15.4 and 17.4%, there is
localized appearance of wide multiple surface cracks
all around the specimen surface leading to peeling of
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 14 Effect of moisture content on failure patterns of specimens compacted at 16.8 kN/m3 dry unit weight with 0.75% fiber content
and 20 mm fiber length: a w = 15.4%, b w = 17.4%, c w = 19.4% and d w = 21.4%

soil at failure condition (Fig. 14a, b). At low moisture
content, the soil cohesion is less resulting in easy
disturbance and flaking of soil under loading. As the
moisture content is increased to 19.4% (OMC), the
surficial cracks no longer appear and the reinforced
specimen undergoes bulging failure with small fis-
sures (Fig. 14c). At the still higher moisture content of
21.4%, no failure is observed even up to 20% axial
strain and the reinforced specimen continues to bulge
(Fig. 14d). The strain-hardening behavior at 21.4%
moisture content can also be seen from the stress–
strain curves (Fig. 5).
3.5.3 Effect of Dry Unit Weight
Figure 15 shows the effect of dry unit weight on
failure patterns of specimens compacted at OMC with
0.75% fiber content and 20 mm fiber length (Series 3).
At lower dry unit weights of 14.3 and 15.1 kN/m3,
there is specimen bulging with the appearance of
prominent multiple shear cracks around the failure
zone but there is no peeling of specimen surface at
failure (Fig. 15a, b). As dry unit weight is increased to
16.0 and 16.8 kN/m3, the specimen undergoes more
bulging and the shear cracks become smaller
(Fig. 15c, d). This is because as the dry unit weight
increases, the soil–fiber interaction increases which
effectively bridges the developing shear cracks. As the
dry unit weight is increased further to 17.6 kN/m3
above MDD, no bulging of the reinforced specimen is
noted and a single major crack is observed at failure
(Fig. 15e). The brittle failure at 17.6 kN/m3 dry unit
weight can also be noted from the stress–strain curves
(Fig. 7).

Fig. 15 Effect of dry unit weight on failure patterns of specimens compacted at 19.4% moisture content with 0.75% fiber content and
20 mm fiber length: a cd = 14.3 kN/m3, b cd = 15.1 kN/m3, c cd = 16 kN/m3, d cd = 16.8 kN/m3 and e cd = 17.6 kN/m3

123
 Author's personal copy
4 Conclusions
From the results of the unconfined compressive
strength tests carried out on specimens of the cohesive
soil, both unreinforced and reinforced with glass
fibers, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. For all compacted states (moisture content and dry
unit weight) of reinforced specimens, the UCS
increases with fiber content for all fiber lengths to
reach maximum value at 0.75% fiber content, and
the UCS also increases with fiber length at all fiber
contents to reach highest value at 20 mm fiber
length.
2. An increase in moisture content of unreinforced
and reinforced soil specimens results in an
increase of UCS only up to OMC, and then
decreases at moisture content above OMC. How-
ever, an increase in dry unit weight results in an
increase of UCS up to MDD and beyond.
3. At any dry unit weight, the failure axial strain of
reinforced specimens increases with fiber content,
with fiber length, and also with moisture content.
4. For all compacted states (moisture content and dry
unit weight) of reinforced specimens, the secant
modulus at failure strain level decreases with fiber
content for all fiber lengths, and also with fiber
length at all fiber contents.
5. An increase in moisture content of reinforced soil
specimens, prepared at constant fiber content,
fiber length and dry unit weight, results in an
increase of the secant modulus at failure strain
level up to OMC, and decreases at moisture
content above OMC.
6. At constant dry unit weight, the EAC of reinforced
specimens increases with fiber content, with fiber
length, and also with moisture content. An
increase in dry unit weight of reinforced soil
specimens, prepared at constant fiber content,
fiber length and moisture content, results in an
increase of the EAC up to MDD, and then
decreases.
7. For unreinforced soil specimens, the failure
pattern is characterized by a single distinct shear
plane. With reinforcement at low fiber content and
short fiber length, the failure pattern consists of
mainly multi-shear planes along with barreling in
a part of the specimen. With higher fiber content
and longer fiber length, the failure pattern is
123
Geotech Geol Eng
progressively changed to predominantly bulging
mode with a network of minor fissures.
8. With reinforcement at low moisture content, the
failure pattern of the specimen is characterized with
localized appearance of multiple cracks around the
specimen surface leading to flaking of soil at failure
condition. At higher moisture content, the surficial
cracks disappear and the reinforced specimen
undergoes bulging failure with small fissures.
9. With reinforcement at low dry unit weight, the
failure pattern of the specimen is characterized
with bulging and the appearance of prominent
multiple shear cracks. At higher dry unit weight,
the specimen undergoes more plastic bulging and
the shear cracks become smaller.
References
Al-Refeai TO (1991) Behavior of granular soils reinforced with
discrete randomly oriented inclusions. Geotext Geomembr
10(4):319–333. doi:10.1016/0266-1144(91)90009-L
ASTM D2166/D2166M (2013) Standard test method for
unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken
ASTM D2487 (2006) Standard practice for classification of soils
for engineering purposes (unified soil classification sys-
tem). ASTM International, West Conshohocken
ASTM D698 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory
compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort
(12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International,
West Conshohocken
Cai Y, Shi B, Ng CWW, Tang C (2006) Effect of polypropylene
fiber and lime admixture on engineering properties of
clayey soil. J Eng Geol 87(3):230–240. doi:10.1016/j.
enggeo.2006.07.007
Dasaka MS, Sumesh KS (2011) Effect of coir fiber on the stress–
strain behavior of a reconstituted fine grained soil. J Nat
Fibers 8(3):189–204. doi:10.1080/15440478.2011.601597
Dove JE, Frost JD (1999) Peak friction behavior of smooth
geomembrane–particle interface. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 129(7):544–555. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(1999)125:7(544)
Freitag DR (1986) Soil randomly reinforced with fibers.
J Geotech Eng 112(8):823–826. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1986)112:8(823)
Gray DH, Al-Refeai T (1986) Behavior of fabric versus fiber-
reinforced sand. J Geotech Eng 112(8):804–820. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:8(804)
Gray DH, Ohashi H (1983) Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in
sand. J Geotech Eng Div 109(3):335–353. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:3(335)
Gregory GH, Chill DS (1998) Stabilization of earth slope with
fiber reinforcement. In: Proceeding of 6th international
conference on geosynthetics, Atlanta, pp 1073–1078
 Author's personal copy
Geotech Geol Eng
Kumar S, Tabor E (2003) Strength characteristics of silty clay
reinforced with randomly oriented nylon fibers. Electron J
Geotech Eng 8(1):774–782
Maher MH, Gray DH (1990) Static response of sands reinforced
with randomly distributed fibers. J Geotech Eng Div
116(11):1661–1677. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1990)116:11(1661)
Maher MH, Ho YC (1993) Behavior of fiber-reinforced
cemented sand under static and cyclic loads. Geotech Test J
16(3):330–338. doi:10.1520/GTJ10054J
Maher MH, Ho YC (1994) Mechanical properties of kaolin-
ite/fiber soil composite. J Geotech Eng 120(8):1381–1393.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:8(1381)
Michalowski RL, Cermak J (2003) Triaxial compression of sand
with fibers. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(2):125–136.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:2(125)
Michalowski RL, Zhao A (1996) Failure of fiber-reinforced
granular soils. J Geotech Eng 122(3):226–234. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:3(226)
Mirzababaei M, Miraftab M, Mohamed M, McMahon P (2013)
Unconfined compression strength of reinforced clays with
carpet waste fibers. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
139(3):483–493. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000
0792
Moraci N, Recalcati P (2006) Factors affecting the pullout
behavior of extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted
granular soil. Geotext Geomembr 24(4):220–242. doi:10.
1016/j.geotexmem.2006.03.001
Nataraj MS, McManis KL (1997) Strength and deformation
properties of soils reinforced with fibrillated fibers. Geo-
synth Int 4(1):65–79. doi:10.1680/gein.4.0089
Park T, Tan AS (2005) Enhanced performance of reinforced soil
walls by inclusion of short fiber. Geotext Geomembr
23(4):348–361. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.12.002
Ple O, Le TNH (2012) Effect of polypropylene fiber-rein-
forcement on the mechanical behavior of silty clay. Geo-
text Geomembr 32:111–116. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.
2011.11.004
Pradhan PK, Kar RK, Naik A (2012) Effect of random inclusion
of polypropylene fibers on strength characteristics of
cohesive soil. J Geotech Geol Eng 30(1):15–25. doi:10.
1007/s10706-011-9445-6
Puppala AJ, Musenda C (2007) Effects of fiber reinforcement on
strength and volume change in expansive soils. Trans-
portation Research Record 1736, Paper No. 00-0716,
pp. 134–140. doi:10.3141/1736-17
Racana N, Grédiac M, Gourvès R (2003) Pull-out response of
corrugated geotextile strips. Geotext Geomembr
21(5):265–288. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00031-1
Rafalko SD, Brandon TL, Filz GM, Mitchell JK (2006) Fiber
reinforcement for rapid stabilization of soft clay soils.
Technical report, AFRL-RX-TY-TP-2009-4603, Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg
Ranjan G, Vasan RM, Charan HD (1996) Probabilistic analysis
of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil. J Geotech
Eng 122(6):419–426. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1996)122:6(419)
Rifai SM (2000) Impact of polypropylene fibers on desiccation
cracking and hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay
liners. Ph.D. thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit
Santoni RL, Webster SL (2001) Airfields and road construction
using fiber stabilization of sands. J Transp Eng
127(2):96–104. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2001)
127:2(96)
Santoni RL, Tingle JS, Webster SL (2001) Engineering prop-
erties of sand–fiber mixtures of road construction.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(3):258–268. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:3(258)
Shewbridge SE, Sitar N (1989) Deformation characteristics of
reinforced soil in direct shear. J Geotech Eng Div
115(8):1134–1147. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)
115:8(1134)
Tang C, Shi B, Gao W, Chen F, Cai Y (2007) Strength and
mechanical behavior of short polypropylene fiber rein-
forced and cement stabilized clayey soil. Geotext Geo-
membr 25(3):194–202. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.
11.002
Tang CS, Shi B, Zhao LZ (2010) Interfacial shear strength of
fiber reinforced soil. Geotext Geomembr 28(1):54–62.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.10.001
Webster SL, Santoni RL (1997) Contingency airfield and road
construction using geosynthetic fiber stabilization of sands.
Technical report GL-97-4, U.S. Army Engineer Water-
ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg
Yetimoglu T, Salbas O (2003) A study on shear strength of sands
reinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers. Geo-
text Geomembr 21(2):103–110. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144
(03)00003-7
Zaimoglu AS, Yetimoglu T (2012) Strength behavior of fine
grained soil reinforced with randomly distributed
polypropylene fibers. J Geotech Geol Eng 30(1):197–203.
doi:10.1007/s10706-011-9462-5
Zornberg JG (2002) Discrete framework for limit equilibrium
analysis of fiber-reinforced soil. Geotechnique
52(8):593–604. doi:10.1680/geot.2002.52.8.593
Zornberg JG, LaFountain L, Caldwell JA (2003) Analysis and
design of evapotranspirative cover for hazardous waste
landfill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(5):427–438.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:6(427)
123