6th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics - Geosynthetics for

Infrastructure Development, 8-11 November 2016, New Delhi, India

THE EFFECT OF GEOTEXTILES ON LOW

PLASTIC SANDY CLAY
RAJESH PRASAD SHUKLA
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

NIRAJ SINGH PARIHAR AND ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

Departmentof Civil Engineering, JUIT Waknaghat, Solan, India

ABSTRACT
This article presents the outcomes of the series of triaxial tests conducted on the low plastic sandy
clay reinforced with geotextiles. Woven and non-woven geotextiles were used as reinforcing
material. The testing was performed on soil by varying the number of geotextile layers,
confining pressure, type of geotextile material and percentage of geotextiles. Incorporation of
geotextile layer increases the strength of soil.Use of woven geotextile increases the cohesion
intercept of soil, whereas non-woven geotextile increases the friction angle of soil. Normal
stress and shear stress relationship found to be improved with the incorporation of geotextiles
materials in the sheet form as well as thread form. The efficiency of reinforcement is increased
with increase in the number of sheets layers. Peak shear strength increased linearly with
increase in the confining pressure, but beyond a certain limit, the difference in the peak strength
values of numbers of layers becomes less evident. In the case of the thread form of geotextiles,
the optimum amount of reinforcement is found to be 10% of soil weight.

1. INTRODUCTION
Soil as an engineering material has various use in civil engineering. It has to perform satisfactorily under
different loading and environmental conditions. Sometimes the soil does not perform comprehensively
under tension, and under these circumstances, soil reinforcement can be used to improve the performance
of soil.
Geosynthetic materials have a wide range of applications in civil engineering, especially as a reinforcing
element. Environment-friendliness, low elongation at break, high initial strength, and ease in application
in the construction and easy availability at various length and forms are some of the properties which
makes it more appropriate than other materials (Haeri et al., 2000). Geosynthetic materials are providing
additional tensile strength to the soil, which is strong in compression but weak in the tension. It increases
the shear resistance of the soil medium, and also reduces the lateral deformation and vertical settlement of
foundation (Colin, 1996). Geosynthetic material not only increases the shear strength, but also improves
the post peak strength and ductility of soils.
Three mechanisms are responsible for improvement in the soil properties, namely the interfacial
friction between soil and geotextile, increase in the lateral restraint due to provision of reinforcement
and development of alternative failure surface. Performance of geotextile reinforced soil depends on
the interface surface of soil and geosynthetic material, state of soil and state of stresses acting on the
soil.

251
252 Rajesh Prasad Shukla, et al.

Literature is full of studies, carried out to determine and to understand the effect of geosynthetic
reinforcement on the soils performance by conducting the triaxial tests, unconfined compressive strength
and direct shear test. Applicability of geosynthetic materials is already proven in the previous studies
(Koerner, 2000; Holtz, 2001; Mirzababaei et al., 2013; Biswas et al., 2016).
Broms (1977) conducted triaxial test and revealed that there is reduction in the lateral earth pressure
with incorporation of geotextile in the sand. Gray & Al-Refeai (1986) found that geotextiles caused
the increase in peak strength and improved stress-strain relation along with reduction in loss of post-
peak strength. Chandrasekaran et al (1989) performed the triaxial tests on different diameter samples
using woven as well as non-woven geotextiles as reinforcing material. Krishnaswamy and Isaac (1995)
conducted testing on 38 mm and 100mm diameter soil samples with the incorporation of geotextile
material, and found that the effect of size is insignificant in assessing liquefaction resistance of reinforced
soil. Large diameter sample shown a little higher resistance as compared to the smaller diameter, so
it was suggested to use small diameter samples to evaluate the liquefaction resistance. Ashmawy and
Bourdeau (1998) conducted tests on reinforced soil samples under cyclic and monotonic loading. It is
revealed that reinforcement has increased the shear strength and ductility of soil significantly. Cyclic
deformation was reduced with the application of reinforcement. The inclusion of geotextiles leads to
increase in the axial strain at failure, ductility and peak strength of composite soils. Though, the soil
samples were found to be bulged between geotextile layers. Effect of reinforcement is more pronounced
in case of small size samples (Haeri et al., 2000) concluded that. The geotextile reinforcement increases
the axial strain and peak shear strength at failure. Loss of post-peak shear strength was also reduced. The
sufficient deformation is required to mobilize the full tensile strength of reinforcement (Nguyen et al.,
2013). Parihar et al. (2015) observed that the unconfined compressive strength increases with geotextile
sheets (woven and nonwoven) reinforced soil.
Most of the earlier studies were conducted either on clay or sand. In the real field, soil can be sandy
clay, clay sand or mixture of various other soils. Behaviour of these soil can be different from sand and
clay. In this study, an attempt is made to study the effect of geotextiles material reinforcement on the
low plastic sandy clay. Triaxial tests were performed to determine the effects of number of layers, type of
geosynthetic material, and percentage of mixed geosynthetic material on the behaviour of soil.
2. MATERIAL AND APPARATUS USED IN STUDY
Soil used in present study were collected from Domehar district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Grain size
distribution of soil is shown in Figure 1. Index properties of used soil are shown in tabular form in Table
1. As per USCS, soil can be classified as soil of low plasticity (CL).

120

100

80
Percentage finer (%)

60

40

20

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Particle size (mm)

Fig. 1: Grain size distribution of soil used in study

 The Effect of Geotextiles on Low Plastic Sandy Clay 253

Table 1: Index properties of soil

Properties Value
Liquid limit 41.5-44.0%
Plastic limit 21-23.5%.
Plasticity Index 20-22%
Cohesion 52.43 kPa
Angle of internal friction ( ) 8.2-8.60
OMC 17.11%
Max. dry density 1.73 gm/cc
The geotextile material used in present study were bought from Virendera Textiles, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
Figure 2 shows the woven geotextiles and non-woven geotextiles used in the present study. The used
geotextiles materials can retain its characteristic for minimum of ten years in natural soil (4.0<pH<9.0)
under soil temperatures of less than or equal to 250C. Properties of geotextiles materials used in the study
are presented in Table 2.
A triaxial apparatus was used to perform the testing on unreinforced and reinforced samples of 38 mm
diameter and 76 mm height. Apparatus used in study is shown in Figure 3.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2: Geotextiles used in study; (a) Woven Geotextiles; (b) Non-Woven Geotextiles

Table 2: Properties of Non-woven and woven geotextiles material used in the study

Properties of Nonwoven Geotextiles Values Properties of woven Geotextiles Values

material material
Mass Per Unit Area 120 g/m Apparent opening 0.075 mm
Weight of Fabric 120 GSM Weight of Fabric 240 GSM
Tensile Strength CD 4.0 KN/m Tensile Strength 42 KN/m
Elongation 80 % Elongation 28 %
Grab Tensile Strength CD 30 kN Trapezoid rear strength 520 N
CBR Puncture Strength 640 N Puncture strength 620 N
Apparent Opening size 90 Microns Apparent opening 0.075 mm
Thickness 1.0 mm Thickness 2.1 mm
254 Rajesh Prasad Shukla, et al.

Fig. 3: Triaxial Apparatus used in the study

3. TESTING METHODOLOGY
Firstly, field density, water content and all other index properties were determined in laboratory. The
liquid limit and plastic limit, dry density and grain size distribution curve of the soils samples were
determined as per Indian standards IS: 2720 (Part V)-1985, IS: 2720 (Part VIII)-1983 and IS: 2720 (Part
IV)-1985 respectively.
Triaxial tests were conducted as per Indian standard IS 2720 (Part XI)-1981 with layered geosynthetic
sheets. The specimens for determination of triaxial test were prepared in the laboratory with the help of
a metallic split mould having a detachable collar. This mould is having diameter of 38 mm and height of
76 mm. Detachable collar is attached at the end of mould and it remains orthogonal with the vertical axis
of mould. Reinforcement were first cut into circular shape of 37 mm diameter and placed into the mould
in layers. Height of each divisions was varied for all different configurations throughout the testing as
shown in Figure 4.

H/4
H/3
H/2
H/4
H H/3
H/4
H/2
H/3 H/4

Fig. 4: Geotextile arrangement used in study

Geotextiles were placed parallel to the horizontal surface. After placing the geotextile in the mould,
samples were compacted with help of a taming rod. Various trials were made to determine the initial
height of placing the reinforcement in mould so that after compaction, geosynthetic sheet layers reach
the required position.
After obtaining the appropriate position for geotextile, new samples were prepared and then tested for the
compressive strength to evaluate the effect of different type of geosynthetic materials. Method of sample
preparation for the triaxial testing was adopted form Bera et al. (2009). Triaxial testing was performed
again under different amount of confining pressure, but this time geotextile mixed in the thread form.
 The Effect of Geotextiles on Low Plastic Sandy Clay 255

Woven and nonwoven geotextiles threads were mixed in equal proportion, and tested for a different
amount of geotextile threads. The summary of testing program is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of testing programmes

Sl. Type of geotextile Form of geotextile No. of layers or amount Confining pressure
No. material used material used of thread used (%) (kPa)
1 Woven Sheet 1, 2 and 3 100, 200 and 300
Thread 5, 10 and 15 100,200 and 300
2 Non-woven Sheet 1, 2 and 3 100,200 and 300
Thread 5, 10 and 15 100,200 and 300

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Effect of Sheet Reinforcement on Strength Parameters and Failure Surface
Undrained triaxial test were carried out for reinforced soil. It was observed that the effect of geotextile
reinforcement on the strength parameters are varying with the type of geotextile material used. Effect of
number of layers of different geotextiles on undrained cohesion and angle of internal friction is shown
in Figure 5. The undrained cohesion increases when woven geotextile is used as a reinforcement media.
With increase in number of layers of woven geotextile the undrained cohesion is found to be increased and
its magnitude becomes more than twice when number of layers is increased to three. These observations
are very much similar to Tafreshi and Asakereh (2007).

140 16
Woven Nonwoven Woven Nonwoven
Cohesion intercept (kPa)

Angle of internal friction

105 12
(degree)

70 8

35 4

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Number of layers Number of layers

(a) (b)
Fig. 5: Effect of number of layers of different type of geotextile on strength parameters:
(a) On cohesion; (b) On angle of internal friction of soil
Woven geotextiles have negligible influence on angle of internal friction and increase in number of layers
also does not cause much change in the same. Non-woven geotextile causes to increase in the angle
of internal friction of soil. The undrained cohesion of soil was also increased, but effect is negligible
compared to the cases where woven geotextiles have been used. Angle of internal friction increases with
increase in number of layers of non-woven geotextiles. Normal (n) and shear stress (n) were determined
from the Mohr circle, and can also be determined directly using the fallowing two equations:

Vn
V 1  V 3   V 1  V 3  cos 2T ...(1)
2 2

Wn
V 1  V 3  sin 2T
...(2)
2
256 Rajesh Prasad Shukla, et al.

Normal stress and shear stress relationship of reinforced soil is presented in Figure 6. This represent the
modified failure envelop of soil, where peaks of Mohr circle were joined to get the failure envelop of
soil. The relationship between normal stress and shear stress is linear for low plastic sandy clay. Normal
stress and shear stress relationship improved a lot with the addition of geotextiles material into the soil.
Incorporation of geotextiles material increasing the normal stress as well as shear stress at the instance
of failure. It indicates that shear stress required at the failure of soil increased with incorporation of
geotextiles material. In addition to normal stress and shear stress relationship, the shear strength increases
normally with inclusion of woven and nonwoven geotextiles up to two layer of geotextiles but it increases
with quite considerably in case of three layer woven geotextiles.

160 180

120 Shear stress (kPa) 135

Shear Stress (kPa)

80 90
No reinforcement Without geotextiles
40 Single layer 45 Single layer
Double layer Double layer
Three layer Three layer
0 0
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
Normal Stress (kPa) Normal stress (kPa)

(a) (b)
Fig. 6: Normal stress and shear stress relationship for reinforced soil:
(a) Woven geotextile; (b) Non-woven geotextile
In case of nonwoven geotextile, the slope of the curve increases with number of layers which indicates
that angle of internal friction increased with increase in the non-woven geotextiles. Woven geotextiles
are little more effective in comparison to nonwoven geotextiles because used soil having higher cohesion
and negligible internal resistance and woven geotextiles causes an increase in cohesion resistance. Shear
strength is increasing in at higher rate in case of non-woven geotextile material. Nonwoven and woven
geotextile have positive impact on angle of internal friction and cohesion respectively, and these results
are confirming the findings of Kamalzare and Ziaie-Moayed (2011).
Peak shear strength increases more or less linearly with increase in confining pressure. Figure 7 shows
that the effect of confining pressure is more prominent in case of three-layer geotextile. The increase in
the stiffness of soil is responsible for this change in the behaviour of soil (Tafreshi & Asakereh,2007;
Boyleet al., 1996)
200 200 Without
Without
geosynthetic
geosynthetic Single layer
Single layer
Shear strength (kpa)

150 150
Shear strength (kPa)

Double layer
Double layer
100 Three layer
Three layer 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Confining pressure (kPa) Confining pressure (kPa)

(a) (b)
Fig. 7: Effect of confining pressure on peak strength of reinforced soil:
(a) Woven geotextile; (b) Non-woven geotextiles
 The Effect of Geotextiles on Low Plastic Sandy Clay 257

4.2 Effect of Geotextiles Threads on Strength Parameters and Failure Surface

With increase in the percentage of geotextile threads into the soil, undrained cohesion and angle of
internal friction are increased by a significant magnitude. Effect of geotextile threads on the strength
parameters of low plastic soil is shown in Figure 8. Effectiveness is very high up to ten percentages of
geotextiles material, but it started decreasing after 10%, so the optimum amount of geotextile may vary
from 5 to 10% of soil mass.

120 14
12
100 10
Cohesion (kPa)

(degree)
8
80
6

60 4
2
40 0
0 5 0 5 10 15
Geotextiles thread (%)10 15 Geotextiles thread (%)
(a) (b)
Fig. 8: Effect of geotextile threads on strength parameters: (a) On cohesion; (b) On angle of internal friction

Shear stress and normal stress relationship is improved after adding geotextiles thread as well. Both
cohesion and angle of internal friction are increasing with increase in the amount of geotextiles threads.
Effect of geotextiles threads on shear stress and normal stresses relationship and strength parameters are
shown in Figure 9.

240
200 0%
5%
Shear Stress (kPa)

160
10%
120
15%
80
40
0
0 200 400 600
Normal Stress (kPa)
Fig. 9: Normal stress and shear stress relationship for geotextiles threads

Peak shear strength increases more or less linearly with increase in confining pressure. Figure 10 shows
that soil samples with 10% and 15% geotextiles are having almost equal peak strength for a particular
magnitude of confining pressure. The increase in the shear strength is relatively higher in case of 10%
thread mixed soil.
258 Rajesh Prasad Shukla, et al.

250

200
Shear strength (kPa)

150

100

50 No reinforcement 5%
10% 15%
0
0 100 200 300 400
Confining pressure (kPa)

Fig. 10: Effect of confining pressure on peak strength of reinforced soil

5. CONCLUSION
Laboratory tests were conducted as per Indian standards. Incorporation of geotextiles reinforcement
increased the strength parameters of soil. Incorporation of woven geotextiles increases the undrained
cohesion of soil very significantly. Nonwoven geotextile increases the angle of internal friction of soil
more proficiently. This behaviour may be attributed to the difference in the textural properties of woven
and nonwoven geotextiles. Behaviour of soil under undrained loading is improved a lot with increase in
the number of layers of geotextile materials. Peak strength of reinforced soil is increased with addition
of woven geotextiles. The optimum amount of geotextile material used in the thread forms found to be
10% by weight of soil. The effect of confining pressure on shear strength becomes more evident with
increase in the number of geotextile layer. Efficiency of geotextile material in the sheet form increases
with increase in number of layers. Present study used a maximum number of layers three, though, the
future study can be conducted by increasing the number of layers of reinforcement. The thickness and
number of geotextile layers can be varied to determine the optimum thickness and number of geotextiles
layers on the performance of low plastic soils.
REFERENCES
Ashmawy, A.K. and Bourrdeau, P.L., 1998. Effect of Geotextile Reinforcement on the Stress-Strain and
Volumetric Response of Sand. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics,
Atlanta, Volume. 2, pp. 1079-1082
Bera, A.K., Ghosh, A. and Ghosh, A., 2009. Shear Strength Response of Reinforced Pond Ash,
Construction and Building Materials. Volume 23, pp. 23862393
Biswas, A, Murali Krishna, A. and Dash, S.K., 2016. Behavior of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Foundation
Systems Supported on Stiff Clay Subgrade. International Journal of Geomechanics, 04016007, pp.
1-15
Boyle, S.R., Gallagher, M. and Holtz, R.D., 1996. Influence of Strain Rate, Specimen Length and
Confinement on Measured Geotextile Properties. Geosynthetics International, Volume 3, No. 2, pp.
205-225
Broms, B.B., 1977. Triaxial Tests with Fabric-Reinforced Soil. In: International Conference on the Use
of Fabric in Geotechnics, Paris, Volume 3, pp. 129-134
Chandrasekaran, B., Broms, B. B., and Wong, K. S., 1989. Strength of Fabric Reinforced Sand Under
Axisymmetric Loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 8, No. 4, pp. 293310
 The Effect of Geotextiles on Low Plastic Sandy Clay 259

Colin J.F.P., 1996. Earth Reinforcement and Soil Structure. Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford
Services Ltd, London
Gray, D.H. and Al-Refeai, T., 1986. Behavior of Fabric Vs. Fiber-Reinforced Sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Volume 112, No. 8, pp. 804-820
Haeri, S.M., Noorzad, R. and Oskoorouchi A. M., 2000. Effect of Geotextile Reinforcement on the
Mechanical Behavior of Sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Volume 18, pp. 385-402
Holtz, R.D., 2001. Geosynthetics for Soil Reinforcement. The Ninth Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture,
College Station Hilton, 810 University Drive, pp. 1-20
Indian Standard, 2006. IS: 2720 (Part IV)-1975: Methods of test for soils: Part 4 Grain size analysis.
India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Indian Standard, 2006. IS: 2720 (Part-V)-1985. Methods of Test for Soils: Part 5 Determination of Liquid
and Plastic Limit. India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Indian Standard, 2011. IS: 2720 (Part-VIII)-1980. Methods of Test for Soils: Part 8 Determination of
Water Content-Dry Density Relation Using Heavy Compaction. India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Indian Standard, 2000. IS: 2720 (Part XI)-1981. Methods of Test for Soils: Part 11 Determination of
Shear Strength Parameters of Soil from Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test with
Measurement of Pore Water Pressure. India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Kamalzare, M. and Ziaie-Moayed, M., 2011. Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on the Shear
Strength Characteristics of Two-Layer Sub-Grade. Acta Geotechnica Slovenica, Volume 1, pp. 39-
49
Koerner, R.M., 2000. Emerging and Future Developments of Selected Geosynthetic Applications. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, The Thirty-Second Terzaghi Lecture,
Volume 126, No. 4, pp. 293-306
Krishnaswamy, N.R., Isaac, N.T., 1995. Liquefaction Analysis of Saturated Reinforced Granular Soils.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 121, No. 9, pp. 645-651
Mirzababaei, M., Inibong, E., Mohamed, M. and Miraftab, M., 2013. Behavior of Strip Footing on
Fiber-Reinforced Model Slopes. Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics (Geotechnical special
publication), pp. 425-434
Nguyen, M.D., Yang, K. H., Lee, S. H., Wu, C. S. and Tsai, M. H., 2013. Behavior of Nonwoven
Geotextile-Reinforced Sand and Mobilization of Reinforcement Strain under Triaxial Compression.
Geosynthetics International, Volume 20, No. 3, pp. 207225.
Parihar, N.S. and Shukla, R.P. 2015. Unconfi ned compressive strength of geotextile sheets reinforced
soil. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 8(3), pp.1379-1385.
Tafreshi S.N.M., and Asakereh A., 2007. Strength Evaluation of Wet Reinforced Silty Sand by Triaxial
Test. International Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume. 5, No. 4, 274-283.