Chapter - 1: 1.1 General

CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
An extensive and good quality road network is one of the major

parameters for the development of a country’s social and economic conditions.
The basic necessity for a quality road structure is good and strong sub-grade
over which the road is constructed .But in many parts of the country the sub-
soil is of poor quality due to low strength and high compressibility. Also there
is scarcity of good quality conventional construction material for sub-base
and base of the road structure. Economy in road network can be achieved
through economical pavement design .Quality of sub-grade availability is the
input parameter in pavement design. Practically it is not possible to have good
sub-grade always. Poor sub-grade necessitates a greater pavement thickness
resulting in increased construction cost. With the aim of reducing pavement
thickness on poor sub-grade new techniques of construction and soil
stabilization have been continuously explored. Poor natural soils make them
practically unsuitable for many civil engineering construction activities
including road pavements. In such cases natural soils are being treated with
different kinds of materials to improve their engineering properties. The
techniques of improving the engineering properties of soil are called soil
stabilization, which has been quite successfully used in many engineering
problems.
Fiber reinforced soil has been used in many countries in the recent past
and further research is in progress for many hidden aspects of it. Fiber
reinforced soil is effective in all types of soils (i.e., sand, silt and clay). Use of
natural materials such as Jute, coir, sisal and bamboo, as reinforcing
materials in soil is prevalent foe a long time and they are abundantly used in
many countries like India, Philippines, and Bangladesh etc. The main
advantage of these materials are locally available and are very cheap. They
are biodegradable and hence do not create disposal problem in environment.
Processing of these materials into a usable form is an employment generation
1
Department of Civil Engineering, SVEC.
activity in rural areas of these countries. If these materials are used effectively,
the rural economy can get uplift and also the cost of construction can be
reduced, if the material use leads to beneficial effects in engineering
construction. Of all the natural fiber Jute has highest tensile strength and
withstand rotting heat.
After a significant period of investigations and research, the

geotechnical engineering profession is well aware of the inherent weakness in
soils and has devised methods for improvements. A few successful field trials
have been conducted in India over the past few years, and increasing attention
is now being given to the subject by several central and state research
laboratories and academic institutions. India is a very large producer of jute
the availability of natural jute in India in abundant quantity thus gives the
natural fiber based fabrics an advantage in terms of cost. There are various
applications where the degradation of fabric does not hinder its applications.
1.2 NECESSITY OF STUDY

All the soils we see in and around and locally available do not
possess same parameters of strength and same engineering properties. Some
kind of soils may be dominant in some properties and some soils in some
other aspects. Serious problems do not arise if soil available to us satisfy the
requirements of stability. But if the same condition do not exist, we have to
alter the properties of our soil to our requirements to satisfy stability criterion.
This would be achieved by stabilizing the soil using various methods and
materials locally available to us. The method of stabilization selected should
satisfy the purpose in economy point of view also.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The main objective of this study is to assess the suitability of Jute fibers
for stabilization of soil by studying the changes in the engineering properties
of soil with addition of randomly oriented Jute fibers. The study is limited to
laboratory investigations on sample soil.
2
CHAPTER – 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 SOIL STABILIZATION

2.1.1 DEFINITION
Soil stabilization is the process of altering some soil properties by

different methods, mechanical or chemical in order to produce an improved
soil material which has all the desired engineering properties.
Soils are generally stabilized to increase their strength and

durability or to prevent erosion and dust formation in soils. The main aim is
the creation of a soil material or system that will hold under the design use
conditions and for the designed life of the engineering project. The properties
of soil vary a great deal at different places or in certain cases even at one place;
the success of soil stabilization depends on soil testing. Various methods are
employed to stabilize soil and the method should be verified in the lab with
the soil material before applying it on the field.
2.2 PRINCIPLES OF SOIL STABILIZATION
 Evaluating the soil properties of the area under consideration.

 Deciding the property of soil which needs to be altered to get the design
value and choose the effective and economical method for stabilization.
 Designing the Stabilized soil mix sample and testing it in the lab for
intended stability and durability values.
2.3 METHODS
2.3.1 MECHANICAL METHOD OF STABILIZATION

In this procedure, soils of different gradations are mixed together
to obtain the desired property in the soil. This may be done at the site or at
some other place from where it can be transported easily. The final mixture is
then compacted by the usual methods to get the required density.
3
2.3.2 ADDITIVE METHOD OF STABILIZATION
It refers to the addition of manufactured products into the soil,
which in proper quantities enhances the quality of the soil. Materials such as
cement, lime, bitumen, fly ash etc. are used as chemical additives. Sometimes
different fibers are also used as reinforcements in the soil. The addition of
these fibers takes place by two methods.
A) ORIENTED FIBER REINFORCEMENT
The fibers are arranged in some order and all the fibers are placed
in the same orientation. The fibers are laid layer by layer in this type of
orientation. Continuous fibers in the form of sheets, strips or bars etc. are
used systematically in this type of arrangement.
B) RANDOM FIBER REINFORCEMENT

This arrangement has discrete fibers distributed randomly in the
soil mass. The mixing is done until the soil and the reinforcement form a more
or less homogeneous mixture. Materials used in this type of reinforcements
are generally derived from paper, nylon, metals or other materials having
varied physical properties. Randomly distributed fibers have some advantages
over the systematically distributed fibers. Somehow this way of reinforcement
is similar to addition of admixtures such as cement, lime etc. Besides being
easy to add and mix, this method also offers strength isotropy, decreases
chance of potential weak planes which occur in the other case and provides
ductility to the soil.
2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
2.4.1 EARLY PRACTICES
The term “geotextile” refers to textiles used in geotechnical

engineering, transportation engineering and environmental engineering
although all soil, rock and ground related activity fall with the general scope
of geotextile application.The first use of a textile fabric structure for
geotechnical engineering was in 1926 for road construction. In 1930‟s woven
jute fabric was used for sub-grade support in construction of highway in
4
Aberdeen. The use of a woven synthetic fabric for erosion control was in
1950‟s in Florida by Barrett. Apart from this, the maiden use of nonwoven
fabric in civil engineering was for asphalt overlay (U.S.A) in 1966. In 1962,
M/s Nelton Ltd., U.K. Used synthetic nets for the first time in a civil
engineering project. Similarly, reinforcement work of soft ground in Japan
was conducted under the responsibility of professor I. Yamanauchi. This
successful trial was followed by many applications, including embankment
reinforcement for the Japanese National Railway, and inspired the
development of geogrids. In 1969, Giroud had used nonwoven fabrics as a
filter in the upstream face of an earthen dam. In 1971, Wager initiated use of
woven fabrics as reinforcement for embankments constructed on very soft
foundations. More recently in the nineteenth century, George Stephenson
used fibrous materials, including waste cotton bales, to provide a water
permeable and flexible foundation for the world's first passenger railway in
U.K.
2.5 MODERN DEVELOPMENT
BJRI in cooperation with Arcedia Development Ltd. Co.

successfully completed a model study with designed biodegradable jute
geotextiles as separator, filter, fiber drain (BD) and reinforcing materials in a
60’x25’x20’ civil construction with 800 slope of retaining wall at BJRI premise
with 5 years design life in 1993-1998. After 10 years at 2003 that no fracture
observed in the model structure. On the other hand a solid Porous Cake
framed with degradation of jute geo-textiles in different layers. Though
strength of fabrics changes in certain area to great extent, it was postulated
at certain type of complex legends might be formed with reduced lignomass,
with some constitute of jute and soil. Similarly, erosion control model study
was performed in Bandar ban and some other places to control landslides by
SRDI and also geo-jute was successfully applied in greater Dhaka Flood
Control Barrage BJMC. Again and in complete experiment was undertaken
for stabilizing a section of Deldual - Lauhaty Road at Tangail District and
using jute geotextiles.
5
2.6 PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCED EARTH
Soil mass is generally a discrete system consisting of soil

grains and is unable to withstand tensile stresses and this is particularly true
in the case of cohesion less soil like sand. Such soils cannot be stable on steep
slopes and relatively large strains will be caused when external loads are
imposed on them. Reinforced earth is a composite material, a combination of
soil and reinforcement suitably placed to withstand the development of tensile
stresses and also to improve the resistance of soil in the direction of greatest
stress. The presence of reinforcement modifies the stress filed giving a
restraint mostly in the form of friction or adhesion so that less strains are
induced and tension is avoided. Inclusions like discrete shot fibers placed
random or in different layers will also impart additional resistance by way of
cohesion and friction, but these are not included in the Vidal's concept of
reinforced earth.
2.7 REINFORCING MATERIALS

A number of materials have been reported to be successfully used
as reinforcements such as steels, geofabrics, geogrids, aluminum, glass fiber,
wood, rubber and concrete. In developed countries polypropylene based
synthetic fibers and grids are now preferred due to their available with desired
properties and durability. However, they are yet to be used widely in India as
they are more costly. The reinforcement may take the form of strips, grids,
sheet materials, rope and other combinations. The major requirements of the
reinforcing materials are strength, durability, ease of handling, high adhesion
or friction with soil and availability at low-cost. The man made polymers are
highly restraint to bacteria, alkalis and acid. Polyamides have a very good
mechanical characteristic including excellent resistance to abrasion and
absolute imperviousness to rotting. It can withstand high temperature
without its performance being affected. However, their performance
deteriorates on wetting. Polyesters have very good resistance to abrasion and
its behaviour in water is satisfactory. It has high modulus of elasticity and
has only negligible creep. It can also withstand considerable temperature
6
increase. Polypropylene is also rot-proof, water and most chemical reagents
do not affect its performance. It has only fair resistance to abrasion and is
affected by temperature increase. It has only a tendency to creep. However, a
majority of geo-fabrics is manufactured from polypropylene.
Soil has been used as a construction material from times
immortal. Being poor in mechanical properties, it has been putting challenges
to civil engineers to improve its properties depending upon the requirement
which varies from site to site and economic constrains. There are many
techniques employed to improve the engineering and mechanical properties
of soil and they can be put into five major categories:
a) Soil stabilization
b) Reinforced earth
c) Soil nailing
d) Texsol
e) Fiber reinforced soil
2.8 FIBER REINFORCED SOIL

Randomly distributed fibers reinforced soil –termed as RDFS is among
the latest ground improvement techniques in which fibers of desired type and
quantity are added in soil, mixed randomly and laid in the position after
compaction. Thus, the method of preparation of RDFS is similar to
conventional stabilization techniques. RDFS is different from the other soil –
reinforcing methods in its orientation. In reinforced earth, the reinforcement
in the form of strips, sheets, etc. is laid horizontally at specific intervals, where
as in RDFS fibers are mixed randomly in soil thus making a homogenous
mass and maintain the isotropy in strength. Modern geotechnical engineering
has focused on the use of planar reinforcement (e.g. metal strips, sheet of
synthetic fabrics). However reinforcement of soil with discrete fibers is still a
relatively new technique in geotechnical project.
Concepts involving the reinforcement of soils using fibers have

been used since ancient times. For example, early civilizations added straws
and plant roots to soil bricks to improve their properties, although the
reinforcing mechanism may have not been fully understood. While building
7
the Great Wall of China, the clay soil was mixed with tamarisk branches. The
ancient method of addition of straw of wheat locally called “Turi” to the clay
mud plaster is still very popular in villages. Improvement of soil by trees roots
is similar to the work fibers. Gray (1947, 1978), Waldron (19770 and Wu et
al. (1988) reported that plant roots increase the shear strength of the soil and,
consequently the stability of natural slopes. Synthetic fibers have been used
since the late 1980s, when the initial studies using polymeric fibers were
conducted. Specially, tri-axial compression tests, unconfined compression
tests, direct shear tests and CBR tests had been conducted to study the effect
of fibers reinforcement on strength characteristics and other engineering
properties of RDFS. During last twenty –five years, much work has been done
on strength deformation behavior of RDFS and it has been established beyond
doubt that addition of fiber in soil improves the overall engineering
performance of soil. Among the notable properties that improve are greater
extensibility, small loss of post peak strength, isotropy in strength and
absence of planes of weakness. RDFS has been used in many civil engineering
projects in various countries in the recent past and the further research is in
progress for many hidden aspects of it. RDFS is effective in all types of soil
(i.e. .sand, silt and clay)
2.9 TYPES OF FIBER

Fibers can be classified in two categories: Synthetic fiber and
natural Fiber. Some commonly used fibers are coconut fiber, Sisal fiber, jute,
fiber, Cotton fiber, wool fiber, Asbestos fiber, and metallic fiber and Glass
fiber.
2.9.1 SYNTHETIC FIBERS
The various types of synthetic fiber are polypropylene, nylon,

plastic, glass asbestos etc. These are preferred than the natural fibers because
of their higher strength and resistance. Polypropylene fiber are resistant to
acidic, alkaline and chemicals (Setty and Rao, 1987). These fibers are high
tensile strength, resistance to sea water and high melting point i.e. 1650C.
8
Polyimide has inherent defect of getting affected by the ultraviolet
rays from sun but as the fiber are embedded they are not affected. An
experience fiber, no chemical changes has been detected. Synthetic fibers also
show a great biological resistance. Polypropylene fibers are prone to fire and
sun light which practically cannot reach inside the soil.
The important properties of polypropylene are; its versatility,

excellent chemical resistance, low density, high melting point and moderate
cost. All these make it an important fiber in construction applications. So far
as fiber structure of polypropylene is concerned, fibers are composed of
crystalline and non- crystalline regions. Fiber spinning and drawing may
cause the orientation of both crystalline and amorphous regions. The degree
of crystallinity of polypropylene fiber is generally between 50-60%, depending
on processing conditions. Crystallization occurs between glass transition
temperature and equilibrium melting temperature point. Polypropylene fibers
are being used extensively throughout the USA and Canada in all types of
Concrete construction, and they have proven to be an effective method of
controlling un-using and troublesome shrinkage cracking in concrete.
Polypropylene fibers were tested in eight different media (distilled water, iron,
bacteria culture, seawater and soil) for seventeen months and found no
degradation. Results showed that there was no change in tensile strength.
Plastic fibers show loss in strength with temperature. Nylon is comparable
with polypropylene as for as strength, chemical innerness and durability is
concerned. Steel fibers are prone to rust and acids. Glass fibers although
costly but they can bear temperature up to 1500 F. Asbestos, glass, carbon
fibers have been found to be resistant to alkaloids and other chemicals attack.
But long exposure to adverse environment, asbestos fibers has been found to
lead to corrosion damage.
2.9.2 NATURAL FIBERS
The various types of natural fiber available in India are: coir, sisal,
jute, bhabar, hemp, munja, bamboo and banana. In order to minimize the
cost of ply soil, locally available fibers should be considered in design. But at
the same time stability and life of structure should be given prime importance.
9
Most of these fibers have been tested and found to lose their strength when
subjected to alternate “wetting and drying” environment
In view of low strength and lack of durability, natural fibers are

not in wide use for reinforcements but are preferred for erosion control due to
their environment friendliness and biodegradability. However, some natural
fibers like coir are strong and durable. They can be made sustainable with
proper treatment for reinforcement for reinforcement function in cohesion less
soils and also as filter fabric in cohesive soils.
Natural fibers have poor resistance to alkaline environment.

Almost all natural fibers get damaged and lose their strength in 24 hours
when given 0.1N solution of sodium hydroxide (Rehsi, 1988). The only
exception to this is coir. Coir fibers are even resistant to biodegradation over
long period of time. It has been shown that breaking strengths of coir fiber
after 15 years of storage in a hanger comes down from 176 MPa to 160 MPa
and elongation from 29% to 21%. It shows that coir becomes slightly brittle
with time but best among all natural fibers.
2.10 DIRECTION OF PLACEMENT
Fibers can be oriented or randomly mixed in soil. In oriented
category, the inclusions are placed within the soil at specific positions and
direction where as in random category, inclusions, are mixed with soil and
placed within the probable shear zone. The concept of randomly reinforced
soil is comparatively new in the geotechnical field. French ministry of public
works uses Texsol as RDFS. In the field placing the fibers at some orientation
is a tedious job. In reinforced soil the added material (the Geo synthetic sheet,
etc) is layered at specific direction and position, which may keep the soil
weaken in some other direction. Whereas in ply soil, the isotropy in strength
is maintained.
Random reinforcement have been provided to different type of
soils in form of mesh elements, discrete fibers continuous yarn / filament
(Texsol) metallic power , waste tire –chips , waste plastic strips , etc by various
investigators.
10
2.11 BIO-DEGRADABILITY
Jute geotextile is a natural product and it is biologically

degradable. It is believed that after degradation the strengthening effect of the
fabric is lost and the performance of the soil in terms of strength and
permeability deteriorates. But jute has been found to be fairly resistant to
rapid deterioration when embedded permanently in wet soil below ground
water table. In weak sub-grade consolidated under the overburden with
consequent and gain in strength with time, the performance of the structure
becomes less and less dependent on the fabric. So long-term bio-degradability
does not necessarily influence bearing capacity significantly. Jute degrades
through aerobic processes and produces lignomass with extra nitrogen
phosphorous and potassium. Bio-degradation helps to minimize
environmental pollution.
2.12 ADVANTAGES OF FIBER-REINFORCED SOIL
Randomly distributed fiber reinforced soil (RDFS) offers many
advantages as listed below:
1. Increased shear strength with maintenance of strength isotropy.
2. Beneficial for all type of soils (i.e. sand, silt and clay).
3. Reduce post peak strength loss.
4. Increased ductility.
5. Increased seismic performance.
6. No catastrophic failure.
7. Great potential to use natural or waste material such as coir fibers,
shredded teire and recycled waste plastic strips and fibers.
8. Provide erosion control and facilitate vegetation development.
9. Reduce shrinkage and swell pressure of expansion soil.
10. No appreciable change in permeability.
11. Unlike lime, cement and other chemical stabilization methods, the
construction using fiber – reinforcement is not significantly affected by
weather conditions.
12. It helpful in eliminating the shallow failure on the slope face and thus
reducing the cost of maintenance.
11
2.13 THE INDIAN POTENTIAL
Geotextile, including geo-jute, are having increasing application in the
construction industry in India today. They are now looked upon as a cost-
effective solution to many soil and foundation problems. Most of the geotextile
usages described in the preceding sections have potential for application in
the vast areas of alluvial and coastal plains of India. Given the wide extent of
the country and the development work being undertaken in terms of road and
railway construction, embankments and dams, erosion control, river bank
protection etc., the potential market of geojute in India should be quite high.
It has been felt, however, that major application of geojute in India would be
in road construction while drainage and erosion should also be important
application areas. The advantages of using geojute in soil reinforcement and
railway construction and maintenance have still to gain wide acceptance.
One of the major factors that go against large-scale application of
Geosynthetics- in India is the high cost of the fabric itself. The current market
price of Geosynthetics in India being quite high, there is a natural reluctance
to go for them as alternatives to traditional methods of Construction. Geojute
should have major advantage in this respect because its cost is generally
much lower that of Geosynthetics. Geojute or jute geotextile has many
potential applications in civil construction works. The engineering properties
of jute fabrics are suitable for separation, reinforcement, drainage and
filtration functions and can be suitably used in overcoming geotechnical
problems. Applied research including performance evaluation of geojute
applications are needed to highlight the beneficial uses of geojute in the field.
2.14 APPLICATION AREAS OF JUTE GEOTEXTILES IN ROAD,
RAILWAY AND EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION
 Controls subsidence of a pavement by separating and preventing
intermixing of the soft sub-grade and the harder sub-base.
 Arrests migration of soil particles and allows water to permeate across it.
Also acts as a drainage layer along its plain. Can be tailor-made to cater to
the requirements of porometry, permittivity and transmitivity. Enhances
CBR-value.
12
 Control reflective cracking of pavements and prolong their fatigue life
when used in asphaltic overlays.
 Enhances strength and stability of road embankment built with materials
of uncertain behavior like PFA, when interposed at appropriate levels. Also
keeps lateral dispersion, subsidence and slides (slip circle failures) under
check.
 Provides effective drainage system when used as peripheral cover in
trench drains, especially in hilly terrains.
 Vertical fiber drains, help drain out entrapped water from within an
embankment. Has widespread application in ground improvement with
vertical drains.
 Slopes of embankments with problematic soil may be stabilized by
applying jutegeotextile to help grow vegetation faster and anchor soil for a
permanent solution.
2.15 PAST STUDIES
H.P.Singh and M.Bagra (2013) studied the feasibility of using jute
geotextile for application in road construction based on the laboratory
investigations. From this study it was concluded that jute fiber reinforcement
increases the CBR value of sub grade soil up to 200 % over that of plain soil.
The results indicated that though biodegradable, it hold a good promise as
potential geotextile for stabilizing soft sub grades resulting in better road
performance and reduced maintenance cost. According to them the jute
geotextile was expected to contribute towards better road performance by
reducing road defects with the economy resulting in reduced road thickness
design.The jute geotextile immensely helped in this rapid sub-grade
strengthening process in combination with the drainage layer above it. With
time, the sub-grade became less and less dependent on the fabric for its
stability and therefore, the long term durability aspect of jute fabric should
not deter its use as a geotextile for various applications in road construction.
Jutegeotextile materials are biodegradable and their uses in various
geotechnical engineering applications are ecologically safe.
13
H.P.Singh and M.Bagra (2013) studied the application of jute fiber for
weak sub grade soils. After a series of laboratory investigations, they
concluded that preparation of identical samples of jute fiber reinforced soil
beyond 1% of fiber content is not possible and hence optimum fiber content
is 1%. The shear strength parameters of soil increases with increase in fiber
content. The stiffness modulus of reinforced soil increases with the increase
in fiber diameter.
Aggarwal and Sharma (2010) studied the application of Jute
fiber in the improvement of sub-grade characteristics. From this study it was
concluded that Jute fiber reinforcement reduces the maximum dry density
and increases the optimum moisture content of the sub-grade soil. The CBR
value of the sub-grade soil increases up to 250% with the inclusion of bitumen
coated Jute fiber.
A recent study revealed that greenhouse gas emission by Jute is
negative whereas all other synthetic fiber possesses net GHG emission. This
negative emission by Jute attribute to make Jute products attractive as GHG
emission is matter of great concern under the Kyoto Protocol and all developed
countries are to demonstrate commitment byway of reduction of GHGs. This
paper presents the influence of Jute fiber on the CBR value of Itanagar,
Arunachal Pradesh, India soil which is atypical soil and is normally used in
the construction of embankments and pavement sub-grade in tropical
countries such as India.
2.16 INFERENCE
After a brief study of the above mentioned literature, we came to
an inference that jute fiber can be effectively included into the selected and
tested soil sample for the improvement of various engineering properties of
the soil. Also we understood that inclusion of jute fiber into the soil gave
desired results.
14
CHAPTER – 3
EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 METHODOLOGY
1. The soil used for this study was collected from local area.
2. Index properties of soil were evaluated.

3. We have studied the properties of soil by conducting Compaction test,
UCS test, CBR test Permeability test and direct shear test.
4. Jute fibers of 30mm, 60mm and 90mm lengths and of 2mm diameter
were used for this study.
5. The % of Jute fiber by dry weight of soil were taken as 0.5%, 1%,
1.5%.
6. The soil sample of unreinforced and reinforced soil for CBR test were
prepared and conducted as per standard procedure.
3.2 MATERIALS
3.2.1 SOIL
The soil used in this study would be collected from the local
area. The various index properties and compaction properties (maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content) of soil will be determined in the
laboratory.
From a brief review of earth construction manuals, we
realized that our soil had to contain significant percentage of clay. The
particle size distribution of the collected soil would be found from Sieve
Analysis which would be useful for finding Fineness Modulus of collected
soil sample. To sieve the soil, we will use 2 mm, 1mm, 600 µ, 300 µ, 150 µ,
75 µ and Receiver. We would determine the type of soil by conducting Plastic
limit and Liquid limit tests (Atterberg limits).
3.2.2 REINFORCEMENT
The reinforcing material used in this study is Natural Jute fiber of
diameters 2mm. The length of fiber will be taken as 30 mm, 60 mm and 90
mm. After selecting the fiber for the study, we will begin by establishing how
to introduce the fiber into the soil.
15
After selecting the fiber, the fiber would be cut out to the
different required lengths based on the literature review of similar reinforced
soil tests. For this study, we are going to mix the fiber with the soil manually
and the fiber would be mixed randomly in the soil sample.
3.3 COMPOSITION AND SOME PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES OF JUTE FIBER
3.3.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF JUTE FIBER
 Density - 1.47gm/cc.
 Average Fineness - 20 denier, i.e. weight in gm. of 900 meters of

filament.
 Tenacity - 4.2gm/denier.
 Average Extension at break - 1.2%.
 Average Stiffness - 330 gm/denier.
 Average Toughness Index - 0.02.
 Swelling water (area) - 40%.
 Specific heat - 0.34 cal/g/c0.
 Specific internal Surface – 10 to 200m2/g.
 Hygroscopicity (Average regain at 65% relative humidity) - 13%.

3.3.2 SOME CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF JUTE FIBER
Holocellulose - 82-85%
Alpha Cellulose - 58-63%
Hemicellulose - 21-24%
Lignin - 12-14%
Pactin - 0.2-0.5%
Fat & Wax - 0.4-0.8%
Protein - 0.8-1.5%
Mineral Materials - 0.6-1.1%
16
3.4 TESTS CONDUCTED
3.4.1 PLASTIC LIMIT
The water content at which the soil begins to crumble when rolled
into threads of specified size. Plastic limit test have been conducted for portion
of soil passing through 425µ IS sieve as per the specifications laid down in IS:
2720-1985 part V.
Mix the soil with distilled water in an evaporating dish to make it

plastic enough to shape into a small ball. Take some amount of plastic soil
and roll it with fingers on a glass plate. The rate of rolling should be about 80
– 90 strokes per minute to form a thread of 3 mm dia. If the dia of the thread
becomes less than 3 mm without cracks, it shows that the water content is
more than the plastic limit. Knead the soil to reduce the water content, and
roll it again into thread. Collect the pieces of the crumbled soil thread in a
moisture content container.
Calculate the average value of Plastic limit value from tabulations.
3.4.2 LIQUID LIMIT

The water content at which the soil has much small shear
strength that it flows to close a groove of standard width when tested in a
specified manner. Liquid limit test has been conducted for portion of soil
passing through 425µ IS sieve. Using Cassagrande liquid limit apparatus as
per the procedure lay down in IS: 2720-1985 part V.
Mix the sample thoroughly with distilled water in a evaporating

dish to form a uniform paste. Mixing should be continued for about 15 to 30
minutes, till a uniform mix is obtained. Take a portion of the matured soil and
remix it thoroughly. Place the soil in the cup of the device by a spatula and
level it by a straight edge to have a max depth of the soil as 1 cm at the point
of the max thickness. Cut a groove in the sample in the cup by using the
appropriate tool. Turn the handle of the device at a rate of 2 revolutions per
second. Count the no. of blows until the two halves of the soil specimen come
in contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 12 mm due to flow
17
and not by sliding. Collect a representative specimen of the soil and place the
specimen in an air tight container for the water content determination.
Determine the water content.
Draw a flow graph between log N and w.
Obtain the Liquid limit value in % at N=25 blows from the graph.
3.4.3 WET SIEVE ANALYSIS
If the soil contains a substantial quantity (say, more than 5%) of

fine particles, a wet sieve analysis is required .All lumps are broken into
individual particles. A representative soil sample in the required quantity is
taken, using a riffler, and dried in an oven. The dried sample is taken in a
tray and soaked with water. If deflocculation is required, sodium hexameta -
phosphate, at the rate of 2 g per liter of water, is added. The sample is
stirred and left for a soaking period of at least one hour. The slurry is then
sieved through a 4.75mm IS sieve, and washed with a jet of water.
The material retained on the sieve is the gravel fraction. It is dried in an

oven, and sieved through set of coarse sieves.
The material passing through 4.75mm sieve is sieved through a

75 micron sieve. The material is washed until the wash water becomes clear.
The material retained on the 75 micron sieve is collected and dried in an
oven. It is then sieved through the set of fine sieves of the size 2mm, 1mm,
600 micron, 425 micron, 150 micron, and 75 micron. The material retained
on each sieve is collected and weighted. The material that would have been
retained on pan is equal to the total mass of soil minus the sum of the
masses of material retained on all sieves.
From the tabulation, we have to classify it as fine or coarse grained

soil.
3.4.4 COMPACTION TESTS
Soil compaction is defined as the method of mechanically

increasing the density of soil. In construction, this is a significant part of the
18
building process. If performed improperly, settlement of the soil could occur
and result in unnecessary maintenance costs or structure failure. Almost all
types of building sites and construction projects utilize mechanical
compaction techniques. IS heavy compaction test have been conducted on
soil sample for determining optimum moisture content and maximum dry
density as per IS code: 2720-1980 part VII.
Take about 20 kg of air dried soil. Sieve it through 20 mm and 4.75 mm

IS sieves. Do not use the soil retained on 20 mm sieve. Mix the soil retained
on 4.75 mm sieve and that passing 4.75 mm sieve to obtain about 16 to 18
kg of soil specimen. Clean and dry the mould and the base plate. Grease them
lightly. Weigh the mould with the base plate to the nearest 1 gm. Take about
16 -18 kg of the soil specimen.
Add water to it to bring the water content to about 4% if the soil is sandy
and to about 8% if the soil is clayey. Take about 212 kg of the processed soil,
and place it in the mould in 3 equal layers. Take about one-third the quantity
first, and compact it by giving 25 blows of the rammer. The blows should be
uniformly distributed over the surface of each layer.
Likewise place the second and third layer and compact it. The amount
of the soil used should be sufficient to fill the mould and leaving about 5 mm
above the top of the mould to be struck off when the collar is removed. Clean
the base plate and the mould from the outside. Weigh it to nearest gram. Take
the soil samples for the water content determination.
𝑀/𝑉
Dry density = in gm/cc.
1+𝑤
Obtain the OMC value from Graph between Dry density and water
content.
3.4.5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST
California bearing ratio test is a type of test developed by the

California Division of Highways in 1929. The test is used for evaluating the
suitability of sub-grade and the materials used in sub-base and the courses.
19
Take the soil passing through 20 mm sieve and retained on 4.75 mm sieve.
Take about 4.5 – 5.5 kg of soil and mix it thoroughly with required quantity
of water. Take the soil sample in the mould. Compact it using either the light
compaction rammer or the heavy compaction rammer. Remove the collar.
Trim the excess compacted soil with a straight edge with the top of the mould.
Remove the base plate and weigh the mould with the compacted soil. Place
the mould containing the specimen, with the base plate in the position but
the top face exposed on the lower plate of the loading machine. Place the
required surcharge masses on the top of the specimen.
To prevent upheaval of the soil into the hole of the surcharge mass, one
2.5kg annular mass shall be placed on the soil surface prior to seating the
penetration plunger. After the remaining masses are placed. Seat the
penetration plunger at the centre of the specimen to establish full contact
between the plunger and the specimen. The seating load should be about 40N.
Set the load dial gauge and the displacement dial gauge to zero. Apply the
load on the plunger. Keep the rate of the penetration as 1.25 mm/minute.
Record the load corresponding to penetrations. At the end of the test, raise
the plunger and remove the mould from the loading machine.
Penetration Load
CBR value = ×100
Standard Load
3.4.6 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
The specific gravity of solid particles is defined as the ratio of the

mass of a given volume of solids to the mass of an equal volume of water.
Clean and dry the pycnometer. Tightly screw its cap. Take its
mass M1 to the nearest 0.1 gm. unscrew the cap and place about 200gm of
the oven dried soil in the pycnometer. Screw the cap and take its mass as M2.
Unscrew the cap and add sufficient amount of de-aired water to the
pycnometer so as to cover the soil. Screw on the cap. Fill the pycnometer with
water up to the mark. Take its mass M3. Empty the pycnometer. Clean it and
wipe it dry. Fill the pycnometer completely with water only. Take its mass M4.
Now calculate the specific gravity of the sample.
20
𝑀2−𝑀1
Specific gravity G=(M2−M1)−(M3−M4)
Where M1= Mass of empty pycnometer.
M2= Mass of pycnometer + Dry soil.
M3= Mass of pycnometer + Dry soil + Water.
M4= Mass of pycnometer + Water.
3.4.7 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

The unconfined compressive strength is the load per unit area at
which the cylindrical specimen of a cohesive soil fails in compression.
Prepare the soil specimen at the desired water content and

density in the large mould. Push the sampling tube into the mould and remove
the sampling tube filled with soil. Saturate the soil sample in the sampling
tube by a suitable method. Coat the split mould lightly with a thin layer of
grease.
Weigh the mould. Extrude the sample out of the sampling tube
into the split mould, using the sample extractor and the knife. Trim the two
ends of the soil specimen in the split mould. Weigh the mould with the
specimen. Remove the specimen from the spilt mould and place it on the
bottom plate of the compression machine. Adjust the upper plate to make
contact with the specimen. Adjust the dial gauge and the proving ring gauge
to zero. Apply the compression load to cause an axial strain at the rate of ½
to 2% per minute. Record the dial gauge readings and the proving ring reading
at regular intervals. Continue the test until failure surfaces have clearly
developed.
Compressive strength qu = P/A in N/mm2.
Where P = Peak load and
A = Initial area of cross-section of the specimen.
Shear strength, s = qu/2.
21
CHAPTER – 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 TESTS FOR NORMAL SOIL

4.1.1 LIQUID LIMIT
Total sample taken = 270 gm.
Passing through sieve IS425µ (oven dried)
TABLE 1: RESULTS OF LIQUID LIMIT TEST FOR NORMAL CLAY SOIL
TRAILS
S.NO OBSERVATIONS
1 2 3 4
1 NO.OF BLOWS 35 32 22 18
2 CONTAINER NO.1 NO.2 NO.3 NO.4
3 MASS OF CONTAINER(M1) gm. 25 25 25 25
4 CONTAINER + WET SOIL (M2) gm. 41 37 35 32
5 CONTENT + OVEN DRY SOIL(M3) gm. 39 35 33 30
6 MASS OF WATER (M2-M3) 2 2 2 2
7 MASS OF DRY SOIL(M3-M1) 14 10 8 5
8 WATER CONTENT % 14.28 20 25 40
50
WATER CONTENT IN
40
30
%
20
10
0
1 10 100
NO.OF BLOWS
Fig 1: Graph for Liquid limit of normal clay soil sample
RESULT
Liquid limit at 25 blows from graph = 29%.
22
4.1.2 PLASTIC LIMIT
Sample taken = 24 gm.
Passing sieve = IS 425µ(oven dried).
TABLE 2: RESULTS OF PLASTIC LIMIT TEST FOR NORMAL CLAY SOIL
TRAILS
S.NO OBSERVATION
1 2 3
1 CONTAINER 1 2 3
MASS OF EMPTY
14 14 14
CONTAINER (M1) gm.
2
CONTAINER + WET SOIL

23 20 20
(M2) gm.
3
CONTAINER + OVEN
22 19 19
DRY SOIL (M3) gm.
4
MASS OF WATER (M2-
1 1 1
M3)
5
MASS OF DRY SOIL (M3-
8 5 5
M1)
6
WATER CONTENT (%) 12.5 20 20

7
RESULT
12.5+20+20
Plastic limit of soil =
3
= 17.5%.
4.1.3 PLASTICITY INDEX

Plasticity index = Liquid limit – Plastic limit
= 29 – 17.5
=11.5 %.
23
A-LINE CHART (FROM PUBLICATION OF DR.K.R.ARORA)
Fig 2: A-line chart
RESULT
From the above graph the soil is classified as clay of low

compressibility.
4.1.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOILBY PYCNOMETER METHOD
Total sample taken = 400 gm. ( oven dried)
Passing sieve = 2 mm.
OBSERVATIONS
Mass of empty pycnometer (M1)= 0.618 kg.
Mass of empty pycnometer + Soil (M2) = 1.020 kg.
Mass of empty pycnometer + Soil + Water (M3) = 1.85 kg.
Mass of empty pycnometer + Water (M4) =1.597 kg.
CALCULATIONS
𝑀2−𝑀1
Specific gravity G = .
(M4−M1)−(M3−M2)
G= 2.69.
RESULT
Specific gravity of soil G = 2.69.
24
4.1.5 WET SIEVE ANALYSIS
Total soil Taken = 400 gm.
Weight of Oven dried soil = 275gm.
TABLE 3: RESULTS OF WET SIEVE ANALYSIS FOR NORMAL CLAY SOIL
IS
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
SIEVE WEIGHT PERCENTAGE
S.NO PERCENTAGE FINER
SIZE RETAINED RETAINED (%)
(%) (W=100-C)(%)
(mm)
1 2 0 0 0 100
2 1 6 2.18 2.18 97.82
3 0.6 15 5.45 7.63 92.37
4 0.425 22 8 15.64 84.36
5 0.3 28 10.18 25.81 74.19
6 0.15 30 10.9 36.72 63.28
7 0.075 34 12.36 49.08 50.92
8 PAN 140 50.9 100 0
105
PERCENTAGE FINER IN
100
95
90
85
80
75
(%)
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
0.01 0.1 1 10
SIEVE SIZE IN (mm)
Fig 3. Graph of wet sieve analysis
RESULT
More than 50 % soil have passed through 75 µ sieve. So the soil can be
classified as fine grained soil.
25
4.1.6 COMPACTION TEST FOR NORMAL CLAY SOIL
TABLE 4: RESULTS OF COMPACTION TEST
S
. WATER %
2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
N ADDED
O
MASS OF
EMPTY
1 MOULD+BAS 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
E PLATE
(Gms) M1
MASS OF
EMPTY
MOULD+BAS
E
2 5470 5560 5660 5970 6050 6070 5980 5950 5850
PLATE+COM
PACTED
SOIL (Gms)
M2
MASS OF
COMPACTED
3 1685 1775 1875 2185 2265 2285 2195 2165 2065
SOIL
M=M1+M2
BULK
DENSITY
4 1.69 1.78 1.88 2.19 2.27 2.29 2.20 2.17 2.07
ρ=M/V
(g/ml)
WATER 15.5 14.5
5 5.55 6.66 7.14 11.76 8.33 3 1
CONTENT (ω) 5 8
DRY
DENSITY
6 1.60 1.66 1.75 1.96 2.09 2.22 2.17 1.87 1.80
ρd= ρ/(1+ω)
(g/ml)
VOID RATIO
7 0.69 0.62 0.54 0.38 0.29 0.21 0.24 0.44 0.49
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1
ρd (theoretical
max) =
8 2.34 2.28 2.26 2.04 2.20 2.49 2.62 1.90 1.93
Gρω/(1+ωG)
(g/ml)
DEGREE OF
SATURATION 21.7 29.0 96.0 79.6
9 35.8 84.16 78.19 37.9 11.31
S= 9 6 0 2
(ωG/e)*100
26
Total soil taken = 3kgs (Oven dried) passing on 20mm IS sieve
Rammer used = 2.6kg (Light compaction).
Compaction mould diameter = 100mm
Height of mould = 127.3 mm = 12.73 cm.
Volume of mould = π/4 * 102 * 12.73.
V = 1000ml.
Specific gravity of soil G = 2.69.
ΡW = 1.
2.4
2.2
DRY DENSITY IN (gm/CC)
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
WATER CONTENT IN %
Fig Fig 4. Graph of Compaction test of normal soil
RESULT
Optimum moisture content = 12%.
Dry density ρd = 2.21 gm
27
4.1.7 CBR TEST FOR NORMAL CLAY SOIL
Total soil = 5 kgs.
Water content = 600 ml.
Weight of (mould + Compacted soil) = 18.72 kgs.
TABLE 5: RESULTS OF C.B.R TEST
PENETRATION DIAL
GUAGE LOAD DIAL GUAGE
S.
DIAL
No PENETRATIO DIAL GUAGE
GUAGE LOAD(X*5.49)
N READINGS(X)
READINGS
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 1.5 8.24
3 100 1.0 2.0 10.98
4 150 1.5 2.5 13.73
5 200 2.0 3.0 16.47
6 250 2.5 3.5 19.22
7 300 3.0 3.5 19.22
8 350 3.5 4.0 21.96
9 400 4.0 4.0 21.96
10 450 4.5 4.5 24.71
11 500 5.0 5.0 27.45
12 550 5.5 5.0 27.45
13 600 6.0 5.5 30.20
14 650 6.5 5.5 30.20
15 700 7.0 6.0 32.94
16 750 7.5 6.0 32.94
17 800 8.0 6.5 35.69
18 850 8.5 7.0 38.43
19 900 9.0 7.0 38.43
20 950 9.5 7.5 41.18
21 1000 10.0 7.5 41.18
22 1050 10.5 7.5 41.18
23 1100 11.0 8.0 43.92
24 1150 11.5 8.0 43.92
25 1200 12.0 8.0 43.92
26 1250 12.5 8.5 46.67
28
50
45
40
35
30
LOAD IN N
25
20
15
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
Penetration in mm
Fig 5. Graph of CBR test
RESULT
CBR at 2.5 mm = 1.43 %.
CBR at 5.0 mm = 1.36 %.
29
4.1.8 UCS TEST FOR NORMAL CLAY SOIL
Height of specimen = 76mm.
Diameter of specimen Ø = 38mm.
(Height and Diameter of the soil specimen is constant).
TABLE 6: RESULTS OF UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST
OBSERVATIONS CALCULATIONS
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING COMPRESS

S. STRAI
CORRECT IVE
No N Є=
DEFOR LOAD ED AREA STRESS
READING READI ▲L/L
MATION (P*0.372 A=A0/(1-Є) σ=P/A
S NGS 0
(▲L) ) (N/mm2)
0.006
1 50 0.5 1.0 0.37 1141.5
5 0.325
2 100 1.0 3.5 1.30 0.013 1149.0 1.133
3 150 1.5 4.5 1.67 0.019 1156.1 1.44
4 200 2.0 5.5 2.05 0.026 1164.4 1.75
5 250 2.5 6.0 2.23 0.032 1171.6 1.9
6 300 3.0 7.0 2.60 0.039 1180.1 2.2
7 350 3.5 7.5 2.79 0.046 1188.8 2.34
8 400 4.0 8.0 2.98 0.052 1196.3 2.48
9 450 4.5 9.0 3.35 0.059 1205.2 2.77
10 500 5.0 10.0 3.72 0.065 1213.0 3.06
11 550 5.5 11.0 4.09 0.072 1222.1 3.34
12 600 6.0 11.5 4.28 0.078 1230.1 3.47
13 650 6.5 12.0 4.46 0.085 1239.5 3.6
14 700 7.0 12.5 4.65 0.092 1249.0 3.72
15 750 7.5 13.0 4.84 0.098 1257.3 3.84
16 800 8.0 13.5 5.02 1267.2
0.105 3.96
17 850 8.5 13.5 5.02 0.111 1275.7 3.93
30
4.5
COMPRESSIVE STRESS 4
3.5
3
(N/mm2)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
STRAIN
Fig 6. Graph of UCS test
RESULT
Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu = 3.96 N/mm2
Shear strength S = qu/2
= 1.98 N/mm2.
TABLE 7: INDEX PROPERTIES OF NORMAL SOIL

Liquid limit (%) 29
Plastic limit (%) 17.5
Maximum dry density(gm/cc) 2.21
Optimum moisture content (%) 12
Sieve analysis (75 micron ) (%) 2.19
Specific gravity 2.69
California bearing ratio (at 2.5 mm) 1.43

(%)
Unconfined compression (N/mm2) 1.95
Soil type CL
31
4.2 TESTS FOR SOIL REINFORCED WITH JUTE FIBER
4.2.1 COMPACTION TEST FOR 30 MM LENGTH OF 0.5 % JUTE
S. WATER %
2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
NO ADDED
MASS OF
EMPTY
1 MOULD+BASE 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
PLATE (gms)
M1
MASS OF
EMPTY
MOULD+BASE
2 5570 5580 5650 5730 6000 6090 6020 5750
PLATE+COMP
ACTED SOIL
(gms) M2
MASS OF
COMPACTED
3 1785 1795 1865 1945 2215 2305 2235 1965
SOIL
M=M1+M2
BULK
4 DENSITY 1.79 1.80 1.87 1.95 2.22 2.31 2.24 1.97
ρ=M/V (g/ml)
WATER 11.1
5 15.38 20 11.1 8.69 11.76 10 11.11
CONTENT (ω) 1
DRY DENSITY
6 ρd= ρ/(1+ω) 1.55 1.50 1.68 1.79 1.98 2.07 2.03 1.77
(g/ml)
VOID RATIO
7 0.74 0.80 0.60 0.50 0.36 0.30 0.32 0.52
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1
ρd (theoretical max)
8 = Gρω/(1+ωG) 1.90 1.75 2.07 2.18 2.04 2.07 2.12 2.07
(g/ml)
DEGREE OF
67.3 49.5 46.4 100.
9 SATURATION 56.00 88.55 83.04 57.36
9 9 5 7
S= (ωG/e)*100
32
Rammer = 2.6 kgs.
Weight Soil taken = 3kgs.
Jute added =0.5% = 15 gms.
2.20
2.00
DRY DENSITY IN (gm/cc)
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
WATER CONTENT IN %
Fig 7. Graph of compaction test
RESULT
Dry density ρd = 2.07 gm/cc.
33
4.2.2 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST FOR 30MM LENGTH OF 0.5%
JUTE
Weight of sample taken = 5kgs.
Weight of mould + Compacted soil = 12.22kgs.
Water required =12% of sample weight = 600ml.
Jute fiber required = 0.5% of sample weight = 25 gms.
TABLE 8: RESULTS OF C.B.R TEST
PENETRATION DIAL GUAGE LOAD DIAL GUAGE

S. No
DIAL GUAGE DIAL GUAGE
PENETRATION LOAD(X*5.49)
READINGS READINGS(X)
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 1.0 5.49
3 100 1.0 1.5 8.24
4 150 1.5 3.0 16.47
5 200 2.0 3.5 19.22
6 250 2.5 4.0 21.96
7 300 3.0 4.5 24.71
8 400 4.0 5.0 27.45
9 500 5.0 5.5 30.20
10 750 7.5 8.0 43.92
11 1000 10.0 10.5 57.65
12 1250 12.5 13.0 71.37
34
80
70
60
50
LOAD IN (N)
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION IN mm
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 1.63 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 1.5 %.
35
4.2.3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST FOR 30 MM
LENGTH OF 0.5 % JUTE
TABLE 9: RESULTS OF UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING STRAI COMPRESSIV
S. CORRECTE
No LOAD N E STRESS
READI DEFORMA READI D AREA
(P*0.3 Є=▲L A=A0/(1-Є)
σ=P/A
NGS TION (▲L) NGS /L0 (N/mm2)
72)
1 50 0.5 1.0 0.37 0.007 1141.6 0.33
2 100 1.0 2.0 0.74 0.013 1149.2 0.65
3 150 1.5 2.5 0.93 0.020 1156.9 0.80
4 200 2.0 3.0 1.12 0.026 1164.8 0.96
5 250 2.5 3.5 1.30 0.033 1172.7 1.11
6 300 3.0 4.0 1.49 0.039 1180.7 1.26
7 350 3.5 4.5 1.67 0.046 1188.9 1.41
8 400 4.0 5.0 1.86 0.053 1197.1 1.55
9 450 4.5 6.0 2.23 0.059 1205.5 1.85
10 500 5.0 6.5 2.42 0.066 1214.0 1.99
11 550 5.5 7.0 2.60 0.072 1222.6 2.13
12 600 6.0 7.5 2.79 0.079 1231.3 2.27
13 650 6.5 8.0 2.98 0.086 1240.2 2.40
14 700 7.0 9.0 3.35 0.092 1249.2 2.68
15 750 7.5 9.5 3.53 0.099 1258.3 2.81
16 800 8.0 10.0 3.72 0.105 1267.5 2.93
17 850 8.5 11.0 4.09 0.112 1276.9 3.20
18 900 9.0 12.0 4.46 0.118 1286.5 3.47
19 950 9.5 12.5 4.65 0.125 1296.1 3.59
20 1000 10.0 12.5 4.65 0.132 1305.9 3.56
21 1050 10.5 13.0 4.84 0.138 1315.9 3.68
22 1100 11.0 13.0 4.84 0.145 1326.0 3.65
23 1150 11.5 13.5 5.02 0.151 1336.3 3.76
24 1200 12.0 14.0 5.21 0.158 1346.8 3.87
25 1250 12.5 14.0 5.21 0.164 1357.4 3.84
26 1300 13.0 14.5 5.39 0.171 1368.1 3.94
27 1350 13.5 15.0 5.58 0.178 1379.1 4.05
28 1400 14.0 15.5 5.77 0.184 1390.2 4.15
29 1450 14.5 16.0 5.95 0.191 1401.5 4.25
30 1500 15.0 16.0 5.93 0.197 1413.0 4.20
36
4.50
4.00
COMPRESSIVE STRESS (N/mm2)
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
STRAIN
RESULT
Unconfined Compressive strength, qu = 4.25 N/mm2
Shear strength, s = qu/2
= 2.125 N/mm2.
37
4.2.4 COMPACTION TEST FOR 30 MM LENGTH OF 1% JUTE
Total soil taken = 3kgs (Oven dried).
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 1 % = 30 gms.
S.
N WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%
O
MASS OF EMPTY
1 MOULD+BASE PLATE (gms) 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
M1
MASS OF EMPTY
MOULD+BASE
2 5580 5750 5910 6050 6020 5950
PLATE+COMPACTED SOIL
(gms) M2
MASS OF COMPACTED
3 1795 1965 2125 2265 2235 2165
SOIL M=M1+M2
BULK DENSITY
4 1.80 1.97 2.13 2.27 2.24 2.17
ρ=M/V (g/ml)
15.3
5 WATER CONTENT (ω) 4.62 8.33 12 25 16.2
8
DRY DENSITY ρd= ρ/(1+ω)

6 1.72 1.70 1.96 2.02 1.79 1.86
(g/ml)
7 VOID RATIO e=(Gρω/ρd)-1 0.57 0.58 0.37 0.33 0.50 0.44
ρd (theoretical max) = Gρω/(1+ωG)

8 2.39 1.90 2.20 2.03 1.61 1.87
(g/ml)
DEGREE OF SATURATION 21.8 71.3 97.7 133.3 98.2

9 60.34
S= (ωG/e)*100 9 9 7 1 0
38
2.50
2.00
DRY DENSITY IN(gm/cc)
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WATER CONTENT IN %
Fig 10. Graph of Compaction test
RESULT
Dry density ρd= 2.02 gm/cc.
39
4.2.5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST FOR 30 MM LENGTH OF 1%
JUTE
Jute fiber required = 1% of sample weight = 50gms.
TABLE 11: RESULTS OF CBR TEST

S. No
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 1.5 8.235
3 100 1.0 2.0 10.98
4 150 1.5 2.5 13.725
5 200 2.0 3.0 16.47
6 250 2.5 4.5 24.705
7 300 3.0 5.0 27.45
9 400 4.0 5.5 30.195
11 500 5.0 6.0 32.94
12 750 7.5 8.5 46.665
13 1000 10.0 11.0 60.39
14 1250 12.5 13.5 74.115
40
100
90
80
70
60
LOAD IN (N)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 1.83 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 1.63 %.
41
LENGTH OF 1% JUTE
TABLE 12: RESULTS OF UCS TEST
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING CORREC COMPRES
S. STRAI
TED SIVE
No LOAD N
READI DEFORMA READI AREA STRESS
(P*0.3 Є=▲L
NGS TION (▲L) NGS A=A0/(1- σ=P/A
72) /L0
Є) (N/mm2)
1 50 0.5 1.0 0.37 0.007 1141.6 0.33
2 100 1.0 2.0 0.74 0.013 1149.2 0.65
3 150 1.5 2.5 0.93 0.020 1156.9 0.80
4 200 2.0 3.5 1.30 0.026 1164.8 1.12
5 250 2.5 4.0 1.49 0.033 1172.7 1.27
6 300 3.0 4.5 1.67 0.039 1180.7 1.42
7 350 3.5 5.0 1.86 0.046 1188.9 1.56
8 400 4.0 6.0 2.23 0.053 1197.1 1.86
9 450 4.5 7.0 2.60 0.059 1205.5 2.16
10 500 5.0 7.5 2.79 0.066 1214.0 2.30
11 550 5.5 8.0 2.98 0.072 1222.6 2.43
12 600 6.0 8.5 3.16 0.079 1231.3 2.57
13 650 6.5 9.0 3.35 0.086 1240.2 2.70
14 700 7.0 9.5 3.53 0.092 1249.2 2.83
15 750 7.5 10.0 3.72 0.099 1258.3 2.96
16 800 8.0 10.5 3.91 0.105 1267.5 3.08
17 850 8.5 11.0 4.09 0.112 1276.9 3.20
18 900 9.0 11.5 4.28 0.118 1286.5 3.33
19 950 9.5 12.0 4.46 0.125 1296.1 3.44
20 1000 10.0 12.5 4.65 0.132 1305.9 3.56
21 1050 10.5 13.0 4.84 0.138 1315.9 3.68
22 1100 11.0 13.5 5.02 0.145 1326.0 3.79
23 1150 11.5 14.0 5.21 0.151 1336.3 3.90
24 1200 12.0 14.5 5.39 0.158 1346.8 4.01
25 1250 12.5 15.0 5.58 0.164 1357.4 4.11
26 1300 13.0 16.5 6.14 0.171 1368.1 4.49
27 1350 13.5 17.0 6.32 0.178 1379.1 4.59
28 1400 14.0 16.5 6.14 0.184 1390.2 4.42
29 1450 14.5 16.5 6.14 0.191 1401.5 4.38
42
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250
STRAIN
Fig 12. Graph UCS test
RESULT
= 2.21 N/mm2
43
4.2.7 COMPACTION TEST FOR 30 MM LENGTH OF 1.5% JUTE FIBER
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 1.5 % = 45 gms.
S.N
WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%
O
MASS OF EMPTY
1 MOULD+BASE PLATE 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
(gms) M1
MASS OF EMPTY
MOULD+BASE
2 5590 5640 5870 6030 5950 5930
PLATE+COMPACTED
SOIL (gms) M2
MASS OF
3 COMPACTED SOIL 1805 1855 2085 2245 2165 2145
M=M1+M2
BULK DENSITY
4 1.81 1.86 2.09 2.25 2.17 2.15
ρ=M/V (g/ml)
5 WATER CONTENT (ω) 5.26 11.5 18.7 27.2 23 21.8
DRY DENSITY
6 1.71 1.76 1.85 2.06 1.80 1.76
ρd= ρ/(1+ω) (g/ml)
VOID RATIO
7 0.57 0.53 0.45 0.31 0.49 0.53
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1
ρd (theoretical max) =
8 2.36 2.05 1.79 1.55 1.66 1.70
Gρω/(1+ωG) (g/ml)
DEGREE OF
239.2 125.1
9 SATURATION 24.88 58.54 110.79 110.98
5 3
S= (ωG/e)*100
44
2.20
2.00
DRY DENSITY(gm/cc)
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WATER CONTENT IN %
RESULT
45
4.2.8 CBR TEST FOR 30 MM LENGTH OF 1.5% JUTE FIBER
Jute fiber required = 1.5% of sample weight = 75gms.
S. DIAL GUAGE PENETRATION DIAL GUAGE LOAD(X*5.49)

No READINGS READINGS(X)
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 2.0 10.98
3 100 1.0 2.5 13.72
4 150 1.5 3.0 16.47
5 200 2.0 4.5 24.71
6 250 2.5 5.5 30.20
7 300 3.0 6.0 32.94
8 400 4.0 6.5 35.69
9 500 5.0 7.0 38.43
10 750 7.5 9.0 49.41
11 1000 10.0 12.0 65.88
12 1250 12.5 14.0 76.86
46
90
80
70
60
LOAD IN (N)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5 mm = 2.24 %.
CBR at 5.0 mm = 1.9 %.
47
LENGTH OF 1.5% JUTE FIBER
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING CORR
COMPRES
S. ECTE
STRAIN SIVE
No REA LOAD D
DEFORMATION READ Є= STRESS
DING (P*0.37 AREA
(▲L) INGS ▲L/L0 σ=P/A
S 2) A=A0/(
(N/mm2)
1-Є)
1 50 0.5 1.5 0.56 0.007 1141.6 0.49
2 100 1.0 2.0 0.74 0.013 1149.2 0.65
3 150 1.5 3.0 1.12 0.020 1156.9 0.96
4 200 2.0 3.5 1.30 0.026 1164.8 1.12
5 250 2.5 4.5 1.67 0.033 1172.7 1.43
6 300 3.0 5.0 1.86 0.039 1180.7 1.58
7 350 3.5 5.5 2.05 0.046 1188.9 1.72
8 400 4.0 6.0 2.23 0.053 1197.1 1.86
9 450 4.5 6.0 2.23 0.059 1205.5 1.85
10 500 5.0 6.5 2.42 0.066 1214.0 1.99
11 550 5.5 7.0 2.60 0.072 1222.6 2.13
12 600 6.0 7.5 2.79 0.079 1231.3 2.27
13 650 6.5 8.0 2.98 0.086 1240.2 2.40
14 700 7.0 8.5 3.16 0.092 1249.2 2.53
15 750 7.5 9.0 3.35 0.099 1258.3 2.66
16 800 8.0 10.5 3.91 0.105 1267.5 3.08
17 850 8.5 11.0 4.09 0.112 1276.9 3.20
18 900 9.0 12.0 4.46 0.118 1286.5 3.47
19 950 9.5 12.5 4.65 0.125 1296.1 3.59
20 1000 10.0 13.0 4.84 0.132 1305.9 3.70
21 1050 10.5 13.5 5.02 0.138 1315.9 3.82
22 1100 11.0 14.5 5.39 0.145 1326.0 4.07
23 1150 11.5 15.0 5.58 0.151 1336.3 4.18
24 1200 12.0 16.5 6.14 0.158 1346.8 4.56
25 1250 12.5 16.5 6.14 0.164 1357.4 4.52
48
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180
STRAIN
RESULT
= 2.28 N/mm2
49
4.2.10 COMPACTION TEST FOR 60 MM LENGTH OF 0.5 % JUTE FIBER
Jute added = 0.5% = 15 gms.
S.NO WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 12% 15% 18%
MASS OF EMPTY MOULD+BASE

1 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
PLATE (gms) M1
MASS OF EMPTY MOULD+BASE
2 PLATE+COMPACTED SOIL (gms) 5600 5720 6000 5980 5870
M2
MASS OF COMPACTED SOIL
3 1815 1935 2215 2195 2085
M=M1+M2
4 BULK DENSITY ρ=M/V (g/ml) 1.82 1.94 2.22 2.20 2.09
5 WATER CONTENT (ω) 9.52 12.5 3.44 15.7 15
6 1.66 1.72 2.14 1.90 1.81
(g/ml)
7 VOID RATIO e=(Gρω/ρd)-1 0.62 0.56 0.26 0.42 0.48
8 ρd (theoretical max) = Gρω/(1+ωG) (g/ml) 2.14 2.01 2.46 1.89 1.92
DEGREE OF SATURATION S=
9 41.09 59.62 36.12 101.06 83.42
(ωG/e)*100
2.20
DRY DENSITY(gm/cc)
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WATER CONTENT IN %
RESULT
50
4.2.11 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO STRENGTH TEST FOR 60 MM
LENGTH OF 0.5 % JUTE FIBER

S.
No DIAL GUAGE DIAL GUAGE
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 2.5 13.73
3 100 1.0 4.0 21.96
4 150 1.5 5.0 27.45
5 200 2.0 6.0 32.94
6 250 2.5 8.0 43.92
7 300 3.0 8.5 46.67
8 400 4.0 11.0 60.39
9 500 5.0 12.0 65.88
10 750 7.5 18.0 98.82
11 1000 10.0 25.0 137.25
12 1250 12.5 32.0 175.68
51
180
160
140
120
LOAD IN (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 3.27 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 3.27 %.
52
PROVING CORREC COMPRES
S. DIAL GUAGE
RING STRAIN TED SIVE
No REA REA LOAD Є= AREA STRESS
DEFORMATIO
DIN DIN (P*0.372 ▲L/L0 A= σ=P/A
N (▲L)
GS GS ) A0/(1-Є) (N/mm2)
1 50 0.5 2.0 0.74 0.007 1141.6 0.65
2 100 1.0 2.5 0.93 0.013 1149.2 0.81
3 150 1.5 3.0 1.12 0.020 1156.9 0.96
4 200 2.0 3.5 1.30 0.026 1164.8 1.12
5 250 2.5 4.5 1.67 0.033 1172.7 1.43
6 300 3.0 5.0 1.86 0.039 1180.7 1.58
7 350 3.5 6.5 2.42 0.046 1188.9 2.03
8 400 4.0 7.0 2.60 0.053 1197.1 2.18
9 450 4.5 7.5 2.79 0.059 1205.5 2.31
10 500 5.0 8.5 3.16 0.066 1214.0 2.60
11 550 5.5 9.0 3.35 0.072 1222.6 2.74
12 600 6.0 10.0 3.72 0.079 1231.3 3.02
13 650 6.5 11.0 4.09 0.086 1240.2 3.30
14 700 7.0 11.5 4.28 0.092 1249.2 3.42
15 750 7.5 12.5 4.65 0.099 1258.3 3.70
16 800 8.0 13.0 4.84 0.105 1267.5 3.82
17 850 8.5 13.5 5.02 0.112 1276.9 3.93
18 900 9.0 14.0 5.21 0.118 1286.5 4.05
19 950 9.5 15.5 5.77 0.125 1296.1 4.45
20 1000 10.0 16.0 5.95 0.132 1305.9 4.56
21 1050 10.5 17.0 6.32 0.138 1315.9 4.81
22 1100 11.0 17.5 6.51 0.145 1326.0 4.91
23 1150 11.5 18.0 6.70 0.151 1336.3 5.01
24 1200 12.0 18.0 6.70 0.158 1346.8 4.97
53
6.00
5.00
COMPRESSIVE STRESS (N/m2)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180
STRAIN
RESULT
= 2.5 N/mm2
54
4.2.13 COMPACTION TEST FOR 60 MM LENGTH OF 1 % JUTE FIBER
S
. WATER %
N ADDED
2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
O
MASS OF
EMPTY
1 MOULD+BAS 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
E PLATE
(gms) M1
MASS OF
EMPTY
MOULD+BAS
2 E 5470 5480 5680 5840 5900 5980 6050 6030 5980
PLATE+COMP
ACTED SOIL
(gms) M2
MASS OF
COMPACTED
3 1685 1695 1895 2055 2115 2195 2265 2245 2195
SOIL
M=M1+M2
BULK
4 DENSITY 1.69 1.70 1.90 2.06 2.12 2.20 2.27 2.25 2.20
ρ=M/V (g/ml)
WATER
5 6.25 5 3.84 12.5 10.5 13.7 6.8 22.2 13
CONTENT (ω)
DRY DENSITY
6 ρd= ρ/(1+ω) 1.59 1.61 1.82 1.83 1.91 1.93 2.12 1.84 1.80
(g/ml)
VOID RATIO
7 0.70 0.67 0.47 0.47 0.41 0.39 0.27 0.46 0.49
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1
ρd (theoretical max)
8 = Gρω/(1+ωG) 2.30 2.37 2.44 2.01 2.10 1.97 2.27 1.68 1.99
(g/ml)
DEGREE OF
SATURATION 20.1 21.7 69.6 93.6 68.1 128. 70.7
9 24.2 71.2
S= 8 9 7 8 5 6 3
(ωG/e)*100
55
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 1% = 30 gms.
2.20
2.00
DRY DENSITY(gm/cc)
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
WATER CONTENT IN %
RESULT
56
4.2.14 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST FOR 60 MM LENGTH OF 1%
JUTE FIBER

S.
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 3.0 16.47
3 100 1.0 5.0 27.45
4 150 1.5 8.0 43.92
5 200 2.0 10.0 54.9
6 250 2.5 13.0 71.37
7 300 3.0 14.0 76.86
8 350 3.5 16.0 87.84
9 400 4.0 17.0 93.33
10 450 4.5 18.0 98.82
11 500 5.0 19.0 104.31
12 750 7.5 31.5 172.935
13 1000 10.0 42.0 230.58
14 1250 12.5 52.0 285.48
57
300
250
200
LOAD IN (N)
150
100
50
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION In (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 5.31 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 5.17 %.
58
LENGTH OF 1 % JUTE FIBER
PROVING
DIAL GUAGE CORREC COMPRESSIV
S. RING STRAIN
TED E STRESS
No REA REA LOAD Є=
DEFORMATIO AREA A= σ=P/A
DIN DIN (P*0.37 ▲L/L0
N (▲L) A0/(1-Є) (N/mm2)
GS GS 2)
1 50 0.5 2.0 0.74 0.007 1141.6 0.65
2 100 1.0 5.0 1.86 0.013 1149.2 1.62
3 150 1.5 6.5 2.42 0.020 1156.9 2.09
4 200 2.0 7.5 2.79 0.026 1164.8 2.40
5 250 2.5 9.0 3.35 0.033 1172.7 2.85
6 300 3.0 11.0 4.09 0.039 1180.7 3.47
7 350 3.5 12.0 4.46 0.046 1188.9 3.75
8 400 4.0 13.5 5.02 0.053 1197.1 4.20
9 450 4.5 15.0 5.58 0.059 1205.5 4.63
10 500 5.0 16.0 5.95 0.066 1214.0 4.90
11 550 5.5 18.0 6.70 0.072 1222.6 5.48
12 600 6.0 19.0 7.07 0.079 1231.3 5.74
13 650 6.5 21.0 7.81 0.086 1240.2 6.30
14 700 7.0 22.5 8.37 0.092 1249.2 6.70
15 750 7.5 23.0 8.56 0.099 1258.3 6.80
16 800 8.0 24.0 8.93 0.105 1267.5 7.04
17 850 8.5 25.0 9.30 0.112 1276.9 7.28
18 900 9.0 26.0 9.67 0.118 1286.5 7.52
19 950 9.5 26.5 9.86 0.125 1296.1 7.61
20 1000 10.0 27.0 10.04 0.132 1305.9 7.69
21 1050 10.5 27.5 10.23 0.138 1315.9 7.77
22 1100 11.0 28.0 10.42 0.145 1326.0 7.85
59
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160
STRAIN
RESULT
= 3.925 N/mm2
60
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 1.5% = 45 gms
21
S.NO WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%
%
MASS OF EMPTY
378 378
1 MOULD+BASE 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
5 5
PLATE (gms) M1
MASS OF EMPTY
MOULD+BASE 595 587
2 5450 5600 5670 6010 5960
PLATE+COMPACTED 0 0
SOIL (gms) M2
MASS OF
216 208
3 COMPACTED SOIL 1665 1815 1885 2225 2175
5 5
M=M1+M2
BULK DENSITY 2.0
4 1.67 1.82 1.89 2.17 2.23 2.18
ρ=M/V (g/ml) 9
WATER CONTENT
5 5.5 10.5 14.2 11.1 11.3 13.3 12
(ω)
DRY DENSITY 1.8

6 1.58 1.64 1.65 1.95 2.00 1.92
ρd= ρ/(1+ω) (g/ml) 6
VOID RATIO 0.4

7 0.70 0.64 0.63 0.38 0.35 0.40
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1 4
ρd (theoretical max) = 2.0

8 2.34 2.10 1.95 2.07 2.06 1.98
Gρω/(1+ωG) (g/ml) 3
DEGREE OF
21.0 44.2 60.6 78.4 89.1 72.
9 SATURATION 87.95
0 9 6 9 6 54
S= (ωG/e)*100
61
2.50
2.00
DRY DENSITY IN(gm/cc)
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
WATER CONTENT IN %
Fig 22.Graph of Compaction test
RESULT
62
4.2.17 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST FOR 60 MM LENGTH OF 1.5
% JUTE FIBER

S. No
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 3.0 16.47
3 100 1.0 4.5 24.71
4 150 1.5 5.5 30.20
5 200 2.0 7.0 38.43
6 250 2.5 9.0 49.41
7 300 3.0 10.0 54.90
8 400 4.0 11.0 60.39
9 500 5.0 12.0 65.88
10 750 7.5 19.0 104.31
11 1000 10.0 26.0 142.74
12 1250 12.5 34.0 186.66
63
190
170
150
130
110
LOAD IN (N)
90
70
50
30
10
-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 3.67 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 3.26 %.
64
S. DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING COMPRESSIVE

STRAI CORRECTE
No DEFORM LOAD STRESS
READI READI N Є= D AREA
ATION (P*0.37 σ=P/A
NGS NGS ▲L/L0 A=A0/(1-Є)
(▲L) 2) (N/mm2)
1 50 0.5 1.5 0.56 0.007 1141.6 0.49
2 100 1.0 2.0 0.74 0.013 1149.2 0.65
3 150 1.5 3.5 1.30 0.020 1156.9 1.13
4 200 2.0 5.0 1.86 0.026 1164.8 1.60
5 250 2.5 6.0 2.23 0.033 1172.7 1.90
6 300 3.0 7.0 2.60 0.039 1180.7 2.21
7 350 3.5 8.0 2.98 0.046 1188.9 2.50
8 400 4.0 9.0 3.35 0.053 1197.1 2.80
9 450 4.5 10.5 3.91 0.059 1205.5 3.24
10 500 5.0 11.0 4.09 0.066 1214.0 3.37
11 550 5.5 11.5 4.28 0.072 1222.6 3.50
12 600 6.0 12.0 4.46 0.079 1231.3 3.63
13 650 6.5 13.5 5.02 0.086 1240.2 4.05
14 700 7.0 14.0 5.21 0.092 1249.2 4.17
15 750 7.5 15.5 5.77 0.099 1258.3 4.58
16 800 8.0 16.0 5.95 0.105 1267.5 4.70
17 850 8.5 17.5 6.51 0.112 1276.9 5.10
18 900 9.0 18.0 6.70 0.118 1286.5 5.21
19 950 9.5 19.5 7.25 0.125 1296.1 5.60
20 1000 10.0 20.0 7.44 0.132 1305.9 5.70
21 1050 10.5 20.0 7.44 0.138 1315.9 5.65
65
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
STRAIN
Fig 24.Graph of UCS test
RESULT
= 2.85 N/mm2.
66
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 0.5% = 15 gms.
S.
N WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%
O
MASS OF EMPTY
1 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
MOULD+BASE PLATE (gms) M1
MASS OF EMPTY
MOULD+BASE
2 5580 5670 6010 6070 6020 5900
PLATE+COMPACTED SOIL
(gms) M2
MASS OF COMPACTED SOIL
3 1795 1885 2225 2285 2235 2115
M=M1+M2
4 BULK DENSITY ρ=M/V (g/ml) 1.80 1.89 2.23 2.29 2.24 2.12
5 WATER CONTENT (ω) 7.14 8.3 6.4 7.14 10.2 15

6 1.68 1.74 2.09 2.13 2.03 1.84
(g/ml)
7 VOID RATIO e=(Gρω/ρd)-1 0.61 0.55 0.29 0.26 0.33 0.46
ρd (theoretical max) = Gρω/(1+ωG)

8 2.26 2.20 2.29 2.26 2.11 1.92
(g/ml)
DEGREE OF SATURATION 40.9 60.1 73.5 84.0

9 31.71 87.22
S= (ωG/e)*100 3 2 0 8
67
2.2
2
DRY DENSITY IN gm/cc
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WATER CONTENT IN %
RESULT
68
% JUTE FIBER

S.
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 3.0 16.47
3 100 1.0 4.5 24.705
4 150 1.5 5.5 30.195
5 200 2.0 6.0 32.94
6 250 2.5 6.5 35.685
7 300 3.0 7.5 41.175
8 400 4.0 8.5 46.665
9 500 5.0 9.0 49.41
10 750 7.5 11.5 63.135
11 1000 10.0 18.0 98.82
12 1250 12.5 25.0 137.25
69
180
160
140
120
LOAD IN (N)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 2.65 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 2.45 %.
70
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING CORREC
S. STRAI COMPRESSIV
TED
No LOAD N E STRESS
READ DEFORMA READI AREA
(P*0.37 Є=▲L σ=P/A
INGS TION (▲L) NGS A=
2) /L0 (N/mm2)
A0/(1-Є)
1 50 0.5 1.5 0.56 0.007 1141.6 0.49
2 100 1.0 2.0 0.74 0.013 1149.2 0.65
3 150 1.5 2.5 0.93 0.020 1156.9 0.80
4 200 2.0 3.0 1.12 0.026 1164.8 0.96
5 250 2.5 3.5 1.30 0.033 1172.7 1.11
6 300 3.0 4.5 1.67 0.039 1180.7 1.42
7 350 3.5 5.5 2.05 0.046 1188.9 1.72
8 400 4.0 6.0 2.23 0.053 1197.1 1.86
9 450 4.5 7.5 2.79 0.059 1205.5 2.31
10 500 5.0 9.0 3.35 0.066 1214.0 2.76
11 550 5.5 10.0 3.72 0.072 1222.6 3.04
12 600 6.0 11.0 4.09 0.079 1231.3 3.32
13 650 6.5 12.5 4.65 0.086 1240.2 3.75
14 700 7.0 13.5 5.02 0.092 1249.2 4.02
15 750 7.5 14.0 5.21 0.099 1258.3 4.14
16 800 8.0 15.0 5.58 0.105 1267.5 4.40
17 850 8.5 15.0 5.58 0.112 1276.9 4.37
18 900 9.0 15.5 5.77 0.118 1286.5 4.48
19 950 9.5 15.5 5.77 0.125 1296.1 4.45
71
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
STRAIN
RESULT
= 2.24 N/mm2.
72
4.2.22 COMPACTION TEST FOR 90 MM LENGTH OF 1 % JUTE FIBER
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 1% = 30 gms.
S
.
WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21%
N
O
MASS OF EMPTY
1 MOULD+BASE 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
PLATE (gms) M1
MASS OF EMPTY
MOULD+BASE
2 5520 5660 5820 6020 6090 6020 5980
PLATE+COMPACTE
D SOIL (gms) M2
MASS OF
3 COMPACTED SOIL 1735 1875 2035 2235 2305 2235 2195
M=M1+M2
BULK DENSITY
4 1.74 1.88 2.04 2.24 2.31 2.24 2.20
ρ=M/V (g/ml)
WATER CONTENT
5 3.57 4.76 15.7 9.37 13.7 17.2 16.2
(ω)
DRY DENSITY
6 1.68 1.79 1.85 1.90 2.03 1.91 1.89
ρd= ρ/(1+ω) (g/ml)
VOID RATIO
7 0.61 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.33 0.41 0.42
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1
ρd (theoretical max) =
8 2.45 2.38 1.89 2.15 1.97 1.84 1.87
Gρω/(1+ωG) (g/ml)
DEGREE OF
15.8 25.4 93.0 112.7
9 SATURATION 60.62 112.69 102.77
5 6 1 3
S= (ωG/e)*100
73
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WATER CONTENT IN %
RESULT
74
4.2.23 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST FOR 90 MM LENGTH OF 1
% JUTE FIBER

S.
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 3.0 16.47
3 100 1.0 4.0 21.96
4 150 1.5 5.0 27.45
5 200 2.0 6.0 32.94
6 250 2.5 7.5 41.175
7 300 3.0 8.5 46.665
8 400 4.0 9.5 52.155
9 500 5.0 11.0 60.39
10 750 7.5 14.0 76.86
11 1000 10.0 19.5 107.055
12 1250 12.5 21.5 118.035
75
150
130
110
90
LOAD IN (N)
70
50
30
10
-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 3.06 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 3.0 %.
76
4.2.24 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH TEST FOR 90 MM
LENGTH OF 1 % JUTE FIBER
S.
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING COMPRESSI
N STRAI CORRECTE
VE STRESS
o DEFORM LOAD N Є= D AREA A=
READI READI σ=P/A
ATION (P*0.37 ▲L/L0 A0/(1-Є)
NGS NGS (N/mm2)
(▲L) 2)
1 50 0.5 2.0 0.74 0.007 1141.6 0.65
2 100 1.0 4.0 1.49 0.013 1149.2 1.29
3 150 1.5 6.5 2.42 0.020 1156.9 2.09
4 200 2.0 7.0 2.60 0.026 1164.8 2.24
5 250 2.5 8.0 2.98 0.033 1172.7 2.54
6 300 3.0 9.5 3.53 0.039 1180.7 2.99
7 350 3.5 10.0 3.72 0.046 1188.9 3.13
8 400 4.0 11.0 4.09 0.053 1197.1 3.42
9 450 4.5 12.5 4.65 0.059 1205.5 3.86
10 500 5.0 13.0 4.84 0.066 1214.0 3.98
11 550 5.5 14.5 5.39 0.072 1222.6 4.41
12 600 6.0 15.0 5.58 0.079 1231.3 4.53
13 650 6.5 16.0 5.95 0.086 1240.2 4.80
14 700 7.0 17.0 6.32 0.092 1249.2 5.06
15 750 7.5 18.5 6.88 0.099 1258.3 5.47
16 800 8.0 19.0 7.07 0.105 1267.5 5.58
17 850 8.5 20.5 7.63 0.112 1276.9 5.97
18 900 9.0 20.5 7.63 0.118 1286.5 5.93
77
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
STRAIN
RESULT
= 2.99 N/mm2.
78
Sieve size = 19 mm.
Jute added = 1.5% = 45gms.
21
S.NO WATER % ADDED 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%
%
MASS OF EMPTY
378
1 MOULD+BASE 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785 3785
5
PLATE (gms) M1
MASS OF EMPTY
MOULD+BASE 588
2 5520 5590 5910 5930 5970 5900
PLATE+COMPACTE 0
D SOIL (gms) M2
MASS OF
209
3 COMPACTED SOIL 1735 1805 2125 2145 2185 2115
5
M=M1+M2
BULK DENSITY 2.1
4 1.74 1.81 2.13 2.15 2.19 2.12
ρ=M/V (g/ml) 0
WATER CONTENT 6.4

5 4.76 8 11.76 18.75 5.71 7.57
(ω) 5
DRY DENSITY 1.8

6 1.66 1.67 1.85 1.90 2.07 1.90
ρd= ρ/(1+ω) (g/ml) 0
VOID RATIO 0.4

7 0.62 0.61 0.45 0.42 0.30 0.42
e=(Gρω/ρd)-1 9
ρd (theoretical max) = 2.2

8 2.38 2.21 2.04 1.79 2.33 2.23
Gρω/(1+ωG) (g/ml) 9
DEGREE OF
35.3 35.
9 SATURATION S= 20.51 69.67 121.31 50.96 48.98
1 09
(ωG/e)*100
79
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
WATER CONTENT IN %
RESULT
80
% JUTE FIBER
PENETRATION DIAL GUAGE LOAD Dial GUAGE

S.
1 0 0.0 0.0 0
2 50 0.5 3.0 16.47
3 100 1.0 4.5 24.705
4 150 1.5 5.0 27.45
5 200 2.0 6.5 35.685
6 250 2.5 7.0 38.43
7 300 3.0 8.0 43.92
8 400 4.0 9.0 49.41
9 500 5.0 10.0 54.9
10 750 7.5 13.0 71.37
11 1000 10.0 19.0 104.31
12 1250 12.5 21.0 115.29
81
150
130
110
90
LOAD IN (N)
70
50
30
10
-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0
PENETRATION IN (mm)
RESULT
CBR at 2.5mm = 2.86 %.
CBR at 5.0mm = 2.72 %.
82
S.
DIAL GUAGE PROVING RING STRAI COMPRESSI
N CORRECTE
N Є= VE STRESS
o DEFORM REA D AREA
READ LOAD ▲L/L σ=P/A
ATION DIN A=A0/(1-Є)
INGS (P*0.372) 0 (N/mm2)
(▲L) GS
1 50 0.5 2.0 0.74 0.007 1141.6 0.65
2 100 1.0 4.0 1.49 0.013 1149.2 1.29
3 150 1.5 5.0 1.86 0.020 1156.9 1.61
4 200 2.0 6.5 2.42 0.026 1164.8 2.08
5 250 2.5 7.0 2.60 0.033 1172.7 2.22
6 300 3.0 8.0 2.98 0.039 1180.7 2.52
7 350 3.5 8.5 3.16 0.046 1188.9 2.66
8 400 4.0 9.0 3.35 0.053 1197.1 2.80
9 450 4.5 10.0 3.72 0.059 1205.5 3.09
10 500 5.0 11.5 4.28 0.066 1214.0 3.52
11 550 5.5 12.5 4.65 0.072 1222.6 3.80
12 600 6.0 13.0 4.84 0.079 1231.3 3.93
13 650 6.5 15.0 5.58 0.086 1240.2 4.50
14 700 7.0 16.0 5.95 0.092 1249.2 4.76
15 750 7.5 17.5 6.51 0.099 1258.3 5.17
16 800 8.0 18.0 6.70 0.105 1267.5 5.28
17 850 8.5 19.0 7.07 0.112 1276.9 5.54
18 900 9.0 19.0 7.07 0.118 1286.5 5.49
83
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
STRAIN
RESULT
= 2.77 N/mm2.
84
TABLE 34: VARIATION IN RESULTS OF COMPACTION TEST
LENGTH OF PERCENTAGE OF
OMC IN
JUTE FIBER FIBER BY DRY MAX. DRY DENSITY
%
(mm) WEIGHT OF SOIL
0.5 12 2.07
30 1 12 2.02
1.5 12 2.06
0.5 12 2.14
60 1 14 2.13
1.5 15 2.02
0.5 15 2.13
90 1 15 2.03
1.5 18 2.06
20
15
OMC
10
0
CF0 CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 CF8 CF9
% JUTE
Fig 34. Graph of variations in OMC
2.25
DRY DENSITY gm/cc
2.2
2.15
2.1
2.05
2
1.95
1.9
CF0 CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 CF8 CF9
%JUTE
Fig 35. Graph of variation in Dry density
85
CF0 = Normal soil CF5 = 60mm (1%)
CF1 = 30mm (0.5% jute) CF6 = 60mm (1.5%)
CF2 = 30mm (1% jute) CF7 = 90mm (0.5%)
CF3 = 30mm (1.5% jute) CF8 = 90mm (1%)
CF4 = 60mm (0.5% jute) CF9 = 90mm (1.5%)
4.3 VARIATION IN CBR VALUES OF SOIL REINFORCED WITH

JUTE FIBER
Length of Percentage of Fiber by CBR value (%)

Jute Fibers Dry Weight of soil
(mm)
30 0.5 % 1.63
1% 1.83
1.5% 2.24
60 0.5% 3.27
1% 5.31
1.5% 3.67
90 0.5% 2.65
1% 3.06
1.5% 2.86
Table No. 36
86
6
LOAD IN (N)
4
3 30 mm
2 60 mm
90 mm
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PENETRATION IN (mm)
Fig 36. Graph of Variation in CBR test values
4.4 VARIATION IN UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST VALUES

OF SOIL REINFORCED WITH JUTE FIBER
Length of Percentage of Fiber by Dry UCS value

Jute Weight of soil
Fibers
(mm)
0.5 % 4.25
30 1% 4.42
1.5% 4.56
0.5% 5.01
60 1% 7.85
1.5% 5.70
0.5% 4.48
90 1% 5.97
1.5% 5.54
Table No. 37
87
4.5

4
3.5
30 mm
3
60 mm
2.5 90 mm
2
1.5
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
STRAIN
Fig 37. Graph of variation in UCS test values
4.5 TYPICAL EXAMPLE FOR COMPARISON OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

THICKNESS USING NORMAL AND STABILIZED SOIL AS A SUBGRADE
4.5.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN AS PER (IRC-37-2012)
ASSUMPTIONS
Expected Traffic = N = 2 MSA.
Design life = 15 years.
Two lane carriageway of two way traffic.
4.5.2 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN USING NORMAL CLAY SOIL AS A

SUBGRADE
CBR value = 1.43%.
N = 2 MSA.
As per IRC 37-2012, Design Charts Minimum Design CBR value =3%.
88
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CHART FOR CBR 3% (IRC 37-2012)
Fig 38. Flexible Pavement Design Chart
SC 25mm
DBM 50mm
GRANULAR BASE 225mm
GRANULAR SUB BASE 335mm
SUBGRADE
Fig 39. Cross section of Flexible Pavement Showing thickness of each

layer
Required Pavement Thickness = 25 + 50 + 225 + 335.
= 630 mm.
4.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN USING STABILIZED CLAY SOIL AS A

SUBGRADE
CBR value of Stabilized soil sample = 5.3 %
As per IRC 37-2012 Design charts
N = Traffic = 2 MSA.
89
By interpolating the thickness values of 5% and 6% we get GSB thickness

value of 5.3%.
.’. The thickness of GSB of 5.3 % CBR value = 203 mm.
Total pavement thickness = 20 + 50 + 225 + 203.
= 498 mm.
90
630−498
Percentage reduction in pavement thickness = ∗100
630
132
= ∗100
630
= 21 %
RESULT
Percentage reduction in pavement thickness = 21 %.
From this design we came to know that the collected soil sample
reinforced with Jute fiber of 60 mm length @ 1 % by dry weight of the soil
would be useful in reducing the thickness of flexible pavement up to 21 %.
91
CONCLUSIONS
The soil was initially tested for the basic properties. Then the addition of Jute
fiber gave considerable variations in values of OMC, Dry Density, CBR
(unsoaked) and Unconfined Compressive stresses. With those results the
following conclusions are drawn:
 From the results obtained from Atterberg Limits, the collected soil sample
in this study is classified as Clay of Low Compressibility (CL) from A-Line
chart.
 The Specific Gravity of normal soil sample obtained is 2.69
 From Wet sieve Analysis, Fineness Modulus of normal soil sample is found
to be 2.19 %.
 From Proctor Compaction Test, Max. dry density and OMC for normal soil
are found to be 2.21 and 12% respectively.
 CBR (unsoaked) value for normal soil at 2.5 mm penetration is found to be
1.43 %.
 UCS value for normal soil is found to be 1.95 N/mm2.
Soil sample reinforced with Jute fiber have been tested only for OMC, Dry
Density, CBR (unsoaked) and Unconfined Compressive stresses. The
conclusions drawn from those results are as follows:
1) From the results obtained from Proctor Compaction Test, we have observed
that there is a gradual increase in the Optimum Moisture Content from 12 %
to 15 %.
2) The results of Dry Density lied in the range of 2.02 g/cc to 2.13 g/cc for
the soil samples reinforced with Jute fiber.
3) From the results obtained from CBR (unsoaked) test, we have observed that
there has been gradual increase in CBR value up to 1 % Jute for 60 mm length
and upon there is a gradual decrease in CBR value from 5.31 % to 2.86 %.
92
4) From the results of UCS test, we have observed that there has been gradual
increase in UCS value up to 1 % Jute for 60 mm length and upon there is a
gradual decrease in UCS value from 7.85 N/mm2 to 5.54 N/mm2.
Based on the present investigation, it is concluded that CBR value of

soil increases with the inclusion of Jute fiber. When the Jute fiber content
increases, the CBR value of soil is gradually increasing and this increase is
substantial at fiber content of 1 %.
It was also found that preparation of identical soil samples for CBR test
beyond 1.5 % of fiber content is not possible and the optimum fiber content
was found to be 1% by dry weight of soil.
It is also concluded that there is significant effect of length of Jute fiber

on the CBR value of soil. In brief, the CBR value of soil increases with increase
in length of the fiber but it is up to a certain extent only.
The maximum increase in CBR value was found to be more than 350 %
over that of normal soil at fiber content of 1 % for fiber having diameter 2 mm
and length of 60 mm.
From the design of Flexible pavement for observed CBR values for
normal soil and fiber reinforced soil, we have obtained a reduction in
pavement thickness of up to 21 %.So, we can conclude that this method of
soil stabilization can be effectively used for light weight traffic roads in rural
areas where cost of construction of pavement is given the most consideration.
93
REFERENCES
 “Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering” by DR. K.R. Arora.

 H.P. Singh and M. Bagra (2013), “Improvement in CBR value of soil
reinforced with Jute fiber”. (Volume 2,Issue 8).
 H.P. Singh and M. Bagra (2013), “Strength and Stiffness response of
Itanagar soil reinforced with Jute fiber”. (Volume 2,Issue 9).
 Aggarwal and Sharma (2011), “Application of Jute fiber in the
improvement of Subgrade characteristics”. ACEEE Int. Journal on
Transportation and Urban Development, Vol 01, No 01.
 IS 2720 (PART-5)-1985 (Reaffirmed 2006) for determination of
Atterberg Limits.
 IS 2720 (PART 3/SEC 1)-1980 First revision (Reaffirmed 1987) for the
determination of Specific Gravity of soil.
 IS 2720 (PART -4) - 1985 (Reaffirmed 2006) for the determination of
Grain Size Analysis.
 IS 2720 (PART -2) - 1973 Second revision for the determination of
water content.
 IS 2720 (PART -7) – 1980 (Reaffirmed 2011) for the determination of
Compactness and Density.
 IS 2720 (PART – 16) – 1987 (Reaffirmed 2002) for the determination of
CBR.
 IS 2720 (PART – 10) – 1991 (Reaffirmed 2006) for the determination of
UCS.
 www.sciencedirect.com
 www.google.com
94
ANNEXURES
Fig No 1: View of Jute Fiber (Dia= 2mm, L =30mm, 60mm, 90mm).
Fig No 2: Mixing of Jute Fiber with soil sample.
95
Fig No 3: Preparation of soil sample for Plastic Limit test.
Fig No 4: Grooving the soil in Liquid Limit test.
96
Fig No 5: Conducting Wet Sieve Analysis test.
Fig No 6: Conducting Compaction test.
97
Fig No 7: Conducting CBR Test.
Fig No 8: Conducting UCS Test.
98
Fig No 9: Failure of UCS specimen.
Fig No 10: Taking weights for Specific Gravity test.
99

Chapter - 1: 1.1 General

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter - 1: 1.1 General

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter - 1: 1.1 General

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER – 1

An extensive and good quality road network is one of the major

After a significant period of investigations and research, the

1.2 NECESSITY OF STUDY

2.1 SOIL STABILIZATION

Soil stabilization is the process of altering some soil properties by

Soils are generally stabilized to increase their strength and

2.2 PRINCIPLES OF SOIL STABILIZATION

 Evaluating the soil properties of the area under consideration.

2.3.1 MECHANICAL METHOD OF STABILIZATION

A) ORIENTED FIBER REINFORCEMENT

B) RANDOM FIBER REINFORCEMENT

2.4.1 EARLY PRACTICES

The term “geotextile” refers to textiles used in geotechnical

2.5 MODERN DEVELOPMENT

BJRI in cooperation with Arcedia Development Ltd. Co.

Soil mass is generally a discrete system consisting of soil

2.7 REINFORCING MATERIALS

2.8 FIBER REINFORCED SOIL

Concepts involving the reinforcement of soils using fibers have

2.9 TYPES OF FIBER

2.9.1 SYNTHETIC FIBERS

The various types of synthetic fiber are polypropylene, nylon,

The important properties of polypropylene are; its versatility,

In view of low strength and lack of durability, natural fibers are

Natural fibers have poor resistance to alkaline environment.

Jute geotextile is a natural product and it is biologically

2. Index properties of soil were evaluated.

 Average Fineness - 20 denier, i.e. weight in gm. of 900 meters of

 Average Extension at break - 1.2%.

 Average Stiffness - 330 gm/denier.

 Average Toughness Index - 0.02.

 Swelling water (area) - 40%.

 Specific heat - 0.34 cal/g/c0.

 Specific internal Surface – 10 to 200m2/g.

 Hygroscopicity (Average regain at 65% relative humidity) - 13%.

Alpha Cellulose - 58-63%

Fat & Wax - 0.4-0.8%

Mineral Materials - 0.6-1.1%

Mix the soil with distilled water in an evaporating dish to make it

Calculate the average value of Plastic limit value from tabulations.

3.4.2 LIQUID LIMIT

Mix the sample thoroughly with distilled water in a evaporating

Draw a flow graph between log N and w.

3.4.3 WET SIEVE ANALYSIS

If the soil contains a substantial quantity (say, more than 5%) of

The material retained on the sieve is the gravel fraction. It is dried in an

The material passing through 4.75mm sieve is sieved through a

From the tabulation, we have to classify it as fine or coarse grained

3.4.4 COMPACTION TESTS

Soil compaction is defined as the method of mechanically

Take about 20 kg of air dried soil. Sieve it through 20 mm and 4.75 mm

3.4.5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

California bearing ratio test is a type of test developed by the

3.4.6 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

The specific gravity of solid particles is defined as the ratio of the

Where M1= Mass of empty pycnometer.

M2= Mass of pycnometer + Dry soil.