Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 15-17, 2011, Kochi (Paper No. J-233)

IMPROVEMENT IN CBR VALUES OF EXPANSIVE SOIL SUBGRADES USING

GEOSYNTHETICS
A.K. Choudhary, Assistant Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., NIT Jamshedpur, India, Email: drakchoudharycivil@gmail.com
K.S. Gill, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Civil Engg., GNDEC Ludhiana, India, Email: kulbirgillkulbir@yahoo.co.in
J.N. Jha, Professor and Head, Deptt. of Civil Engg., GNDEC Ludhiana, India, Email: jagadanand@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Ground movements caused by swelling /shrinkage of expansive clays poses a threat to any structure resting on
such clays. The performance of paved and unpaved road pavements constructed over such expansive soil subgrades is often
poor and shows cracking, rutting and differential settlements/ heaving at various locations. The paper summarizes the results
of a series of swelling tests and laboratory CBR tests conducted with specimens of expansive soil for unreinforced and
reinforced cases. Varying numbers of reinforcement layers at specified vertical spacing were used for reinforced specimen.
Two different types of reinforcements; jute geotextile and geogrid were used in the investigation. Results obtained indicate that
the expansive soils can be stabilized using the reinforced earth concept.

INTRODUCTION
Development of any country can be closely monitored by the
improvement in infrastructural facilities in which
transportation plays a key role. The quality and durability of a
pavement is greatly affected by the type of subgrde soil over
which such pavements are to be constructed. Pavement
structure response is very sensitive to the characteristics of
the subgrade, which provides the support base for such
pavement structure. Problems associated with pavement
construction further become far more critical, particularly in
regions where the subgrade consists of expansive soils. In
India these soils cover about 0.8x106 Sq. Km. area which is
more than one fifth of its surface area and extend over the
states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, parts of Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil
Nadu. In recent years reinforced earth technique has been
gaining popularity in the field of geotechnical engineering
due to its highly versatile and flexible nature and is being
widely used for the construction of retaining walls,
embankments, earth dams, foundation beds for heavy
structures on soft grounds, viaducts and other applications. In
spite of its wide ranging applications in major geotechnical
projects, there is a limited use of reinforced earth technique in
the construction of pavements over poor and problematic
subgrades. As reported earlier, geosynthetic layer has been
used as a separator at the subgrade- pavement interface to
prevent the entry of pavement material into the subgrade or
subgrade material in to the pavement material[1-4]. Swelling
of expansive clays causes detrimental effects on buildings,
buried structures road pavements etc. but provision of
geomembrane on the top surface of expansive soil mass
effectively restrain the heave and swell pressure of
underlying expansive soil [5]. Geosynthetics made from
synthetic fibers are preferred over other reinforcing materials
in case of important highway projects because of their nonbiodegradable and inert character, higher strength and
durability. But these geosynthetics materials are expensive
thus resulting in higher project cost. On the other hand
geotextiles made from natural fibers like jute, coir, sisal,
569

palm etc. may provide an economic and eco friendly

substitute to geosynthetics especially for low cost road
projects in rural areas. The paper describes the beneficial
effects of placing multiple layers of reinforcement
horizontally at specified vertical spacing within the subgrade
and thereby determining their relative positions for two
different types of reinforcement namely; geogrid and jute
geotextile.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Materials Used
The expansive soil used in the investigation was natural soil
collected from UCIL, Jadugoda mines area. The various
physical properties of the soil and the reinforcing elements
used in the investigation are summarized in Table 1- 2
respectively.
Sample Preparation and Testing
Swell potential as well as CBR tests were conducted with
unreinforced as well as reinforced soil specimen, compacted
at maximum dry density and corresponding to the optimum
moisture content. For the reinforced soil specimen,
reinforcements were cut in the form of a circular disc of
diameter 147mm (mould dia. 150mm) to avoid separation in
the specimen by the reinforcing layer. The number of
reinforcing layers (N) were varied from 1 to 4 and the
embedment ratio (z/d) for the successive layers was kept as
0.25, 0.50.1.0 and 1.50 respectively. The embedment ratio is
defined as the ratio of depth of embedment (z) of the
reinforcing layer from the top surface of the compacted
specimen to the diameter of the loading plunger (d). For
compacting the soil into the mould , first the required
quantity of dry soil and water for filling the mould before
and after placing the reinforcement was calculated separately
based on the maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content obtained from the standard proctor test. The required
amount of water corresponding to the optimum moisture
content was then added with the soil and mixed thoroughly.

Choudhary ,Gill,& Jha

Table 1 Properties of Soil
Property
Specific gravity
Grain size distribution
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Liquid limit (%)
Plastic limit (%)
Plasticity Index
Free swell index (%)
Maximum dry density (kN/m3)
Optimum moisture content (%)
Swelling classification
Table 2 Properties of reinforcing material
Property/Material
Geogrid
Material composition
Polypropylene
Mesh aperture size (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Breaking strength (kN/m)

1.47
0.27
4.0

Value
2.72
8
66
26
59
34
35
62.50
17.10
18.20
Medium

Jute Geotextile
Natural fiber
(woven)
1.49
3.2
2.81

The soil required for filling the portion of the mould below
the reinforcing layer was then compacted into the CBR
mould to the required dry density using static compaction.
After compaction of the soil in the lower portion of the
mould, reinforcement was placed inside the mould at the
specified position and then the required amount of soil was
compacted over it. The process was repeated for other
layersalso till all the layers are placed in position within the
specimen and finally the top surface was made level. A filter
paper and a perforated metallic disc with adjustable stem
along with an annular surcharge weight weighing 25N were
then placed on the top of the compacted specimen. The whole
mould assembly was then transferred to a soaking tank for
soaking under water. The swell measuring device consisting
of a tripod and a dial gauge was then placed on the top edge
of the mould and the spindle of the dial gauge was made to
rest over the adjustable stem of the perforated metallic plate.
The initial dial gauge reading was recorded and the mould
assembly was left undisturbed under water to allow soaking
of the specimen for 96 hours. After 96 hours of soaking the
final dial gauge reading was recorded in order to measure the
expansion or swelling of the specimen due to soaking under
water. The whole mould assembly was then transferred to a
motorized load frame to conduct the CBR test. The
penetration plunger was seated at the centre of the specimen
and a seating load of 40N was applied. The dial gauge of the
proving ring as well as the penetration dial gauge was set to
zero reading prior to application of the load. The load was
then applied through the penetration plunger at a constant rate
of strain (1.20mm/minute) and the loads were carefully
recorded as a function of penetration upto a total penetration
of 12.50mm. Finally load- penetration curves were drawn for
each case and corrections using standard procedure were

570

applied to the load-penetration curves wherever required. All

the specimens were tested in a similar manner.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Swell potential has been expressed in terms of expansion
ratio.Expansion ratio is defined as the ratio of change in
height to the original height of the specimen expressed as
percentage. Fig. 1 shows the variation of expansion ratio with
embedment ratio for both the types of reinforcement used in
the investigation. From the figure it is observed that placing a
horizontal layer of reinforcement within the specimen is
effective in controlling the swelling. Swelling pressure that
develops in all directions would mobilize the interfacial
frictional force between soil and reinforcement due to its
normal component on the reinforcement, this frictional force
tends to counteract the swelling pressure in a direction
parallel to the reinforcement and consequently reduces the
heave.The expansion ratio is observed to decrease from
6.88% for the unreinforced case to 2.48% and 4.27% for
specimens reinforced with a single layer of geogrid and jute
geotextile respectively when embedment ratio is equal to
0.25. Further, it can be observed that the expansion ratio
decreases with increasing number of reinforcing layers but
this decrease is only marginal in case of geogrid
reinforcement but significant in case of jute geotextile upto
N=2. For a given number of reinforcing layers the expansion
ratio is lesser for the geogrid reinforcement as compared to
that of jute geotextile.

Fig. 1 Expansion ratio Vs No. of Reinforcement Layer (N)

Fig. 2- 3 presents the load-penetration curves obtained from
the CBR tests conducted with both unreinforced as well as
reinforced specimens with varying number of reinforcing
layers and reinforcement type. It can be seen from these
figures that there is a marked influence of the presence of a
reinforcing layer within the specimen on its loaddisplacement response. Further it is observed that piston load
at a given penetration is higher in all cases of reinforced
specimen as compared to that for an unreinforced specimen
and the amount of increase in the piston load depends on the
number of reinforcing layers within the specimen as well as
reinforcement type. From the load- penetration curves CBR
values for each case was calculated for penetrations of 2.50

Improvement in CBR Values of Expansive Soil Subgrades Using Geosynthetics

mm and 5.0 mm and it was observed for all the cases
considered in the present investigation that CBR value
corresponding to 2.50 mm penetration is higher than that
obtained for 5.0 mm penetration. Therefore CBR values
reported in the present investigation are those of 2.50 mm
penetration.

layers and thereafter increase in CBRI is only marginal for

both the types of reinforcement. This may be attributed to the
fact that for N=3 the depth of the reinforced zone extends
upto z=d and reinforcement placed within this zone is quite
effective in mobilizing the full frictional resistance which is a
function of the vertical stress intensity due the applied load at
the surface. On the other hand reinforcement placed at
deeper depths (z > d) does not lead to any significant
increase in the CBRI value because at deeper depth of
embedment, vertical stress intensity due to the applied load at
the surface gets decreased according to the Boussinesqs
equation of distribution of stress and thereby interface
frictional
resistance
is
not
fully
mobilized.

Fig. 2 Load Vs Penetration (Geogrid)

Fig. 4 CBR Vs No. of Reinforcement Layer (N)

Fig. 3 Load Vs Penetration (Jute Geotextile)

Fig. 4 presents the variation of CBR with number of
reinforcing layers for both the types of reinforcements used in
the investigation. Improvement in CBR values due to
presence of reinforcement has been expressed by a
dimensionless term California bearing ratio index (CBRI) and
has been defined as the ratio of CBR value of reinforced soil
(CBRr) to the CBR value of unreinforced soil (CBRu)[6].
CBRI=

(CBRr) / (CBRu)

Fig. 5 shows the variation of CBRI with number of

reinforcing layers for both the types of reinforcement used. It
is observed that the extent of improvement achieved is upto
158% for reinforced case (geogrid) over the unreinforced
specimen having four layers of reinforcing layers. Similar
trend were observed for jute geotextile also but the extent of
improvement observed was 100%. As compared to jute
geotextile, geogrid is observed to be more effective in
improving the strength characteristics for all the cases
considered in the investigation. In general it can be observed
that the extent of improvement in the CBRI value i.e CBRI
increases with increasing number of reinforcing layers within
the specimen but this increase is significant only upto three
571

Fig. 5 CBRI Vs No. of Reinforcement Layer (N)

Increase in strength of soil due to inclusion of reinforcements
within the specimen can also be expressed in terms of piston
load ratio (PLR) which is defined as the ratio of maximum
piston load at 12.50mm penetration for reinforced specimen
(Lr) to the maximum piston load at the same penetration for
unreinforced specimen (Lu).
i.e

PLR = Lr / Lu

Choudhary ,Gill,& Jha

The variation of piston load ratio with respect to number of
reinforcing layers for both the types of reinforcement has
been presented in Fig.6. From Figure it is observed that in
general there is an increase in PLR for the reinforced
specimen as compared to unreinforced specimen. The extent
of increase in PLR is however observed to be dependent on
number of reinforcing layers for a particular type of
reinforcement and vice versa. Further it is also observed that
for a given number of reinforcing layers geogrid yields higher
PLR as compared to that of jute geotextile and the maximum
PLR (N=4) in case of geogrid is 2.16 whereas the same in
case of jute geotextile 1.96.

investigation secant modulus (defined as the ratio of load in

kPa at a penetration of 2.50mm to the penetration of 2.50mm)
were determined from the load penetration curve obtained
for each case. Fig. 7 shows the variation of secant modulus
with embedment ratio for both the types of reinforcement. As
expected the secant modulus for the reinforced case is higher
as compared to that for unreinforced case for all the cases
considered in the investigation. For example; secant modulus
for the unreinforced soil is 124.16 Mpa, which has been
increased to 325.95 Mpa for the soil reinforced with four
layers of geogrid but the increase in case of jute geotextile
was observed to be 252.61 Mpa.

Fig. 6 PLR Vs No. of Reinforcement Layer (N)

CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions can be drawn from the present
investigation:
1.Insertion of reinforcement within the expansive soil
subgrade is found to effective in controlling the swelling
significantly. The percentage reduction in swell potential
however depends on number of reinforcing layers and the
type of reinforcement used.
2.The CBR value of the soil increases significantly with
increase in number of reinforcing layers and their relative
position within the soil and type of reinforcement.
3.As evident from the secant modulus values, the stress-strain
behavior of expansive soil subgrade improved considerably
for different cases considered in the study.
4.Though geogrid is observed to offer better reinforcing
efficiency but Jute geotextile can also be gainfully
exploited in situations like low cost road projects in rural
areas.

Fig. 7 Secant Modulus Vs No. of Reinforcement Layer (N)

The modulus of elasticity is usually calculated from the
straight portion of the stress-strain curve but for most of the
soils the stress-strain curve is not linear for any appreciable
distance and is rather non linear. Therefore in the present

572

REFERENCES
1. Al-Quadi, I.L. and Bhutta, S. A. (1999), In-situ
Measurements of Secondary Flexible Pavement
Response to Vehicular Loading, TRR- 1652, 206-216.
2. Brandon, T.I., Al-Quadi, I. L., Lacina, B. A. and
Bhutta,S.A,(1996), Construction and Instrumentation of
Geosynthetically Stabilised Secondary Road Sections,
TRR 1534, 50-57
3. Chattopadhaya,
B.C,
(1998),
Jute
geotextile:
Applications in Civil Engineering, J. Inst. of Engineers
(I ), Vol.79
4. Choudhary, A.K and Verma ,B.P, (2005), Behavior of
Reinforced Flyash Subgrades, Journal,Inst. of
Engineers (I) , Vol.86, 19-21.
5. Dange, A.P and Thakarae, S.W,( 1996), Effect of
Geomembrane on Swelling of Expansive Soils, Proc.
Indian Geotechnical Conf., 458- 460.
6. Choudhary, A.K, Jha, J.Nand Gill, K.S,(2010), A Study
on CBR Behavior of Waste Plastic Reinforced Soil,
Emirates Journal of Engineering Research, Vol.15
No.1,51-57.