Ijggi-July 2014

ISSN : 2277-5625 (Print)
ISSN : 2277-5633 (Online)
Vol. 3 No. 2 July 2014
Indian Journal of Geosynthetics

and Ground Improvement
Half Yearly Technical Journal of Indian Chapter of
International Geosynthetics Society
ABOUT JOURNAL
Geosynthetics are now being increasingly used the world over for every conceivable application in
civil engineering, namely, construction of dam embankments, canals, approach roads, runways,
railway embankments, retaining walls, slope protection works, drainage works, river training works,
seepage control, etc. due to their inherent qualities. Its use in India though is picking up, is not any
where close to recognitions. This is due to limited awareness of the utilities of this material and
developments having take place in its use.
The aim of the journal is to provide latest information in regard to developments taking place in the
relevant field of geosynthetics so as to improve communication and understanding regarding such
products, among the designers, manufacturers and users and especially between the textile and
civil engineering communities.
EDITORIAL BOARD

Dr. Dali Naidu Arnepalli, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras
Dr. K. Balan, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Trivandrum
Mr. Narendra Dalmia, Director, Strata Geosystems (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. S. Jaswant Kumar, Former Chief General Manager, National Highways Authority of India
Ms. Minimol Korulla, Vice President-TMD, Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Tiru Kulkarni, Vice President Marketing, Sales & Design, Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.
Dr. Gali Madhavi Latha, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science
Dr. Satyendra Mittal, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee
Mr. Satish Naik, CEO, Best Geotechnics Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. K. Rajagopal, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras
Dr. G.V.S. Raju, Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Government of Andhra Pradesh
Dr. G.V. Rao, Chairman, SAGES
Ms. Dola Roychowdhury, Senior General Manager (Geosynthetics Division), Z-Tech (India) Private
Ltd.
Mr. T. Sanyal, Chief Consultant, National Jute Board
Dr. U.S. Sarma, Director, Coir Board
Mr. M. Venkataraman, Geotechnical Consultant
Dr. B.V.S. Viswanadham, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay
Indian Chapter of International Geosynthetics Society
Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and

Ground Improvement
Volume 3, No. 2
July 2014
CONTENTS
Page
From Editors Desk

Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads G. Madhavi Latha and Asha M. Nair
2
3
Kinematics and Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Reinforced Foundation Beds

over Soft Non-homogeneous Ground S. Sushmita, K. Ramu, K. Rajyalakshmi,
and Prof. M.R. Madhav
14
Influence of Nylon Fiber Reinforcement on Lime Stabilized Clayey Soil

P.S. Nagu, S. Chandrakaran and N. Sankar
27
34
Activities of Indian Chapter
38
IGS News
40
Calendar of Events
43
Profile of Institutional Members of Indian Chapter
44
All communications to be addressed to :

The Member Secretary
Indian Chapter of IGS
CBIP Building, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110 021
Editor
Mr. V.K. Kanjlia, Member Secretary, Indian Chapter of IGS and Secretary, Central Board of Irrigation and Power (CBIP)
Associate Editors
Mr. A.C. Gupta, Treasurer, Indian Chapter of IGS and Director, Central Board of Irrigation and Power (CBIP)
Mr. Uday Chander, Senior Manager, Central Board of Irrigation and Power (CBIP)
Subscription Information 2014/ (2 issues)
Institutional subscription (Print & Online)
: Rs. 900/US$75
Institutional subscription (Online Only)
: Rs. 600/US$50
Institutional subscription (Print Only)
: Rs. 600/US$50
Life Subscription for 10 Years (Print )
: Rs. 5,000
Life Subscription for 10 Years (Print & Online) : Rs. 8,000
From the Editors Desk

In India, Highway Organisations like NHAI are using Geosynthetics on large scale in
construction of high quality four & six lane highways & expressways. Coir Geotextiles
when used on the soft soil for construction of village roads have been found to perform
very well as reinforcement, filter, drainage and separation materials in comparison to
the conventionally used materials like synthetics, cement, lime, etc. A major drive is in
progress for the field use of coir geotextiles in rural roads under the Prime Ministers
Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) scheme. In rural road applications, coir geotextiles are
used as a separator and reinforcement.
Geosynthetics are now being increasingly used the world over for every conceivable
application in civil engineering, namely, construction of dam, embankments, canals, approach roads,
runways, railway embankments, retaining walls, slope protection works, drainage works, river training works,
seepage control, etc. due to their inherent qualities. Its use in India though is picking up, is not anywhere
close to recognition. This is due to limited awareness of the utilities of this material and development
taking place in its use.
After successful organizations of Geosynthetics India 2008 and Geosynthetics India 2011, the Indian
Chapter of International Geosynthetics Society (IGS-India) is organizing Geosynthetics India 2014 in New
Delhi during 15-17 October 2014, to deliberate on the latest development in the field of Geosynthetics.
The event also includes a Workshop on Design of Geosynthetics Barriers, on 15 October 2014. The
workshop is being organized as a follow-up of the Seminar on Geosynthetic Barriers, coordinated by IGS
Technical Committee on Barrier Systems, organized as part of Silver Jubilee Celebrations of establishment
of the Indian Chapter in October 2013.
Indian Chapter is taking this opportunity as a build up to the 6th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics
in November 2016 in New Delhi. I, on behalf of Indian Chapter, request you to kindly consider participation
in the event, and share your experiences.
I thank all the authors for their contributions. I also take this opportunity to thank all the members of the
Editorial Board for helping us in our endeavour and providing us with their valuable suggestions in bringing
out the Journal.
One of the suggestions received from the readers of the journal is to take up more case studies related
contributions. I request all the readers and their colleagues/fellow professionals to contribute the case
studies to further improve the utility of the Journal.
V.K. Kanjlia
Member Secretary
Indian Chapter of IGS
Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014
GEOSYNTHETICS IN UNPAVED ROADS

G. Madhavi Latha
Asha M. Nair
Associate Professor
Senior Research Fellow
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science
Abstract
Inclusion of geosynthetics has been proved to be very effective in providing additional support and good
rideability in roads. This paper presents results from laboratory model studies and field studies carried out
on unreinforced and reinforced unpaved low volume roads sections constructed over weak subgrade. The
relative advantages of placing different reinforcing materials like geotextile, biaxial geogrid and geocell
layer at the interface of subgrade and base course are studied in terms of increase in load carrying
capacity and reduction in rut depth. In laboratory model studies to simulate wheel load, repeated load is
applied manually through a hydraulic jack whereas in field studies the moving vehicle load is simulated by
the passage of a scooter on the road at uniform speed for a maximum of 250 passes. The experimental
and field test results are analysed and compared to understand the relative efficiency of each of these
reinforcing materials in reducing the settlement/rut formation in unpaved roads. Effectiveness of geocell
layer compared to planar geotextile and geogrid layers in terms of increase in load carrying capacity and
reduction in deformations is also studied.
Keywords: Unpaved roads, reinforcement, field tests, geosynthetics, rut depth, geocell layer.
1. INTRODUCTION
unpaved road (Giroud and Han, 2004). Researchers

like Bergado et.al (2001), Gregory and Bang (1994),
Krishnaswamy and Sudhakar (2005) carried out
modified CBR tests to understand the beneficial effect
of geotextile in increasing the California Bearing Ratio.
Use of geotextile was found to increase the field CBR
value by 67-73 % (Basu et al. 2009) and the beneficial
effect of geosynthetics was found to be the greatest
for thin base layer sections (Fannin and Sigurdsson,
1996). From the field studies carried out, Hufenus et.al.
(2006) reported that the effect of the geogrid was found
to be reduced when used in direct combination with a
separating layer, because optimal interlocking with the
coarse-grained fill layer was prevented and the grid
was able to slide on the geotextile. The mattressing
effect of geocell reinforcement by virtue of its all-round
confinement was studied by many researchers like
Bathurst and Jarrett (1988), Pokharel (2010), Thakur
et.al. (2012).
India has a road network of over 4.32 million km in

2011, the third largest road network in the world.
The rural roads in India form a substantial portion of
the Indian road network (3.1 million kilometers as of
May 2011) of which 1.9 million km is unpaved. The
transport of agricultural products depends on the quality
of these roads. Many rural roads are of poor quality,
potholed, and unable to withstand the loads of heavy
farm equipment. Well engineered structural design and
maintenance of these roads is very important for safe
and efficient movement of traffic as well as reduced
cost and time of travel. Unpaved roads do not have
an asphaltic wearing course. Hence they derive their
entire structural support through granular base/subbase course.
Use of geosynthetic materials in road construction
has increased drastically in the recent years. High
tensile strength, filtering and drainage characteristics of
geosynthetics have increased its potential in pavement
applications. The first use of fabrics for reinforcing
roads was attempted by the South Carolina Highway
Department in 1926 (Beckham, and Mills, 1935).
Since then several laboratory element tests, model
tests and field tests has been carried out by several
researchers to understand the various parameters that
influence the performance of geosynthetic reinforced
unpaved roads. Giroud and Noiray (1981) suggested
an improvement factor of (+2) for geotextile reinforced
unpaved road and [3/2 + 2] for geogrid reinforced
From the literature it was evident that the application

of geocell reinforcement in pavement application has
not been extensively studied. This paper presents the
experimental results from the laboratory model tests and
field tests carried out on unpaved road sections reinforced
with planar and geocell reinforcements. In model tests,
a load of 5 kN was applied repeatedly for 100 cycles and
the settlement of the plate and heave was measured. In
field studies the moving vehicle load was simulated by the
passage of a scooter on the road moving at uniform speed
for a maximum of 250 passes and the relative advantages
Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement
of different reinforcing materials placed at the interface of

subgrade and base course in terms of increase in load
carrying capacity and reduction in rut depth are studied.
The effect of form and strength of reinforcing material are
studied by comparing the experimental results.
2. MATERIALS USED
Various materials used in carrying out the model
and field studies are subgrade soil, aggregates and
geosynthetics.
Table 1 : Properties of subgrade soils used

in the experiments
Type of Soil
Colour
Specific gravity
Soil classification
SS1
SS2
Reddish Brown
Reddish Brown
2.71
2.61
CL
SC
Liquid limit, %
36
45
Plastic limit, %
24
20
2.1 Subgrade Soil
2.2 Aggregates
Locally available red soil in the campus of Indian Institute

of Science, Bangalore was used as subgrade soil in
the experiments. The soil used for model studies is
designated as SS1 and that used for field studies are
designated as SS2.
Two varieties of aggregates were used to represent the

base course material in the experiments and they are
designated as A1 type aggregate and A2 type aggregate
and their grain size distribution is shown in Fig.2. A1 type
aggregate represents the aggregate used or model tests
and it conforms to gradation III as specified by Ministry
of Rural Roads India. A1 aggregate had maximum dry
unit weight of 20.5 kN/m3 at an optimum water content of
4.5%. A2 type aggregate represent the aggregate used
for the field studies and had an average size 12 mm.
Subgrade Soil 1
Subgrade soil SS1 is classified as clay of low plasticity
(CL) according to the Unified Soil Classification System
and had a maximum dry unit weight of 18.24 kN/m3 at
an optimum moisture content of 15.5 % determined from
standard Proctor test. The SS1 soil has an unsoaked CBR
value of 19 % corresponding to standard Proctor effort.
Subgrade Soil 2
The in-situ soil was used for the field studies and was
designated as SS2. SS2 soil had a maximum dry unit
weight 17.82 kN/m3 at an optimum moisture content of
13 % determined from standard Proctor test. The soil
was classified as sandy clay (SC) based on the grain
size distribution curve and had a laboratory CBR value
of 22% at optimum moisture content. The in-situ soil had
an undrained cohesion of 40 kPa. The properties of the
subgrade soils used are given in Table 1 and their grain
size distribution is shown in Fig.1.
Fig. 2 : Grain size distribution of the base course material

used in the experiments
2.3 Reinforcing Materials

The various reinforcing materials used in the experiments
are geotextile, and biaxial geogrids.
Geotextile (GT)
Fig. 1 : Grain size distribution of the subgrade soil used

in the experiments
The geotextile used in the experiments is a polypropylene

multifilament woven fabric. Ultimate tensile strength of
the geotextile was determined by the wide-width strip
method as per ASTM D 4595 01. The geotextile has
an ultimate tensile strength of 55.16 kN/m in the warp
direction. The mobilized tensile strength of the geotextile
material corresponding to 2% strain is 3.02 kN/m, and
the corresponding secant modulus is calculated as 151
kN/m.
Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads
Geogrids
Two varieties of biaxial geogrids made of polypropylene
(PP) were used in the present study. They are designated
as strong biaxial geogrid (SG) and weak biaxial geogrid
(WG) based on their ultimate tensile strength. The tensile
properties of the geogrids were obtained from standard
multi-rib tension test (as per ASTM: D 6637-01). Loadelongation response of the geosynthetics used in the
experiments is shown in Fig. 3.
single lift of 200 mm thickness using the drop hammer

described above. A total of 75 blows were given using
the drop hammer for its compaction. The maximum
dry unit weight achieved by the sub-base layer was
160.5 kN/m3.
3.2 Field Tests

The field tests were carried in a section of plan area
1 m 2 m. To simulate the worst condition the in-situ
soil (SS2 soil) at the location was mixed with excess
amount of water and made slushy for a depth of 10 cm
and leveled. The prepared SS2 soil had a bulk unit
weight of 17 kN/m3 at a water content of 30%. The
undrained cohesion and CBR of the prepared subgrade
was 12 kPa and 1% respectively. On the leveled
subgrade, aggregate layer of 10 cm thickness was
prepared at a unit weight of 13 kN/m3 for unreinforced
cases. For reinforced cases, prior to the placement
of aggregate layer, the reinforcing layer was placed
above the subgrade. After the base course was placed
and leveled, a surface course of 5 cm thickness was
constructed. This was done by mixing the in-situ dry
soil with 10% water and compacted using the drop
hammer described above.
4. PLANNING OF EXPERIMENTS
Fig. 3 : Load-elongation response of the geosynthetics
3. PREPARATION OF TEST SECTIONS
3.1 Model Tests

Model tests were carried out in a steel tank of 750 mm
750 mm cross section and 620 mm height. Load
was applied through a circular steel plate of 150 mm
diameter and 10 mm thickness. For the construction
of the model test sections, subgrade soil 1 (SS1) was
used as subgrade material and aggregate 1 (A1) was
used as the granular base course. The height of soil
subgrade was maintained as 400 mm and that of
granular sub-base layer was maintained as 200 mm in
all the tests. Compaction of the infill was done using a
drop hammer of 5 kg mass falling from a height of 450
mm on a square base plate of 150 mm 150 mm in
size. The subgrade soil was compacted in 4 equal lifts
of 100 mm thickness and each lift was given 50 blows
using the drop hammer. The compacted subgrade soil
had a dry unit weight of 12 kN/m3 at a water content of
17.50.5 % (slightly to the wet of OMC).
On top of the soil subgrade, the granular sub-base layer
was placed. The water content of the granular subbase was maintained as 4.5 % and was compacted in a
In both the model studies and field studies to prevent the

mixing of aggregate layers with that of subgrade layer a
layer of geotextile was placed at the interface.
4.1 Model Studies

Four model load tests were carried out in the steel test
tank. Relative performance of planar and cellular forms
of reinforcement is studied in these experiments. To
understand the effect of strength of reinforcing material
on the performance of these systems, geogrids of low
(26.4 kN/m) and high tensile strength (38.1 kN/m) were
used in different tests. To study the effect of form
and quantity of reinforcement on the load-deformation
behaviour of these systems, the weak biaxial geogrid
was used to form a geocell mattress of 90 mm height.
This geocell was made by cutting weak biaxial geogrid
to the required length and height from a full roll and
placing the planar geogrid sheets in transverse and
diagonal directions with plastic strips inserted at
the connections to form a cellular network of grid.
Connections were made in diamond pattern. The plan
view of this pattern and the photograph of the geocell
used in the model tests are shown in Fig. 4. Area of
geogrid used in the formation of geocell mattress was
1.863 m2 whereas the area of geogrid used in test with
planar geogrid of same type was 0.5475 m2. Details of
the model test studies carried out and their designations
are summarized in Table 2.
Fig. 4 : Plan view of the diamond configuration and the photograph of the geocell used in the model tests
Table 2 : Details of the model tests carried out

Sl
No
1
Details of the test

Unreinforced granular
sub-base overlying
weak subgrade
Designation
UR
Table 3 : Details of the field tests carried out
Granular sub-base
overlying weak
subgrade reinforced
with weak geogrid at
the interface
WG
Granular sub-base
overlying weak
subgrade reinforced
with strong geogrid at
the interface
SG
Granular sub-base
reinforced with 90
mm height geocell
layer made of BX
geogrid overlying
weak subgrade
Schematic
sketch
of two different geometries. The area of biaxial geogrid

used to prepare the layer of geocell was 5.85 m2 in
one case and 2 m2 in the other case. Accordingly the
geocell configurations had two different aspect ratios;
namely aspect ratio of 1 and 0.25 respectively as
shown in Fig. 5.
GC-BG
Test
No.
1
None
with weak
subgrade
Biaxial
geogrid
Geocell
made of
biaxial
geogrid (area
5.85 m2)
Geocell
made of
biaxial
geogrid (area
2 m 2)
4.2 Field Studies

To understand the effect of form and aspect ratio of
geocells in reducing rut depth, four field experiments
were carried out and the details are summarized in
Table 3. Strong geogrid was used for forming the
geocells. A layer of geocell was constructed in diamond
pattern at the site to a size of 2 m 1 m using biaxial
geogrid and anchor pins of 6 mm diameter and 10 cm
effective height and placed above the geotextile as
shown in Fig. 5. Tests were done with geocell layers
Type of reinforcement
used
Notation
Description of road
UR
Subgrade +10 cm
aggregate layer + 5
cm surface layer
BG
Subgrade + geotextile
layer + biaxial geogrid
+10 cm aggregate layer
+ 5 cm surface layer
GC 5.85
layer +10 cm geocell
layer filled with
aggregate + 5 cm
surface layer
GC 2
layer +10 cm geocell
layer filled with
aggregate + 5 cm
surface layer
5. TEST PROCEDURE
5.1 Model Studies

In the model studies a manually operated hydraulic
jack of 100 kN capacity was used to push the 150 mm
Fig. 5 : Geocell layer prepared at the site for field studies

(a) aspect ratio: 0.25 (b) aspect ratio 1
diameter loading plate to the bed and the applied load

was measured using a load cell of 10 kN capacity.
The applied load was transferred to the plate through
a steel ball of 10 mm diameter which was placed in a
groove at the centre of the loading plate. A pressure
of 295 kPa was applied repeatedly on the unreinforced
and reinforced model unpaved road sections for a
total of 100 cycles. Model load tests presented in the
paper are repeated load tests on unreinforced and
reinforced unpaved road sections. Repeated load tests
in laboratory are commonly used to simulate the cyclic
loading conditions of field unpaved roads (e.g., Saride
et al. 2014). Many analytical models are available for
simulating geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads,
including geocell reinforced roads, which use data from
repeated load tests into the mechanistic design of these
roads (Pokharel et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2013)
Loading was done in increments and the vertical
displacements of the loading plate were recorded.
While unloading, a seating load of 0.1 kN was ensured
to remain on the loading plate, so as to not to lose its
contact. The surface profile of the granular sub-base
layer was mapped at every 10 th cycle. Schematic
sketch of the test set up is shown in Fig. 6.
5.2 Field Studies

A 4-stroke, 102 cc, single cylinder scooter of
dimensions 1765 715 1130 mm with 1235 mm
wheel base and ground clearance of 145 mm was
used in experiments. The weight of the vehicle was
106 kg and it was driven by a person weighing 55
kg along the centerline of the finished roadbed. The
speed of the vehicle was maintained as 18 to 20
KMPH and the vehicle was passed in one direction
only. The testing arrangement and the schematic
diagram showing the layout of the grid points marked
Fig. 6 : Schematic sketch of the experimental set-up
on the plan of the road section is shown in Fig. 8. The

surface profile was measured at all grid points after
every 20 passes until 200 passes were completed.
Then it was passed continuously for 50 times more
and the final profiles were noted. If the vehicle started
skidding in any point of time, the test was stopped at
that particular stage and the corresponding number
of passes and surface profiles were noted. From
the surface profiles, the rut depth developed was
computed as per the procedure outlined by ASTM:
E 1703/E 1703M 95. Rut depth is defined as the
maximum measured perpendicular distance between
the bottom surface of the straight edge and the
contact area of the gage with the pavement surface
at a specific location. This is shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 : Rut Depth as defined by ASTM:E 1703/E

1703M 95
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Model Test Results
Fig. 8 : Testing arrangement and the layout plan of grid points for
measuring rut depth
Two varieties of geogrids viz., a strong geogrid and

a weak geogrid were used in planar form in the
experiments to understand the effect of reinforcement
strength on the load-deformation behaviour of the
reinforced unpaved road sections. To study the effect of
the form of reinforcement, test with planar geogrid and
test with cellular reinforcement constructed using same
geogrid are compared. Unreinforced section could bear
only a pressure of 253 kPa beyond which the settlement
was enormous. Hence, unreinforced sections were not
loaded further whereas all the reinforced sections could
withstand the applied pressure of 295 kPa. Pressuresettlement response corresponding to the loading stage
of first cycle for unreinforced and geogrid reinforced
sections in planar and cellular forms is shown in Fig.
9. In the first loading cycle itself, under a pressure
of 253 kPa, a settlement of 82 mm was measured
for unreinforced section whereas for the reinforced
sections in the first loading cycle the settlement was
within 35-40 mm.
To quantify the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement,
a dimensionless parameter called as Improvement
Factor (I F ) is used. I F is defined as the ratio of
pressure sustained by a reinforced section to that of
unreinforced section for a particular settlement in the
static loading stage. The variation of improvement
factor with settlement of the loading plate for the
loading stage of first cycle is shown in Fig. 10. From
Fig. 10 it is seen that the section reinforced with planar
weak geogrid exhibited constant improvement factor
at all levels of settlement whereas for strong geogrid
and geocell reinforced sections, the improvement in
bearing pressure is gradual. This difference could be
due to the difference in time taken for the mobilization
Fig. 9 : Pressure-settlement response corresponding to the

first loading stage for unreinforced and reinforced sections
of reinforcement tensile strength in case of stronger

reinforcement.
The elastic and plastic settlements developed in the
unreinforced and reinforced model test sections were
computed from the repeated load test results and
are presented in Fig. 11. The magnitude of elastic
settlement developed in various sections was very less
as seen in Fig. 11a. The geocell mattress made of weak
biaxial geogrid has the highest elastic settlement and
unreinforced section has the least elastic settlement.
The elastic settlement of the unpaved road section
reinforced with strong geogrid is higher than the elastic
settlement measured in road section reinforced with
weak geogrid, indicating that the strength and stiffness
of the reinforcement influence the elastic settlements

of road sections. Though the geocell mattress is made
of weak geogrid, the quantity of reinforcement used
was more for cellular confinement and its assemblage
using plastic strips make it very stiff.
Fig. 10 : Variation of improvement factor with normalised

settlement of the plate, s/B (%)
On comparison of plastic settlements it was observed

that the road section reinforced with geocell mattress
developed slightly more plastic settlements than the
sections reinforced with planar layers of geosynthetics.
The reason for the increase in settlements in geocell
reinforced sections could be the insertion of large
amount of polymeric geogrid in cellular form into the
sub-base layer, replacing the stronger aggregate.
Section reinforced with strong geogrid developed higher
plastic settlements compared to weak geogrid during
initial load cycles, but after 40 cycles its performance
was slightly better than the section reinforced with the
weak geogrid.
Surface profile of the unreinforced and reinforced
sections at the end of 100 cycles of load application
was compared and the results are presented in Fig. 12.
From the figure it is observed that all the reinforced and
unreinforced systems exhibited a punching failure and
the heave/settlement got stabilised at a distance of 300
mm from the centre of the plate. The settlement and
heave measured for unreinforced section were more
compared to any of the reinforced test sections. One
very important observation made from these tests is that
geocell reinforced test section showed comparatively
less differential settlements and the geocell layer was
effective in arresting the heave adjacent to the loading
plate completely. This indicates that the granular subbase confined within the geocell pockets acts as a stiff
cushion to the load and helps in distributing the applied
load to a larger area.
Fig. 11 : Variation of elastic and plastic settlement with

number of load cycles for unreinforced and
geogrid reinforced systems
Fig. 12 : Surface profiles at the end of 100 load cycles for

reinforced and unreinforced systems
10
6.2 Results from Field Model Tests

The effect of form and quantity of reinforcement was
studied in the field tests. The field test results were
compared for the three sections shown in Fig. 8. The
test results at Section 1 and Section 3 showed slightly
similar responses. The cross section profile and the
rut depth measured at those two sections were almost
more in majority of the cases when compared to Section
2. Since the vehicle was passed only at the central 10
cm width of road more deformations were also observed
at the central portion of the road. In unreinforced
section within 17 passes of the vehicle, a maximum
depression of 95, 57 and 132 mm were observed when
compared to the initial ground surface in Sections 1,
2 and 3 respectively. Afterwards, the vehicle started
skidding because of softer slushy subgrade. Hence the
test was stopped at 17 vehicle passes. The surface
profile of the unreinforced section for the three sections
at the end of 17 passes is shown in Fig. 13.
immediate and thereafter there was no progressive

change in the cross section profile with the number
of passes. The maximum heave and subsidence
were observed within 100 passes and afterwards
remained constant from 100 passes to 200 passes.
This behaviour is because the geocell layer acts as
stiff reinforcing mat for the road and supports the load.
Even the heave and subsidence observed in geocell
reinforced sections was relatively small compared
to planar sections because geocell layer allows
uniform distribution of loads and reduces differential
settlements. For geocell layout having an aspect ratio
of 0.25, the maximum subsidence observed at the
end of 250 passes was 100, 68 and 82 mm whereas
for an aspect ratio of 1, the maximum depression
observed after 250 passes was 73, 47 and 76 mm for
Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Among the two geocell
configurations, the one having an aspect ratio of 0.25
had a higher subsidence, because the area of biaxial
geogrid used for preparing this geocell is very less
compared to the other geocell configuration, making
it less stiffer. The cross section profile of geocell layer
with an aspect ratio of 0.25 is shown in Fig. 14.
Fig. 13 : Cross section profile at various sections for

unreinforced road
In all the reinforced tests, the use of geotextile was

effective in preventing the intermixing subgrade and
base course layers. All the reinforced sections could
withstand the full 250 passes with variations in surface
profiles. For planar geogrid reinforced section, the
maximum depression observed after 250 passes were
92, 56 and 90 mm for Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
In the case of geocell reinforced section base courses,
the settlements developed after the vehicle pass was
Fig. 14 : Cross section profile at various sections for geocell

(GC2) reinforced road
From the surface profile the rut depth was computed

as described in Fig.7 for the three sections and is
shown Fig. 15. From the figure it is clear that all
the reinforced sections sustained higher number of
wheel passes compared to unreinforced section. The
planar geogrid when used along with the geotextile
could effectively prevent intermixing of aggregate
11
and subgrade layers and provide a better interlocking

effect for the base course aggregates. Test sections
reinforced with planar geogrid layer and geocell layer
with an aspect ratio 0.25 developed almost similar
rut depth. This infers that for the same amount of
reinforcement i.e., 2m2, the geocell configuration was
not effective in reducing the rut depth. The reason
for this is the low aspect ratio (0.25) for geocells in
the layer. When the pocket size was more, the cells
are not effective in holding the aggregate. The biaxial
geogrid layer, being continuous throughout the road
section, provided better support and hence effective
friction development at the interface. Geocell layer
with an aspect ratio of 1 was effective in reducing
rut depth effectively because the geocell layout
used 5.85 m 2 of biaxial geogrid. The pocket size of
the geocell was small and hence imparted a greater
confining effect which eventually reduced rut depth
as seen in Fig. 15.
Perkins (1999) defined Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR) as
the number of cycles to reach a particular permanent
surface deformation, for a reinforced test section,
divided by the number of cycles to reach this same
deformation in an unreinforced test section with the
same layer thicknesses. The TBR values are calculated
for different reinforced test sections for different rut
depths and are plotted in Fig. 16. From the figure it is
seen that geocell layer with an aspect ratio of 1 was
effective in reducing the rut depth compared to other
reinforced sections.
6.3. Summary of Results from Laboratory and Field

Model Tests
Both the laboratory and field model studies compare
the effect of form of reinforcement on the behaviour of
unpaved test sections. From the results it is observed
that the effect of strength in planar form is evident
only at higher levels of penetration. This is because
of the initial strain which is required for mobilizing the
tensile strength of reinforcement. Geocell layer always
increases the load carrying capacity of the unpaved
road sections. The honeycombed structure of geocell
gives a mattressing effect and increases the load
carrying capacity of the test sections. The effectiveness
of geocell layer depends upon the pocket size of the
geocell and the strength of the material used for making
the same. In the model studies, weak geogrid was used
for making the geocell and also there was an overlay
of 110 mm above the geocell layer. The insertion of
geocell layer at the interface itself restricts the denser
packing of granular base course. In field studies the
geocell layer was made using stronger geogrid and
hence it was more effective in distributing the load but
the effectiveness was dependent on the pocket size.
Fig. 15 : Rut depth developed in the field studies in different

test sections
12
7. CONCLUSIONS
From the laboratory and field model studies carried out on
unreinforced and geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road
sections, the following conclusions are made:

Geosynthetics are effective in increasing the load

carrying capacity and reducing rut depth.
The honeycombed structure of geocell imparts a

mattressing effect when used in pavements which
results in the reduction of rutting and surface
heave.
The effectiveness of geocell layout depends upon the

pocket size and the strength of the material used for
its construction.
REFERENCES
ASTM Standard E1703/E 1703M: Standard Test
Method for Measuring Rut-Depth of Pavement Surfaces
Using a Straightedge, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
Basu, G., Roy, A.N., Bhattacharyya, S.K. and Ghosh,
S. K. (2009): Construction of Unpaved Rural Road
Using JuteSynthetic Blended Woven GeotextileA
Case Study:Geotextiles and Geomembranes,Vol 27,
No. 6, pp 506-512.
Bathurst, R.J. and Jarrett, P.M. (1988): Large-Scale
Model Tests of geocomposite Mattresses Over Peat
Subgrades. National Research Council, Transportation
Research, Vol 1188, pp 28- 36
Beckham, W.K. and Mills, W.H. (1935): Cotton-FabricReinforced Roads: Engineering News Record, Vol 114,
No.14, pp 453-455.
Bergado, D.T., Youwai, S., Hai, C.N. and Voottipruex,
P. (2001): Interaction of Nonwoven Needle-Punched
Geotextiles under Axisymmetric Loading Conditions:
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol 19, No. 5,pp
299-328.
Fannin, R.J. and Sigurdsson, O. (1996): Field
Observations on Stabilization of Unpaved Roads with
Geosynthetics.Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol
122, No. 7, pp 544-553.
Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004): Design Method for
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Roads. I. Development
of Design Method: Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 130, No.8, pp
775-786.
Fig. 16 : Traffic Benefit Ratios of different reinforcing

materials for various field sections
Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004): Design Method for

Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Roads. II. Calibration
and Applications: Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 130, No.8, pp
787-797.
Giroud, J.P. and Noiray, L. (1981): GeotextileReinforced Unpaved Road Design: Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol 107, No.9, pp
1233-1254.
Gregory, G.H. and Bang, S. (1994): Design of Flexible
Pavement Subgrades with Geosynthetics. Proc., 30th
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Geotechnical
Engineering., 569-582.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor,
P., Springman, S. M. and Brnnimann, R. (2006):
Full-Scale Field Tests on Geosynthetic Reinforced
Unpaved Roads on Soft Subgrade: Geotextiles and
Geomembranes,Vol 24, No. 1, pp 21-37.
Krishnaswamy, N.R. and Sudhakar, S. (2005):
Analytical and Experimental Studies on Geosynthetic
Reinforced Road Subgrades:Journal of Indian Road
Congress, Vol 66, No. 1, pp 151-200.
Perkins, S.W. (1999): Mechanical response of
geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements:
Geosynthetics International, Vol 6, No. 5, pp 347382.
13
Pokharel, S.K, Han, J., Manandhar, C., Yang, X.,

Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I. and Parsons, R.L. (2011).
Accelerated pavement testing of geocell-reinforced
unpaved roads over weak subgrade. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2204, pp.6775.
Pokharel, S.K. (2010). Experimental Study on GeocellReinforced Bases Under Static and Dynamic Loading,
Ph.D Thesis Submitted to University of Kansas, pp
349.
Saride, S.,Vedpathak, S., andRayabharapu, V.(2014).
Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Jute-Geocell-Reinforced
Sand Subgrade. Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014,
Atlanta, Georgia. pp. 2911-2920
Thakur, J.K., Han, J. and Parsons, R. L. (2012): Creep
Behavior of Geocell-Reinforced Recycled Asphalt
Pavement (RAP) Bases: M.S. Thesis Submitted to
University of Kansas, pp 210.
Yang, X., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D. and Parsons, R.L.
(2013). A three-dimensional mechanistic-empirical
model for geocell-reinforced unpaved roads. Acta
Geotechnica. Vol. 8, pp. 201213
Kinematics and Bearing Capacity of Strip

footings on Reinforced Foundation Beds over
Soft Non-homogeneous ground

S. Sushmita
K. Ramu
Post Graduate Student
Professor
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada, India
K. Rajyalakshmi
Lecturer, Department of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, India
Prof. M.R. Madhav

Professor, Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University & Visiting Professor, IIT, Hyderabad, India
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a method to estimate the bearing capacity of a strip footing on the surface of a
reinforced foundation bed over soft non-homogeneous clay. The model considered for study consists
of a two layered system of granular fill over soft non-homogeneous deposit whose undrained strength
increases linearly with depth, with a single horizontal layer of geosynthetic reinforcement placed in the
granular fill. The method considers kinematics, i.e., the effect of transverse resistance in addition to that
of axial resistance of the reinforcement, shear resistance of the granular fill and the non-homogeneous
strength profile of soft ground to arrive at the ultimate bearing capacity of the reinforced two layer foundation
system. A parametric study quantifies the contributions of various parameters to the bearing capacity.
INTRODUCTION
Average Vene Shear strenght (kPa)
Depth (m)
Global Urbanisation which is on the rise, necessitates the

need for utilization and development of under- exploited
sites deemed unfit for constructional use in the earlier
decades. Hence, it is imperative to develop better ground
improvement techniques and near-exact/optimal solutions
to estimate the bearing capacity of the soil. Most bearing
capacity solutions available in literature including those
given by Terzaghi[1], Skempton[2] and Vesic[3] consider the
soil to be homogeneous. But, in actual practice, it can
be observed that recent marine deposits often exhibit
undrained strength increasing with depth. Figs. 1, 2
and 3 present some field data (Bujang[4], Chai et al.[5,6])
that demonstrate the undrained strength versus depth
profiles of soft clayey sub-soils reflecting increase in shear
strength with depth.
The actual variations are approximated as linear increase
in young deposits (Fig. 4a). If the deposit gets aged or
gets weathered, the deposit may develop larger strength
over the full depth (Fig. 4b) or have relatively high but
nearly constant undrained strength over the thickness of
the crust while retaining the original linearly increasing
undrained strength at further depths (Fig. 4c). In spite
of these possible strength variations, most solutions
Average Vene Shear strenght (kPa)
Fig. 1 : Undrained strength vs depth (after Bujang[1])
14
Kinematics and Bearing Capacity of Strip footings on Reinforced Foundation Beds
15
Soil Profile, Index Properties and Vane Shear Strength

Fig. 2 : Undrained strength vs depth (after Chai et al.,[2])
The index mechanical properties of the subsoil wn natural water content (%); Ip, plasticity index; LI, liquidity index; t unit weight;
e0, void ratio; Cc, compression index; Su, field vane shear strength; Kh and Kv, horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities
from laboratory testing, respectively; St, sensitivity
Fig. 3 : Undrained strength vs depth (after Chai, et al.,[3])
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4 : Idealised undrained strength versus depth profiles: (a) Freshly deposited and consolidated clay, (b) Aged normally
consolidated deposit and (c) Normally consolidated deposit with crust (after Davis and Booker,4,5)
16
for bearing capacity of footings on clay consider only

homogeneous deposits neglecting stress induced nonhomogeneity. Consideration of non-homogeneity is closer
to reality and provides more rational estimates of bearing
capacity of foundations laid on top.
Davis et al.[7,8] using the method of characteristics obtained
solutions for the bearing capacity of strip footings on nonhomogeneous deposits (Fig. 4) that can be significantly
different from those on homogeneous deposit. The
ultimate bearing capacity, qbL, of a strip footing on the
surface of a deposit with strength increasing linearly with
depth is
...(1)
where, suo = undrained strength of clay at the base of
foundation; = dsu/dz is the rate of increase of undrained
strength, su of clay with depth; B = width of the footing;
F = f (B/suo) - a correction factor which can be obtained
from Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 : Correction factor 'F' (after Davis and Booker, 1973)
Salencon and Matar[9] estimated the bearing capacity of a

strip footing resting on a soil layer of limited or unlimited
thickness, the cohesion of which increases linearly with
depth, through the theory of yield-design. In a study made
by Tani & Craig[10], plasticity theory was used to evaluate
the influence of linearly increasing undrained shear
strength with depth on the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations, under both plane strain and axi-symmetric
conditions.
Terzaghi & Peck[11] were the earliest to calculate the
bearing capacity of a strong layer overlying a weak layer.
Meyerhof[12] proposed a punching mode of failure for a
footing on a granular bed of thickness, H, and angle of
shearing resistance, , overlying a soft homogeneous clay
layer. Sharma et al.[13] developed solutions for estimating
the ultimate bearing capacity of geogrid reinforced soil
foundations (RSF) for both sand and silty clay soils.
The ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing on a
reinforced soil foundation with horizontal reinforcement

(for two or more layers of reinforcement) was obtained
by incorporating the additional effect of reinforcement by
the method of superposition.
Reclamation, the first step in improving the response of
soft ground, involves laying of a dense granular layer over
it. A compacted granular bed laid over soft soil improves
the bearing capacity and settlement response of footings
placed over the latter. The bearing capacity can be further
improved by providing a geosynthetic layer within the
granular layer but near the interface of the soft clay and
the fill. The geosynthetic layers (geotextiles, geogrids and
geocells) used to reinforce earth fills, ground and slopes
resist the destabilising forces by mobilising tensile forces
in the reinforcement.
Rethaliya and Verma[14] developed a bearing capacity
equation for a strip footing resting on geotextilereinforced
sand layer overlying a soft clay subgrade considering
the contributions to bearing capacity from (a) stress
distribution through the upper sand layer, (b) shear layer
effect (Shivshankar et al.,[15]) and (c) membrane action of
the reinforcement. Due to punching shear failure of the
footing, the sand column and reinforcement get deformed.
The axial pull resulting from this movement is considered
and accounted for by several researchers (Rethaliya and
Verma[14], Shivashankar et al.[15], etc.) while the concept
of additional stresses generated due to the transverse
pull in the reinforcement has been explicitly detailed by
(Madhav and Umashankar,[16],[17]).
Rajyalakshmi et al.[18] presented a method to estimate
the bearing capacity of a strip footing on the surface
of a reinforced foundation bed over soft homogeneous
clay, considering the effect of kinematics (Madhav and
Umashankars theory[16,17]), i.e., the effect of the transverse
resistance, in addition to the effect of axial resistance of
the reinforcement together with shear resistance of the
granular fill. The improvement in Bearing Capacity Ratio
(BCR) with the consideration of transverse resistance of
the reinforcement is reported to be significant over and
above the effect of axial resistance of the reinforcement.
This paper presents a method to estimate the bearing
capacity of a strip footing on the surface of a reinforced
foundation bed over soft non-homogeneous clay. The
proposed model considers the effect of kinematics, i.e.,
the effect of the transverse resistance, in addition to the
effect of axial resistance of the reinforcement together with
shear resistance of the granular fill. The bond resistances
of the reinforcement due to axial pullout and that due to
transverse pull are detailed in this paper. A comparative
statement of available bearing capacity theories by
various researchers and the factors considered by them
in relation to the current work is presented in Table 1 for
an improved understanding of the concept.
17
Table 1 : Comparison of factors considered in various available bearing capacity theories with the current work
Author/Reference
Soft clay
(Homogeneous)
Soft clay
(nonhomogeneous)
Granular
bed over
soft clay
Reinforced
granular bed
over soft clay
axial pull only
Reinforced granular
bed over soft clay
axial and transverse
pull
Terzaghi[1]
Skempton[2]
Vesic[3]
Davis and Booker[7,8]
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Salencon & Matar[9]
No
Yes
No
No
No
Tani & Craig

Tezaghi & Peck[11]
Meyerhof[12]
Rethaliya &Verma[14]
Shivshankar et al. [15]
Rajyalakshmi et al.[18]
[10]
Sushmita et al.
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Present Work
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND FORMULATION

A strip footing of width, B, rests on the surface of a
sand stratum of thickness, H, overlying clay deposit with
geosynthetic reinforcement laid at the clay-sand interface
but within the granular fill itself. The unit weight and the
angle of shearing resistance of granular layer are and
respectively while su is the undrained shear strength
of soft ground and r is the interface/bond resistance
between geosynthetic layer and the granular fill.
The possible failure modes, punching shear through a

relatively thin granular bed and general shear within a
thick granular bed alone, are shown in Fig. 7 (Meyerhof
[12]
).
Fig. 6 shows the deformations of the sand column and

the reinforcement due to punching shear failure of the
footing. The reinforcement originally laid out horizontally
represented by line ABCD, gets deformed into the new
position defined by ABB'C'CD.
(a) Thin Layer
(b) Thick Layer
Fig. 7 : Bearing Capacity for Sand Overlying Clay

(Meyerhof[12])
The bearing capacity, qu, of a footing at depth, D, for

punching mode of failure is
...(2)
Fig. 6 : Definition Sketch with punching shear

failure of footing
where c is the cohesion of the soft homogeneous ground

and Ks is punching shear coefficient. qu is limited to the
ultimate bearing capacity of the footing on the granular
layer as
18
...(3)
where, Nq and N are the bearing capacity factors for
granular deposit.
BOND RESISTANCE OF THE REINFORCEMENT
Axial Pull
Fig. 8 shows the stresses developed on the sand
column and in the reinforcement due to punching
shear failure of the footing. The reinforcement
is assumed to be placed in the granular fill and
therefore, the axial tensile force gets developed in
the reinforcement layer of effective length (L r - B)
beyond the footing of width B, due to interface shear
resistance.
(a)
Fig. 9 : Additional stresses developed due to transverse force

in the reinforcement
Madhav & Umashankar[16] presented a unique approach

for the analysis of sheet reinforcement subjected
to transverse force or displacement. A transverse
displacement, (= wL), of the reinforcement layer at
the edge of the footing is considered to estimate the
additional resistance mobilized. Resisting force, P, gets
mobilized as a result of the transverse displacement,
, of the reinforcement (Fig. 10). The pullout force in
the reinforcement increases due to the transverse
displacement.
(b)
Fig. 8 : Stresses on (a) Sand Column & (b) Reinforcement
The axial tensile force developed in the reinforcement

layer due to the frictional stresses developed on either
side of the reinforcement layer at the interface with the
soil, Tr is
...(4)
TRANSVERSE PULL
The kinematics of failure of a two-layered soil usually
adopted for the estimation of bearing capacity of
footing considers punching type of failure. The
column of granular material along with the strip
footing moves down mobilizing shear resistance
along its sides. The effect of downward movement
causes the geosynthetic reinforcement to be pushed
down. The downward push causes the reinforcement
to be pulled back transversally. Any transverse
movement causes additional stresses to be
mobilized underneath the reinforcement (Madhav &
Umashankar,[16,17]). The additional stresses mobilized
due to the transverse movement of the reinforcement
are represented in Figure 9.
(b)
(d)
Fig. 10 : (a) Reinforcement subjected to transverse force,

(b) normal stress-displacement response of soil,
(c) deformed profile and (d) forces on element
(after Madhav and Umashankar,[16])
The set of equations given by Madhav and Umashankar

i.e., (Eqs. 5 to 9) estimate the resisting forces developed
due to transverse displacement of the reinforcement
layer.
The tension mobilized in the reinforcement gets modified
due to the additional normal force, P, as

Ta = 2Htanr + Ptanr
...(5)
where P is the transverse force in the reinforcement

developed due to transverse component of displacement,
. The upward resisting force, , is

P = HLeP*
where P* is the normalized transverse force in the

reinforcement obtained from Madhav and Umashankar[16]
for single inextensible sheet reinforcement of length,
L, embedded at a depth, H, in the backfill of unit
weight, .
The interface shear resistance between the reinforcement
and the backfill is characterized by the angle, r (< , the
angle of shearing resistance of the soil).
In a backfill with global relative stiffness, (= ksL/H),
the inextensible sheet reinforcement is subjected to
transverse force, P, due to transverse displacement,
wL, in addition to the normal stresses acting on the top
due to overburden pressure. The backfill below the
reinforcement generates additional normal stresses due
to downward displacement, wL. The normalized tension,
T*k, and normalized displacement, Wk, are evaluated by
Madhav and Umashankar,[16], as
...(7)
...(8)
where ks - modulus of subgrade reaction of backfill; n
- the number of elements the reinforcement is divided
into for numerical analysis; W (= w/wL) - the transverse
displacement of reinforcement at any point normalized
with wL (the transverse displacement of reinforcement at
free end); = relative global subgrade stiffness factor; T*
(= Td /2DeLtanr) - the normalised tension developed in
the reinforcement and Td - the ultimate tension developed
The normalized transverse force, P*, can be computed
(Madhav and Umashankar,16), as
...(9)
Rajyalakshmi et al.
estimating
[18]
(b) the bearing axial capacity of a strip footing on

the reinforced granular bed of finite thickness, H,
overlying soft homogeneous soil as
...(6)
Le = (Lr-B) is the effective length of the reinforcement
proposed a set of formulations for
(a) the bearing capacity, Nc,g, of a strip footing on the

surface of the granular bed of finite thickness, H,
overlying soft homogeneous soil as
...(10)
19
...(11)
where L e = (L r -B) is the effective length of the
reinforcement.
(c) the bearing capacity of a strip footing on the reinforced
granular bed overlying soft soil considering the
shear resistance of the granular bed, the mobilized
tensile force in the reinforcement layer and the
additional transverse force developed because of the
transverse displacement as explained by Madhav and
Umashankar[16] as
...(12)
Method of Analysis
The theory proposed by Rajyalakshmi et al.[18] is modified
for estimating the bearing capacity of strip footing on the
surface of the reinforced granular bed of finite thickness,
H, overlying soft non-homogeneous soil by incorporating
Davis and Bookers[7,8] equation (Eq. 1) in Eqs. 10, 11
& 12.
The transverse force generated contributes to additional
bond resistance in the reinforcement over and above
the one due to axial pull. Thus the bearing capacity of
the foundation on reinforced granular fill over soft nonhomogeneous ground is the sum of the bearing capacity
due to undrained strength of soft non-homogeneous
ground, the shear resistance mobilized in the dense
granular fill, the axial resistance in the reinforcement
and the additional resistances mobilized therein due
to kinematics (transverse force and additional bond
resistance in the reinforcement).
Bearing Capacity of Granular bed on Soft
Non-Homogeneous Ground
Eq. 1 is re-written as
...(13)
Normalising Eq. 13 by su0, one gets
...(Eq. 13a)
The bearing capacity, qug, of a footing at the surface of
the granular bed of finite thickness, H, overlying soft nonhomogeneous ground is obtained by substituting Eq. 13
(same as Eq. 1) in Eq. 10 as
...(14)
20
where, su is the undrained shear strength of the soft nonhomogeneous ground.

Eq. 14 is normalised with undrained shear strength, su0
to get the equivalent bearing capacity factor, Ncg, for a
two-layered soil as
...(15)
Ncg combines the contributions of the two layers, the soft
clay and the overlying granular fill to the bearing capacity
of the footing.
Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Granular
Bed on Soft Non-Homogeneous Ground
The bearing axial capacity of the reinforced granular
bed of soft non-homogeneous ground can be obtained
by summing the bearing capacity of an unreinforced
granular bed overlying soft non-homogeneous ground
and the contribution of the tensile force mobilized in the
reinforcement layer considering that only the lengths of
reinforcement beyond the edge of the footing contribute
by substituting Eq. 13 in Eq. 11, as
...(16)
Normalising Eq. 16 by the undrained shear strength at
the surface, su0 one gets
where Ncr* = qur*/su0.
...(17)
Consideration of Transverse Displacement

The bearing capacity of the reinforced granular bed
overlying soft non-homogeneous ground is obtained by
adding the strength of the soft non-homogeneous ground,
shear resistance of the granular bed, the mobilized
tensile force in the reinforcement layer and the additional
transverse force developed because of the transverse
displacement. It is obtained by substituting Eq. 13 in Eq.
12 as
...(18)
Normalising Eq. 18 by undrained shear strength of soft
non-homogeneous ground at the surface, su0 one gets
...(19)
where Ncr** = qur**/su

The bearing capacity ratios, BCR, are defined as
(BCR)ug = Ncg/Nc is the ratio of bearing capacity of a
strip footing on an unreinforced two layered system to
that of footing on clay alone. This ratio quantifies the
contribution of the granular layer to the bearing capacity
of the footing.
(BCR)ax = Ncr*/Nc is the ratio of bearing capacity of a strip
footing on the reinforced two layered system (considering
the effect of axial tension only) to that of footing on clay
alone. This ratio quantifies the contributions of the granular
layer and the axial tension mobilized in the reinforcement
to the overall bearing capacity of the footing.
(BCR)tr = Ncr**/Nc is the ratio of bearing capacity of a strip
kinematics, i.e., the effect of transverse force in addition
to axial tension) to that of footing on clay alone. (BCR)tr
quantifies, in addition, the contribution of the transverse
force mobilized as a consequence of kinematics, i.e.,
transverse displacement of the footing and the soil below,
over and above the contributions of granular layer and the
axial force mobilized in the reinforcement to the bearing
capacity of the footing.
(BCR)ax* = Ncr*/Nc,g is the ratio of bearing capacity of a strip
the effect of axial tension only in the reinforcement) to
that of a strip footing on an unreinforced two-layered
system.
(BCR)tr* = Ncr**/Nc,g is the ratio of bearing capacity a strip
footing on the reinforced two-layered system (considering
kinematics, i.e., the effect of transverse force mobilized in
addition to axial tension) to that of a strip footing on an
unreinforced two-layered system.
(BCR)ax* and (BCR)tr* quantify the improvement of bearing
capacities of a strip footing on the two-layered system due
to axial force alone and the axial and transverse forces
The bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on
reinforced granular bed overlying a non-homogeneous
clay layer, depends on the angle of shearing resistance,
, and H/B related to the granular layer, B/su, to the
ratio of the unit weight of granular fill times the width of
the footing to the undrained strength of the clay layer,
the ratio r/, related to the bond strength relative to the
angle of shearing resistance of the granular layer, Lr/B,
the relative length of the reinforcement for axial tension
and transverse force mobilized in the reinforcement and
W0, the normalized transverse displacement.
This paper highlights the contribution of transverse force
in the reinforcement for a typical normalized transverse
displacement of 0.003. For a footing of 1.0 m width
with a reinforcement layer of length, 3.0 m, the actual

displacement works out to be about 3 mm which is
adequate for the mobilization of transverse shear stresses
in the granular layer.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Effect of B/su0
Fig. 11 presents the variation of bearing capacity factor,
Ncg, of an unreinforced two layer system, with normalised
granular layer thickness, H/B, for a granular fill with of
350 and B/su0 of 5, for B/su0 increasing from 0 to 20. B/
su0 represents the degree of non-homogeneity of the soft
ground underlying the granular fill. A value of B/su0 = 0
indicates homogeneous soft ground. Nc,g increases with
H/B (Fig. 11), for all values of B/su, up to a critical value
of H/B denoted by (H/B)cr. Ncg values increase from 5.14
at H/B equal to 0.0 to a maximum value governed by the
bearing capacity of the footing on the granular layer. For
(H/B) (H/B)cr, failure occurs in the granular fill alone
and hence the bearing capacity is constant and equal to
the bearing capacity of the granular fill alone. Ncg values
increase from 5.14 at H/B equal to 0 (represents a case
where the footing is resting on clay alone) to a maximum
value of 93.0 at relative granular layer thickness equal to
3.7, for B/su0 equal to 0. The corresponding value of Ncg
at H/B equal to 0 is 18.25 and the maximum value of is
93.0 at a relative granular layer thickness equal to 2.7,
for B/su0 equal to 20.The increases in the values of Ncg
for all H/B are due to the increase in strength of the clay
layer with B/su0.
21
for values of B/su0 increasing from 0 to 20 is depicted in

Fig. 12. Similar trend as obtained in Fig. 11 is observed.
While the maximum values attained remain the same as
in Fig. 10, the critical granular layer thicknesses at the
corresponding maximum values of Ncr* equal 3.4 and 2.5,
for B/su0 equal to 0 and 20 respectively.
Fig. 12 : Ncr* vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
Fig. 13 presents the variation of Ncr**,, of a reinforced

two layered system (considering transverse and axial
resistance of reinforcement to pull-out), with normalised
350, B/su0 of 5, r/ of 0.75 and Lr/B of 3.0, for values of
B/su0 increasing from 0 to 20. The maximum attainable
value of bearing capacity is achieved at relatively lesser
granular layer thicknesses when compared to the values
obtained by considering axial resistance of reinforcement
alone to pull-out. The critical granular layer thicknesses at
the corresponding maximum values equal 3.0 and 2.3, for
B/su0 equal to 0 and 20 respectively. The consideration
of transverse resistance of reinforcement in addition to
the axial resistance results in reduced requirement of
granular fill thickness for the same maximum value of
bearing capacity.
Fig. 11 : Ncg vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
The variation of bearing capacity factor, N cr*, , of a

reinforced two layered system (considering axial
resistance alone of reinforcement to pull-out), with
normalised granular layer thickness, H/B, for a granular
fill with of 350, B/su0 of 5, r/ of 0.75 and Lr/B of 3.0,
Fig. 13 : Ncr** vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0

22
Fig. 14 depicts the variation of bearing capacity ratio,

(BCR) ug, of an unreinforced two layer system, with
normalised granular layer thickness, H/B, for a granular
fill with of 350 and B/su0 of 5, for values of B/su0
increasing from 0 to 20. (BCR)ug values increase from 1.0
at H/B equal to 0 to a maximum value of 18.1 at relative
granular layer thickness equal to 3.7, for B/su0 equal to 0.
The corresponding maximum values of (BCR)ug and the
critical granular layer thicknesses are 12.6 & 3.6, 10.0 &
3.3, 8.2 & 3.2, 6.0 & 3.0 and 5.1 & 2.8, for B/su0 equal to
4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 respectively.
Fig. 14 : (BCR)ug vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
The variation of bearing capacity ratio, (BCR)ax,, the ratio

of bearing capacity of a strip footing on the reinforced two
layered system (considering the effect of axial tension
only) to that of footing on clay alone, with normalised
350,B/su0 of 5, r/ of 0.75 and Lr/B of 3.0, for values of
B/su0 increasing from 0 to 20 is presented in Fig. 15.
(BCR)ax values increase from 1.0 at H/B equal to 0 to a

maximum value of 18.1 at relative granular layer thickness
equal to 3.4, for B/su0 equal to 0. The corresponding
maximum values of (BCR)ax and the critical granular layer
thicknesses are 12.6 & 3.2, 10.0 & 3.1, 8.2 & 2.9, 6.0 &
2.7 and 5.1 & 2.5, for B/su0 equal to 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20
respectively.
Fig. 16 presents the variation of bearing capacity ratio,
(BCR)tr,, the ratio of bearing capacity of a strip footing on
the reinforced two layered system (considering kinematics,
i.e., the effect of transverse force in addition to axial
tension) to that of footing on clay alone, with normalised
granular layer thickness, H/B, for a granular fill with
of 350, B/su0 of 5, r/ of 0.75 and Lr/B of 3.0, for values
of B/su0 increasing from 0 to 20. The corresponding
maximum values of (BCR)tr and the critical granular layer
thicknesses are 18.0 & 3.0, 12.6 & 2.8, 10.0 & 2.7, 8.2
& 2.6, 6.0 & 2.4 and 5.1 & 2.3, for B/su0 equal to 0, 4, 8,
12, 16 and 20 respectively. Figs. 14, 15 and 16 depict
that the improvements in BCR decrease with B/su0, as
the denominator, the bearing strength of the footing on
the non-homogeneous clay layer increases with B/su0.
Reinforced granular beds over soft non-homogeneous
ground require lesser granular layer thicknesses when
compared to the unreinforced ones to achieve the same
maximum value of BCR. Consideration of transverse
resistance of reinforcement to pull-out in addition to
the axial resistance further reduces the requirement of
granular layer thickness.
Fig. 16 : (BCR)tr vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
Fig. 15 : (BCR)ax vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
T h e B C R r e s p o n s e i n t e r m s o f ( B C R ) ax* a n d
(BCR)tr* i.e., the bearing capacities normalised with
bearing capacity of foundation on granular bed over
soft ground, with H/B, for of 350, r/ of 0.75, and Lr/B
of 3.0, for B/su0 = 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 are presented
in Fig. 17 and 18 respectively. (BCR)ax* and (BCR)tr*
increase with H/B, for increasing values of B/su0, till
23
a critical value of (H/B)cr. (BCR)ax* and (BCR)tr* values

reduce to unity with increase in H/B, beyond the critical
value of (H/B)cr. An increase in granular layer thickness
beyond the relative (H/B)cr, results in development of
thicker failure zone above the reinforcement layer, as
a result of which the contributions of the tension axial
and transverse) in reinforcement to the ultimate bearing
capacity of the footing gradually becomes relatively less
leading to decrease in BCR values.
(BCR)ax* values (Fig. 17) increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0 to
a maximum of 1.43 at (H/B)cr equal to 0.9, for B/su0 value
equal to 0. At H/B values equal to 3.3, a sharp decrease in
BCR response is reflected and the effect of reinforcement
further declines to zero, at H/B values equal to 3.7, for
B/su0 value equal to 0 as the reinforced granular system
functions as an unreinforced one. Correspondingly,
(BCR) ax* values increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0 to a
maximum of 1.18 at (H/B)cr equal to 1.6, for B/su0 value
equal to 20. The decrease in maximum value of (BCR)ax*
and increase in the requirement of critical granular layer
thickness with B/su0 are significant.
Fig. 17 : (BCR)ax* vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
(BCR)tr* values (Fig. 18) increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0

to a maximum of 1.96 at (H/B)cr equal to 0.9 for B/su0
value equal to 0. At H/B values equal to 2.95, a sharp
decrease in BCR response is reflected. The effect of
reinforcement declines to zero at H/B values equal
to 3.7 for B/su0 value equal to 0 as the reinforced
granular system functions as an unreinforced one.
Correspondingly (BCR)tr* values increase from 1.0 at
H/B = 0 to a maximum of 1.40 at (H/B)cr equal to 1.6,
for B/su0 value equal to 20. The effect of reinforcment
decreases with further increase in H/B value. Enhanced
BCR results may be obtained by considering the
transverse resistance in addition to the axial resistance
of the reinforcement, in reinforced granular beds over
soft non-homogeneous ground.
Fig. 18 : (BCR)tr* vs. H/B- Effect of B/su0
WORKED OUT EXAMPLE

A strip footing 5.0 m wide rests on a granular fill of 1.0 m
thick with an angle of shearing resistance, of 35 degrees
and unit weight of 19 kN/m3 laid over a non-homogeneous
soft ground whose strength increases linearly with depth
(as shown in Fig. 2). The top crust is removed and the
RFB is laid on the natural soil at a depth of 2 m. A single
layer of geosynthetic reinforcement with r of 27 degrees
is provided in the granular fill, just above the soft claygranular fill interface. On loading, the footing is displaced
by 3% the width of the footing. Calculate the Ultimate
bearing capacity of the strip footing, by considering the
(a) non-homogeneity of soft clay alone
(b) non-homogeneity of soft clay and that of the granular
fill
(c) non-homogeneity of soft clay, granular fill and that of
axial tension in reinforcement
(d) non-homogeneity of soft clay, granular fill and that
of transverse tension in addition to axial tension in
reinforcement
The values obtained by considering the non-homogeneity
of soft clay with those based on homogeneity of soft clay
are compared below:
The rate of increase in Undrained shear strength with
depth, = 10/8.5 = 1.17 =1.2
Width of footing, B = 5.0 m
Undrained shear strength at the top of the layer,

su0 = 10kPa

F = The correction factor for
is 1.2 (from Fig. 5)
for a rough footing
24

H/B = 0.2
Ks = 1.67 (Meyerhofs Punching shear coefficient for q2/

q1 = 0.036)
= 35 degrees and r = 27 degrees
Assuming Lr/b = 3
...Eq. (19)
(a) The Ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing on soft

clay considering non-homegeneity of clay is obtained
from Eq. 13 (a) as
...(Eq. 13a)
Substituting the values in Eq. 13(a)

Nc* = 6.35
The Ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing on soft

clay considering homegeneity of clay, Nc is obtained by
substituting B/Su0= 0 in Eq. 13a.
Therefore
Nc = 5.14 (b) As per Eq. 15, the equivalent bearing

capacity factor, Ncg, for a strip footing on a two-layered soil
of granular fill over soft non-homogeneous ground is
...(Eq. 15)

Ncg = 5.57
(c) The equivalent bearing capacity factor, Ncr*, for a strip

footing on a two-layered soil of granular fill over soft nonhomogeneous ground with reinforcement (considering
axial tension in reinforcement)
...(Eq. 17)
Ncr = 8.65
*
The equivalent bearing capacity factor, Ncr*, for a strip

footing on a two-layered soil of granular fill over soft
homogeneous ground with reinforcement (considering
axial tension in reinforcement) is obtained by substituting
B/Su0 = 0 in Eq. 17 as

Ncr** = 10.95
The equivalent bearing capacity factor, Ncr**, for a strip

homogeneous ground with reinforcement (considering
transverse tension in addition to axial tension in
reinforcement) is obtained by substituting B/Su0 = 0 in
Eq. 19 as
Ncr** = 9.74
A Comparison of Normalised Bearing capacity factors is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of Normalised Bearing Capacity
Factors
Ncg = 6.78
The equivalent bearing capacity factor, Ncg, for a strip

homogeneous ground is obtained by substituting
B/Su0 = 0 in Eq. 15 as
The normalised transverse force, P* and normalised

transverse tension in the reinforcment, T* are calculated
by using Eqs. (5) to (9). A computer program in C is run
to obtain the said values. Substituting the values thus
obtained in Eq. (19)
Ncr* = 7.45
(d) The equivalent bearing capacity factor, Ncr**, for a

strip footing on a two-layered soil of granular fill over
soft non-homogeneous ground with reinforcement
(considering transverse tension in addition to axial tension
in reinforcement)
%
Impr.
Homogeneous
Nonhomogeneous
Undrained
strength
Constant
Increases
linearly with
depth
Footing On
Clay
5.14
6.35
23.5
On granular
bed over clay
5.57
6.78
21.7
On reinforced
granular bed
(axial pull only)
7.45
8.65
16.1
With
consideration of
kinematics and
transverse pull
9.74
10.95
12.4
DISCUSSION
The importance of consideration of non-homogeneity
of in situ ground is brought out by the above results.
The normalised bearing capacity of foundations and
embankments placed on such ground is significantly
more, 6.35, than the value, 5.14, evaluated based
on pure homogeneous condition. This increase in
normalised bearing capacity is enhanced to 6.78 with
the contribution of the granular layer laid over the nonhomogeneous soft ground for both reclamation and for
providing a working platform as against a value of 5.57,

considering the granular bed on pure homogeneous
soft ground. The normalised bearing capacity increases
further to 8.65 due to the consideration of the axial
resistance of the geosynthetic reinforcement as
adopted in some of the recent approaches (Sharma
et al.[13], Rethaliya and Verma[14], Shivashankar et al.[15]
etc.) as against a value of 7.45, considering the RFB
on homogeneous soft ground. The normalised bearing
capacity increases to 10.95 due to the consideration
of kinematics of punching leading to mobilisation of
transverse pull following Madhav and Umashankar[16] as
against a value of 9.74, considering pure homogeneity
of the soft ground.
The percentage improvement due to consideration
of actual non-homogeneity of soft ground reduces
from 23.5 for foundations on soft ground to 12.4 for
foundations on reinforced granular bed along with
consideration of kinematics and transverse pull. The
increase in bearing capacity due to non-homogeneity is
offset partly because of the increases due to resistances
offered by granular bed and the axial and transverse
pulls in the reinforcement. The economy effected due
to consideration of non-homogeneity of the strength
and kinematics of punching failure and transverse pull
is reflected in the requirement of the thickness of the
granular layer to be provided i.e., the increased values
in bearing capacity can be translated in to reduced
thickness of the granular bed being provided. The
present analysis would infuse confidence of engineers
to make use of the undrained strength inherently
available in the ground. Soft soils have, in addition,
the additional unique feature of gaining strength with
increased stresses from applied loads with time as
they get consolidated. The long term factor of safety is
greater than that at the end of construction value.
CONCLUSIONS
1. A new method of estimating the bearing capacity of
a strip footing founded on the reinforced foundation
bed overlying soft non-homogeneous ground
incorporating kinematics of failure is presented.
2. Punching mode of failure proposed by Meyerhof[12]
for dense sand overlying soft clay is extended to
include the effects of reinforcement.
3. The theory proposed by Rajyalakshmi et al. [18] for
estimating the bearing capacity of a strip footing
on a reinforced granular bed of granular fill over
soft homogeneous ground, which incorporates
the additional resistances mobilized in the
reinforcement due to transverse displacement in
the reinforcement (Madhav and Umashankar,[16])
over and above the one due to axial pull, is
considered.
25
4. Davis and Bookers theory [7,8] for estimating the

bearing capacity of footings on non-homogeneous
ground is incorporated in Rajyalakshmi et al.s
method[18], to estimate the bearing capacity of a
footing founded on the reinforced foundation bed
overlying soft non-homogeneous ground and also
accounting for the kinematics of failure.
5. The values of bearing capacity factors, Ncg, Ncr* and
Ncr** increase with the consideration of the degree
of non-homogeneity B/su0. Ncg values increase from
5.14 at H/B equal to 0 (represents a case where the
footing is resting on clay alone) to a maximum value
of 93.0 at relative granular layer thickness equal
to 3.7, for B/su0 equal to 0. The corresponding
value of Ncg at H/B equal to 0 is 18.25 and the
maximum value of is 93.0 at a relative granular
layer thickness equal to 2.7, for B/su0 equal to 20.
While the maximum values attained remain the
same, the critical granular layer thicknesses at the
corresponding maximum values of Ncr* equal 3.4
and 2.5, for B/su0 equal to 0 and 20 respectively.
The critical granular layer thicknesses at the same
maximum values of Ncr** equal 3.0 and 2.3, for B/
su0 equal to 0 and 20 respectively.
6. The improvement in BCR in terms of (BCR) ug,
(BCR)ax and (BCR)tr decreases with B/su0, as the
denominator, the bearing strength of the clay layer
increases with B/su0. (BCR)ug values increase from
1.0 at H/B equal to 0 to a maximum value of 18.1
at relative granular layer thickness equal to 3.7,
for B/su0 equal to 0. The corresponding maximum
values of (BCR)ug and the critical granular layer
thicknesses are 12.6 & 3.6, 10.0 & 3.3, 8.2 & 3.2,
6.0 & 3.0 and 5.1 & 2.8, for B/su0 equal to 4, 8,
12, 16 and 20 respectively. The maximum values
of (BCR)ax and (BCR)tr remain the same as those
of (BCR)ug. The critical granular layer thicknesses
at corresponding maximum values of (BCR)ax are
3.4, 3.2, 3.1, 2.9, 2.7 and & 2.5 and those of of
(BCR)tr are 3.0, 2.8, 2.7, 2.6, 2.4 and 2.3, for B/
su0 equal to 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 respectively.
7. (BCR) ax * and (BCR) tr * increase with H/B, for
increasing values of B/su0, till a critical value of H/B
is reached. (BCR)ax* and (BCR)tr* values reduce to
unity with increase in H/B, beyond the critical value.
(BCR)ax* values increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0 to a
maximum of 1.43 at (H/B)cr equal to 0.9, for B/su0
value equal to 0. Correspondingly, (BCR)ax* values
increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0 to a maximum of 1.18
at (H/B)cr equal to 1.6, for B/su0 value equal to 20.
(BCR)tr* values increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0 to a
maximum of 1.96 at (H/B)cr equal to 0.9 for B/su0
value equal to 0. Correspondingly (BCR)tr* values
increase from 1.0 at H/B = 0 to a maximum of 1.40 at
(H/B)cr equal to 1.6, for B/su0 value equal to 20.
26
REFERENCES
1. Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
2. Skempton, A.W. 1951. The Bearing Capacity of
Clays, Proc. Building Research Congress, vol. 1,
pp. 180-189.
3. Vesic, A. S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of
shallow foundations, Journal of Soil Mechanics &
Foundation Division, Vol. 99 (1), 45 - 73.
4. Bujang, B.K.H. 1995. Stability of embankment son
soft ground-Lessons from failures, Pertanika J. Sci.&
Technol., Vol. 3, No. 1, 123-139.
5. Chai, J.C., Miura, N., Bergado, D. T. and Long,
P.V. 1997. Finite element analysis of embankment
failure on soft subsoil, Geotechnical Engineering,
Southeast Asian Geotechnical society, Vol. 28, No.
2, 249-276.
6. Chai, J.C., Miura, N. and Shen, S-L. 2002. Performane
of Embankments with and without reinforcement on
soft subsoil, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39,
838-848.
7. Davis, E.H. & Booker, J.R. 1973. The effect of
increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity
of clays, Geotechnique, Vol.23, No.4, 55-563.
8. Davis, E.H. & Booker, J.R. 1985. The effect of in
creasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity
of clays, Golden Jubilee of the International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering:
Commemorative Volume. Barton, ACT: Institute of
Engineers, Australia, 185 - 197.
9. Salenon, J. & Matar, M. 1979a. Etude de la capacit
portante des foundations superficielles circulaires
sursol non-homogne -rapport de recherch,
Laboratoire de Mcanique des Solides, Ecole
Nationale des Ponts et Chausss, 159 - 168 (In
French).
10. Tani, K. & Craig, W.H. 1995. Bearing capacity of

circular foundations on soft clay of strength increasing
with depth, Soils and foundations, ISSN 0038-0806,
Vol.35, no4, pp. 21-35(41ref.), Japanese Geotechnical
Society, Tokyo, Japan (1968) (Revue).
11. Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1948. Soil Mechanics
in Engineering Practice. Wiley International, New
York.
12. Meyerhof, G.G. 1974, Ultimate bearing capacity of
footings on sand layer overlying ground, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 11, 223-229.
13. Sharma, R., Chen, Q., Murad Abu-Farsakh & Yoon,
S. 2009. Analytical modeling of geogrid reinforced
soil foundation, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Volume 27, Issue 1, 63-72.
14. Rethaliya, R.P. & Verma, A.K. 2009. Strip footing
on Sand overlying soft clay with geotextile interface,
Indian Geotechnical Journal, 39(3), 271 - 287.
15. Shivshankar, R., Madhav, M.R. & Miura, N. 1993.
Reinforced granular beds overlying soft clay,
Proc.11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference,
Singapore, 409 - 414.
16. Madhav, M.R. & Umashankar, B. 2003. Analysis of
inextensible sheet reinforcement subject to transverse displacement / force: linear sub-grade
response, Geotextiles and Geomembranes , 21, 69
- 84.
17. Madhav, M.R. & Umashankar, B. 2003. Analysis of
inextensible sheet reinforcement subject to downward
displacement /force: non-linear subgrade response,
Geosynthetics International, 95-102.
18. Rajyalakshmi,K., Madhav, M.R. and K. Ramu, 2011.
Kinematics and Bearing Capacity of Reinforced
Foundation Bed on Soft Ground. Indian Geotechnical
Journal, 41(3), 121-130.
INFLUENCE OF NYLON FIBER REINFORCEMENT ON

LIME STABILIZED CLAYEY SOIL
P.S. Nagu

S. Chandrakaran and N. Sankar
Research Scholar
Professors
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Kerala, India
ABSTRACT
Influence of randomly oriented discrete nylon fiber reinforcement on the properties of lime treated clayey
soil (CH) is investigated in the present study. The soil was artificially remoulded by adding lime and
different percentages of short discrete nylon fibers with different aspect ratios. Unconfined Compression
Tests, CBR and Split Tensile Strength Tests were conducted to examine the influence of nylon fibers
(0.15mm dia) on the strength behaviour of the lime stabilized clay. The test results indicated marginal
improvement in strength parameters of lime stabilized clayey soil with the nylon fiber reinforcement. The
fiber addition significantly imparted the ductility to the soil which changed the mode of failure from brittle
to ductile. The brittleness imparted by the lime in the stabilization of clayey soils can be countered by the
fiber reinforcement. The results indicated the potential of nylon fiber reinforcement which is different from
the proprietary fibers in improving the quality of lime stabilization of problematic soils like clay especially
in reducing the brittleness imparted by lime stabilization, suggesting the usefulness of the technique for
countering one of the constraints posed by lime stabilization. SEM images also confirmed the interaction
of fiber surface with the stabilized soil mass.
Keywords : Fiber Reinforcement, Lime Stabilization, SEM Images, Subgrade Improvement.
1. INTRODUCTION
in many ways. The preparation is quite similar to that

of admixture stabilization. Mostly the discrete fibers are
simply added and mixed with the soil, much the same as
additives like cement, lime or fly ash. One of the main
advantages of randomly oriented fibers is the maintenance
of strength isotropy and absence of potential failure
planes. Fibers can be natural such as coir, jute, sisal etc.
or synthetic such as metallic or polymeric. Fiber addition
was successful for reinforcing coarse grained soils. As a
result, several international firms also market these fibers
with trade names like GEO FIBERS, TEXOL etc., and
these fibers are being used with subgrade improvement,
slope stabilization, clay liners. Majority of the synthetic
fibers used are fibrillated, mono filament or tape like poly
propylene fibers or commercial fibers available for fiber
reinforced concrete. These fibers impart strength and
ductility for the soils. These fibers are successful with
accelerated strength development of highway subgrades
of course grained soils or imparting ductility for clayey
soils stabilized with cementatious materials like lime and
fly ash used as highway subgrades. Very limited work was
reported with fiber reinforcement of lime stabilized clayey
soils, that too with synthetic fibers of relatively large size,
aiming at imparting ductility alone.
The soil stabilization technique is well established and

is used for a variety of applications like improvement
of bearing capacity, shear strength, filter and drainage
control, etc. Majority of soils worldwide used as highway
subgrades constitute weak fine grained soils especially in
coastal and low lying regions. Infrastructure development
in the coastal regions in the context of global development
compel the highway engineers to construct pavements
in weak soils. The challenge of making a clayey soil to
safely sustain the pavement loads brings in the need for
soil stabilization technique. Clayey soils encountered in
highway subgrades can be economically stabilized by
lime stabilization. The lime stabilization makes a clayey
soil, not only strong and less sensitive to moisture content
changes but alters its failure behaviour from ductile mode
to brittle mode. This results in a relative reduction in the
fatigue strength of the stabilized soil.
Conventional methods of reinforcement consist of
continuous inclusions of strips, fabrics, and grids into
a soil mass. As a modification of the same technique,
random inclusion of various types of fibers is also gaining
in importance as a method of soil reinforcement. These
fibers act to interlock the soil particles and groups of
particles into a unitary coherent matrix.
Gray (1983), Maher (1990), Mikhalowski (1996), Santoni

et al (2001) have studied the effect of fiber reinforcement
of soils using discrete fibers both natural and synthetic.
Majority of the studies were with coarse grained soils with
The soil reinforced with randomly distributed discrete

fibers resembles the conventional earth reinforcement
27
28
mono filament, tape and fibrillated fibers. The diameters

were of the order of average grain size and the lengths
were up to 50 mm. The studies revealed the common
benefits of the reinforcement, like increase of post peak
strength and change of failure mode of the soil. Few
patented fibers also came in to existence in the market
and field studies also were carried out under sponsored
projects and the reported results have confirmed the
benefits observed in the earlier studies. Maher and Ho
(1994), Shenbaga et al (2001), Consoli et al (2002),
Arvind Kumar et al (2005), Yi Cai, et al (2006) studied
the effect of fiber reinforcement of fine grained soils in
conjunction with other stabilizers like sand, lime, cement
and fly ash. Many of the studies with coarse grained
soils were with relatively small size and tape like fibers.
The studies involved with fine grained soils were, with or
without stabilization. These studies were with fibers of
small size (30 to 45 microns) and revealed the benefits
of the proposed technique. The present study involves
the use of commercially available fibers of relatively
large diameter with a focus on imparting ductility to lime
stabilized clayey soil with a view to use the technique for
improvement of engineering properties of lime stabilized
subgrades for flexible pavements.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
2.1 Materials
The research utilized three types of material: soft clay,
lime and nylon fibers. The soft clay used in the study
is taken from a low lying area in Calicut (Kerala State,
India). Based on the index properties evaluated, the soil
is classified as CH (I.S. Classification) indicating that it
is clay of high plasticity. The soil taken from site is air
dried, pulverized and the material passing 4.75 mm IS
sieve is used for the experimentation. The properties
of the clayey soil used are given in the Table 1. Finely
ground low quality hydrated lime available in the local
market is used for the present study (CaO: 53.68% &
MgO: 11.23%).
Table 1 : Soil Properties
Property
Specific gravity
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
Plasticity index
Silt and Clay fractions
Maximum dry density
Optimum Moisture Content
Cohesion
Angle of internal friction
California Bearing Ratio (soaked)
Value
Unit
2.56
-72
%
32
%
40
%
10 & 70
%
15
kN/m3
25
%
32
kPa
18
degree
3.4
%
The nylon fiber used in this study is of 0.15 mm diameter.

This fiber is available in plenty in the local markets, as it is
one of the twines used for making and repairing the fishing
nets. These fibers have good strength characteristics
and resistance to bio-degradation over a long period of
time.
The fibers used in the study are shown in Fig.1 and details
of different sizes and dosages considered in the study
are given in Table 2.
Fig. 1 : Fibers used 0.15 mm diameter; 20 to 50 mm long
Table 2 : Nylon Fibers used in the Study

Diameter and Lengths in mm
Aspect Ratios
Fiber Contents
0.15 mm;
133, 200, 267 &
333
0.2% to 1%
in steps of 0.1%
20, 30, 40 & 50
2.2 Tests for Material Properties

From the literature, it was observed that the improvement
of the soil strength by inclusion of discrete fibers is a
function of a variety of parameters including fiber type,
fiber length, aspect ratio, fiber dosage and orientation
of fibers. To investigate the suitability of the reinforced
soil for highway subgrades, it is decided to test the soil
specimens with different aspect ratios of fibers and fiber
contents.
The experimental program contained the tests for
finalization of optimum lime content for soil stabilization
and optimum fiber parameters to modify the failure
behaviour of the stabilized soil and tests to quantify the
benefits of reinforcement. All the tests are conducted as
per the relevant codes of practice of Bureau of Indian
Standards.
Among the commonly available fibers in the market,
the least size available is 0.15 mm diameter fiber,
generally used for the repair or manufacture of fishing
nets. Hence it is decided to use 0.15 mm diameter
fibers for investigating the effect of non proprietary
fibers on the lime stabilized clayey soil. Unconfined
compression strength tests were conducted with
different combinations of reinforcement to decide
the optimum parameters of fiber reinforcement.
The optimum lime content (O.L.C.) required for soil
stabilization can be obtained by studying the effect of

lime content on pH of soil, modification of consistency
limits of soil or moisture absorption capacity of the
stabilized soil or modification of strength properties.
The O.L.C. in the current study was fixed based on
change in unconfined compression strength (28 day
strength, soaked value) as indicated in Fig.2. Modified
Proctor Compaction tests with dynamic compaction
as per IS:4332 (Part III 1967, Reaffirmed 2006)
were also conducted to decide the Optimum Moisture
Content (O.M.C.) and Maximum Dry Density (M.D.D.)
for the soil stabilization. From the results of the tests,
the optimum lime content has been identified as 10%,
O.M.C. as 32% and M.D.D. as13.7 kN/m3. The effect
of fiber reinforcement on the compaction properties is
marginal, and the same was countered by additional
compactive effort of smaller quantum, to test all the
samples at uniform O.MC. and M.D.D.
Fig. 2 : Identification of Optimum Lime Content from U.C.S.
2.3 Preparation of Specimens of Fiber Reinforced

Soil
The following procedure was adopted to mix the fibers into
the soil for laboratory testing. First, appropriate amounts
of soil and lime were weighed and placed in a mixing tray.
The lime is mixed well to obtain a uniform color. Then, the
water required to attain the target moisture content was
measured and added to the soil in small increments and
thoroughly mixed to ensure uniform coverage. To ensure
a uniform distribution of the moisture, the mixture is closely
wrapped in a plastic bag for one hour of mellowing period
before mixing the fibers. The designated fibers were
weighed according to the desired dosage as a percentage
of weight of dry soil and mixed in small increments to
the soil-lime mixture. With the experience obtained in
the earlier works, instead of mixing the fibers in the lot,
the soil and fibers are mixed in batches of smaller sizes
proportionately, while making the specimens, to ensure
uniform mixing, which resulted in smaller variation in the
results. The added fibers were mixed by hand. The fibers
were continually mixed into the soil in small increments
until all the fibers were well distributed within the soil.
Adequate care was taken during the mixing process to
ensure a uniform soil-fiber mixture.
29
2.4 Unconfined Compression Strength Tests

Unconfined compression strength tests were conducted
as per IS : 4332 (Part V) 1970, for different combinations
of the reinforced soil. The specimens were prepared
with 10% lime at the corresponding O.M.C. and M.D.D.,
varying the fiber dosage and aspect ratios. The size of the
specimen is 10 cm dia., and 20 cm long. The cylindrical
specimens were closely wrapped in polythene covers and
cured at room temperature for 28 days before conducting
the tests. The specimens were allowed for immersion
soaking for 24 hours kept in a water tray before testing
under a compressive load at 1.25 mm/min. As the focus of
the study is on identifying the fiber contribution to ductility
which is more important in the long term performance
point of view, it is decided to make all the observations
at 28 day strength. Consideration of 28 day strength is
also important to observe the contribution of fibers to
the stabilized materials since the pozollonic reactions
are not complete with 7 day curing period and the strain
compatibility is less between the nylon fibers and the soil
lime mixture after complete hardening of the stabilized
soil, resembling reliable values, though the resulting effect
is very less when compared with lime soil mixtures of 7
day curing period.
The effect of different lengths and fiber dosages on the
un-confined compression strength of the fiber reinforced
lime stabilized soil is shown in Fig. 3. The effect of nylon
fibers of 0.15 mm diameter of different lengths and fiber
contents on the maximum compressive strength as seen
from Fig. 4 suggests that the longer fibers are effective in
marginal increase in the U.C.S. of the stabilized soil. From
the peak values of U.C.S. with different fiber contents
and lengths, the 40 mm fibers @ 0.8% and 50 mm fibers
@ 0.9% are identified as optimum parameters for fiber
reinforcement of the lime stabilized soil.
Fig. 3 : Variation of Un-confined Compression Strength
The stress strain curves for different fibers in U.C.C.

Tests are shown in Figs. 6 a & b. From the trends of
30
stress strain curves, it can be confirmed that the 40mm

fibers @ 0.8% and 50 mm fibers @ 0.9% are imparting
maximum ductility for fiber reinforced lime stabilized soil.
Hence, the CBR tests and the Split Tension Tests were
conducted with only longer fibers (40 and 50 mm) within
the range of corresponding optimum fiber contents.
2.5 California Bearing Ratio Test

As the study is intended to verify the suitability of the
reinforcement for highway subgrade material (lime
stabilized clay), California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests
were conducted as per IS: 2720 (Part-16) 1979.
With the optimum parameters of the reinforced soil,
CBR Tests were conducted. Thus, CBR tests were
conducted using 0.15 mm diameter, 40 mm long fibers
@ 0.7, 0.8 & 0.9% and 50 mm long fibers @ 0.8, 0.9 &
1% of weight of dry soil. The standard CBR mould was
used and the samples were compacted under modified
compaction using 10% lime with 32% O.M.C. and 13.7
kN/m3 M.D.D. The samples were prepared and kept
along with the moulds duly covering the top surface by
plastic sheet in close contact at room temperature for
28 days and soaked in water (immersion) for four days
before conducting CBR Tests. The CBR values were
evaluated for soaked specimens for both un-reinforced
and reinforced lime stabilized mixtures. There was no
swelling after soaking.
addition on U.C.C., CBR and Indirect Tension Tests of

the reinforced stabilized soil are discussed in detail.
3.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength

From the results of U.C.C. tests, it is observed that the
un-confined compressive strength of stabilized soil is
improved marginally with addition of nylon fibers. The
effects of fiber content and length on the UCS are shown
in Fig. 4. One of the significant contributions of fiber
reinforcement of lime stabilized soils is the change in
failure pattern from brittle to ductile mode.
2.6 Split Tension Test

Split tension tests were conducted on the specimens of
lime stabilized soil with and without fiber reinforcement to
obtain the effect of reinforcement on resistance to tension
in lime stabilized clay. Any enhancement in the material
resistance to tensile failure helps to improve the fatigue life
of the pavement layer under repeated wheel loads. Since
the lime stabilization makes the soil semi-rigid, presence
of synthetic fiber in the stabilized clay layer enhances the
tensile resistance and changes the failure mode from brittle
to ductile. To verify the same, brazilian split tension tests
were conducted. The specimens of 100 mm dia and 60
mm wide are prepared in steel moulds at the same O.M.C.
and M.D.D., closely wrapped in polythene covers, cured at
room temperature for 28 days, and kept under immersion
soaking for 24 hours before testing. Tests were conducted
using special arrangement for diametrical loading for 100
mm dia specimens and the U.C.C. Testing Machine is used
for applying the diametrical compressive load.
(a) 40 mm Long Fibers
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The results of experimental study indicated that, in general
there is an improvement in engineering properties of the
soil. Four to six specimens are tested in each series and
considering the variation involved with fiber addition,
average of three specimens with three relatively consistent
values of are reported. In this section, the effects of fiber
(b) 50 mm Long Fibers

Fig. 4 : Stress-Strain Curves in U.C.C. Test for Different
Fibers in L.S. Soil
Within the observations made based on the results

of U.C.C. Tests, 40 mm fibers @ 0.8% and 50 mm
fibers @ 0.9% are confirmed as the optimum fiber
parameters as explained earlier. The axial stress at
failure has increased by 11 to 14% with the addition
of the reinforcement. The significant contribution of
fibers is observed in modifying the failure behaviour of
the stabilized soil. While the un-reinforced specimens
exhibited a brittle failure, the fiber reinforced specimens
have exhibited a ductile failure. A set of typical curves
of stress-strain variation in U.C.C. test are shown in
Fig. 4. The stiffness is very marginally reduced on
fiber addition, that too with increasing fiber length and
content. The failure pattern is more ductile with the
reinforcement addition, obviously due to the nature
of nylon fibers, in spite of small loss in the immediate
post peak region. For increased fiber addition beyond
the optimum fiber content, the post peak loss was
higher, obviously due to increased non homogeneity
of fiber distribution at higher amounts of fiber content.
A specimen of stabilized soil under compression fails
on a classical slip plane. In the case of a specimen
with nylon fiber reinforcement, the failure plane is
entirely different from the un-reinforced specimen. In
the case of a reinforced specimen, failure under axial
compression takes place on several locations under
transverse displacement of the soil clods due to the
adhesion of the fibers with the cementatious soil matrix.
This can be observed from the failed specimens shown
in Fig. 2. The ductility imparted by the fibers increases
the resistance at number of locations and a complex
system of resistance to the fracture of the composite.
Comparing with the typical conventional fibers being
used for soil reinforcement, the fiber diameter being
larger in the present study, i.e., 30-40 microns vs 150
microns, the contribution of the fibers used in this
study is distinctly reflected in the enhancement of
ductility with a limited/gradual post peak loss. Fig. 5
shows the effect of change of failure mode in terms of
brittleness given by the ratio of the post peak stress at
the given strain to the maximum stress, expressed as a
percentage. The enhancement of ductility is indicated
by the lower values of brittleness in the region of 2 to
4% compressive strain which is the range of strain
in the immediate vicinity of ultimate stress. Owing to
the brittleness imparted by cementatious stabilizers,
the un-reinforced specimens suddenly fail after the
peak load and their resistance to energy absorption is
nil, beyond the peak stress. On the other hand, the
fiber reinforced specimens exhibit strain hardening
nature, showing their toughness beyond the maximum
compressive stress. The corresponding toughness or
resilience which is a measure of energy absorbing
capacity before the ultimate failure, can be computed
from the area under the stress-strain curve. Because
31
of the strain hardening nature of the fiber reinforcement,

the toughness increases with compressive strain.
The ratio of energy absorption at different levels of
compressive strain for specimens with and without
fiber reinforcement is also shown in Fig. 8. It can be
observed that the energy absorption during failure is up
to 8 times in fiber reinforced lime stabilized soil to that
of un reinforced stabilized soil. By the results indicated
from the Figures 5 and 6, it can be concluded that, 0.8%
of 40 mm fibers and 0.9% of 50 mm fibers of 0.15 mm
diameter impart ductility in the lower regions of 2 to 4%
strain corresponding to the post-peak failure and also
significantly enhance the energy absorption capacity
to the stabilized soil.
(a) 40 mm Fibers
(b) 50 mm Fibers
Fig. 5 : Reduction in Brittleness in the Post Peak
Regions in U.C.C. Test
32
(a) 40 mm Fibers
(b) 50 mm Fibers
Fig. 6 : Effect of Energy Absorption at Different Levels of Strain for Specimens With and Without Fibers in
Un-confined Compression Test
In the case of rural roads on clayey soils, there will not be

any savings in the thickness of flexible pavement for values
of CBR more than 20 (Seven day soaked value), as per the
guide lines for the design of flexible pavements (IRC:372001). It is common to encounter clayey soils in rural areas
for pavements of roads with low volume traffic. For sub
bases and subgrades in such cases, lime stabilization is a
viable solution with locally available low quality lime. The
7 day CBR value is 40 for the stabilized soil used in the
current study. In the context of developing countries, repairs
to damaged roads are common with superficial surfacing/
overlays and addressing the severe rutting or crocodile
cracking induced by subgrade failures is highly remote
due to huge investments. In the context of using the lime
stabilized subgrades for rural roads, the crumbling induced
by the brittle nature of failure can be addressed by fiber
reinforcement using the suggested fibers which are locally
available or can be obtained from recycled wastes, in place
of conventional proprietary fibers. The proprietary fibers
are yet to reach rural construction scenario even after their
successful usage with fiber reinforced concrete or retro fitting
works. Change of failure pattern affected by the addition of
fibers also leads to another advantage of improved resilience
of the lime soil mixture. The true contribution of the fibers
can be better revealed from studying the results of triaxial
compression or plate load tests. The exact usefulness of
the ductility imparted by the fiber addition can be better
revealed by fatigue testing through cyclic loading on the
model pavements or in repeated load tests on specimens
subjected to indirect tension. Thus, such a value can be
anticipated as a higher value, which assumes significance
in imparting toughness to the subbase or subgrade layers
of a road pavement. It also suggests the suitability of the
proposed reinforcement as a possible measure of earth
quake resistance.
3.2 California Bearing Ratio

CBR values for un-reinforced and reinforced lime
stabilized soil are given in Table 3. The effect of
reinforcement on CBR is shown in Fig. 7. From the
results of CBR tests it is observed that the CBR value
of soil is improved marginally by, upto 10% with the
addition of nylon fibers. Owing to the large size of cross
section of fibers and the nature of CBR test, the effect
of these fibers on strength is marginal improvement,
unlike the proprietary fibers, whose contribution goes
up to 400% raise in CBR Values with fly ash and up to
300% with soil-fly ash mixes (Pradeep & Nagarnaik)
However, the effect of fiber reinforcement is also
significant at higher penetrations and the failure pattern
is also more ductile. The re-entrant/kink nature of the
load curve in the CBR test reveals the change of soil
fabric encountered at the failure planes, due to the
entanglement of fibers. The fibers suggested in the
current study are not intended to raise the CBR values,
as the focus is on improving the ductility.
Table 3 : CBR Values for Different Fiber Additions
CBR for Different Fiber Contents
Fiber Length
Penetration in
mm
No
Fibres
40 mm
0.7
0.8
50 mm
0.9
0.8
0.9
2.5
93
105
108
106
97
99
95
92
100
103
103
95
97
94
7.5
72
78
81
80
74
76
73
10
73
78
83
81
75
78
78
12.5
57
65
66
65
60
64
61
33
Fig. 7 : CBR Curves
4. CONCLUSIONS
The addition of fibers of 0.15 mm diameter to the soil changed
the failure behaviour of the stabilized clayey soil from brittle to
a ductile type. From the tests conducted, it can be concluded
that fiber content and aspect ratio will influence the strength
properties of the lime stabilized clayey soil. Based on results
obtained, addition of 0.8 to 0.9% of randomly oriented discrete
nylon fibers of 0.15 mm diameter and 40 to 50 mm length for
the stabilized soil has significant gain in terms of modifying
the failure behaviour from brittle to ductile nature without
endangering the strength. The reduction in brittleness in the
regions of 2 to 4% of compressive strain and increase of energy
absorption reveal the advantages of the suggested fibers. The
contribution of the reinforcement is higher, in improving the
energy absorbing capacity up to 8 times in compression and
25 times in the indirect tension. The marginal increase in the
CBR value .
Actual and more precise knowledge about the contribution
of fibers in improving the toughness of the lime stabilized
clayey sub-grades can be better predicted through triaxial
shear tests, beam bending tests, plate load tests, fatigue
tests and testing for the resilient modulus. Economics of
the proposed reinforcement technique can be studied with the
help of testing the resilient modulus and by field tests. Present
study is intended to investigate the degree of usefulness of
heather-to un-attempted fiber sizes with a focus on ductility
improvement rather than less warranted strength improvement
to lime stabilized clays in the point of view of applications to the
subgrades of rural roads with low volume traffic.
REFERENCES
Arvind Kumar, Baljit Singh Walia, Jatinder Mohan. Influence
of Fly Ash, Lime and Polyester Fibers on Compaction and
Strength Properties of Expansive Soil. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, Vol.99, No.3, ASCE, March 2007.
Gray D.H., Ohashi H. Mechanics of Fiber Reinforcement

in Sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1983:
199:335-351
IS : 4332 (Part III) 1967, Reaffirmed 2006) Test For
Determination of Moisture ContentDry Density Relation for Stabilized Soil Mixtures. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS : 4332 (Part V) 1967, Methods of Test for Stabilized,
Soils - Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Stablllzed Soils. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS: 2720 (Part-16) 1979, Methods of Test for Soils, Laboratory
Determination of CBR. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
M.H.Maher, and Y.C. Ho. Mechanical Properties of Kaolinite/
Fiber Soil Composite. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol.120, No.8, August 1994.
Michalowski RL, Zaho A, Failure of Fiber Reinforced Granular
Soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, March
(122) 1996
Pradip D. Jadhao, P. B. Nagarnaik. Influence of Polypropylene
Fibers on Engineering Behaviour of SoilFly Ash Mixtures for
Road Construction. Vol.13, Bund. C, EJGE.
Radoslaw L. Michalowski, Jan Cermak. Strength Anisotropy of
Fiber-reinforced Sand. Computers and Geotechnics 29 (2002).
Elsevier, pp.279-299.
Santoni R.L., Tingle J.S., Webster S. Engineering Properties
of sand fiber mixtures for road construction, Journal of
Geotechnical, and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE 2001
Vol.127, No.3, pp.258-268
Shenbaga R. Kaniraj, Vasant G. Havanagi. Behaviour of
Cement-Stabilized Fiber-Reinforced Fly Ash-Soil Mixtures.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 127, No. 7, July, 2001. ASCE.
Yi Cai, Bin Shi, Charles W.W.Ng., Chao-sheng Tang. Effect
of Polypropylene Fibre and Lime Admixture on Engineering
Properties of Clayey Soil. Engineering Geology 87 (2006),
pp.230-240. Elsevier
INTERNATIONAL GEOSYNTHETICS SOCIETY

The International Geosynthetics Society (IGS) was founded in Paris, on 10 November 1983, by a group of geotechnical
engineers and textile specialists. The Society brings together individual and corporate members from all parts of
the world, who are involved in the design, manufacture, sale, use or testing of geotextiles, geomembranes, related
products and associated technologies, or who teach or conduct research about such products.
The IGS is dedicated to the scientific and engineering development of geotextiles, geomembranes, related
products and associated technologies. IGS has 41 chapters, over 3,000 individual members and 163 corporate
members.
The aims of the IGS are:

to collect and disseminate knowledge on all matters relevant to geotextiles, geomembranes and related
products, e.g. by promoting seminars, conferences, etc.

to promote advancement of the state of the art of geotextiles, geomembranes and related products and of
their applications, e.g. by encouraging, through its members, the harmonization of test methods, equipment
and criteria.

to improve communication and understanding regarding such products, e.g. between designers, manufacturers
and users and especially between the textile and civil engineering communities
The IGS is registered in the USA as a non-profit organization. It is managed by five Officers and a Council made up of
10 to 16 elected members and a maximum of 5 additional co-opted members. These Officers and Council members
are responsible to the General Assembly of members which elects them and decides on the main orientations of
the Society.
IGS Chapters
The IGS Chapters are the premier vehicle through which the IGS reaches out to and influences the marketplace
and the industry. Chapter activities range from the organization of major conferences and exhibits such as the 9th
International Conference on Geosynthetics in May 2010 in Brazil and its predecessors in Yokohama, Nice and Atlanta
to the presentation of focused seminars at universities, government offices and companies. Chapters create the
opportunity for the chapter (and IGS) membership to reach out, to teach and to communicate and they are the catalyst
for many advances in geosynthetics. Participation in an IGS chapter brings researchers, contractors, engineers and
designers together in an environment which directly grows the practice by informing and influencing those who are
not familiar with our discipline.
Membership
Membership of IGS is primarily organised through national Chapters. Most individual members (94%) belong to the
IGS through Chapters. Chapter participation allows members to be informed about, and participate in, local and
regional activities in addition to providing access to the resources of the IGS.
IGS Offers the following categories of membership:
Individual
Individual member benefits are extended to each and every individual member of the IGS including Chapter Members.
Additional chapter benefits are provided to Individual Members who join the IGS through a chapter.
Individual Member Benefits include:

a membership card

an IGS lapel pin

on-line access to the IGS Membership Directory, published yearly, with full addresses, telephone, email and
fax numbers of members

the IGS News newsletter, published three times a year

on-line access to the 19 IGS Mini Lecture Series for the use of the membership

on-line access to the 3 IGS Videos for the use of the membership

information on test methods and standards

discount rates:

- for any document published in the future by IGS

- at all international, regional or national conferences organized by the IGS or under its auspices
34
35
preferential treatment at conferences organized by the IGS or under its auspices

possibility of being granted an IGS award
Free access to the Geosynthetics International journal, now published electronically.
Free access to the Geotextiles and Geomembranes journal, now published electronically.
Corporate
Corporate Membership Benefits include:

a membership card

an IGS lapel pin

on-line access to the IGS Membership Directory, published yearly, with full addresses, telephone, email and
fax numbers of members

the IGS News newsletter, published three times a year

on-line access to the 19 IGS Mini Lecture Series for the use of the membership

on-line access to the 3 IGS Videos for the use of the membership

information on test methods and standards

discount rates:

- for any document published in the future by IGS

- at all international, regional or national conferences organized by the IGS or under its auspices

preferential treatment at conferences organized by the IGS or under its auspices

possibility of being granted an IGS award

free access to the Geosynthetics International journal, now published electronically.

free access to the Geotextiles and Geomembranes journal, now published electronically.

advertisement in the IGS Member Directory and on the IGS Website

IGS Corporate Membership Plaque

your Company Profile in the IGS News

right of using the IGS logo at exhibitions and in promotional literature

priority (by seniority of membership within the IGS) at all exhibits organized by the IGS or under its
auspices

opportunity to join IGS committees in order to discuss topics of common interest.
Student
Student Membership Benefits include:

Electronic access to the IGS News, published 3 times a year

Special Student discounts at all IGS sponsored/supported conferences, seminars etc.

Listing in a special student members category in the IGS Directory
(this may help both the student and future employers in making contact).

Eligibility for awards (and in particular the IGS Young Member Award).
List of IGS Chapters

Argentina
Argentinean Chapter (2009)
President Dr. Marcos Montoro
marcos_montoro@yahoo.com.ar
Australia and New Zealand
Australasian Chapter (2002)
President: Dr A Malek Bouazza
acigss@gmail.com
Belgium
Belgian Chapter (2001),
Chairman:Prof. Jan Maertens
jan.maertens.bvba@skynet.be
Brazil
Brazilian Chapter (1997)
President: Eng. Lavoisier Machado
igsbrasil@igsbrasil.org.br
www.igsbrasil.org.br
Chile
Chilean Chapter (2006),
President: Luis Paredes
Luis.paredes@snclavalin.com
China
Chinese Chapter (1990)
Chairman: Li, Guangxin
postmaster@ccigs.com.cn
36
Colombia
Colombian Chapter (2013)
President: Bernardo Caicedo Hormaza
bcaicedo@uniandes.edu.co
Czech Republic
Czech Chapter (2003)
Chairman: Mr. Petr Hubik
igs@igs.cz
www.igs.cz
Finland
Finish Chapter (2011)
President: Minna Leppnen
igsfin.secretary@gmail.com
Japan
Japanese Chapter (1985)
Chairman: Dr. Hiroshi Miki
miki-egri@nifty.com
wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jcigs/
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstanian Chapter (2012)
President: Zhusupbekov Askar Zhagparovich
astana-geostroi@mail.ru
Korea
KC-IGS, The Korean Chapter (1993)
President: Dr. Youseong Kimyusung@jbnu.ac.kr
France
French Chapter (1993)
President: Mr. Jean-Pierre Magnan
francois.caquel@orange.fr
Malaysia
Malaysian Chapter Pertubuhan IGS Malaysia (MyIGS)
President: Prof. Dr. Fauziah Ahmad
cefahmad@yahoo.com
Germany
German Chapter (1993)
Chairman: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Ziegler
service@dggt.de
www.gb.bv.tum.de/fachsektion/index.htm
Mexico
Mexican Chapter (2006)
President: Ing. Ignacio Narezo L.
anaferraez@gmail.com
www.igsmexico.org
Ghana
Ghana Chapter (2012)
President: Prof. Samuel I.K. Ampadu
skampadu.coe@knust.edu.gh
jkkemeh@hotmail.com
The Netherlands
Netherlands Chapter (1992)
President: Dr. Ir. A. H. de Bondt
mail@ngo.nl
www.ngo.nl
Greece
HGS, Greek Chapter (2005)
President: Mr. Dimitrios K. Atmatzidis
dka@upatras.gr
under complete reconstruction!
North America
North American Geosynthetics Society (NAGS) (Canada, USA)
(1986)
President: Robert Mackey, P.E
NagsDirector05@aol.com
www.nags-igs.org
Honduras
Honduran Chapter Honduran Society of Geosynthetics
(2013)
President: MSc. Ing. Danilo Sierra D.
sierradiscua@yahoo.com
Norway
Norwegian Chapter of IGS (2008)
President: Jan Vaslestad
jan.vaslestad@vegvesen.no
India
Indian Chapter (1988)
President: Dr. G.V. S. Suryanarayana Raju
cbip@cbip.org
Pakistan
PakistanianChapter of IGS (2011)
President: Tariq Ikram
mr.tariq.ikram@gmail.com
Indonesia
INA-IGS, the Indonesian Chapter (1992)
President: Mr. Gouw Tjie Liong
amelia.ina.igs@gmail.com or ame-liamakmur@gmail.com
Peru
Peruvian Chapter (2001)
President: Eng. Augusto V. Alza
administracion@igsperu.org
www.igsperu.org
Iran
Iranian Chapter (2013)
President: Dr. Kazem Fakharian
kfakhari@yahoo.com
hoseingh@yahoo.com
Italy
AGI-IGS, the Italian Chapter (1992)
President: Dr. Ing. Daniele Cazzuffi
agi@associazionegeotecnica.it
www.associazionegeotecnica.it/~agi/
Philippines
Philippine Chapter (2007)
President: Thomas Wintermahr
thomas@maccaferri.com.ph or
paul_navarro_javier@yahoo.com
Poland
Polish Chapter (2008)
Chairman: Dr. Jacek Kawalec
jacek.kawalec@vp.pl
37

Portugal
Portuguese Chapter (2003)
President: Jose Luis Machado do Vale
jose.vale@carpitech.com
Romania
Romanian Chapter (1996)
President: Christina Feodorov
cristina.feodorov@iridexgroup.ro
or adiol@utcb.ro
Russia
Russian Chapter of IGS (RCIGS, 2008)
President: Prof. Andrey Ponomaryov
ofrikhter@mail.ru
Slovakia
Slovakian Chapter of IGS (2011)
President: Dr. Radovan Baslik
radobaslik@gmail.com
South Africa
South African Chapter (1995)
President: Mrs. Riva Nortje
Nortje@jaws.co.za or joan-nes@englining.co.za
www.gigsa.org
Spain
Spanish Chapter (1999)
President: Mr. Angel Leiro
pabad@cetco.es
www.igs-espana.com
Thailand
Thai Chapter (2002)
President: Prof Suksun Horpibulsuk
suksun@g.sut.ac.th
www.set.ait.ac.th/acsig/igs-thailand
Turkey
Turkish Chapter (2001)
President: Dr. Fazli Erol Guler
eguler@boun.edu.tr
United Kingdom
U.K. Chapter (1987)
Chairman: Peter Assinder
david@abgLtd.com
www.igs-uk.org
Vietnam
Vietnamese Chapter International Ge-osynthetics Society
Vietnam Chapter (VCIGS)
President: Nguyen Hoang Giang
giangnh@nuce.edu.vn
West Pacific Regional Chapter
West Pacific Regional Chapter (1997)
President: Dr. Liang, Yueh
michael@goldjoint.com.tw
www.cgawebsite.org.tw
IGS Officers
President
Jorge G. Zornberg, PhD., P.E.
The University of Texas at Austin
Civil, Architectural & Environmental
Engineering Department, 1 Univ. Station C1792
Rm ECJ9, 227G
Austin, Texas 78712-0280 USA
Tel: 1/512 232 3595
Fax: 1/512 471 6548
Email: zornberg@mail.utexas.edu
Vice-President
Dr. Russell Jones
Golder Associates (UK) Limited
Attenborough House, Browns Lane Business Park,
Stanton-on-the-Wolds, Notting-hamshire, NG12 5BL
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 115 937 1111
Fax: 44 115 937 1100
Email: rjones@golder.com
Immediate Past-President
Prof. Fumio Tatsuoka
Tokyo University of Science
Dept. of Civil Engineering, 2641 Yamazaki, Noda City
Chiba Prefecture 278-8510
JAPAN
Tel: 81/47122 98190
Fax: 81 47123 9766
Email: tatsuoka@rs.noda.tus.ac.jp
Treasurer
Peter Legg
Consulting Principal, Geo-Environmental Engineers
28 8th Avenue, Northmead, Benoni, 1501
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: 27 (0)11 425 1197
Fax: 27 (0)11 425 1197
Email: peterlegg@telkomsa.net
Secretary
Elizabeth Peggs
geosynthetica.net
1934 Commerce Lane, Suite 4
Jupiter, Florida, USA 33458
Tel +1 561 768-9487
Fax +1 561 828 7618
Email: elizabeth@geosynthetica.net
Activities of Indian Chapter

International Seminar
GEOSYNTHETICS INDIA 2014

and
Workshop on
Design of Geosynthetic Barriers
15-17 October 2014
New Delhi, INDIA
INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetics are now being increasingly used the world over for every conceivable application in civil engineering,
namely, construction of dam, embankments, canals, approach roads, runways, railway embankments, retaining walls,
slope protection works, drainage works, river training works, seepage control, etc. due to their inherent qualities.
Its use in India though is picking up, is not anywhere close to recognition. This is due to limited awareness of the
utilities of this material and development taking place in its use.
To be abreast with the latest development in the field of Geosynthetics, an International Seminar Geosynthetics
India 2014, preceded by a Workshop on Design of Geosynthetic Barriers, is being organised by the Indian
Chapter of International Geosynthetics Society and the Central Board of Irrigation & Power (CBIP).
The International Geosynthetics Society (India), registered under Societies Registration Act 1860, in June 1992,
acts as Indian Chapter of International Geosynthetics Society (IGS), which was founded in Paris, on 10 November
1983.
The IGS is a non-profit organization dedicated to the scientific and engineering development of geosynthetics and
associated technologies. The IGS brings together individual and corporate members from all parts of the world, who
are involved in the design, manufacture, sale use or testing of geotextiles, geomembranes, related products, and
associated technologies, or who teach or conduct research about such products. There are 41 national or regional
chapters of the IGS.
Since its inception in 1927, the Central Board of Irrigation & Power (CBIP), which is the Secretariat of the Indian
Chapter of International Geosynthetics Society, is engaged in the dissemination of information regarding recent
technological advancements in the twin disciplines of water resources and power. Besides, it provides a forum for
exchange of experiences, facilitating flow of technology through the organisation of symposia, seminars, workshops,
training courses both at national as well international levels, in liaison with international organisations.
TOPICS
The following will be the topics for discussion during the seminar:
1. Geosynthetics Materials
7. Hydraulic Structures
2. Testing & Evaluation, Specifications and

Standardization
8. Hazardous Waste Management - Landfills and Ash

Ponds
3. Reinforced Soil Structures
9. Erosion Control
4. Soil Slopes Stabilisation and Landslide Mitigation
10. Ground Improvement
5. Filtration and Drainage
11. Natural Fibre Geotextiles
6. Roads and Railways
12. Hill Area Development
38
39
Forthcoming Events
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
English will be the official language of the seminar.
DATES AND VENUE
The event will be held at Central Board of Irrigation and Power, Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi during
15-17 October 2014.
CALL FOR CASE STUDIES
Case studies on the topics proposed and allied topics are invited. Intending authors may send the synopsis(es)
of their proposed case study (ies) in about 800-850 words, typed in single space, on A4 size (210 mm x 297 mm)
paper, in English, to the Seminar Secretariat.
Only original contributions that have not been published, or presented at other events, need be submitted.
Synopsis should contain:

A descriptive but brief title
Name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s)
Address for correspondence (including FAX No. and e-mail address)
Detailed information about the contents and conclusions
The purpose of requesting a comprehensive synopsis is to enable the reviewers to make a correct appraisal of the
suitability of the case study for the Seminar.
The synopses will be reviewed by the Technical Committee for their suitability for presentation.
DATES TO REMEMBER

Deadline for submission of synopses
14 August 2014
Notification of acceptance of synopses
29 August 2014
Submission of full texts of the accepted presentations
30 September 2014
SEMINAR SECRETARIAT
Central Board of Irrigation & Power
Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi 110 021, India
Contact Persons
Mr. V.K. Kanjlia, Secretary
Mr. A.C. Gupta, Director (WR)
Phone :
+91-11- 2611 5984/2611 1294
Mobile :
+91 98719 95996 (Mr. A.C. Gupta)
Fax :
+91-11- 2611 6347
E-mail :
uday@cbip.org; cbip@cbip.org
Web :
http://www.cbip.org
40
IGS News
Announcement of Candidates for: IGS Council, President & Vice President 2014 to 2018
Term
The IGS, in accordance with its bylaws, will hold elections
in 2014. IGS Members will have the opportunity to elect
eight Council Members, a President and Vice President.
Each of the elected members will serve a four-year term,
effective 25 September 2014.
The IGS encourages any IGS Member who is interested in
furthering the IGS Mission to consider standing for one of
the Council positions. It is a requirement for all Council
Members to attend IGS Meetings during their ten-ure
as a Council Member. In a typical year, the IGS Council
meets once for a two-day period preceding a geosynthetics event. It is the responsibility of the IGS Council
member to travel to these meetings and participate in
the plenary and committee meetings. The IGS council
attempts to host the meetings in equal distribution around
the world and based on the most suitable location in any
given year.
The IGS Council Members whose term of office expires
in 2014 are:
1. Pedro Abad (Spain)
2. S. Allen (USA)*
3. Eric Blond (Canada)
4. John Cowland (Hong Kong)*
5. Neil Dixon (UK)*
6. Peter Legg (South Africa)
7. Jun Otani (Japan)*
8. Elizabeth Peggs (USA)*
9. K. Rajagopal (India)
10. Juan Carlos Rivera (Peru)
11. Xiaowu Tang (China)
12. Nathalie Touze-Foltz (France)
13. Chungsik Yoo (Korea)
*The IGS bylaws stipulate that a Council Member may
only be elected to two consecutive terms; hence, Allen,
Cow-land, Dixon, Otani and Peggs are not eligible for
re-election. Each of the other incumbents are eligible to
stand for re-election.
Election Schedule
Under the bylaws of the IGS, only IGS Members are
eligible for election to the Council. Candidates are
required to travel to and attend the IGS Council meetings,
which are typically held once per year. Members who
are not prepared to meet this requirement should not to
run for a council position. Meetings of the IGS Council

are generally held in conjunction with international and
regional IGS conferences.
Voting: 1 May to 1 July 2014
Voting instructions will be sent to each eligible Individual
IGS Member and each designated representative from
the IGS Corporate Membership via email. Each member
may vote once. Please make sure you have submitted
an accurate email contact to the IGS. All voting will be
done electronically.
Announcement of Successful Candidates: 15 July 2014
IGS Members will be made aware of the successful
candidates via email and website on 15 July 2014
First Meeting of the New IGS Council: 25 September 2014
immediately following the 10ICG
The current IGS council will meet on the 21st of
September immediately preceding the conference. The
IGS General Assembly will be held on 24 September.
The first meeting for each of the successful candidates
will be held immediately following the conference on 25
September 2014
International Geosynthetics Photo
Contest 2014"
The IGS Photo Contest was conceived to create an excellent collection of photos showcasing outstanding work
by IGS members. The response to the initial con-test was
phenomenal with many entries received. The winning
photos, as well as being featured on the IGS website,
have been tapped for use and recognized in various
publications and lectures worldwide.
Winning photos will be acknowledged during the IGS International Conference in Berlin 2014.
Rules and Guidelines of the Photo Contest
Photos should clearly display a geosynthetic material/
technolgy in use
Provide a clear understanding of what geosynthetic
technology or event is being demonstrated
Contestant must be an active IGS Member
Each member is eligible to submit up to 5 photographs
to the contest
A title and description are required for each photo
The file size should not exceed 4MB per picture
File format must be .jpg
Photos should be sharp, well focused and aesthetically
pleasing
Before and After photo sets are welcome and count
as one entry
41
Final selection of First, Second, Third and Honorable
Mention photos will be made by an independent
committee
2014 IGS Photo Contest submissions must be received
no later than 15 May 2014
Honduran Chapter of the IGS - New IGS
Chapter in Central America
The Honduran Chapter of the IGS is the 41st Chapter of
the IGS and the first one in Central America. It was ratified
in November 2013 during the last IGS Council meeting
in GeoAfrica 2013 in Accra, Ghana. The IGS-Honduras
was created with a great academic support from the
Honduran National University (UNAH). The main idea was
to give a step forward to improve the formal education of
Professor, students, civil and geotechnical engineers on
the use and correct application on Geosynthetics in Civil
and Environmental engineering projects.
The Honduran Geosynthetics Society was conceived as
a nonprofit and independent organization, open for all the
people that are interested in or already engaged with the
design, installation, research or teach on geosynthetics.
OFFICIAL JOURNALS OF THE IGS
Geosynthetics International
Geosynthetics International is an official journal of the
IGS and has established itself as a premier peer-reviewed
journal on geosynthetics. The Journal publishes technical

papers, technical notes, discussions, and book reviews
on all topics relating to geosynthetic materials (including
natural fiber products), research, behaviour, performance
analysis, testing, design, construc-tion methods, case
histories, and field experience.
Geosynthetics International is only published electronically
starting Volume 10 (2003) by ICE Publishing (Thomas
Telford) and is free to IGS Members. All others, e.g.,
corporations, companies, and university libraries, can
subscribe at a rate of 590 / US$ 960.
Geotextiles & Geomembranes
Geotextiles and Geomembranes is dedicated to the
mission of the IGS, which is to promote the scientific and
engineering development of geotextiles, geomem-branes,
related products, and associated technologies.
The Journal publishes technical papers, technical notes,
discussions, and book reviews on all topics relating
to geosynthetics, research, behaviour, performance
analysis, testing, design, construction methods, case
histories, and field experi-ence.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes is now available free in
electronic format to IGS Members. To activate free access
and to create your personal account, you will need your
IGS Membership Number.
Publication on Earth Reinforcement

Design and Construction
Due to the paucity of space in megalopolises and metropolises, it is necessary to construct viaducts, flyovers, and other civil
engineering structures, which necessitates construction of soil retaining structures.
The conventional retaining structures such as cantilever and counter-fort retaining walls are elaborate and require far more
construction time. In a congested locality, there is a need to carry out the construction in a stipulated time. Hence, it is normally
preferred to adopt earth reinforced structures. Geosynthetics have facilitated construction of such structures and enhanced
their performance. These help in improving the strength of the soil manifold by making it strong enough to carry out the desired
functionality satisfactorily.
Central Board of Irrigation & Power has brought out a publication titled Earth Reinforcement Design and Construction
with emphasis on Design and construction coupled with Indian case histories.
The book is edited by Dr. G. Venkatappa Rao (Former Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi and Past President,
Indian Chapter of IGS), Dr. G.V.S. Suryanarayana Raju (President, Indian Chapter of IGS, and Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Government
of Andhra Pradesh), and Mr. S. Jaswant Kumar, Chief General Manager, National Highways Authority of India, is expected to serve
the practicing engineers and other geosynthetic professionals, interested in the frontier areas of modern technology.
The publication is priced at Indian Rs. 1,000/US$ 25 + Postage Charges. Members of International Geosynthetics Society
(IGS) and International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) are being offered 50% discount.
The publication can be purchased by payment through demand draft/cheque payable at par in New Delhi, in favour of Central
Board of Irrigation and Power, or by bank transfer as per details given below:
Name of Bank: ICICI Bank Limited, 16/48, Malcha Marg Shopping Centre, New Delhi 110 021
Account No. 034601000738 MICR Code No. 110229052
Account Holder Name: Central Board of Irrigation and Power
Swift Code: ICICINBBCTS IFSC Code: ICIC0000346 Branch Code: ICIC0000346
42
Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground

Improvement
Guidelines for Authors
This journal aims to provide a snapshot of the latest research and advances in the field of Geosynthetics.
The journal addresses what is new, significant and practicable. Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground
Improvement is published twice a year (January-June and July-December) by IndianJournals.Com, New Delhi.
The Journal has both print and online versions. Being peer-reviewed, the journal publishes original research
reports, review papers and communications screened by national and international researchers who are experts
in their respective fields.
The original manuscripts that enhance the level of research and contribute new developments to the geosynthetics
sector are encouraged. The work belonging to the fields of Geosynthetics are invited. The journal is expected to
help researchers, technologist and policy makers in the key sector of Geosynthetics to improve communication
and understanding regarding geotextiles, geomembranes and related products among designers, manufacturers
and users The manuscripts must be unpublished and should not have been submitted for publication elsewhere.
There are no Publication Charges.
1. Guidelines for the preparation of manuscripts for publishing in Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and
Ground Improvement
The authors should submit their manuscript in MS-Word (2003/2007) in single column, double line spacing. The
manuscript should be organized to have Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Material & Methods, Results & Discussion,
Conclusion, and Acknowledgement. The manuscript should not exceed 16 pages in double line spacing.
Submission of Manuscript:
The manuscript must be submitted in doc and pdf to the Editor as an email attachment to uday@cbip.org.
The author(s) should send a signed declaration form mentioning that, the matter embodied in the manuscript is
original and copyrighted material used during the preparation of the manuscript has been duly acknowledged. The
declaration should also carry consent of all the authors for its submission to Indian Journal of Geosynthetics
and Ground Improvement. It is the responsibility of corresponding author to secure requisite permission from
his or her employer that all papers submitted are understood to have received clearance(s) for publication. The
authors shall also assign the copyright of the manuscript to the Indian Chapter of International Geosynthetics
Society.
Peer Review Policy:
Review System: Every article is processed by a masked peer review of double blind or by three referees
and edited accordingly before publication. The criteria used for the acceptance of article are: contemporary
relevance, updated literature, logical analysis, relevance to the global problem, sound methodology,
contribution to knowledge and fairly good English. Selection of articles will be purely based on the experts
views and opinion. Authors will be communicated within Two months from the date of receipt of the manuscript.
The editorial office will endeavor to assist where necessary with English language editing but authors are hereby
requested to seek local editing assistance as far as possible before submission. Papers with immediate relevance
would be considered for early publication. The possible expectations will be in the case of occasional invited
papers and editorials, or where a partial or entire issue is devoted to a special theme under the guidance of a
Guest Editor.
The Editor-in-Chief may be reached at: uday@cbip.org
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Event
Location
14th Portuguese Congress on Geotechnics
Beira, Portugal
Date
E-Mail, Website
06 -09 April
2014
http://www.14cng.ubi.pt/
DredgDikes South Baltic Conference on Dredged Rostock /

Materials in Dike Construction
Warnemnde,
Germany
10 - 11 April
2014
dredgdikes@uni-rostock.de
http://dredgdikesconf.auf.unirostock.de
GeoShanghai 2014
26 - 28 May
2014
xzhang11@alaska.edu
www.geoshanghai2014.org
11 12 June
2014
www.aims.rwth-aachen.de
Shanghai, China
AIMS 2014: Sixth International Symposium High Aachen,

Performance Mining
Deutschland
First National Conference on Geosynthetics
Tegucigalpa,
Honduras
16 - 18 Jun
2014
igshonduras@gmail.com
16 - 18 Jun
2014
lisyuk@gmail.com
8th European Conference on Numerical Meth-ods in Delft, Nether-lands,

Geotechnical Engineering (NUMGE14)
The
18 - 20 Jun
2014
info@numge2014.org
www.numge2014.org
Geohubei International Conference 2014
20 - 22 Jul
2014
geohubei.adm@gmail.Com
http://geohubei2014.geoconf.org
2nd International Conference on Information Durham, United

Technology in Geo-Engineering
Kingdom
21 - 22 July
2014
icitg@duram.ac.uk www.icitg.dur.
ac.uk
TC204 ISSMGE 8th International Symposium on Seoul, Korea

"Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Con-struction
in Soft Ground" - IS-Seoul 2014
25 - 27 Aug
2014
www.is-seoul2014.org csyoo@
skku.edu
Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering for Nakhon

Sustainable Developement
Ratchasima,
Thailand
27 - 29 Aug
2014
natthaya@sut.ac.th http://acesd.
sut.ac.th/index.php
International Symposium on Geomechanics from Cambridge, United

Micro to Macro (TC105)
Kingdom
01 - 03 Sep
2014
ks207@cam.ac.uk
XV Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical Vienna, Austria

Engineering
09 - 11 Sep
2014
igb@tuwien.ac.at
decge2014.at
MECC14: 7th Mid-European Clay Con-Ference
16 - 19 Sep
2014
www.mecc2014.de
10th International Conference on Geosynthetics Berlin, Germany

(10ICG)
21 25 Sep
2014
g.braeu@bv.tum.de
www.10icg-berlin.com
33rd Baugrundtagung with Exhibition Geotechnik
Berlin, Germany
23 26 Sep
2014
www.dggt.de
2nd Eastern European Tunneling Conference
Athen, Greece
28 Sep. 01
Oct. 2014
www.eetc2014athens.org
2014-ISRM International Symposium - ARMS 8
Sapporo, Japan
TC207 Conference on "Soil-Structure Interac-tion: St. Petersburg,

Retaining Structures"
Russia
http://www.TC207SSI.org
Hubei, China
Dresden, Ger-many
www.
14 -16 Oct.
2014
www.rocknet-japan.org/ARMS8
7th International Congress on Environmental Melbourne,

Geotechnics
Australia
10 14 Nov
2014
7iceg2014@wsm.com.au
www.7iceg2014.com
GEOMATE 2014: Fourth International Conference on Brisbane, Aus-tralia

Geotechnique, Construction Materials + Environment
19 - 21 Nov.
2014
www.geomate.org
Geohazards 2014 International Symposium on Kathmandu, Nepal

Geohazards: Science, Engineering & Management
20 - 21 Nov.
2014
netra@ehime-u.ac.jp http://www.
ngeotechs.org/ngs/index.php/
geohazards-2014
7th International Conference on Scour and Erosion Perth, Western

(ICSE-7)
Australia
02 04 Dec
2014
www.2014icse.com/index.html
6IGS Chennai 2015: Sixth International Ge-otechnical Madras, Chennai,

Symposium on Disaster Mitigation
India
21 -23 Jan.
2015
w w w . i g s c h e n n a i .
in/6igschennai2015
43
Profile of Institutional Members of Indian Chapter
Profile of National Jute Board

National Jute Board (NJB) was constituted as per the National Jute Board Act 2008
by the Parliament for the purpose of development of jute cultivation, manufacture,
marketing and promotion of jute products. It is a corporate body with its office at
Kolkata and is headed by the Secretary of Textiles, Government of India.
NJB promotes standardization of jute and jute diversified products like Jute Geotextiles (JGT), assists and encourages studies and research in development
of technical textiles. It also sponsors and encourages scientific, technical and
economical research related to jute and jute products. It provides support services
to entrepreneurs including technical guidance and training. NJB also advises the
Central Government on all matters related to development of jute and jute industry
including import and export of jute and jute products. It regularly participates in
national & international geotechnical events and contribute papers.
44

Ijggi-July 2014

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ijggi-July 2014

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISSN : 2277-5625 (Print)

ISSN : 2277-5633 (Online)

Vol. 3 No. 2 July 2014

Indian Journal of Geosynthetics

Dr. K. Balan, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Trivandrum

Mr. Narendra Dalmia, Director, Strata Geosystems (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Satish Naik, CEO, Best Geotechnics Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. K. Rajagopal, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras

Dr. G.V.S. Raju, Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. G.V. Rao, Chairman, SAGES

Mr. T. Sanyal, Chief Consultant, National Jute Board

Dr. U.S. Sarma, Director, Coir Board

Mr. M. Venkataraman, Geotechnical Consultant

Indian Chapter of International Geosynthetics Society

Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and

From Editors Desk

Kinematics and Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Reinforced Foundation Beds

Influence of Nylon Fiber Reinforcement on Lime Stabilized Clayey Soil

International Geosynthetics Society

Activities of Indian Chapter

Profile of Institutional Members of Indian Chapter

All communications to be addressed to :

From the Editors Desk

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

GEOSYNTHETICS IN UNPAVED ROADS

unpaved road (Giroud and Han, 2004). Researchers

India has a road network of over 4.32 million km in

From the literature it was evident that the application

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement

of different reinforcing materials placed at the interface of

Table 1 : Properties of subgrade soils used

2.1 Subgrade Soil

Locally available red soil in the campus of Indian Institute

Two varieties of aggregates were used to represent the

Fig. 2 : Grain size distribution of the base course material

2.3 Reinforcing Materials

Fig. 1 : Grain size distribution of the subgrade soil used

The geotextile used in the experiments is a polypropylene

Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads

single lift of 200 mm thickness using the drop hammer

3.2 Field Tests

Fig. 3 : Load-elongation response of the geosynthetics

3. PREPARATION OF TEST SECTIONS

3.1 Model Tests

In both the model studies and field studies to prevent the

4.1 Model Studies

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement

Table 2 : Details of the model tests carried out

Details of the test

Table 3 : Details of the field tests carried out

of two different geometries. The area of biaxial geogrid

4.2 Field Studies

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

5.1 Model Studies

Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads

Fig. 5 : Geocell layer prepared at the site for field studies

diameter loading plate to the bed and the applied load

5.2 Field Studies

Fig. 6 : Schematic sketch of the experimental set-up

on the plan of the road section is shown in Fig. 8. The

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014