CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1
1.1 General
A developing country like India which has a large geographical area and population demands
vast infrastructure i.e. network of roads and buildings. Everywhere land is being utilized for
various structures from ordinary house to sky scrapers, bridges to airports and from rural
roads to expressways. Almost all the civil engineering structures are located on various soil
strata. Soil can be defined as a material consisting of rock particles, sand, silt, and clay. It is
formed by the gradual disintegration or decomposition of rocks due to natural processes that
includes disintegration of rock due to stresses arising from expansion or contraction with
temperature changes. Weathering and decomposition from chemical changes that occur when
water, oxygen and carbon dioxide gradually combine with minerals within the rock formation,
thus it is breaking down to sand, silt and clay. Transportation of soil materials by wind, water
and ice forms different soil formations such as those found in river deltas, sand dunes and
glacial deposits. Temperature, rainfall and drainage play important roles in the formation of
soils as in the different climatic regions. Under different drainage regimes, different soils will
be formed from the same original rock formation.

Soil stabilization is the process which involves enhancing the physical properties of the soil in
order to improve its strength, durability etc. by blending or mixing it with additives. The
different types of methods used for soil stabilization are: Soil stabilization using cement, Soil
stabilization using lime, Soil stabilization using bitumen, Chemical stabilization and a new
emerging technology of stabilization that is stabilization of soil by using Geo textiles and Geo
synthetic fibers.

Geo synthetics are synthetic products made from various types of polymers which may be
either Woven or Non-Woven. These are used to enhance the characteristics of soil and have
provided a practical way of constructing civil engineering structures economically.

In this study, we are making use of Jute bag fibers as geo synthetic material for stabilization
of soil. With the introduction of Jute bag fibers to the soil the CBR values may improve and
thickness of pavement layer also may get reduced. It may also reduce the intensity of stress on
sub grade. Jute bag fibers is such a geo synthetic material which is easily available, eco-
friendly and also cost effective. With the application of subgrade stabilization technique in
construction process the overall cost may get reduced when compared to the ordinary method
of construction.

2
 Figure 1.1 : Jute Bag Fibres

1.2 Needs And Advantages of Soil Stabilization

Soil properties vary a great deal and construction of structures depends a lot on the bearing
capacity of the soil, hence, we need to stabilize the soil to improve the load bearing capacity.
The gradation of the soil is also a very important property to keep in mind while working with
soils. The soils may be well-graded which is desirable as it has less number of voids or
uniformly graded which though sounds stable but has more voids.

1.21 Advantages of Soil Stabilizations

i. If during the construction phase weak soil strata is encountered, the usual practice
followed is replacing the weak soil with some other good quality soil. With the
application of soil stabilization technique, the properties of the locally available soil
(soil available at the site) can be enhanced and can be used effectively as the sub grade
material without replacing it.
ii. The cost of preparing the sub grade by replacing the weak soil with a good quality soil
is higher than that of preparing the sub grade by stabilizing the locally available
soil using different stabilization techniques.
iii. The strength giving parameters of the soil can be effectively increased to a required
amount by stabilization.
iv. It improves the strength of the soil, thus, increasing the soil bearing capacity.
v. It is more economical both in terms of cost and energy to increase the bearing capacity
of the soil rather than going for deep foundation or raft foundation.
vi. It is also used to provide more stability to the soil in slopes or other such places.
vii. Sometimes soil stabilization is also used to prevent soil erosion or formation of dust,
which is very useful especially in dry and arid weather.
viii. Stabilization is also done for soil water-proofing; this prevents water from entering
into the soil and hence helps the soil from losing its strength.
ix. It helps in reducing the soil volume change due to change in temperature or moisture
content.

3
1.22 Advantages of using jute bag fibers as geotextiles
i. High moisture absorbing capacity
ii. Bio-degradable
iii. Renewable resources, easily available
iv. Economical
v. Ecofriendly
vi. .Recycleable

1.3 Objectives of the project work

i. To conduct a series of tests to find soil parameters.
ii. To analyze the characteristics of soil for different concentrations of Geo synthetic
material (Jute bag fibers) mixed with it.
iii. Examine the bearing capacity of soil sample with and without Jute Bag Fibres.
iv. Experimental data, procedure and the results are discussed by considering jute fibers
as reinforcement to improve the soil bearing capacity and reduce the thickness of the
flexible pavement.

4
 Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

5
J.G.Zornberg (2015), in his paper “Stabilization of paved roads using geo synthetics”
studied the use of Geo synthetics as reinforcement inclusions to improve pavements
performance. Geo synthetics have been used in pavement design to address the functions of
separation, filtration, lateral drainage, sealing and reinforcement. The main objective of this
paper is using geo synthetics in flexible pavements for reinforcement. The geo synthetics
reinforcement was placed at the interface between the base and sub base layers or the
interface between the sub base and sub grade layers or within the base coarse layer of the
flexible pavement. This results in lower stresses over the sub grade than in un reinforced
flexible pavements. The use geo synthetics reinforcement resulted in the improve
performance of three mechanism: 1. Lateral restraint, 2. Increased bearing capacity 3.
Tensioned Membrane effect. However, the deformation needed to mobilise these mechanism
generally exceeds the serviceability requirements of flexible pavements. Also selection
criteria for geo synthetics to be used in reinforce pavements are not well established yet.

Jorge G. Zornberg (2017), “ Functions and applications of geosynthetics in roadways ” .

illustrated the mechanisms as well as key advances in each one of the multiple application i.e.
separation, filtration, reinforcement, stiffening, drainage, barrier, and protection that
contribute significantly to the good performance of roadways. One or more of the seven
aforementioned geosynthetic functions used enhanced the roadway performance in the
following five roadway applications: (1) mitigation of reflective cracking in asphalt overlays
by Reducing impact of degradation mechanisms in asphaltic layers that are caused (or
accelerated) by water intrusion (2) separation by Minimizing time-dependent decrease in
base layer thickness and in the quality of the aggregate base material; (3) stabilization of road
base by Minimizing lateral displacements in the base aggregate material. This facilitates
maintaining the original (comparatively high) aggregate confinement and, consequently,
maintaining the original (comparatively high) aggregate modulus that results in a
comparatively wide distribution of vertical loads and decreased base-subgrade contact stresses
(4) stabilization of road subgrade by Decreasing vertical stresses in the subgrade under the
wheel path, and beneficial redistribution of shear and normal stresses beyond the wheel path
and (5) lateral drainage by Minimizing generation of positive pore water pressures (for
saturated conditions) and decreased soil moisture content (for unsaturated conditions).

Lidia Sarah Calvarano et al (2016), “ Unpaved road reinforced with geosynthetics” ,

Geosynthetics are commonly used in mechanically stabilization of unpaved roads with a low
volume of traffic . The pratical use of geosynthetics above a weak subgrade or within a base
course has demonstrated the benefits of reducing rut depths and prolonging pavement life .
The purpose of this paper is to provide design criteria currently available for reinforced
unpaved roads . This paper deals with the results of a parametric analysis varying soil and
geosynthetics mechanical properties, allowable depths rut and traffic conditions . The focus of
the study was to compare these different design procedures aimed at estimating the base

6
thickness required for reinforced unpaved roads , providing their improvements and limits .
Design procedures are also compared with data obtained from field tests.

Both, the design models by Leng and Gabr design procedure and by Giroud and Han method
had a limitation that their calibration were carried out exclusively using just to geogrids types
(GG1 and GG3), thus limiting a more wide experimental investigation on different types
geogrids to obtain a wide database that allows to make the design method more general and
applicable to any type of reinforcement.

MD. Akhtar Hossain et el (2015), “ Improvement of Granular Subgrade Soil by Using

Geotextile and Jute Fiber ”,reported that Geotextiles and jute fibers both can bei5 successfully
used for reinforcement of soils to improve the bearing capacity. In the present study, firstly
the geotextile is used as a tensional material for reinforcement of granular soils. Laboratory
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed to investigate the load-penetration
behavior of reinforced and unreinforced granular soils with geotextile. By placing geotextile
at certain depth within sample height in one, two or three layers were tested under soaked
condition to investigate the effects of the number of geotextile layer on the increase in bearing
capacity. Later on various blends on jute fibers and geotextile layers were used to achieve
similar or improved CBR values with less layers of geotextiles to reduce the overall cost of a
project.

Sandeep Kumar et al (2017) in their paper “ Stabilisation of subgrade using geosynthetic

materials” studied the stabilization of sub grade to evaluate the strength of the soil to resist
the incoming load without any failure. Evaluation of the strength of the sub grade soil was
carried out using multi layer geogrid in the soil, by conducting grain size distribution,
standard proctor compaction test, OMC test, CBR test and chemical stabilization. Result of
the experiment shows that the use of geogrid leads to effectively enhance the property of soil
subgrade. The CBR value is increased with increase proportion of soil. The CBR value is
increased with addition of geogrid. The maximum CBR value with geogrid is significant upto
two layer of geogrid after that increase value is minimum.

Steve Maxwell et al (2005) , “ Effectiveness of geosynthetic in stabilizing soft subgrades” ,

studied the performance of highway pavement improved with geosynthetics with the help of
geosynthetic-reinforced subbases in a pavement system. They conducted a field
demonstration using a 21- m section along a Wisconsin highway (USH 45) near Antigo,
Wisconsin, that incorporated three test sub-sections. An additional investigation was
conducted at STH 60 to describe precisely the effectiveness of geosynthetic reinforcement.
Three different types of geosynthetics including a woven geotextile and also two different
types of geogrids were evaluated for stabilization. Observations made during and after
construction indicated that all sections provided adequate support for the construction
equipment and that no distress was evident in any part of the highway.

7
S.Sugandini , Dr.M.Madhuri (2017), “ Stabilisation of soils using Geosynthetics”, studied
the effect of the soil strength after application of geosynthetics ; soil geosynthetic interaction
properties for different types of soil . Analysis of strength of different types of soil is
carried out by application of geosynthetics in soil using sieve analysis and CBR test to find
the density of soil samples and mechanical strength of subgrade soil. Granular soil have
higher value of CBR i.e improve the CBR value for geogrid and had nearly doubled for the
penetration of 2.5mm and 5mm for geogrids. In case of granular soil , application of geogrid
in pavement reduced the thickness of the layer by almost half of the original depth. The
three clayey soil ( red laterite , marine clay and black cotton soil ) have positively responded
to the geotextiles in contradiction with the sandy soils

Unnam Rajesh et al(2016), “Studies on engineering performance of geogrids reinforced soft

sub grade” .The issues faced in the design and construction of pavement which is
challengeable and problematic for engineers was studied. Due to the presence of highly
compressible clayey soils the life the pavements often effected. CBR parameter is determined
for unreinforced and reinforced subgrade beds in lab and field varying of a soil plasticity,
soaking conditions and allowable tensile capacity of reinforcement.

Many applications of geosynthetics in sugared stabilization as separation, reinforcement,

filtration, drainage and containment. One of the main application being a reinforcement in
improving weak soil. The inclusion of reinforcement adds strength and increases CBR of
composite soils. One of the beneficial effects of geosynthetics found was at the interface
between base course and sub grade soil it carries shear stresses induced by vehicular roads at
the interface.

8
 CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

9
3.1 General
To determine the characteristics like Grading by Sieve Analysis, Atterbergs Limits i.e Liquid
limit using Casagrande’s Method , Plastic limit by rolling the sample to 3mm diameter thread,
Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density using Standard Proctor Test and also
California Bearing Ratio and Unconfined Compression Test. The determination of the
properties such as liquid limit, plastic limit , optimum moisture content, maximum dry
density, CBR value for different concentration of Geo synthetic material with clay soil. The
pavement thickness design will be done using pavement design catalogues published by IRC
SP:20-2002. The different tests were conducted in order to determine the different
characteristics and properties of the soil. The procedure of each of the tests have been
explained below.

3.2 Sieve Analysis [IS 2720 (Part 4) – 1985]

Sieve analysis is a procedure used to assess the particle size distribution of a granular material
by allowing the material to pass through a series of sieve of progressively smaller mesh size
and weighing the amount of material that is stopped by each sieve as a fraction of the whole
mass.

The grain size distribution is found by mechanical analysis. If the percentage fines are more
there is a need to conduct wet sieve analysis.

The different apparatus used for test were, sieves confirming to IS: 460(part I) - 1978,10mm
4.75 mm, 2.36 mm, 1.18mm, 425μ, 300μ, 150μ. Oven to maintain temperature between
105˚C to 110˚C, trays or buckets, brushes, mechanical sieve shaker.

The procedure for carrying performing sieve analysis is as follows:

Suitable quantity of soil about 200 g passing through 4.75 mm sieve is taken in 75μ sieve and
is washed thoroughly using clean water until clear water appears and retained portion of soil
is kept for oven drying. Retained sample is sieved using either mechanical sieve shaker or
manually sieved. Set of IS sieves as 10mm, 4.75mm, 2.36mm 1.18mm, 425 μ, 300μ, 150 μ
were used. Sieve the soil in a mechanical sieve shaker for 10 minutes. Weigh the material
retained on each sieve.

3.3 Liquid Limit Test [IS 2720 (Part 5) – 1985]

In order to study the liquid limit of soil Casagrande test was conducted. Liquid limit is
generally determined by the mechanical method using Casagrande’s apparatus or the standard
liquid limit test apparatus. As per this method the liquid limit is defined as the moisture

10
content at which 25 blows or drops in standard liquid limit apparatus will just close a groove
of standardized dimensions cut in the sample by the grooving tool by a specified amount.

Standard liquid limit apparatus is a mechanical device, consisting of a cup and arrangement
for raising and dropping through a specified height of 10mm. There are two standard grooving
tools. Other apparatus required include spatula, evaporating dish, moisture containers, balance
of capacity 200 grams and sensitivity to 0.01 g and thermostatically controlled drying oven to
maintain 105˚C to 110˚C.

About 150 g of dry soil sample passing 425 micron IS sieve is weighed and mixed thoroughly
with distilled water in the evaporating dish to form a uniform thick paste. In the case of clayey
soil, the paste should be kept in water tight container for the required period ( upto 24 hours)
to ensure uniform distribution of moisture in the soil paste. The liquid limit device is adjusted
to have a free fall to cup exactly through 10 mm. The cup and the grooving tools are cleaned
well. The paste should have a fairly stiff consistency such that in the trial run, 30-35 blows or
drops of the cup are required to close the standard groove for a specified length of 12 mm at
the bottom. The soil paste is remixed and a portion of the paste is placed in the cup of the
apparatus above the lowest spot and squeezed down with the spatula to have a horizontal
surface. The soil paste is trimmed by firm strokes of the spatula in such a way that the
maximum depth of soil sample in the cup is 10 mm. The soil sample in the cup is divided
along the diameter through the centre line of the cam followed by firm strokes of the grooving
tool so as to get a clean sharp groove. The curved grooving tool may be used for all soils,
whereas the V shaped grooving tool may be used only in clayey soils free from sand particles
or fibrous materials.

The crank is rotated at the rate of 2 revolutions per second (either by hand or electrically
depending upon whether it is hand operated or machine operated) so that the test cup is lifted
and dropped as specified. This is continued till the two halves of the soil cake flows slowly
under the blows and come into contact at the bottom of the groove for a length of 12 mm and
the number of blows given is recorded.

In the next trial, additional small quantity of water is added to the soil paste in the dish, mixed
well using a spatula and the required quantity of paste is placed in the test cup and the
operations are repeated to determine the number of blows required in this trial. As the water
content in the paste is increased, the number of blows required to close the groove decreases.
The process is repeated for 3 or more trials with slightly increased water contents each time,
noting the number of blows so that there are at least 4 to 6 uniformly distributed readings of
number of blows between 15 and 35.

11
 Figure 3.1 : Casagrande Apparatus

3.4 Plastic Limit Test [IS 2720 (part 5) – 1985]

In order to study the atterbergs limit it is important to conduct plastic limit test. Plastic limit
(PL) is the water content at which the soil rolled into thread of smallest diameter possible
starts crumbling and has a diameter of 3 mm

Evaporating dish of about 120 mm diameter, spatula, ground glass plate, moisture containers,
rod of 3 mm diameter, balance sensitivity to 0.01g, drying oven controlled at temperature
105˚C to 110˚C.

About 30 g of dry soil sample passing through 425 micron IS sieve is weighed out. The soil is
mixed thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish till the soil paste is plastic
enough to be easily moulded with fingers. A small ball (of about 8 g weight) is formed with
the fingers and this is rolled between the fingers and the ground glass plate to a thread
throughout its length. The pressure just sufficient to roll into a thread of uniform diameter
should be used. The rate of rolling should be between 80 to 90 strokes per minute counting a
stroke as one complete motion of hand forward and back to the starting position again. The
rolling is done till the diameter of the thread is 3 mm. Then the soil is kneaded together to a
ball and rolled again to form thread. During this process of alternate rolling and kneading
there will be loss in water content in the soil sample and it gradually become stiffer. The
process of kneading and rolling into thread is continued until the thread starts crumbling
under the same pressure required for rolling, when the thread just reaches a diameter of 3 mm
and the soil sample can no longer be rolled into thread of smaller diameter. If the crumbling
start at diameter less than 3 mm, then water content is more than plastic limit and if the
diameter is greater while crumbling starts, the moisture content is lower. By trial, the thread

12
which starts crumbling at 3 mm diameter under normal rolling pressure should be obtained
and the pieces of the crumbled thread of soil sample should be immediately transferred to an
air tight moisture container, lid tightly placed quickly and weighed to find the wet weight of
the thread. Any delay in transferring the sample of thread to the container or closing with the
lid tightly could result in considerable loss in the moisture due to rapid evaporation. The
container with the soil specimen is kept in the oven for about a day and dry weight is found.
The water content of the soil thread is determined which is plastic limit of the soil. The above
process is repeated three to four more times so as to get at least three consistent values of
plastic limit.

3.5 Compaction Test [IS 2720 (part VII) – 1980]

The Standard Proctor Test is conducted to study the density of soil and its corresponding
optimum moisture content. Compaction of soil is a mechanical process by which the soil
particles are constrained to be packed more closely together by reducing the air voids. Soil
compaction causes decrease in air voids and consequently an increase in dry density. This
may result in increase in shearing strength.

Mould of capacity 1000 cm3 with diameter of 100 mm and height 127.3 mm, metal rammer
of 50 mm diameter, 2.6 kg weight with a free drop of 310 mm, IS sieve 4.75 mm. Other
accessories like moisture containers, spatula, trowel, balances of capacity 10 kg and 200 g,
drying oven, measuring cylinder.

Take about 2.5 kg of air dried soil sample passing through 4.75 mm IS sieve. Add required
water to it and mix thoroughly and keep it for soaking in an air tight container for about 16-20
hours. Find the mass of the empty and clean cylindrical mould along with the base plate fixed
to it. Attach the collar and apply grease to the inside of mould and collar. Mix the matured
soil thoroughly and fill the soil in 1000c.c mould. For light compaction, compact the moist
soil in three equal layers, each layer being given 25 blows from the rammer weighing 2.6 kg
with a drop of 310 mm for 1000c.c mould by distributing the blows evenly. Each layer of the
compacted soil should be scratched with the spatula before putting the soil for next layer. The
amount of soil should be just sufficient to fill the mould leaving about 5 mm to be struck off
when the collar is removed. Remove the collar, trim the excess soil using a straight edge,
clean the mould from outside and take the mass of the mould with base plate and compacted
soil. Eject out the soil from the mould and take a representative sample for water content
determination. Repeat the above procedure for 5 to 6 time with increasing water content.

13
3.6 Unconfined Compression Test [IS 2720 (Part 10) : 1991]

The shear strength of the soil is determined by conducting unconfined compression test.
Unconfined compression tests are carried out on cohesive soil specimen. The test may be
considered as a special case of the tri axial compression test when the lateral confining
pressure is equal to 0. Therefore, the cylindrical test specimen may be directly placed in a
compression testing machine and the compressive load applied.

Strain controlled compression testing machine with proving ring assembly to measure load
applied, dial gauge to measure deformation and moulds and tools to prepare test specimen.

Take 150 g of dry soil sample passing through 425 micron IS sieve. Add optimum water to it
and mix thoroughly. The specimen of required size is obtained using sampling tube. Measure
the initial length and diameter of the specimen. Put the specimen on the bottom plate and raise
it to make contact with the upper plate. Adjust the compression dial gauge and load dial gauge
to zero. Compress the specimen to produce an axial strain rate of 0.5-0.2% per minute. Record
both the dial gauge readings at suitable time intervals or at least at every 1 mm deformation of
the specimen. Compress the specimen till the cracks are definitely developed or stress strain
curve is well past its peak or 20% of vertical deformation is reached whichever occurs earlier.
Sketch the failure pattern and measure failure angle α with horizontal, if possible, and if
specimen is homogeneous and partially saturated.

Figure 3.2 : Unconfined Compression Test Machine

14
3.7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test [IS 2720 (Part 16) – 1987]

The CBR test denotes a measure of resistance to penetration of a soil or flexible pavement
material, of standard plunger under controlled test conditions.

CBR test equipment consists of a motorised loading machine fitted with the plunger which
penetrates at the specified rate into the test specimen placed in the CBR mould. Hollow
cylindrical mould of inner diameter 150 mm and height 175 mm , spacer disc, compaction
rammer of 4.89 kg with a drop of 450 mm, metal weights i.e., two discs weighing 2.5 kg each.
Other accessories like IS sieve 19 mm, tray, mixing bowl, straight edge, filter paper, weight
balance, measuring jar.

Take 5 kg of dry soil sample passing through 19 mm IS sieve. Add optimum amount
of water to it and mix thoroughly. Apply grease to the inner surface of the CBR mould, place
the spacer disc at the bottom of the mould and keep a filter paper over it and fill the soil
sample into the mould in five layers with each layer being tamped for 55 blows using 4.89 kg
rammer with a free fall of 450 mm, to obtain the required density. Keep the surcharge weight
of 5 kg i.e., two discs weighing 2.5 kg each. Immerse this mould in clean water and allow it
for soaking for minimum four days. Remove the assembly and test it for CBR using
motorized loading machine.

The mould with the specimen is clamped over the base plate and the same number of
surcharge weights are placed on the specimen centrally such that the penetration test could be
conducted. The mould with base plate is placed under the penetration plunger of the loading
machine. The penetration plunger is seated at the centre of the specimen and is brought in
contact with top surface of the soil sample by applying a seating load of 4 kg. The dial gauge
for measuring the penetration values of the plunger is fitted in position and the penetration
dial gauge is set to zero.

The dial gauge of the proving ring for load readings (or the load cell reading) is also set to
zero, not considering the seating load. The load is applied through the penetration plunger of
the motorised loading machine at a uniform rate of 1.25 mm per minute. The load readings
are recorded at penetration readings of 0.0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 and 12.5
mm. In case the load readings start decreasing before 12.5 mm penetration, the maximum load
value and the corresponding penetration value are recorded. After the final reading, the load is
released and the mould is removed from the loading machine. If the load values are given by
the proving ring assembly, calibration factor of the proving ring is noted so that the load dial
values can be converted into load in kg.

15
Figure 3.3 : California Bearing Ratio Test Machine

16
 Chapter 4

Analysis Of Data

17
4.1 GENERAL

Sieve Analysis, Specific Gravity, Atterberg’s Limits, Compaction Tests, CBR and
UCS tests were conducted on sample collected from within the Assam Kaziranga University
Campus. The analysis results have been discussed below.

4.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SOIL

Sieve Analysis of Soil collected from within Assam Kaziranga University was carried out in
order to classify the soil. The following observation were made :

Sample taken [passing 4.75 mm sieve] = 500g

Table 4.1 : Sieve Analysis of soil

Sl. IS Sieve Mass of Mass of Mass of Percentage Cumulative Cumulative

no size(mm) Empty Sieve + Soil of soil % retained % passing
Sieve(g) soil retained(g) retained,
retained(g) %
1. 10 399 399 0 0 0 100
2. 4.75 422 423 1 0.2 0.2 99.8
3. 2.36 460 481 21 4.2 4.4 95.6
4. 1.18 364 490 126 25.2 29.6 70.4
5. 425 361 513 152 30.4 60 40
6. 300 343 384 41 8.2 68.2 31.8
7. 150 385 459 74 14.8 83 17
8. Pan 435 520 85 17 100 0
9. Total 500 245.4

Total cumulative % retained

Fineness Modulus =
100

245.7
=
100

= 2.45

Table 4.2:Fineness Modulus of soil

Types of sand Fineness Modulus

Fine sand 2.2 – 2.6
Medium sand 2.6 – 2.9
Coarse sand 2.9 – 3.2
Result – The sample is found to be in Zone IV. So it is Fine Sand.

18
 4.3 Specific Gravity Of soil

Table 4.3 : Specific Gravity of soil

Serial Weight of Weight of Weight of Weight of Specific Gravity

No density density density density (W 2−W 1)
bottle (gms) bottle +Dry bottle +Dry bottle + ( W 4−W 1 )−(W 3−W 2)
(W1) soil (gms) soil + Water Water (gms)
(W2) (gms) (W4)
(W3)
1 35 56 94 85 1.75
2 36 57 97 87 1.909

Therefore average Specific Gravity of the soil is 1.829

4.3.1 Soil Classification

Table 4.4 : Properties of the sample

Serial No Soil Property Values

1 Liquid Limit 34%
2 Plastic Limit 18.08 %
3 Plasticity Index 15.92
4 Specific Gravity 1.829
5 Maximum Dry Density 1.52
6 Optimum Moisture Content 12.5%

From the liquid limit and plasticity index , the soil type is classified as Clay with low
plasticity .

4.4 LIQUID LIMIT TEST :

4.4.1 Casagrande Method:

Sample taken ( passing through =425 μ) = 120g

Table 4.5: Liquid Limit Test on soil using Casagrande’s method

Trials Water content (%) No of blows

1 27.87 35
2 40.05 17

19
 Liquid Limit of Soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres
45
40 40.05
35
30
Water Content % 27.87
25
20
15
10
5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40
No of Blows

Graph 4.1: Liquid Limit Curve (Casagrande’s method)

Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 34%(corresponding to 25 blows)

4.4.2 Liquid Limit Test on clayey soil with jute bag fibres

Sample taken (passing through = 425μ)

Table 4.6 : Liquid Limit test on clay soil + 3% jute bag fibres using casagrande’s
method

Trials Water content % No of blows

1 24.07 33
2 36 22
3 41 17

20
 Liquid Limit of soil with 3% Jute Bag Fibres
45
40 41
35 36
Water Content %
30
25 24.07
20
15
10
5
0
15 20 25 30 35

No of Blows

ss

Graph 4.2 : Liquid limit curve of clay soil + 3% jute bag fibres

Liquid Limit as obtained from graph = 32%(corresponding to 25 blows)

Table 4.7 : Liquid limit test on clay soil + 5% jute bag fibres using casagrande’s method

Trials Water content ,% No of blows

1 23.15 37
2 28.2 28
3 40.44 15

Liquid Limit of soil with 5% Jute Bag Fibres

45
40
35
Water Content %

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40

No of Blows

Graph 4.3 : Liquid limit curve of clay soil + 5% jute bag fibres using casagrande’s
method

21
 Liquid limit as obtained from graph = 30.23%

4.4.3 Comparison of Liquid Limit Test Results Data

Table 4.8: Comparison of Liquid Limit Values obtained

Fibre added, % 0 3 5

Liquid Limit, WL 34 32 30.23

4.5 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST

Table 4.9: Plastic Limit test on clay soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

Trial Number 1
Container no 1
Mass of empty container (M 1)g 1.72
Mass of container +wet soil (M2)g 5.18
Mass of container +dry soil (M3)g 4.65
Mass of water ( Mw= M2-M3)g 0.53
Mass of dry soil (Md= M3-M1)g 2.93
Mw 18.08
Plastic Limit ,% (wp= ×100)
Md

4.5.1 Plastic Limit Test on soil added with fibres

Table 4.10 : Plastic limit test on clay soil + 3%, +5% jute bag fibres

Serial Number 1 2
Fiber added,% 3 5
Container No 2 3
Mass of empty container,M1 g 1.76 1.78
Mass of container +wet soil ,M2 g 5.48 5.48
Mass of container +dry soil , M3 g 4.53 4.66
Mass of water = Mw=M2-M3 0.95 0.82
Mass of dry soil =Md=M3-M1 g 2.77 2.88
Mw 23.46 28.47
Plastic Limit ,% Wp =( )×100
Md
Plastic Limits , Wp 23.46 28.47

22
4.5.2 Comparison Of Plastic Limit Test values

Table 4.11 Comparison of Plastic Limit Values obtained

Fibre added, % 0 3 5

Plastic Limit, Wp 18.08 23.46 28.47

4.6 PLASTICITY INDEX :

Soil sample with 0 % Jute Bag Fibres

Ip=WL-Wp= 34-18.08

= 15.92%

4.6.1 Plasticity Index of soil with added fibres

Soil Sample with 3% Jute Bag Fibres

IP = WL-WP = 32 – 23.46

= 8.54%

Soil Sample with 5% Jute Bag Fibres

IP = WL-WP = 30.23 – 28.47

=1.76%

4.6.2 Comparison Of Plasticity Index Test Results Data

Table 4.12 Comparison of Plasticity Index Values Obtained

Fibre added, 0 3 5
%
Plasticity 15.92 8.5 1.76
Index, IP 4

23
 40

35 34
32
30.23
30 28.47
Water Content, %
25 23.46
5%
20 18.08
3% 15.92
5%
15
0% 3%
10 0% 8.54
0% 3%
5
1.76
5%
0
Liquid Limit, WL Plastic Limit, Wp Plasticity Index, IP

Graph 4.4:Comparison Graph of Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of soil
with 0%, 3% and 5% Jute Bag Fibres

4.7 STANDARD PROCTOR TEST (LIGHT COMPACTION)

Sample taken ( passing 4.75 mm sieve) = 2500g

Volume of mould = 1000cc

Table 4.13: Standard proctor test on clayey soil with 0% Fibres

Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of empty mould (M1)g 5548 5548 5548 5548 5548
Mass of mould +compacted soil 7061 7126 7197 7288 7246
(M2)g
Mass of compacted soil M=(M2- 1513 1578 1649 1738 1698
M1)g
Bulk density (ɣb=M/V)g/cc 1.513 1.578 1.649 1.738 1.698
Water added 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
ɣb 1.4 1.434 1.47 1.52 1.463
Dry density (ɣd= )g/cc
(1+ w)
m 0.0683 0.081 0.100 0.125 0.147
Water content ( W= ×100)
¿¿

24
 Standard Proctor Test with 0% Fibres
1.55
1.524
1.5
Dry Density g/cc 1.47 1.463
1.45
1.43399999999999

1.4 1.4

1.35

1.3
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16

Water Content %

Graph 4.5: Compaction curve for clayey soil

OMC as obtained from graph =12.5%

MDD as obtained from graph= 1.52g/cm3

4.7.1 Standard proctor test on clayey soil with jute bag fibres

Sample taken (passing 4.75mm sieve)=2500g

Volume of mold =1000cc

Clayey soil added with fibres 3% by weight the following observation are made:

Table 4.14: Standard proctor test on clayey soil added with 3% Jute Bag fibres

Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of empty mould (M1)g 5467 5467 5467 5467 5467
Mass of mould + compacted soil 7152 7236 7292 7271 7238
(M2)g
Mass of compacted soil (M= M2- 1685 1769 1825 1804 1771
M1)g
Bulk density (ɣb=M/V) g/cc 1.685 1.769 1.825 1.804 1.771
Water added 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

m 0.0714 0.07407 0.1071 0.1293 0.1538

Water content , (W= ×100)
¿¿
ɣb 1.560 1.608 1.629 1.58 1.526
Dry density , (ɣd= ) g/cc
(1+ w)

25
 Standard Proctor Test with 3% Jute Bag Fibres
1.64
1.629
1.62
1.608
1.6
1.58 1.58
Dry Density g/cc

1.56 1.56
1.54
1.526
1.52
1.5
1.48
1.46
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16

Water Content %

Graph 4.6 : Compaction curve for clayey soil + 3% jute bag fibres

OMC as obtained from graph = 10.71 %

MDD as obtained from graph= 1.629 g/cm3

Clayey soil added with jute bag fibres 5% by weight the following observation are made:

Table 4.15: Standard proctor test on clayey soil added with 5% Jute Bag fibres

Trials 1 2 3 4 5
Mass of empty mould (M1)g 5413 5413 5413 5413 5413
Mass of mould +compacted soil 7078 7248 7327 7396 7400
(M2)g
Mass of compacted soil (M=M2- 1665 1835 1914 1983 1987
M1)g
M 1.665 1.835 1.914 1.983 1.987
Bulk density (ɣb= )g/cc
V
Water added 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
ɣb 1.541 1.662 1.708 1.739 1.70
Dry density (ɣd = )g/cc)
(1+ w)
Water content 0.079 0.0802 0.0869 0.0964 0.1037

26
 Standard Proctor Test with 5% Jute Bag Fibres
1.8
1.75 1.739
1.7 1.708 1.7
Dry Density g/cc 1.662
1.65
1.6
1.55 1.541
1.5
1.45
1.4
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11
Water Content %

Graph 4.7: Compaction curve for clayey soil +5%jute bag fibres

OMC as obtained from graph = 9.64%

MDD as obtained from graph=1.739 g/cm3

4.7.2 Comparison Table Of Standard Proctor Test Data Results

Table 4.16: Comparison of Compaction test results

Fibre added 0% 3% 5%
Dry Density, MDD 1.52g/cm3 1.629 g/cm3 1.739 g/cm3
Moisture Content, OMC 12.5% 10.71 % 9.64%

27
4.7.2 Comparison Graph of Standard Proctor Test Data Results

14 Comparison of Results
12.5
12
10.71
0%
10 9.64

3%
8
Moisture Content, OMC
5%
Dry Density, MDD
6

2 1.52 1.629 1.739

0
1 2 3

Graph 4.8: Comparison Graph for clayey soil with 0%,3% and 5%jute bag fibres

4.8 Unconfined Compression Test

4.8.1 UCS Test on clayey soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

OMC =12.5%

Maximum Dry Density, ᵞd=1.52gm/cm3

Volume of the specimen for UCS test ( 3.8cm dia and 7.6 cm long )=86.192cm3

Mass of soil required for preparation of the sample = ᵞd×vol

= 1.52 × 86.192

= 131.01g

Volume of water required to be added = 12.5% of the soil mass

12.5
= ×131.01g
100

= 16.37g

= 16 ml

28
 Initial Length of specimen, LO = 7.6 cm

Initial dia of the specimen, Do = 3.8 cm

Least count of dial gauge = 0.01mm

1
Area of the specimen = πd2 = 0.25 x 3.14 x 3.82 = 11. 33cm2
4

Table 4.17: Unconfined compression Test on soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

Dial gauge Strain(є) Elapsed Time Corrected Load (P) Compressive

reading (min) area (cm2) (kg) Stress(kg/cm
2
)
0 0 0 11.33 0 0
1.3 1.70 0.5 11.52 14.72 1.28
2.6 3.41 1 11.72 21.3 1.81
3.3 4.32 1.5 11.83 10.8 0.91

UCS of soil with 0% fibres

2
1.8 1.81
1.6
1.4
Stress kg/cm2

1.28
1.2
1
0.91
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Strain

Graph 4.9: UCS curve for soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

From the stress strain curve at failure, the unconfined compressive strength,

Unconfined Compressive Strength , qu = 1.81kg/cm2

29
 1.81
Shear Strength, c = = 0.905 kg/cm2
2

4.8.2 Unconfined Compression Test on clayey soil with jute bag fibres

Clayey soil added with 3% jute bag fibres by weight the following observation are made:

OMC, wc =10.71%

Maximum Dry Density, ᵞd=1.629gm/cm3

Volume of the specimen for UCS test ( 3.8cm dia and 7.6 cm long )=86.192cm3

Mass of soil required for preparation of the sample = ᵞd×vol

= 1.629× 86.192

= 140.40g

Volume of water required to be added = 10.71% of the soil mass

10.71
= ×140.40g
100

= 15.03g

= 15 ml

Table 4.18: Unconfined Compression Test on clayey soil +3% jute bag fibres

Dial gauge Strain (є) Proving ring Corrected Load (kg) Compressive
reading reading area Stress
(kg/cm2)
0 0 0 11.341 0 0
0.5 0.064 0.2 11.341 0.068 0.611
1 0.128 0.6 11.341 0.207 1.185
1.5 0.192 1 11.341 0.345 3.069
2 0.256 1.4 11.341 0.483 4.303
2.5 0.321 2 11.341 0.690 6.148
3 0.385 2.2 11.341 0.759 6.760
3.5 0.449 2.2 11.341 0.759 6.760

30
 UCS + 3% Jute Bag Fibres
8

Stress, kg/cm2
7 6.76 6.76
6.147999999999
6 99
5
4 4.303

3 3.069
2
1 1.185
0.611000000000
0 0 001
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Strain

Graph 4.10 UCS test on clayey soil added 3% Jute Bag Fibres

From the stress strain curve at failure, the unconfined compressive strength,

Unconfined Compressive Strength , qu = 6.76kg/cm2

6.76
Shear Strength, c = = 3.38 kg/cm2
2

Clayey soil added with 5% jute bag fibres by weight the following observation are made :

OMC = 9.64%

Maximum Dry Density, ᵞd=1.739gm/cm3

Volume of the specimen for UCS test ( 3.8cm dia and 7.6 cm long )=86.192cm3

Mass of soil required for preparation of the sample = ᵞd×vol

= 1.739× 86.192

= 149.88g

Volume of water required to be added = 9.64% of the soil mass

9.64
= ×149.88g
100

= 14.44 g

31
 = 14 ml

Table 4.19: Unconfined Compression Test on clayey soil + 5% jute bag fibres

Dial gauge Strain(є) Proving ring Corrected Load (kg) Compressive

reading reading area Stress
(kg/cm2)
0 0 0 11.341 0 0
0.5 0.064 0.6 11.341 0.208 1.84
1 0.128 2 11.341 0.690 6.14
1.5 0.192 3.2 11.341 1.104 9.82
2 0.256 3.2 11.341 1.104 9.82
2.5 0.321 3 11.341 1.035 9.21

UCS of 5% Jute Bag Fibres

12

10 9.82 9.82
9.21
Stress kg/cm2

6 6.14

2 1.84
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Strain

Graph 4.11 UCS test on clayey soil added with 3% Jute Bag Fibres

From the stress strain curve at failure, the unconfined compressive strength,

Unconfined Compressive Strength , qu = 9.82kg/cm2

9.82
Shear Strength, c = = 4.91 kg/cm2
2

32
4.8.3 Comparison of UCS Test Results Data

Table 4.20: Comparison of Unconfined Compression Test

Fibre Added, % 0 3 5
Unconfined 1.81 6.76 9.82
Compressive
Strength kg/cm2, qu
Shear Strength 0.905 3.38 4.91
kg/cm2, c

Comparison Of Results
12

9.82
10

8 Unconfined Compressive
6.76
Strength kg/cm2, qu
6 Shear Strength kg/cm2, c
4.91
4 3.38
5%
1.81
2 3%
0.905
0%
0
1 2 3

Graph 4.12 Comparison Graph of soil with 0%,3% and 5% Jute Bag Fibres

33
4.9 California Bearing Ratio(CBR) Test :

4.9.1 OMC = 12.5% of Soil sample without any fibres:

Table 4.21: California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test on clayey soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

Penetration(mm) Trial 1 Division Load(kg)

0 0 0 0
0.5 4 x5 20 x 4.79 95.8
1 7 x 5+2 37 x 4.79 177.23
1.5 9x5+3 48 x 4.79 229.92
2 11x 5+2 57 x 4.79 273.03
2.5 12 x 5+4 64 x 4.79 306.56
3 13 x 5+3 68 x 4.79 325.72
3.5 14 x 5+1 71 x 4.79 340.09
4 14 x 5+3 73 x 4.79 349.67
4.5 15x 5 +1 76 x 4.79 364.04
5 15 x 5+3 78 x 4.79 373.62

CBR of soil with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

450
400
373.62383.1
350 349.67364.04
340.09
325.72
300 306.56
Load, kg

273.03
250
229.92
200
177.23
150
100 95.8
50
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Penetration, mm

Graph 4.13:CBR test on clayey soil added with 0% Jute Bag Fibres

Load as obtained from graph at 2.5mm penetration= 306.56 kg

306.56
CBR of specimen = ×100 = 22.37%
1370

34
Load as obtained from graph at 5mm penetration = 373.62kg

373.62
CBR of specimen = ×100 = 18.18%
2055

4.9.2 OMC = 10.71% of Soil sample with 3% Jute Bag Fibres:

Table 4.22 : California bearing Ratio(CBR) Test on soil sample with 3% Jute Bag Fibres

Penetration Trial 1 Division Load (kg)

0 0 0 0
0.5 8.8 14 67
1 18.8 32 153.28
1.5 27.4 45 215.55
2 34.6 57 273.03
2.5 40.2 70 335.30
3 45.8 75 359.25
3.5 50.4 80 383.2
4 56.2 85 407.15
4.5 60.8 94 450.68
5 66 101 483.79

CBR of soil with 3% Jute Bag Fibres

600

500 483.7899999999
450.68 99
407.15
Load, kg

400 383.2
335.3 359.25
300
273.03
200 215.55
153.28
100
67
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Penetration, mm

Graph 4.14:CBR test on clayey soil added with 3% Jute Bag Fibres

35
Load as obtained from graph at 2.5mm penetration= 335.30 kg

335.30
CBR of specimen = ×100 = 24.47%
1370

Load as obtained from graph at 5mm penetration = 392.78kg

483.79
CBR of specimen = ×100 = 23.54%
2055

4.9.3 OMC = 9.64% of Soil sample with 5% Jute Bag Fibres:

Table 4.23 : California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

Penetration Trial 1 Division Load (kg)

0 0 0 0
0.5 7.6 18 86.22
1 18.4 35 167.65
1.5 30.4 49 234.71
2 38 62 296.98
2.5 45 75 359.25
3 52.6 84 402.36
3.5 58.7 89 426.31
4 64.1 97 464.63
4.5 69.3 104 498.16
5 74 107 512.53

CBR of soil with 5% Jute Bag Fibres

600

500 498.16512.53
464.63
400 402.36426.31
Load, kg

359.25
300 296.9799999999
99
234.71
200
167.65
100 86.22
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Penetration ,mm

36
 Graph 4.15:CBR test on clayey soil added with 5% Jute Bag Fibres

Load as obtained from graph at 2.5mm penetration= 359.25kg

359.25
CBR of specimen = ×100 = 26.22%
1370

Load as obtained from graph at 5mm penetration = 512.53kg

512.53
CBR of specimen = ×100 = 24.94%
2055

4.9.4 Comparison of CBR Test Results Data

Table 4.24: Comparison of California Bearing Ratio

Fibre Added, % 0 3 5
CBR at 2.5 mm 22.37 24.47 26.22
penetration, %
CBR at 5 mm 18.18 23.54 24.94
penetration, %

Comparison of CBR Test Results

30
26.22
24.4723.54 24.94
25
22.37
20 18.18 CBR at 2.5 mm penetra-
tion, %
15 3% 5% CBR at 5 mm penetration,
0% %
10

0
1 2 3

Graph 4.16:Comparison Of CBR values of soil at 2.5mm and 5mm penetration with 0%,
3% and 5% Jute Bag Fibres

37
 CHAPTER- 5
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

38
5.1 Liquid limit
1. The liquid limit of the soil alone was found to be 34%
2. The liquid limit of the soil with addition of 3% and 5% by weight of soil is
found to be 32% and 30.23 % respectively.

5.2 Plastic limit

1. The plastic limit of the soil alone was found to be 18.08%
2. The plastic limit of the soil with addition of 3% and 5% Jute bag fibers by
weight of soil is found to be 23.46% and 28.47 % respectively.

5.3 Plasticity Index

1. The plasticity index of the soil alone was found to be 15.92 %.
2. The plasticity index of the soil with addition of 3% and 5% Jute bag fibers by
weight of soil is found to be 8.54 % and 1.76 % respectively.

5.4 Standard Proctor Test

1. The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) of
soil alone was found to be 12.5 % and 1.52 g/cm3 respectively.
2. The MDD of the soil with addition of 3% and 5% jute bag fibres by weight of
soil is found to be 1.629 g/cm3 and 1.739 g/cm3 respectively and the
corresponding OMC is found to be 10.71 % and 9.84 % respectively.

5.5 Unconfined Compression Test

1. The shear strength of soil alone was found to 0.905 kg/cm2.
2. The shear strength of the soil with addition of 3% and 5% Jute bag fibers by
weight of soil is found to be 3.88 kg/cm2 and 4.91 kg/cm2 respectively.

5.6 Caifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test

1. The CBR value of soil alone was found to be 22.37 %
2. The CBR value of the soil with addition of 3% and 5% jute bag fibers by
weight of soil is found to be 24.47% and 26.22% respectively.

39
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

40
On the basis of present experimental study, the following conclusions are drawn
1. There is substantial decrease in OMC with increase in addition of fibers.
2. There is decrease in the Liquid Limit of soil.
3. The Plastic Limit of soil increases with addition of fibres.
4. The plasticity Index of soil decreases with addition of fibres.
5. In unconfined compression test it was observed that the shear strength of the soil has
increased with the increase in percentage of Jute bag fibers, when compared to that
of shear strength of soil tested without fiber.
6. The shear strength of the soil is maximum when 5%( by weight of soil) of Jute bag
fibers is added to it. Hence in order to obtain higher shear resistance 5% of fibers (by
weight of soil) can be considered as the optimum fiber content.
7. The California bearing ratio (CBR) of the soil alone is obtained as 22.37 % and it
increased to 24.47 % after stabilizing it with optimum percentage of Jute bag fibers.
Hence, by conducting the various experiments and after performing the analysis of
the data obtained, it is found that with the use of Jute Bag Fibres the strength of a
Weak Subgrade soil can be increased by almost 3% and the Load carrying Capacity
of the Subgrade can be increased by almost 5%. Thus the CBR and UCS values of
the Subgrade have improved and yielded much better results with addition of 5%
Jute Bag Fibres. With this study Jute Bag Fibres have been found to be efficient
Subgrade Stabilizers with the addition of more Fibres.

41
REFERENCES

42
 I.S: 2720 (Part IV)-1985 : “Indian standard for grain size analysis”, Bureau of Indian
Standards Publications, New Delhi.
 I.S: 2720 (Part V)-1985 : “Indian standard for determination of liquid limit and plastic
limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
 I.S: 2720 (Part VII)-1980 : “Indian standard for determination of water content- Dry
density relationship using light compaction”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications,
New Delhi.
 I.S: 2720 (Part X)-1991 : “Indian standard for determination of unconfined
compressive strength”, Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
 I.S: 2720 (Part XVI)-1965 : “Indian standard for laboratory determination of CBR”,
Bureau of Indian Standards Publications, New Delhi.
 J.G.Zornberg,(2015)“Stabilization of paved roads using geo synthetics”, ©2015 The
authors and IOS Press
 Jorge G. Zornberg (2017), “ Functions and applications of geosynthetics in
roadways”,©2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 Lidia Sarah Calvarano et al(2016) , “ Unpaved road reinforced with geosynthetics”,
©2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 MD. Akhtar Hossain et el(2015), “ Improvement of Granular Subgrade Soil by Using
Geotextile and Jute Fiber”, International Journal Of Science, Technology and Society
2015.
 Sandeep Kumar et al(2017), ,“ Stabilisation of subgrade using geosynthetic materials”
7th International Conference on Recent Development in Engineering Science,
Humanities and Management, 2017.
 Steve Maxwell et al(2005), “ Effectiveness of geosynthetic in stabilizing soft
subgrades”, Published by Wisconsin Highway Research Program.
 S.Sugandini , Dr.M.Madhuri (2017), “ Stabilisation of soils using Geosynthetics”,
Published by IJARIIE Vol-2 Issue-6 2017.
 Unnam Rajesh et al(2016), “Studies on engineering performance of geogrids
reinforced soft sub grade”,©2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

43