Lilystic Geocomposite Chapters 1-4 PDF

LILYSTIC GEOCOMPOSITE AS SOIL STABILIZER 3
Lilystic Geocomposite as Soil Stabilizer: A Study on the Efficiency of Geocomposite Made
from Waterlily Geotextile and High Density Polyethyline (HDPE) Geonets Composite as
Soil Stabilizer for Jose Abad Santos Avenue (JASA) Road Network Development,
Improvement/Widening to National Road - Primary Road
Pampanga’s problem with heavy traffic congestion goes hand in hand with drainage
systems and roadway construction. Seventeen (17) out of the one hundred (100) ongoing road
constructions in Region 3 as of June 30, 2016 is located at Pampanga (DPWH, 2016). Heavy
traffic congestions happens because of the rampant roadway construction which will require
closing of minor or major roads and/or reducing the number of passable lanes. On the other hand,
roadway construction is flourishing because of roadway failures. Some of various types of
concrete pavement failures are spalling, pumping, linear cracking, durability cracking, and
blowups (Pavement Interactive, 2012). Most of these concrete pavement failures are results of
the failure in the sublayers of the concrete pavement. In urban areas, the service life of pavement
on weaker soil subgrade is affected severely due to their high compressibility and plasticity
behaviour. Subgrade layer is the lowest layer in the pavement structure underlying the base
course or surface course, depending upon the type of pavement. Generally, subgrade consists of
various locally available soil materials that sometimes might be soft and/or wet that cannot have
enough strength/stiffness to support pavement loading (Dhakal, 2012). These soils possess less
strength, CBR value and have high affinity to moisture content. Also the seasonal changes
affects the soil properties adversely. A sound knowledge of performance of the subgrade soil
under prevailing in-situ condition is necessary prior to the construction of the pavement. The
better the strength/stiffness quality of the materials the better would be the long term
performance of the pavement. Hence, the design of pavement should be focused on the efficient,
most economical and effective use of existing subgrade materials to optimize their performance.
In case of soft and wet subgrades, proper treatment might be needed in order to make the
subgrade workable for overlying layers (e.g., creating working platform) for pavement
construction (Dhakal, 2012). Stabilization techniques using geo-synthetic materials for
improving properties of these types of soft subgrade are used to increase the subgrade soil
strength and to reduce the thickness of pavement. Geosynthetics are increasingly used in wide
variety of civil engineering applications. Geo- synthetics are the cost-effective ground
modification materials which acts as a reinforcement and also increases the stability and bearing
capacity of soil (Krishna & Rao, 2015). Geocomposites consist of a combination of geotextiles,
geogrids, geonets, and/or geomembranes in a factory-fabricated unit. Also, any one of these four
materials can be combined with another synthetic material (ACE Geosynthethics, n.d.).
Geotextiles are indeed textiles in the traditional sense, but they consist of synthetic fibers
rather than natural ones such as cotton, wool, or silk. Thus, biodegradation and subsequent short
lifetime is not a problem. These synthetic fibers are made into flexible, porous fabrics by
standard weaving machinery or are matted together in a random nonwoven manner. Some are
also knitted. The major point is that geotextiles are porous to liquid flow across their
manufactured plane and also within their thickness, but to a widely varying degree. There are at
least 100 specific application areas for geotextiles that have been developed; however, the fabric
always performs at least one of four discrete functions: separation, reinforcement, filtration,
and/or drainage (Koerner, R., 2005).Water lilies are known to be one of the most useful plants
when it comes to filtering and and purifying water. According to Dew-Drop.com, all plants have
a natural cycle of filtering and purifying water that passes through them. One great disadvantage
that waterlilies bring because of their rapid reproduction is that they completely cover the surface
of water reducing the light penetration into the body of water which can kill fish and other plants
(“Weed Info,” n.d.). Waterlilies has become a rampant problem in Pampanga particularly in the
areas of Masantol. Leslie Ann Mahusay (2015) reported that the lack of oxygen at the Pampanga
River due to waste and water lilies are the possible causes of the fishkill in the municipality last
July 2015. In Mahusay’s 2015 article Masantol Mayor Dan Guintu said that, "the test results on
the water sample from Pampanga River last July 17, 2015 showed that various types of fish
lacked oxygen because of wastes and water lilies, not because of harmful chemicals dumped
from factories." This pressing problem invigorated the proponents of the study to present an
alternative solution in resolving the fishkill problem by utilizing the water lilies. The proponents
of the study aims to generate a new use for the fibers that can be extracted from water lilies.
The proponents of this study aims to introduce a solution to the pressing heavy traffic
congestion caused by pavement failure by using a geocomposite made from waterlily geotextile
and high density polyethyline (HDPE) geonets as soil stabilizer. The use of geocomposite layer
in the subgrade shall provide added reinforcement to the soil with its inherent properties thereby
giving a way to construct pavements with a thinner layer of subgrade in its in-situ soil condition.
Furthermore, with the introduction of geocomposite, the proponents also want to introduce a
green technology in the raw materials to be used for the geocomposites. The geotextile will be
made of water lily fibers.
The proponents of the study will also utilize high density polyethylene (HDPE) for the
making of the geonets. Geonets are formed by a continuous extrusion of parallel sets of
polymeric ribs at acute angles to one another. When the ribs are opened, relatively large
apertures are formed into a netlike configuration. (Koerner, R., 2005).

With the use of these two geosynthethics the proponents can produce a geocomposite
made from waterlily geotextile and high density polyethyline (HDPE) geonets that will serve as a
soil stabilizer.
With the problems presented: heavy traffic congestion due to fixing re-occurring
pavement failure, increase in the number of waterlily growth in the province of Pampanga,
clogged drainage in the Lubao-Guagua stretch due to waterlilies, large number of HDPE waste in
landfill areas, and the limitation to construction activity due to the type of in-situ soil, the
proponents present the following objectives of the study:
 To determine the possible maximum CBR for the soil in the City of San Fernando in
Pampanga which is classified by Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) (2011), as a
quaternary alluvium by placing the geocomposite in varying depth in the subgrade layer.
 To check the thickness in subgrade for the soil in the City of San Fernando in Pampanga
when placed with geocomposite in varying depth in the subgrade layer.
 To determine the improved strength of soil by addition of geocomposite in varying depth
in the subgrade layer.
 To determine the amount of money that can be saved from excavation cost and labor cost
for excavation by using a geocomposite layer on the subgrade versus the subgrade that
does not have a geocomposite.
 To determine the amount of money that can be saved for maintenance cost by using a
geocomposite layer on the subgrade versus the subgrade that does not have a
geocomposite.
With these objectives the following areas of concern were addressed:
 What is the type of soil that can be suitable for construction?

 What are the types of soil stabilization techniques available and the most economical
among the traditional stabilization techniques?
 What is the cost of producing a geocomposite made from waterlily geotextile and high
density polyethyline (HDPE) geonets?
The findings of this study will be of benefit to the construction industry since not all
types of soil is suitable for construction but with the use of geocomposite having a construction
in soils unsuitable for construction can be made possible with certain limitations. Aside from
that, utilizing the waterlily fibers that clogs the drainage area in Pampanga will be of to the
problems related to flooding. In addition to that, utilizing HDPE waste will reduce the volume of
this type of waste in the landfills thereby providing more space for other types of waste that can
be dumped in the area. This study shall also benefit the construction industry by determining the
minimum amount of subgrade thickness that can be used for pavement construction thereby
saving money for additional backfill that usually happens when constructing in a soil with low
California Bearing Ration (CBR) value.
The research study mainly consists of identification of the depth unto which the
geocomposite shall be placed as a suitable stabilizer for the soil type in the City of San Fernando
in Pampanga based on strength requirements of soil in pavements constructed in the City of San
Fernando. Secondly, it also consist the identification of the minimum and maximum amount of
soil that can be saved with the use of geocomposite in the subgrade layer.
In the course of this study the proponents had come up with the given conceptual
framework:
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Primary Data - Identifying the problem Lilystic Geocomposite:
- Identify the properties A Study on the
- Interviews Efficiency of
and function of
- Observation Geocomposite Made
geocomposite as soil
- Researches from Waterlily
stabilizer Geotextile and High
- Results of
- Determine the type of Density Polyethyline
Test
in-situ soil in Angels (HDPE) Geonets
Secondary Data City used for pavement Composite as Soil
construction Stabilizer
- Government
- Determine the best
- Documents
depth up to which the
- Case Studies
geocomposite can be
- Journals
placed
- Determine the
minimum and
maximum volume of
soil that can be saved
with the inclusion of
geocomposite in the
subgrade of the soil
- Develop and design

proposed pavement
project with the
inclusuion of
geocomposite in the
subgrade layer.
Figure 1. This figure illustrates the conceptual framework of the study.

Methods
Research Design
The researchers used experimental research in order to meet the specified objectives of
the study. Experimental research method was used in measuring the CBR value of the soil at
different depths. The researchers assigned specific depths where the geocomposite will be placed
along the height of the soil sample.
Instruments/Sources of Data
To gather the data needed, the researchers tested the properties of the product at
Philippine Textile Research Institute. The researchers also identified the soil properties in the
City of San Fernando area at Department of Public Work and Highways. Published news
interviews were also used as evidences for the problems that has been observed in Pampanga due
to waterlilies. Some case studies regarding geocomposites and soil stabilization techniques were
also consulted to form a decent research framework.
Materials
Water lily
Water lily is an aquatic herb from the Nymphaeaceae family of flowering plants. Its
abundant growth in the province of Pampanga has been eyed as one of the major causes of flood.
This has led to the utilization of waterlily fibers in various livelihood programs. The waterlily
fibers that was used in this study was the decorticated fibers which were sun-dried for 7 days
upon decortication. This was latter, processed into a non-woven geotextile at PTRI with a ratio
of 50% polyester and 50% waterlily fiber. The sun-dried waterlily fibers that were decorticated
will undergo needle-punching and carding for six repetitions until the fibers get into the
polyester.
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
HDPE is a type of plastic that is normally seen as bottles, water pipes, plastic bags, food
storage container, and etc. This plastic is commonly recycled having a number 2 resin
identification code. The HDPE used in this study was derived from plastic bottles of shampoos,
and lotions. This was processed into geonets by Polymer Products Philippines Inc. The HDPE
was melted and reshaped into geonets.
Soil
The soil that will be used in the study was collected adjacent the San Fernando
intersection road. This soil will be subjected to the CBR test in a soaked condition.
Compression machine
This will be used to compress the layer of soil that will be tested. A 2.5kg of weight
annular weight shall be placed to the soil prior to seating the penetration plunger after which the
remainder of the surcharge weight is placed.
Procedure
The researchers collected soil samples in the City of San Fernando in Pampanga and all
the samples used in this study were molded in the laboratory according to the available standard
procedures by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
T 193-99 (2003) . For the laboratory testing program, the geocomposite is placed at four
different depths in the subgrade layer just like what is shown in Figure 2. The collected soil
samples were remoulded to serve as specimens. The maximum dry density value obtained from
the Proctor Compaction Test was used for remoulding. Since the CBR test was proposed to be
carried our using soaked specimens, the specimens were allowed to be soaked in water for 96
hours. The compaction will done by dynamic method after soaking.

1.4 in.
2.8 in.
Layer 1 (L1) Layer 2 (L2)

Design Design
4.2 in.
5.6 in.
Layer 3 (L3) Layer 4

Design (L4) Design
Figure 2. The four experiment designs for CBR test.
The layers of soil indicated above will be subjected in a California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
test in order to identify the strength developed by the soil due to the inclusion of geocomposite.
For Layer 1 (L1) Design, the geocomposite layer shall be placed 1.4 inches below the top
surface. For Layer 2 (L2) Design, the geocomposite layer shall be placed 2.8 inches below the
top surface. For Layer 3 (L3) Design, the geocomposite layer shall be placed 4.2 inches below
the top surface. Lastly, for Layer 4 (L4) Design, geocomposite layer shall be placed 5.6 inches
below the top surface.
Data Analysis Plan
From the CBR results the load penetration curve is plotted taking penetration value on x-
axis and Load values on Y-axis. Corresponding to the penetration value at which the CBR is
desired, corrected load value is taken from the load-penetration curve and the CBR calculated as
follows:
𝑃𝑡
𝐶𝐵𝑅 = × 100
𝑃𝑠
where,
Pt = Corrected unit (or total) test load corresponding to the chosen penetration curve, and
Ps = Unit(or total) standard load for the same depth of penetration as for PS taken from standard
code.
After the computations have been made the researchers will determine the appropriate
thickness of pavement with regards to depth where the geocomposite was placed. The volume of
soil that will be saved will be determined by subtracting the result of the thickness of subgrade
based from the design experiments carried out to thickness of subgrade that will be computed
based on the CBR data that will be provided by the DPWH’s boring data on the site. The
resulting difference in thickness will be used to calculate the excavation cost and labor cost for
subgrade preparation and this value shall represent the gross savings. The price for making a
geocomposite shall also be computed and will be subtracted from the gross savings. The
resulting value will represent the total net savings for the road project. The proponents will also
look into the possibility of utilizing the subgrade as a subbase material if it possesses a sufficient
CBR design value with the inclusion of geocomposite layer. The proponents will analyze how
much money can be saved for subbase preparation if there is 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% fill
on the design elevations. Since the proponents of the study did not have the chance to furnish a
copy of the design elevations assuming the said percentages for volume of fill can give a rough
estimate of the amount of money that can be saved for subbase preparation.
Results
The results of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test performed on the sample soil
which is classified as silty soil based on the field density test (FDT) are discussed in this section.
With the aim to determine the changes in the thickness of the subgrade based on CBR values of
the soil with the introduction of geocomposite, the CBR test has been conducted on the soil with
geocomposite placed at different layers. The soil in the CBR mold has been divided into four
layers with equal weights and the various geocomposite has been placed accordingly to
understand the best possible location of the geosynthetic material to yield maximum CBR value.
The material properties of the soil are reflected in Table 1 such as the liquid limit,
plasticity index, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, and the CBR value of the soil
based from the boring data gathered by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
for Sta. 71+000 to 71+500 and 72+000 to 72+390.
Table 1
Soil Properties
Property Symbol Silty Soil
Liquid Limit LL 27
Plasticity Index PI 7
Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3) MDD 1583
Optimum Moisture Content, % OMC 19.0
CBR value, % 18
The material properties of the geocomposite are listed in Table 2. The following test
results were the product of the tests conducted by the Department of Science and Technology
(DOST). The tensile strength test was conducted using ASTM D 4595-11 Wide Width Method.
The mass per unit area was determined using ASTM D5261-10. Thickness determination was
directed by the methods of ASTM D 5199-12. The water permeability by Permittivity was
conducted using ASTM D 4491-99a (Reapproved 2014).
Table 2
Geocomposite Properties
Property Geocomposite
Tensile Strength, MD 14.2kN/m
Tensile Strength, CMD 9.5kN/m
Elongation @ max force, MD 52.8%
Elongation @ max force, CMD 20.9%
Mass per Unit Area 1539 g/m2
Thickness 11.70mm
Water Permeability by Permittivity 0.13s-1
The CBR test was with geocomposite was conducted in 4 different layers. The results for
the CBR test for Layer 1 with geocomposite sample placed 1.4 inches from the top of the mold
gave the following results listed in Table 3.

Table 3
CBR test results for L1 design
Molded Soaked CBR (%)

Percent Percent
Linearity Max.
of of Surcharge
Density Moisture Density Moisture Correction Swell
Max. Max. 2.5mm 5.1mm (kgs.)
(kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3) (%) (mm.) (%)
Dens. Dens.
1 1409 89.2 19.0 1378 87.2 22.2 25.2 22.7 0.00 4.344 2.2
2 1617 102.3 18.6 1582 100.1 20.5 36.2 28.2 0.00 4.344 2.2
3 1731 109.6 19.3 1693 107.1 20.2 37.7 30.6 0.00 4.344 2.2
Note. corresponds to 10 blows, corresponds to 30 blows, corresponds to 65 blows.
Table 3 shows the change in density and moisture content of the soil sample upon
molding and after soaking. The CBR value for 2.5mm penetration and 5.1mm penetration are
also given as 25.2% and 22.7% respectively for 10 blows. The table also shows the 30 blows
2.5mm penetration and 5.1mm penetration CBR values which are 36.2% and 28.2% respectively.
For 65 blows, the 2.5mm penetration CBR value is 37.7% and the 5.1mm penetration CBR value
is 30.6%. This values were plotted to determine the penetration resistance in Megapascal (mPa)
of the soil with a layer of geocomposite sample placed 1.75 inches below the top surface of the
mold. Figure 3 shows the penetration resistance versus penetration depth of the sample.
Figure 3. Penetration Resistance vs. Penetration Depth for L1 design
Figure 3 illustrates that the penetration resistance vs. penetration depth for 10 blows, 30
blows, and 65 blows. For the 10 blows upon 0.6mm depth of penetration the resistance is
0.584mPa. A value of 1.75mPa is achieved under 2.5mm penetration. Under 5.1mm of
penetration a resistance of 2.345mPa is achieved. The penetration resistance for 7.6mm
penetration depth is 2.819mPa. For the 30 blows upon 0.6mm depth of penetration the resistance
is 0.914mPa. A value of 2.499mPa is achieved under 2.5mm penetration. Under 5.1mm of

penetration depth is 3.567mPa.
Figure 4. CBR value vs Molded Density for L1 design
Figure 4 shows the relation between CBR value and molded density. According to this
graph the design CBR value for the sample is 35%. The CBR values for 10 blows, 30 blows, and
65 blows are plotted. The maximum dry density (MDD) is then projected upwards and the value
to where it intersected with the CBR curve will be the design CBR, in this case it is 35%.
The results for the CBR test for Layer 2 with geocomposite sample placed 2.8 inches
from the top of the mold gave the following results listed in Table 4.
Table 4

Percent Percent
Linearity Max.
of of Surcharge
(kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3) (%) (mm.) (%)
Dens. Dens.
1 1390 88 18.9 1359 86 22 23.3 20 0.00 4.344 2.2
2 1528 96.7 19.2 1495 94.6 21.5 28.4 24.1 0.00 4.344 2.2
3 1808 114.4 19 1768 111.9 21 35.5 29.9 0.00 4.344 2.2
also given as 23.3% and 20% respectively for 10 blows. The table also shows the 30 blows
2.5mm penetration and 5.1mm penetration CBR values which are 28.4% and 24.1% respectively.
graph the design CBR value for the sample is 30%. The CBR values for 10 blows, 30 blows, and
65 blows are plotted. The MDD is then projected upwards and the value to where it intersected
with the CBR curve will be the design CBR, in this case it is 30%.
The results for the CBR test for Layer e with geocomposite sample placed 4.2 inches
Table 5

Percent Percent
Linearity Max.
of of Surcharge
(kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3) (%) (mm.) (%)
Dens. Dens.
1 1434 90.8 18.9 1402 88.7 22.1 13.6 10.9 0.00 4.344 2.2
2 1554 98.4 19.1 1520 96.2 20.3 26 21.8 0.00 4.344 2.2
3 1727 109.3 18.8 1689 106.9 19.7 30.5 25.7 0.00 4.344 2.2
2.5mm penetration and 5.1mm penetration CBR values which are 26% and 21.8% respectively.
graph the design CBR value for the sample is 27.7%. The CBR values for 10 blows, 30 blows,
and 65 blows are plotted. The MDD is then projected upwards and the value to where it
intersected with the CBR curve will be the design CBR, in this case it is 27.7%.
The results for the CBR test for Layer 4 with geocomposite sample placed 5.6 inches
Table 6

Percent Percent
Linearity Max.
of of Surcharge
(kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3) (%) (mm.) (%)
Dens. Dens.
1 1438 91 19.2 1384 87.6 24.3 20.8 16.6 0.00 4.344 3.9
2 1544 97.7 19 1510 95.6 22.7 24 20.8 0.00 4.344 2.2
3 1743 110.3 18.7 1704 107.9 20 28.4 25.3 0.00 4.344 2.2
2.5mm penetration and 5.1mm penetration CBR values which are 24% and 20.8% respectively.
graph the design CBR value for the sample is 24.9%. The CBR values for 10 blows, 30 blows,
and 65 blows are plotted. The MDD is then projected upwards and the value to where it
intersected with the CBR curve will be the design CBR, in this case it is 24.9%.
Based from the CBR design values derived from the CBR test, the thickness of the
subgrade was determined and listed under Table 6. The thickness of subgrade was determined
𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 𝐴
using the formula: ℎ = (0.1275 log10 𝐴𝐷𝑇 + 0.087)(8.1×𝐶𝐵𝑅 − 𝜋)0.5 where ADT corresponds to
annual daily traffic (ADT) volume, ESAL corresponds to equivalent single axle load (ESAL), A
corresponds to tire contact area in square inches, and h corresponds to subgrade thickness in
inches.
Table 6
CBR design value and corresponding thickness of subgrade.
CBR Value, % Subgrade Thickness, mm
35 190
30 205
27.7 215
24.9 230
18 270
Design CBR of 18% serves as the control set-up for the computations. From the given
subgrade thickness the amount of money saved for excavation is reflected under Figure 2. The
prices are based on the unit price given by DPWH on the specified road project.
1200000 1087771.02
1000000 883791.76
800000 747805.58
600000 543862.32
400000
200000
0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Design Layers of Geocomposite
Figure 11. Design layers of geocomposite vs. total savings from excavation
From Figure 11, it is evident that there is a higher saving by using the design L1 that is
placing the geocomposite sample 1.4 inches below the top surface. By using the design L1 it is
possible to save Php1,087,771.02. Using L2 design that places the geocomposite 2.8 inches
below the top surface a Php 883,791.76 can be saved. For L3 design where the geocomposite is
placed 4.2 inches below the top surface there is a possible Php 747,805.58 savings and for L4
design where the geocomposite is placed 5.6 inches below the top surface it is possible to save
Php 543,862.32 for excavation.
Since there is a decrease in the volume to be excavated there is decrease in labor cost in
terms of subgrade compaction. Figure 3 represents the savings for labor cost of subgrade
compaction based on the design layers of geocomposite.
400000
335766.08
350000
300000
252841.89
250000
203987.32
200000
138670.9
150000
100000
50000
0
L1 L2 L3 L4
Design Layers of Geocomposite
Figure 12. Design layers of geocomposite versus total savings for labor cost
From Figure 12, it is observed that L1 design gave the highest savings in labor cost based
from the decrease in volume of the subgrade which is Php 335,766.08. L2 design gave Php
252,841.89 savings, L3 design gave Php 203,987.32 savings, and L4 design gave Php
138,670.90 savings.
The total savings for both excavation and labor cost are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7
Design Layers of Geocomposite and Gross Total Savings
Design Excavation Cost Savings, Php Labor Cost Savings, Php Gross Savings, Php
L1 1,087,771.02 335,766.08 1,423,537.10
L2 883,791.76 252,841.89 1,136,633.65
L3 747,805.58 203,987.32 951,792.91
L4 543,862.32 138,670.90 682,497.22
From Table 7 it can be observed that L1 design garnered the highest net savings next to
L2, L3, and L4 respectively. The total highest possible savings is Php 1,423,537.10 for the 2.532
kilometer stretch of road that has a total area of 48,246 square meters.
Since the proposed design requires a layer of geocomposite, it is therefore necessary to
include the price of geocomposite for the whole coverage of the road to get the total net savings.
Table 8 reflects the price of geocomposite to be used in the whole coverage of the road and the
total net savings.

Table 8
Total Net Savings based from Different Design Layers of Geocomposite
Design Gross Savings, Php Total Geocomposite Cost, Php Total Net Savings, Php
L1 1,423,537.10 893,515.92 530,021.18
L2 1,136,633.65 893,515.92 243,117.73
L3 951,792.91 893,515.92 58,276.99
L4 682,497.22 893,515.92 -211,018.70
Table 8 shows that L1 design provided a total net savings of Php 530,021.18. L2 design,
L3 design and L4 design followed with Php 243,117.73, Php 58,276.99, and a negative Php
211,018.70, total net savings respectively.
Table 9
Total Expenses for Subbase Preparation
Fill Volume Price per Cubic Volume to be Total Expenses for
Percentage Meter, Php Filled, m3 Subbase Preparation, Php
10% 759.76 964.9 733,092.424
20% 759.76 1929.8 1,466,184.848
30% 759.76 2894.7 2,199,277.272
40% 759.76 3859.6 2,932,369.696
50% 759.76 4824.5 3,665,462.120

Table 9 shows the possible savings that can be saved if L1 design will be used as a
subbase material provided the assumed percentage of volume of fill. Computations show that if
the road has 10% fill volume only Php 733,092.424 will be incurred as an expense. For 20% fill
volume Php 1,466,184.848 will be spent. For 30% fill volume Php 2,199,277.272 will be used
for subbase preparation. Php 2,932,369.696 will be spent for 40% fill volume and Php
3,665,462.120 for 50% fill volume will be spent for subbase preparation.
Discussion
The increase in the growth of waterlily and the rise of constant repairs and maintenance
in public roads invirogated the proponents to produce a product that will help in solving both
problems at once. The introduction of the geocomposite made from waterlily geotextile and high
density polyethyline (HDPE) geonets composite as soil stabilizer in the layers of the subgrade of
the soil was proven to be effective in terms of bearing strength and of cost.
Looking at the summarized CBR design values in Figure 4 it is highly evident that the
geocomposite made an impact in increasing the bearing strength of the soil.
40
35
35
30
30 27.7
24.9
25
20 18
15
10
0
L1 L2 L3 L4 CTRL
CBR DESIGN VALUE
Figure 13. The CBR design value of the control set-up and the experimental set-ups.
From Figure 13, it can be concluded that as the geocomposite is placed deeper from the
surface the bearing strength of the soil decreases but is still higher compared to the control set-
up. This means that placing the geocomposite at the upper portion of our subgrade layers will
give us a greater bearing strength since the geocomposite acts in tension as the load penetrates
downward thereby providing additional force to resist the load that penetrates.
According to Planning and Design of Roads, Airbases, and Heliports in the Theater of
Operations by Department of the Army and Air Force (1974) when the strength of the subgrade
is increased a lesser thickness can be provided for an adequate distribution of loads. Since the
results provided an impressive increase in the CBR design value the proponents calculated the
thickness required as per specific CBR design value from the design layers of geocomposite.
From the results, L1 design achieved a 190mm thickness, L2 design had 205mm
thickness, L3 design had 215mm thickness, L4 design had 230mm thickness and the control set-
up had a 270mm thickness. This proves that it is possible to save as high as 80mm of subgrade
soil if a geocomposite layer will be used.
Saving a material is always associated with cost that is why the proponents of this study
calculated the decrease in volume based from the calculated thickness of subgrade per design and
the given area of the road which is 48246 square meter. The calculated volume was multiplied to
the unit price of excavation under subgrade materials given by DPWH which amounts to Php
218.86 per cubic meter.
From the results provided, L1 design provided the highest savings in terms of excavation
cost since it gave the highest decrease in thickness. L2, L3, and L4 designs followed
respectively.
Since there is a decrease in the amount of material that will be used there will also be a
decrease in the amount of work to be done. Therefore, the proponents also calculated the amount
of labor cost that can be saved from the excavation. The values where calculated using the
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑊×𝑆×𝐿×16.3
formula: 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = where W is the compacted width per pass in feet, S is
ℎ𝑟 𝑃
the average roller speed in meters per hour, L is the thickness of the layer to be compacted, and P
is the number of passes required to compact the soil. The decrease in volume based from design
layers of geocomposite is then divided to compacted volume per hour to get the number of hours
to compact the soil and multiplied to to the value of equipment to be used which is the Vibratory
Single Smooth Drum Roller, CA252D, 12.55M.T. that is rated at Php 2703.51 an hour.
From the calculations, it was found that the lesser the thickness the higher the savings
will be for the labor compaction since a lesser thickness will provide a lesser volume to be
compacted. The savings for excavation and compaction labor cost was added to get a total gross
savings and it was found that L1 design which has the least thickness in subgrade had the highest
total gross savings of Php 1,423,537.10. L2 design followed with Php 1,136,633.65 savings. L3
and L4 designs come with Php 951,790.91 and Php 682,497.22 total gross savings respectively.
Since one of the objectives of the proponents is to determine if the use of geocomposite is
cost-effective the calculated cost of geocomposites for the whole span of the road was calculated
based from the prices of the processes the materials underwent. The total cost per square meter
of the geocomposite is Php 18.52 and this value was multiplied to the whole area of the road
which is 48246 square meter to determine the actual cost of the geocomposite application for the
whole span of the road. The cost of application for the said area is Php 898,515.92. This value
was subtracted to the total gross savings to get the total net savings.
Based from the results of the calculation for total net savings, it was found that L1, L2,
and L3 design are cost effective. Using L4 design which is placing the geocomposite at 5.6
inches below the top surface is not found to be cost effective since it will incur a negative total
net savings.
The proponents of the study have also found out that the increase in the design CBR
value of the soil has met the requirement for the CBR of the subbase which is a minimum of
25% according to DPWH’s Blue Book. Based from the calculations it was found out that the
design CBR value for subbase used in the said road is 35% and L1 design layer met this
requirement. In terms of grading requirements, it did not qualify as a suitable subbase but
according to GlobalSecurity.Org if a material possess an impressive CBR design strength but
doesn’t meet the grading requirements it can still be possibly used as a subbase material if
supported by an adequate in place CBR test. Therefore, there is a feasibility that the material can
be used as subbase. Without considering the design elevations for the said road it is possible to
save up to Php 7,330, 924.24 for subbase price according to the unit price given by DPWH for
the said site.
With all of this, the proponents of the study concludes that using a geocomposite layer in
the subgrade can reduce construction cost using L1, L2, and L3 designs. The L1 design yields
the highest total net savings followed by L2 and L3 designs respectively. By using the L1 design,
the subgrade material can be possibly used as a subbase as long as it is supported by an adequate
in place CBR test since it did not meet the grading requirements for subbase materials. Since L1
design can be possibly used as a subbase material, there is a projected savings depending on the
amount of fill volume that is needed. From the results, it was found out that the lesser the fill
volume the lesser the expenses for subbase preparation will be therefore there will be a higher
savings for the said item.

The proponents of the study recommends using the geocomposite layer for subbase layer
and consider the design elevation of the proposed road in order to quantify the volume that can
be possibly decreased.

Lilystic Geocomposite Chapters 1-4 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lilystic Geocomposite Chapters 1-4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LILYSTIC GEOCOMPOSITE AS SOIL STABILIZER 3

Lilystic Geocomposite as Soil Stabilizer: A Study on the Efficiency of Geocomposite Made

Improvement/Widening to National Road - Primary Road

roadway construction is flourishing because of roadway failures. Some of various types of

construction (Dhakal, 2012). Stabilization techniques using geo-synthetic materials for

made of water lily fibers.

apertures are formed into a netlike configuration. (Koerner, R., 2005).

proponents present the following objectives of the study:

Pampanga which is classified by Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) (2011), as a

when placed with geocomposite in varying depth in the subgrade layer.

 To determine the improved strength of soil by addition of geocomposite in varying depth

in the subgrade layer.

does not have a geocomposite.

With these objectives the following areas of concern were addressed:

 What is the type of soil that can be suitable for construction?

among the traditional stabilization techniques?

density polyethyline (HDPE) geonets?

California Bearing Ration (CBR) value.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

- Develop and design

Figure 1. This figure illustrates the conceptual framework of the study.

along the height of the soil sample.

also consulted to form a decent research framework.

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

was melted and reshaped into geonets.

remainder of the surcharge weight is placed.

procedures by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

hours. The compaction will done by dynamic method after soaking.

Layer 1 (L1) Layer 2 (L2)

Layer 3 (L3) Layer 4

Figure 2. The four experiment designs for CBR test.

below the top surface.

Data Analysis Plan

for Sta. 71+000 to 71+500 and 72+000 to 72+390.

Property Symbol Silty Soil

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3) MDD 1583

Optimum Moisture Content, % OMC 19.0

conducted using ASTM D 4491-99a (Reapproved 2014).

Tensile Strength, MD 14.2kN/m

Tensile Strength, CMD 9.5kN/m

Elongation @ max force, MD 52.8%

Elongation @ max force, CMD 20.9%

Mass per Unit Area 1539 g/m2

Water Permeability by Permittivity 0.13s-1

gave the following results listed in Table 3.

CBR test results for L1 design

Molded Soaked CBR (%)

Note. corresponds to 10 blows, corresponds to 30 blows, corresponds to 65 blows.

Note. corresponds to 10 blows, corresponds to 30 blows, corresponds to 65 blows.

Figure 3. Penetration Resistance vs. Penetration Depth for L1 design

0.584mPa. A value of 1.75mPa is achieved under 2.5mm penetration. Under 5.1mm of

penetration a resistance of 2.345mPa is achieved. The penetration resistance for 7.6mm

is 0.914mPa. A value of 2.499mPa is achieved under 2.5mm penetration. Under 5.1mm of

penetration a resistance of 2.918mPa is achieved. The penetration resistance for 7.6mm

is 1.123mPa. A value of 2.598mPa is achieved under 2.5mm penetration. Under 5.1mm of

penetration a resistance of 3.160mPa is achieved. The penetration resistance for 7.6mm

penetration depth is 3.567mPa.

Figure 4. CBR value vs Molded Density for L1 design

CBR test results for L2 design

Molded Soaked CBR (%)

1 1390 88 18.9 1359 86 22 23.3 20 0.00 4.344 2.2

3 1808 114.4 19 1768 111.9 21 35.5 29.9 0.00 4.344 2.2

Note. corresponds to 10 blows, corresponds to 30 blows, corresponds to 65 blows.