Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Tensile behaviors of natural fiber and cement reinforced soil subjected to T

direct tensile test
Khiem Quang Tran∗, Tomoaki Satomi, Hiroshi Takahashi
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, 6-6-20 Aramaki-Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8579, Japan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The present work was conducted to investigate the direct tensile behaviors including tensile strength, stress-
Direct tensile strength strain curve, energy absorption, and crack patterns of soil reinforced by cement and natural fiber. In order to
Stress-strain curve archive this, the direct tension test was designed to use for both reinforced and unreinforced specimens. The
Fiber-cement stabilized soil compacted 8-shaped samples with a wide range of cement content (0%, 4%, 8%, and 12%), fiber content (0%,
0.25%, 0.5%, and 1%), and curing days (7, 14, and 28 days) were prepared at optimum moisture content and
maximum dry unit weight for the direct tension test. From experimental data, an empirical formula following
three parameters (cement content, fiber content, and curing time) was proposed by using regression analysis. In
addition, the effective degree of cement content, fiber content, and curing time on direct tensile strength was
also examined based on the sensitive analysis. The experimental results showed that tensile properties (tensile
strength, energy absorption capacity, and stress-strain curve) of cemented soil at low cement content and curing
time were significantly improved with fiber inclusion. Direct tensile strength equaled to 0.483 and 0.071 times of
splitting tensile strength and unconfined compressive strength, respectively. An acceptable regression model for
predicting direct tensile strength was established. According to sensitive analysis, the ascending orders of ef-
fective parameters on direct tensile strength were fiber content, curing time, and cement content.

1. Introduction advantages in observing some properties mentioned above. In addition,

Tensile strength of soil, an important parameter, controls the tensile
cracks which contribute to the failure of earthen structure. As a result,
in recent years, many researchers focused on researching the tensile
strength of soil due to its importance in earthen structures [1–7].
However, the tensile strength value of soil is considered as zero [4,5],
so many methods including fiber reinforced soil, chemical stabilized
soil, and chemical stabilized soil reinforced with fiber have been used
for improving tensile strength as well as other properties (compressive
strength, shear strength, cracking, etc.) [2,5,8–17]. In these methods,
the fiber reinforced cemented soil method has been paid more attention
due to some benefits such as limiting the potential weakness plane,
improving mechanical properties, reducing the impact on environment
when using natural fiber. The tensile strength of fiber-cemented soil is
usually investigated by using splitting tension test. However, it is dif-
ficult to understand deeply the effect of fiber on tensile crack, stress-
strain curve, energy absorption, etc. Recently, Tang et al. [1,2] had
developed an apparatus for investigating the direct tensile behavior of
compacted soil and fiber reinforced soil. This test has shown the
there is no research using this kind of apparatus on fiber reinforced
cemented soil as well as cemented soil.
As a result, the study focuses on investigating tensile behaviors of
soil reinforced with cement and natural fiber including stress-strain
curve, maximum tensile strength, energy absorption capacity, and crack
patterns by conducting direct tension test. From the experimental re-
sults, the relationships of direct tensile strength versus indirect tensile
strength and direct tensile strength versus unconfined compressive
strength are given. The multiple nonlinear model for predicting the
tensile strength of cemented soil with and without fiber inclusion fol-
lowing three basic parameters including cement content, fiber content,
and curing time is established according to regression analysis. In ad-
dition, the sensitive analysis is also applied to the developed model to
understand the effective degree of fiber on the direct tensile strength of
cemented soil.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tranquangkhiem90@gmail.com, tran.quang.khiem.s3@dc.tohoku.ac.jp (K.Q. Tran), tomoaki.satomi.c6@tohoku.ac.jp (T. Satomi),
hiroshi.takahashi.b3@tohoku.ac.jp (H. Takahashi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100748
Received 16 January 2019; Received in revised form 15 March 2019; Accepted 15 March 2019
Available online 20 March 2019
2352-7102/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.Q. Tran, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748

Table 1 Table 3
The properties of selected soil. Mixture designation.
Physical and chemical properties Values No. F (%) C (%) OMC (%) γdmax (kN/m3)

Specific gravity 2.47 1 0 4 29.80 13.16

Optimum moisture content 30.8 (%) 2 0.25 4 30.00 13.10
Maximum dry unit weight 12.8 (kN/m3) 3 0.5 4 31.30 12.94
Plastic limit 29.4 (%) 4 1 4 31.70 12.86
Liquid limit 46.1 (%) 5 0 8 29.60 13.19
Plasticity index 16.7 (%) 6 0.25 8 29.80 13.15
SiO2 72.58 (%) 7 0.5 8 30.30 13.02
Al2O3 17.28 (%) 8 1 8 31.10 12.86
Fe2O3 4.11 (%) 9 0 12 29.90 13.26
CaO 1.30 (%) 10 0.25 12 30.10 13.18
MgO 0.60 (%) 11 0.5 12 31.20 12.99
MnO 0.04 (%) 12 1 12 31.40 12.87
Na2O 1.68 (%)
K2O 2.55 (%) F=fiber content C=cement content OMC=optimum moisture content
γdmax=maximum dry unit weight.

Fig. 2. Compacted mold.

tap water. Then, fiber in bundle form was cut into segments of 10 mm
approximately. (3) Finally, the fiber can be used after drying in the
oven machine at 40 °C until the fiber mass is constant. The average
Fig. 1. Fiber photograph.
diameter, length, tensile strength, and specific gravity of used fiber are
about 0.3 mm, 10 mm, 8.3 MPa, and 0.94, respectively.
Table 2 Stabilization material is cement named GEOSET 200 which is a type
Cement composition. of pozzolanic cement. The cement composition is shown in Table 2.
Composition Values

CaO 53.9 (%) 2.2. Specimen preparation

SiO2 23.6 (%)
Al2O3 7.76 (%)
In the present work, in order to investigate the influence of fiber on
SO3 6.53 (%)
MgO 3.35 (%)
direct tensile strength behaviors of cemented soil, 12 mixing conditions
Fe2O3 1.83 (%) were considered as can be seen in Table 3. The cement contents were
Specific surface 3.68 (cm2/g) used including 4%, 8%, and 12% dry mass of soil. In the case of fiber,
Specific gravity 3.01 the variations of fiber content were used consisting of 0%, 0.25%, 0.5%,
and 1% dry mass of soil. For each mixing condition, three specimens
were made to ensure the accuracy of results. The 8-shaped specimens
2. Materials and methods
with the dimensions of 80 mm long, 40 mm wide, 20 mm wide at the
center of the sample, and 20 mm thick were used in this study to make
2.1. Materials
sure that the failure happens at the center of specimens.
The procedures for making specimens are performed as follows:
According to ASTM D422 [18], the kind of soil in this study consists
Firstly, the soil, cement, and fiber were mixed together by hand in order
of 8% sand, 84% silt, and 8% clay. Table 1 presents the physical and
to obtain the uniform mixture. Secondly, the tap water was added and
chemical properties of soil.
then the mixture was mixed by the machine until getting the homo-
Fiber material used in this study is cornsilk (Fig. 1). The cornsilk
genous mixture with designed optimum moisture content. Thirdly, the
fiber is prepared as following Ref. [8]. At first, raw fiber was washed in
fiber-cemented soil mixture was compacted in the 8-shaped mold

2
K.Q. Tran, et al.
Fig. 3. Testing apparatus; a) tensile mold, b) tensile machine.
(Fig. 2) to make specimens for direct tension test. The specimens were
compacted until obtaining maximum dry unit weight according to
Table 3. Finally, samples were extruded from the compacted mold,
covered by the plastic sheet, and then kept in the oven at 20 °C for 7, 14,
and 28 days before subjected to tension test.
2.3. Testing equipment and procedure
Testing equipment consisted of tensile mold and tensile machine as
Fig. 3. The axial displacement speed of the tensile machine was
0.5 mm/min. Firstly, the specimens were embedded into the tensile
mold as Fig. 3a. Then the tensile mold with specimen inside was sub-
jected to testing machine (Fig. 3b). The maximum tensile strength is
calculated following Eq. (1).
= P /A
DTS
where: DTS is the maximum direct tensile strength (kPa), P is the
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748
maximum tensile force (kN), A is the specimen area (m2).
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Stress-strain curve
Figs. 4–6 show the typical stress-strain curves of fiber-cemented soil
and cemented soil at 7, 14, and 28 days, respectively. The addition of
fiber improved the stress and strain of cemented soil in general. Besides,
fiber inclusion resulted in changing the shape of the stress-strain curve
(Fig. 4a and b). When the failure happened, the stress of specimens
without fiber inclusion immediately dropped to zero. In contrast, stress-
strain curves of specimens with fiber inclusion appeared a residual
stress phrase after failure. This is consistent with the results reported in
Refs. [2,6]. A reason for appearing residual stress is due to the fiber
served as bridges (Fig. 7) that bear the tensile load [2,5]. It was also
easy to observe that the initial residual stress improved when fiber
content increased (Figs. 4–6). This improvement can be explained by
the increase of probability of fiber presented at the failure plane.
The stress-strain curve of fiber-cemented soil was also affected by
cement content and curing age as observed in these figures. The stress-
strain curve shape of specimens with higher cement content and longer
curing time were similar to that of specimens without fiber inclusion
(Fig. 6c). It means that the influence of fiber on stress-strain curve shape
is reduced. There are two main reasons for this reduction. The first one
is the number and quality of cement products enhanced due to the in-
creases of curing time and cement content leading to the dominant of
cement products in soil matrix compared to fiber. As a result, the ad-
mixture of fiber reinforced cemented soil become brittle like cemented
soil. The second one is that the tensile strength of used natural fiber
itself is quite low, so fiber can not bear the tensile load after cracking.
Therefore, the natural fibers with high tensile strength are re-
commended to use in fiber-cemented soil to improve the residual
strength.
3.2. Influence of cement content on maximum tensile strength
The tensile strength of soil stabilized with cement significantly im-
proved as can be seen in Fig. 8. The tensile strength also improved when
cement content and curing time increased from 4% to 12% and 7
days–28 days, respectively. The improvement of tensile strength of
cemented soil approximately equals to 23.1 times for 7 days, 43 times
for 14 days, and 53.9 times for 28 days compared to no stabilized soil.
The improvement of tensile strength is attributed that cementitious
structure within the soil matrix is formed and can bear the tensile load.
3.3. Influence of fiber content on tensile strength of cemented soil with
different curing time
Fig. 9 presents the influence of fiber content on the maximum direct
tensile strength of fiber reinforced cemented soil. The plot depicted that
the maximum tensile strength of cemented soil enhanced when adding
0.25% fiber in most cases. This improvement of tensile strength can be
probably explained that fibers can share some tensile load because of
the movement restraint of fiber in soil matrix [5,8,19]. For increasing
fiber content up to 0.5% or 1%, the tensile strength reduced or slightly
increased in general. This may happen because fibers predominate ce-
ment products in the soil matrix when a large number of fibers present
in the cemented soil matrix. As compared to cemented soil, the most
(1) improvements of the maximum tensile strength of fiber-cemented soil
are 52%, 45%, and 46% with respect to 7, 14, and 28 days.
Similar to stress-strain curve, the curing age and cement content
3
K.Q. Tran, et al.
Fig. 4. Typical stress-strain curves of cemented soil reinforced with fiber at 7 days.
also affected to the influence of fiber on maximum tensile strength of
cemented soil (Fig. 9). At longer curing time and higher cement content
(Fig. 9c), the tensile strength of fiber-cemented soil was insignificantly
higher than the tensile strength of cemented soil. This happens due to
the enhancement of hydration reaction product of cement in quantity as
well as quality as explained in the previous section. Hence, the effect of
fiber on improving the maximum tensile strength of cemented soil re-
duced with increasing curing time and cement content.
3.4. Energy absorption
The energy absorption capacity (EAC) of tensile is defined as the
required energy to destroy the structure. This is an important parameter
which can be used to evaluate the effect of fiber in cemented soil re-
inforcement. EAC is calculated by integrating the area under stress-
strain curve. In the present work, the total energy absorption capacity
of specimen will be determined at the strain that specimen completely
failed. The total energy absorption capacity is comprised of the energy
at maximum stress and the residual energy caused by the appearance of
residual stress.
Fig. 10 presents the total energy absorption capacity of cemented
soil reinforced with fiber at different curing ages. For 7 days, the ad-
dition of fiber (0.25%–1%) significantly improved the EAC compared to
specimens without fiber inclusion (Fig. 10a). The most improvement in
4
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748
tensile energy absorption capacity are 227.4%, 456.2%, and 126.5%
corresponding to 4%, 8%, and 12% cement. In cases of 14 and 28 days
(Fig. 10b and c), the effect of fiber on the EAC was quite similar. At low
cement content (4%), the addition of fiber also improved the EAC with
the most enhancement of 476.7% for 14 days and 205.7% for 28 days.
However, with using higher cement content (8% and 12%), the energy
absorption capacity was not significantly affected by the fiber inclusion.
For instance, the most increasing percentages of EAC are only 15.7%
(8% cement) and 33.1% (12% cement) for curing time of 14 days and
0% (8% cement) and 23.8% (12% cement) for curing time of 28 days.
Besides, the effect of fiber on the residual energy of cemented soil
can be also observed in Fig. 10. The residual energy reduced with the
increase of curing age and cement content. It means that the influence
of fiber on behaviors of cemented soil decreased with high curing time
and cement content. This is consistent with the results observed above
(stress-strain curve and maximum strength) and reported in previous
research [8].
3.5. Crack patterns
The influence of fiber content on cracking pattern is presented in
Fig. 11. The linear form of crack appeared after failure for specimens
with 0% and 0.25% fiber inclusion as Fig. 11a and b. The shape of crack
pattern of specimen with 0.25% fiber was quite similar to that of
K.Q. Tran, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748

Fig. 5. Typical stress-strain curves of cemented soil reinforced with fiber at 14 days.

specimen with no fiber due to the low probability of fiber presented in DTS = 0.483 × STS (2)
the weakness plane. For specimens with 0.5% and 1% fiber, the form of
Fig. 13 represents the relationship between direct tensile strength
failure cracking was zigzag as Fig. 11c and d. A reasonable explanation
and unconfined compressive strength (UCS). The unconfined com-
for this is that the addition of fiber results in limit the crack propagation
pressive strength data are collected from Ref. [8]. As can be seen in this
following potential crack with properly fiber content presented in
figure, the relationship between DTS and UCS can be described as a
weakness plane.
linear relationship with the high value of coefficient of determination
(R2 = 0.924 with respect to cemented soil, R2 = 0.96 with respect to
3.6. Correlation of direct tensile strength versus splitting tensile strength and
fiber-cemented soil). The relation coefficients of DTS to UCS are 0.086
direct tensile strength versus compressive strength
and 0.069 with respect to cemented soil and fiber-cemented soil. In
order to estimate the direct tensile strength from compressive strength
Fig. 12 shows the relationship between direct tensile strength (DTS)
value for cemented soil reinforced with and without fiber inclusion, a
and splitting tensile strength (STS) of fiber-cemented soil and cemented
general relationship of DTS and UCS is proposed with a coefficient of
soil. The splitting tensile strength data are collected from Ref. [8]. As
determination of 0.912 as can be seen in Fig. 13 and Eq. (3).
shown in Fig. 12, a strong linear relationship can be used to describe the
relationship between DTS and STS in cases of fiber-cemented soil and DTS = 0.071 × UCS (3)
cemented soil with the high determination coefficient (R2) of 0.935 and
0.971, respectively. In the case of fiber-cemented soil, DTS is equal to
0.471 times STS value. While DTS is equal to 0.532 times the value of 3.7. Regression model for predicting direct tensile strength based on basic
STS for cemented soil. Besides, a general relationship between DTS and parameters
STS for cemented soil with and without fiber inclusion is also estab-
lished as Eq. (2) with the high value of determination coefficient Multiple regression analysis, a simple technique, is widely used for
(R2 = 0.933). establishing the model on some problems such as compressive strength,

5
K.Q. Tran, et al.
Fig. 6. Typical stress-strain curves of cemented soil reinforced with fiber at 28 days.
Fig. 7. Bridging effect of fiber reinforced cemented soil at failure plane.
splitting tensile strength, shear strength, pipping resistance, etc.
[8,20–23]. Therefore, the multiple regression analysis was used to
propose the model for estimating the maximum direct tensile strength.
The form of the multiple regression model was assumed as Eq. (4).
DTS = 0 + k1 C + k2 F + k3 D + k 4 C 2 + k5 F 2 + k6 D 2 + k 7 CF + k8 CD
+ k 9 FD
where DTS is direct tensile strength (dependent or output variable); 0 is
the direct tensile strength value of unreinforced specimen (soil only); C,
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748
F, and D are cement content, fiber content, and curing time (in-
dependent variables or input variables); and k0 to k9 are the regression
coefficients.
According to 36 observations, the regression model for predicting
direct tensile strength based on basic parameters including cement
content, fiber content, and curing time is obtained as Eq. (5). The R2
value of the new model is 0.946. With the high values of R2, A good
relationship between experimental data and estimated data calculating
from Eq. (5) as shown in Fig. 14.
DTS = 0.0109 + 0.0183C + 0.0227F + 0.0038D 0.0003C 2 0.0841F 2
0.0002D2 + 0.0072CF + 0.0014CD + 0.0001FD
(5)
3.8. Sensitive analysis
After obtaining the model for predicting tensile strength, the sen-
sitive analysis following Ref. [24] is applied to the developed model in
order to evaluate the effective degree of input variables (C, F, and D).
Eqs. (6) and (7) are used to calculate the sensitivity of input parameters
(4) as follows:
Ni = f ximax f ximin (6)
6
K.Q. Tran, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748

Fig. 8. Influence of cement content on direct tensile strength with various

curing times.

n
Si = Ni/ Ni × 100
i=1 (7)
where and
f xmax
i
are the maximum and minimum of predicted
f xmin
i
output over the ith input domain, respectively; while the other input
variables are equal to their mean values; n is the number of input
variables; Si is the effective degree of ith variable.
As can be seen in Table 4, the orders of parameters according to the
descent of effective degree on tensile strength were cement (61.6%),
curing time (34.1%), and fiber (4.2%). This result is consistent with the
observation in Ref. [8]. Despite fiber was the least effective parameter
compared to the others on maximum compressive strength, the fiber
was still important parameter because of its effects on residual strength,
total energy absorption, tensile cracks of fiber-cement stabilized soil.

4. Conclusions

The effects of cornsilk fiber on tensile properties including stress-

strain curves, maximum direct tensile strength, crack patterns, and
energy absorption capacity in cemented soil were investigated. Some
conclusions can be drawn from the experimental and analytical results
as follows:

• Fiber inclusion significantly affects to stress-strain curves of ce-

mented soil. The addition of fiber causes the appearance of residual
stress-strain curves.
• In general, the fiber inclusion contributes to the improvement of
energy absorption capacity and tensile strength of cemented soil.
Compared to cemented soil, the most improvements in energy ab-
sorption capacity and direct tensile strength are 476.7% and 52%,
respectively.
• The influence of fiber in cemented soil on energy absorption capa-
city, stress-strain curve, and tensile strength is reduced with the
increasing cement content and curing time.
• A linear function with the relation coefficients of 0.071 and 0.483
Fig. 9. Maximum direct tensile strength; a) 7 days, b) 14 days, and c) 28 days.
can be used to calculate the direct tensile strength from unconfined
compressive strength and splitting tensile strength, respectively.
• For cemented soil reinforced with fiber at various curing times, the direct tensile strength are fiber content (effective degree of 4.2%),
curing time (effective degree of 34.1%), and cement content (ef-
developed regression model is acceptable to use in estimating direct
tensile strength with the high value of R2 = 0.946. According to fective degree of 61.6%).
sensitive analysis, the ascending orders of effective parameters on

7
K.Q. Tran, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748

Fig. 10. Energy absorption of cemented soil reinforced with fiber. a) 7 days, b) 14 days, and c)28 days.

8
K.Q. Tran, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748

Fig. 14. Predicted data versus experimental data.

Table 4
The sensitivity of input parameters.
Problem Equation Effective degree (%)
Fig. 11. Failure pattern of specimens with curing time 28 days and 12% ce-
ment; a) 0% fiber, b) 0.25% fiber, c) 0.5% fiber, and 1% fiber. C F D

Direct tensile strength Eq. (5) 61.6 4.2 34.1

References

[1] C.-S. Tang, X.-J. Pei, D.-Y. Wang, B. Shi, J. Li, Tensile strength of compacted clayey
soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (2015) 04014122, , https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001267.
[2] C.-S. Tang, D.-Y. Wang, Y.-J. Cui, B. Shi, J. Li, Tensile strength of fiber-reinforced
soil, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (2016) 04016031, , https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.
1943-5533.0001546.
[3] A. Mesbah, J.-C. Morel, P. Walker, K. Ghavami, Development of a direct tensile test
for compacted earth blocks reinforced with natural fibers, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16
(2004) 95–98, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:1(95).
[4] T.-H. Kim, T.-H. Kim, G.-C. Kang, L. Ge, Factors influencing crack-induced tensile
strength of compacted soil, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (2012) 315–320, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000380.
[5] J. Li, C. Tang, D. Wang, X. Pei, B. Shi, Effect of discrete fibre reinforcement on soil
tensile strength, J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 6 (2014) 133–137, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.01.003.
[6] P.V. Divya, A.M. Asce, B.V.S. Viswanadham, J.P. Gourc, Evaluation of Tensile
Strength-Strain Characteristics of Fiber-Reinforced Soil through Laboratory Tests,
(2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/.
Fig. 12. The relationship between DTS and STS. [7] H. Nahlawi, S. Chakrabarti, J. Kodikara, A direct tensile strength testing method for
unsaturated geomaterials, Geotech. Test. J. 27 (2004) 356–361, https://doi.org/10.
1520/GTJ11767.
[8] K.Q. Tran, T. Satomi, H. Takahashi, Improvement of mechanical behavior of ce-
mented soil reinforced with waste cornsilk fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 178 (2018)
204–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.104.
[9] K. Quang Tran, Study on strength behavior of cement stabilized sludge reinforced
with waste cornsilk fiber, Int. J. Geomater. 13 (2017), https://doi.org/10.21660/
2017.39.28994.
[10] W. Yixian, G. Panpan, S. Shengbiao, Y. Haiping, Y. Binxiang, Study on strength
influence mechanism of fiber-reinforced expansive soil using jute, Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 34 (2016) 1079–1088, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0028-4.
[11] K.Q. Tran, T. Satomi, H. Takahashi, Effect of waste cornsilk fiber reinforcement on
mechanical properties of soft soils, Transp. Geotech. 16 (2018) 76–84, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.07.003.
[12] V. Sharma, H.K. Vinayak, B.M. Marwaha, Enhancing compressive strength of soil
using natural fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 943–949, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.065.
[13] J. Prabakar, R.S. Sridhar, Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength be-
haviour of soil, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002) 123–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0950-0618(02)00008-9.
[14] N. Cristelo, V.M.C.F. Cunha, A. Topa Gomes, N. Araújo, T. Miranda, M. de Lurdes
Lopes, Influence of fibre reinforcement on the post-cracking behaviour of a cement-
stabilised sandy-clay subjected to indirect tensile stress, Constr. Build. Mater. 138
(2017) 163–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2017.02.010.
[15] Y.-X. Wang, P.-P. Guo, W.-X. Ren, B.-X. Yuan, H.-P. Yuan, Y.-L. Zhao, S.-B. Shan,
Fig. 13. The relationship between DTS and UCS. P. Cao, Laboratory investigation on strength characteristics of expansive soil treated

9
K.Q. Tran, et al.
with jute fiber reinforcement, Int. J. Geomech. 17 (2017) 04017101, , https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000998.
[16] Y. Wang, P. Guo, F. Dai, X. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, Behavior and modeling of fiber-
reinforced clay under triaxial compression by combining the superposition method
with the energy-based homogenization technique, Int. J. Geomech. 18 (2018)
04018172, , https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0001313.
[17] Y. Wang, P. Guo, X. Li, H. Lin, Y. Liu, H. Yuan, Y. Wang, P. Guo, X. Li, H. Lin, Y. Liu,
H. Yuan, Behavior of fiber-reinforced and lime-stabilized clayey soil in triaxial tests,
Appl. Sci. 9 (2019) 900, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9050900.
[18] ASTM International, ASTM D422 - 63(2007)e2 Standard Test Method for Particle-
Size Analysis of Soils, ASTM international, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
2007https://www.astm.org/Standards/D422 , Accessed date: 16 March 2018.
[19] C. Tang, B. Shi, W. Gao, F. Chen, Y. Cai, Strength and mechanical behavior of short
polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil, Geotext.
Geomembranes 25 (2007) 194–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.
11.002.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019) 100748
[20] A. Ahmed, Simplified regression model to predict the strength of reinforced sand
with waste polystyrene plastic type, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30 (2012) 963–973,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-012-9519-0.
[21] T. Maliakal, S. Thiyyakkandi, Influence of randomly distributed coir fibers on shear
strength of clay, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31 (2013) 425–433, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-012-9595-1.
[22] G.L.S. Babu, A.K. Vasudevan, Seepage velocity and piping resistance of coir fiber
mixed soils, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134 (2008) 485–492, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(Asce)0733-9437(2008)134:4(485).
[23] A.R. Estabragh, A. Soltani, A.A. Javadi, Models for predicting the seepage velocity
and seepage force in a fiber reinforced silty soil, Comput. Geotech. 75 (2016)
174–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.02.002.
[24] A.H. Gandomi, G.J. Yun, A.H. Alavi, An evolutionary approach for modeling of
shear strength of RC deep beams, Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 2109–2119, https://doi.
org/10.1617/s11527-013-0039-z.