polymers

Article
Evaluation of Strength Properties of Sand Modified
with Organic Polymers
Jin Liu 1, * ID
, Yuxia Bai 1 , Zezhuo Song 1 , Yi Lu 2 , Wei Qian 1 and Debi Prasanna Kanungo 3
1 School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China; byxhhu@163.com (Y.B.);
szzhhu@163.com (Z.S.); wei.geoserve@gmail.com (W.Q.)
2 Key Laboratory of Earth Fissures Geological Disaster, Ministry of Land and Resource (Geological Survey of
Jiangsu Province), Nanjing 210049, China; lynju@163.com
3 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)—Central Building Research Institute (CBRI),
Roorkee 247667, India; debi.kanungo@gmail.com
* Correspondence: jinliu920@163.com; Tel.: +86-139-13976590

Received: 27 January 2018; Accepted: 6 March 2018; Published: 8 March 2018

Abstract: Due to weak physical properties of sand, chemical reinforcement methods are widely
used to improve sand properties to meet the engineering requirements. However, most of the
traditional additives cause environmental problems. Therefore, non-traditional additives such as
liquid polymers, enzymes, ions, and lignin derivatives have been studied extensively. In this study,
organic polymer is used as a soil stabilizer to reinforce the sand. To evaluate the effectiveness
of the organic polymer as soil stabilizer, a series of unconfined compression strength (UCS) tests,
direct shear tests, and tensile tests were carried out on reinforced sand with different polymer
concentrations and dry densities of sand. The reinforcement mechanism was analysed with scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) images. The results indicated that the polymer concentration and dry
density of sand had significant effects on the strength characteristics of reinforced sand specimens.
The unconfined compressive strength, cohesion, and tensile strength of specimens with the same dry
density increased with the increasing polymer concentration. The polymer membranes—formed by
the mixture of polymer and water—enwrap the sand particles and interlink them to form a stable
structure. The efficiency of this stabilization changed with dry sand density.

Keywords: organic polymers; sand; strength behaviour; laboratory test

1. Introduction
Soil reinforcement has been widely used in geotechnical engineering. Chemical reinforcement
for soil improvement is a popular method using additives such as traditional stabilizers and
non-traditional additives. The traditional chemical stabilizers such as lime, fly ash, zeolite gypsum,
cement, and other industrial wastes have more advantages for the improvement of soil strength [1–4],
but most of the traditional additives easily increase the pH value of soil, resulting in the environmental
problems of polluting ground water or obstructing vegetation growth [5,6]. Recently, non-traditional
chemical additives such as liquid polymers, enzymes, ions, and lignin derivatives have been
studied [7–9]. Polymeric material as a non-traditional soil stabilizer has been developed to improve the
physical and engineering properties of soil to meet the requirements of different engineering practices.
Sands are usually problematic in many types of geotechnical engineering applications in
foundation and slope stabilization because of their relatively low strength, loose structure, and/or
powerful saturated liquefaction potential. The polymer materials used for sand stabilization have
been studied by many researchers. Many types of polymers as reinforcement materials have been
studied systematically by laboratory test [10–15]. Naeini et al. [16] studied the effect of epoxy resin
on the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of samples under wet and dry conditions.

Polymers 2018, 10, 287; doi:10.3390/polym10030287 www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Polymers 2018,
studied 10, 287
systematically by laboratory test [10–15]. Naeini et al. [16] studied the effect of epoxy 2resin
of 15
on the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of samples under wet and dry conditions.
Martoet et al. [17] discussed the influences of TX-85 and SH-85 additives on the engineering and
Martoet et al. [17] discussed the influences of TX-85 and SH-85 additives on the engineering and
micro-structural characteristics of lateritic soil. Sun et al. [18] introduced xanthan gum—a type of
micro-structural characteristics of lateritic soil. Sun et al. [18] introduced xanthan gum—a type of
environmentally-friendly organic polymer—to promote the growth of vegetation in coastal sand
environmentally-friendly organic polymer—to promote the growth of vegetation in coastal sand dunes,
dunes, thereby reducing the price of coastal erosion protection. Yang et al. [19] studied the effects of
thereby reducing the price of coastal erosion protection. Yang et al. [19] studied the effects of aging
aging tests on a novel chemical sand-fixing agent (polyaspartic acid resin). These polymer materials
tests on a novel chemical sand-fixing agent (polyaspartic acid resin). These polymer materials can
can change the loose structure and improve the strength by filling up the void spaces and
change the loose structure and improve the strength by filling up the void spaces and enwrapping the
enwrapping the sand particles [20–22]. These research results indicated that the polymeric materials
sand particles [20–22]. These research results indicated that the polymeric materials can be considered
can be considered as a soil stabilizer to improve the strength characteristics of sand.
as a soil stabilizer to improve the strength characteristics of sand.
The goal of this study is to present the results from a series of unconfined compression strength
The goal of this study is to present the results from a series of unconfined compression strength
(UCS) tests, direct shear tests, and tensile tests conducted on untreated and organic
(UCS) tests, direct shear tests, and tensile tests conducted on untreated and organic polymer-reinforced
polymer-reinforced sand to examine the improvement in the strength characteristics of reinforced
sand to examine the improvement in the strength characteristics of reinforced sand. Different polymer
sand. Different polymer concentrations and sand dry densities were chosen to study the effect of
concentrations and sand dry densities were chosen to study the effect of polymer on sand improvement.
polymer on sand improvement. SEM was used to study the micro-characterization of sand–polymer.
SEM was used to study the micro-characterization of sand–polymer. The results and associated
The results and associated discussion provide the chemical stabilization mechanisms of
discussion provide the chemical stabilization mechanisms of polymer-reinforced sand for researchers
polymer-reinforced sand for researchers and practicing engineers.
and practicing engineers.
2.
2. Experimental
Experimental Outlines
Outlines

2.1. Materials
Materials

Sand
2.1.1. Sand
The sand
sand used
usedininthe thetests waswas
tests obtained fromfrom
obtained Nanjing city ofcity
Nanjing Jiangsu province,
of Jiangsu China. Its
province, particle
China. Its
size distribution
particle is shown
size distribution is in Figure
shown in1.Figure
It has1.a It
specific gravity (Gs)
has a specific of 2.64,
gravity (Gs) maximum dry density
of 2.64, maximum dry
(ρmax ) of(ρ1.66
density of 1.663 , g/cm
max) g/cm minimum dry density
3, minimum (ρmin ) of
dry density 1.34
(ρmin 1.34 3g/cm
) ofg/cm , maximum
3, maximumvoid ratio
void (e max )(eof
ratio 0.97,
max ) of
minimum
0.97, minimumvoid ratio
void (eratio
min ) of 0.59.
(emin) ofIts particles
0.59. have a mean
Its particles have agrain
mean sizegrain
(D50 )size
of 0.30
(D50mm,
) of gradation
0.30 mm,
coefficientcoefficient
gradation (Cg ) of 1.13, (Cand
g) ofuniformity coefficientcoefficient
1.13, and uniformity (Cu ) of 2.77.
(Cu) of 2.77.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Grain
Grain size
size distribution
distribution of
of sand.
sand.

2.1.2. Organic Polymers

2.1.2. Organic Polymers
The organic polymer used as soil stabilizer in this study has a main constituent of polyurethane
The organic polymer used as soil stabilizer in this study has a main constituent of polyurethane
resin. The polymerization process of this organic polymer is as follows. Firstly, the weight ratio
resin. The polymerization process of this organic polymer is as follows. Firstly, the weight ratio
(5:5:2:17) of poly-oxypropylene diol (PPG, Jining Hongming Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Jining,
(5:5:2:17) of poly-oxypropylene diol (PPG, Jining Hongming Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Jining, China)
China) with molecular weight 2000, poly-oxyethylene glycol (PEG, Shanghai Ika Biotechnology Co.,
with molecular weight 2000, poly-oxyethylene glycol (PEG, Shanghai Ika Biotechnology Co., Ltd.,
Ltd., Shanghai, China) with molecular weight 2000, poly-caprolaclone glycol (PCL, Jining
Shanghai, China) with molecular weight 2000, poly-caprolaclone glycol (PCL, Jining Hongming
Hongming Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Jining, China) with molecular weight 1000, and toluene were
Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Jining, China) with molecular weight 1000, and toluene were mixed
mixed with the conditions of temperature 145 °C and air distillation. After most of the toluene was
with the conditions of temperature 145 ◦ C and air distillation. After most of the toluene was dried,
Polymers 2018, 10, 287
x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

dried, the vacuum distillation was undertaken to remove the residual water and toluene completely.
the vacuumthe
Secondly, distillation
temperature was undertaken
was cooled to to remove
20 °C, itthe
wasresidual
placedwater
in a and
refluxtoluene completely.
condenser, N2 was Secondly,
added,
the temperature was cooled to 20 ◦ C, it was placed in a reflux condenser, N was added, and the
and the reaction system was sealed with oil. Toluene diisocynate (TDI, 2 Nantong Runfeng
reaction systemCo.,
Petrochemical wasLtd.,
sealed with oil.
Nantong, Toluene
China) with diisocynate
two times (TDI,
weightNantong
of diols Runfeng
was added Petrochemical
and the reactionCo.,
Ltd., Nantong, China) with two times weight of diols was added and the reaction
was undertaken with temperature 90 °C for 2 h. Finally, the reaction temperature was reduced to 20 was undertaken
with temperature ◦ C for 2 h. Finally, the reaction temperature was reduced to 20 ◦ C and ethyl
90 (Nantong
°C and ethyl acetate Taichang Chemical Materials Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China) was added
acetate (Nantong
with stirring for 1Taichang
h. AfterChemical Materials
that, lauryl sodium Co., Ltd., Suzhou,
sulphate (Qidong China) was added
Mingcheng with stirring
Chemical for
Co., Ltd.,
1Nantong,
h. After that, lauryl sodium sulphate (Qidong Mingcheng Chemical
China) was mixed according to the definite weight percentage of polyurethaneCo., Ltd., Nantong, China) was
mixed according
prepolymer to obtain to the thedefinite weightpolymer,
final organic percentage of polyurethane
a light-yellow liquidprepolymer
with a pH of toabout
obtain7,the final
specific
organic polymer, a light-yellow liquid with a pH of about 7, specific gravity of 1.15 g/cm 3 , viscosity of
gravity of 1.15 g/cm , viscosity of 650–800 mPa·s, solid content of 88%, coagulation time of 60–1600 s.
3
650–800
The organic ·s, solid content
mPapolymer solutionofin88%,
this coagulation time of 60–1600
study was prepared s. The water.
with distilled organicThepolymer
mixture solution in
of liquid
this study(Figure
polymer was prepared
2a) andwith distilled
distilled waterwater.
wereThe mixture
stirred of liquid
for about 10 minpolymer (Figure
to obtain 2a) and distilled
the desired solution
water were
(Figure 2b). stirred for about 10 min to obtain the desired solution (Figure 2b).

Figure 2. Photo of (a) Organic polymer; and (b) Polymer solution.

Figure 2. Photo of (a) Organic polymer; and (b) Polymer solution.

2.2. Experimental Methods

2.2. Experimental Methods
The strength properties are important factors to evaluate the effectiveness of sand
The strength properties are important factors to evaluate the effectiveness of sand reinforcement.
reinforcement. In this study, laboratory trials of unconfined compression test, direct shear test, and
In this study, laboratory trials of unconfined compression test, direct shear test, and pull-out test
pull-out test were performed to evaluate the performance of polymer-reinforced sand. In the three
were performed to evaluate the performance of polymer-reinforced sand. In the three types of tests,
types of tests, sand samples were first oven-dried. Five concentrations (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and
sand samples were first oven-dried. Five concentrations (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%) of polymer
50%) of polymer dilutions were proposed for sand reinforcement, with water (0%) as a control. The
dilutions were proposed for sand reinforcement, with water (0%) as a control. The3 three dry densities
three dry densities of the prepared samples were 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm , respectively. The
of the prepared samples were 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm3 , respectively. The additive amount of polymer
additive amount of polymer dilutions was 10% by weight of dry sand.
dilutions was 10% by weight of dry sand.
2.2.1. Unconfined
2.2.1. Compression Test
Unconfined Compression Test
In the
In the unconfined
unconfined compression
compression test, test, the dried sand
the dried sand was
was mixed
mixed with
with the
the proposed
proposed polymer
polymer
dilution and
dilution and then
then prepared
prepared with
with the the static
static compaction
compaction method
method based
based on
on ASTM
ASTM standards
standards (ASTM(ASTM
D2166-00) [23]. Four-layered compaction was adopted to keep the uniformity
D2166-00) [23]. Four-layered compaction was adopted to keep the uniformity of test specimens of test specimens
(Figure 3a)
(Figure 3a)with
withthethe diameter
diameter beingbeing39.1 mm39.1and
mm and being
height height80 being 80 mm.
mm. After After thepreparation,
the specimen specimen
preparation,
the reinforcedthe reinforced
specimens specimens
were kept in a werecuringkept
boxin a curing
with box withofa around
a temperature temperature
20 ◦ C of
and around
curing20 °C
time
and curing time of 48 h. The unconfined compression tests were carried
of 48 h. The unconfined compression tests were carried out with a YYW-2 unconfined compressional out with a YYW-2
unconfined
strain controlcompressional
device (Figurestrain
4a) atcontrol
a loadingdevice
rate (Figure 4a) at a until
of 2.4 mm/min loading rate failure.
sample of 2.4 mm/min until
Additionally,
sample failure. Additionally, the unconfined compression test was
the unconfined compression test was performed on specimen triplicates and average values were performed on specimen
triplicates
used. and average
The axial stress and values
strainwerewereused. The by
recorded axial stress
stress dialand strain
gauge were4a)
(Figure recorded by dial
and strain stress dial
gauge
gauge (Figure
(Figure 4a) and strain
4a), respectively. The peak dial strength,
gauge (Figure
residual 4a), respectively.
strength, The peak
axial strain strength,
of failure residual
(εf ), elasticity
strength, axial strain of failure (ε f), elasticity modulus (E), and failure modulus (Ef) were obtained. In
modulus (E), and failure modulus (Ef ) were obtained. In this study, the specimen was observed to be
this study,
failed whenthe thespecimen
axial stresswas observed
reached to bevalue.
the peak failed Failure
when the axial stress
modulus is the reached the peak
ratio of peak value.
strength to
Failure
its modulus isaxial
corresponding the ratio
strainof(εpeak strength to its corresponding axial strain (εf). Elasticity modulus
f ). Elasticity modulus is the ratio of axial stress (which is half of peak
is the ratiotoofits
strength), axial stress (which
corresponding is half
axial of peak strength), to its corresponding axial strain.
strain.
 a temperature
typed of around
strain control direct20shear
°C and curing time
apparatus 48 h. 4b)
(Figure Theatdirect shearrate
a strain testsofwere carried out
0.8 mm/min withthe
under a ZJ
typed strain control direct shear apparatus (Figure 4b) at a strain rate of
normal pressures of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa to obtain the maximum shear stress (τ). Based on 0.8 mm/min under the
normal pressures of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa to obtain the maximum shear
Coulomb’s law of shear strength (τ = σ · tanø + c), shear stress parameters (c and ø) were calculated.stress (τ). Based on
Coulomb’s
Four law of shear
shear strength values strength
and four(τ normal
= σ · tanø + c), shear
pressures werestress
usedparameters (c andline.
to fit a straight ø) were calculated.
Intercept and
Four shear
slope are
Polymers
strength
c 10,
2018, and values and four normal pressures were used to fit a straight
287tanø. The shear strength parameters were obtained on specimen triplicates,4 of
line. Intercept and
and
15
slope are c and tanø.
average values were used. The shear strength parameters were obtained on specimen triplicates, and
average values were used.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Photo
Photo of
of three
three tests
tests reinforced
reinforced specimens:
specimens: (a)
(a) Unconfined
Unconfined compression
compression strength
strength (UCS)
(UCS) test;
test;
Figure
(b) Direct3.shear
Phototest;
of three
(c) tests reinforced
Tensile test. specimens: (a) Unconfined compression strength (UCS) test;
(b) Direct shear test; (c) Tensile test.
(b) Direct shear test; (c) Tensile test.

Figure 4. Diagrams of three tests: (a) UCS test; (b) Direct shear test; (c) Tensile test.
Figure 4. Diagrams of three tests: (a) UCS test; (b) Direct shear test; (c) Tensile test.
Figure 4. Diagrams of three tests: (a) UCS test; (b) Direct shear test; (c) Tensile test.

2.2.2. Direct Shear Test

In the direst shear test, the dried sand was mixed with the proposed polymer dilution and
then prepared with the static compaction method based on ASTM standards (ASTM D3080-98) [24].
Two-layered compaction was adopted to test specimens (Figure 3b) with 61.8 mm diameter and 20 mm
height. After the specimen preparation, the reinforced specimens were kept in a curing box with a
temperature of around 20 ◦ C and curing time 48 h. The direct shear tests were carried out with a ZJ
typed strain control direct shear apparatus (Figure 4b) at a strain rate of 0.8 mm/min under the normal
pressures of 50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa to obtain the maximum shear stress (τ). Based on Coulomb’s
law of shear strength (τ = σ · tanø + c), shear stress parameters (c and ø) were calculated. Four shear
strength values and four normal pressures were used to fit a straight line. Intercept and slope are c
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 5 of 15

and tanø. The shear strength parameters were obtained on specimen triplicates, and average values
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
were used.
2.2.3. Tensile
2.2.3. Test
Tensile Test
Tensile
Tensile tests
tests were
were carried
carried out
out with
with a self-manufactured testing
a self-manufactured testing device
device (Figure
(Figure 4c).
4c). The
The specimen
specimen
of the pull-out test is shown in (Figure 3c) and was prepared with the static compaction method.
of the pull-out test is shown in (Figure 3c) and was prepared with the static compaction method.
After the specimen preparation, the reinforced specimens were kept in a curing box
After the specimen preparation, the reinforced specimens were kept in a curing box with a temperature with a
temperature of
◦ around 20 °C and curing time of 48 h. The tensile force of the middle
of around 20 C and curing time of 48 h. The tensile force of the middle section of specimen was
section of
specimen was measured to calculate the tensile strength. The specimen triplicates were
measured to calculate the tensile strength. The specimen triplicates were taken, and their average taken, and
their average
values values were used.
were used.

3. Test
3. Results
Test Results
The specimens
The specimens with
with five
five polymer
polymer concentrations
concentrations and
and three
three densities
densities were
were tested
testedininunconfined
unconfined
compression test, direct shear test and tensile test. Diagrams of the tests process are shown inin
compression test, direct shear test and tensile test. Diagrams of the tests process are shown Figure
Figure 4.
4. Their
Their results
results areare summarized
summarized in Tables
in Tables 1–3.1–3.
TheThe detailed
detailed analysis
analysis of each
of each testtest is given
is given as follows.
as follows.

3.1. Unconfined Compression Test

Test
All the testing conditions and their their results
results in
in unconfined
unconfined compression
compression teststests are
are listed
listed in
inTable
Table 1.
1.
It was very difficult to form the required specimens specimens of the unreinforced
unreinforced sand sand with
with smaller
smaller cohesive
unconfined conditions. The unreinforced
force for testing in unconfined unreinforced specimens
specimens with with water
water content
content of 10%
were prepared in in moulds
mouldswith withstatic
staticcompaction
compaction method
method to to
thethe
designed densities
designed of 1.40,
densities 1.50,1.50,
of 1.40, and
1.60 g/cm 3 3
respectively. After stripping the specimen mould, the shapes
and 1.60 g/cm respectively. After stripping the specimen mould, the shapes of specimens are of specimens are presented
in Figure 5.inAs
presented seen, 5.
Figure all Asthe seen,
specimens
all thegenerated
specimens disintegration in different degrees.
generated disintegration The specimen
in different degrees.
withspecimen
The density 1.40
withg/cmdensity 1.40 g/cm3 had loose
3 had loose structure, the structure,
one with density 1.50 g/cm
the one with 1.50 g/cm3 fell down
3 fell down immediately
density
after strippingafter
immediately the stripping
mould and thehad
moulda partly broken
and had structure,
a partly broken and the otherand
structure, onethewith density
other 1.60
one with
g/cm3 had
density 1.60a g/cm
rupture 3 hadat athe bottom
rupture at and could keep
the bottom the specimen
and could keep the standing.
specimen However,
standing. while the
However,
unreinforced
while specimens specimens
the unreinforced with density 1.60density
with g/cm3 were moved
1.60 g/cm 3 were
gently, they got
moved damaged
gently, they gotimmediately.
damaged
Therefore, theTherefore,
immediately. unconfined thecompression test could nottest
unconfined compression becould
carriednotoutbe for the unreinforced
carried specimens.
out for the unreinforced
These cases These
specimens. indicatedcasesthat the unreinforced
indicated sand has insufficient
that the unreinforced unconfinedunconfined
sand has insufficient compression strength to
compression
be tested in the traditional way. In this study, the approach zero values of unconfined
strength to be tested in the traditional way. In this study, the approach zero values of unconfined compression
strengths for all
compression the unreinforced
strengths for all the specimens
unreinforced were considered
specimens wereas aconsidered
reference. as a reference.

Figure 5.5. The

Theshape
shapeofof unreinforced
unreinforced specimens
specimens in unconfined
in unconfined compression
compression test:
test: (a) (a) Density
Density 3;
1.40
1.40 g/cm
g/cm
(b) Density 1.50 g/cm3 ;g/cm
3; (b) Density 1.50 3; (c) Density 1.60 3g/cm3.
(c) Density 1.60 g/cm .
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 6 of 15

Table 1. Results of unconfined compression strength tests.

Polymer Relative Peak Strength Residual Strength Axial Strain of Elasticity Modulus Failure Modulus
Serial Dry Density
Concentration Void Ratio es Density Dr (kPa)/Standard (kPa)/Standard Failure (%)/Standard E (MPa)/Standard Ef (MPa)/Standard
Number (g/cm3 )
(%) (%) Deviations (kPa) Deviations (kPa) Deviations (kPa) Deviations (kPa) Deviations (kPa)
S1 water 1.40 0.89 21.05 / / / / /
S2 10 1.40 0.89 21.05 62.34/2.37 10.46/1.47 10.88/0.05 1.244/0.05 0.573/0.00
S3 20 1.40 0.89 21.05 120.83/2.35 22.52/1.34 10.75/0.17 2.594/0.10 1.124/0.01
S4 30 1.40 0.89 21.05 169.22/3.82 56.95/1.61 10.11/0.29 5.629/0.29 1.674/0.02
S5 40 1.40 0.89 21.05 201.94/3.20 75.29/1.61 8.87/0.38 8.526/0.34 2.277/0.05
S6 50 1.40 0.89 21.05 245.28/3.44 97.73/2.21 7.08/0.40 11.494/0.78 3.464/0.07
S7 water 1.50 0.76 55.26 / / / / /
S8 10 1.50 0.76 55.26 78.15/3.28 20.11/1.34 9.68/0.10 1.564/0.05 0.807/0.00
S9 20 1.50 0.76 55.26 197.96/3.63 37.77/2.89 9.01/0.05 5.057/0.13 2.197/0.04
S10 30 1.50 0.76 55.26 238.65/3.22 65.87/1.72 8.65/0.16 6.380/0.15 2.759/0.05
S11 40 1.50 0.76 55.26 257.92/4.92 76.63/2.69 7.72/0.23 8.722/0.25 3.341/0.08
S12 50 1.50 0.76 55.26 355.92/3.44 99.77/2.31 7.05/0.20 11.654/0.67 5.049/0.17
S13 water 1.60 0.65 84.21 / / / / /
S14 10 1.60 0.65 84.21 81.11/4.28 27.75/1.83 8.02/0.22 1.806/0.04 1.011/0.04
S15 20 1.60 0.65 84.21 239.25/3.22 58.67/2.65 7.63/0.14 5.227/0.18 3.136/0.06
S16 30 1.60 0.65 84.21 281.69/3.43 67.96/1.33 7.36/0.07 7.868/0.26 3.827/0.07
S17 40 1.60 0.65 84.21 298.92/4.99 77.51/2.70 7.03/0.17 10.945/0.46 4.252/0.13
S18 50 1.60 0.65 84.21 360.97/3.15 104.27/1.79 7.01/0.11 14.940/0.56 5.149/0.19
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 7 of 15
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Figure
Figure 6 6illustrates
illustratesthetheaxial
axialstress–strain curvesof
stress–strain curves ofreinforced
reinforcedspecimens
specimens with
with different
different polymer
polymer
concentrations and dry densities. It is clearly shown that all the specimens
concentrations and dry densities. It is clearly shown that all the specimens take on strain-softening take on strain-softening
ductile
ductilefailure.
failure.The Theaxial
axial stress
stress increased
increased with with the
the axial
axialstrain
straintotoa apeak
peakvalue,
value,and and thenthen reduced
reduced
gradually
graduallywith withthe theaxial
axialstrain
strain to
to aa relatively stablevalue.
relatively stable value.TheThepeakpeakvalue
value and
and thethe relatively
relatively stable
stable
value
valueareare
defined
definedasaspeak peakstrength
strengthand andresidual
residual strength, respectively.The
strength, respectively. Thepeak
peakstrength,
strength, residual
residual
strength,
strength, axialstrain
axial strainofoffailure
failure(ε(εf ),
f), elasticity
elasticity modulus
modulus (E),(E),and
andfailure
failuremodulus
modulus(E(E f) fare summarized
) are summarized
in in Table
Table 1. 1.
It Itcan
canbebeseen
seenfrom
fromTable
Table11 that that the peak
peak strength
strengthof ofreinforced
reinforcedspecimens
specimens in in
each density
each density
increased with the increasing polymer concentration. The peak strength
increased with the increasing polymer concentration. The peak strength of 245.28, 355.92, 360.97 of 245.28, 355.92, 360.97 kPakPa
were observed at 50% polymer concentrations that were 3.93, 4.55, and 4.45
were observed at 50% polymer concentrations that were 3.93, 4.55, and 4.45 times of the ones at 10% times of the ones at 10%
polymerconcentration
polymer concentrationwith with densities
densities 1.40, 1.40, 1.50,
1.50,and
and1.60
1.60g/cm
g/cm
3, respectively. The The
3 , respectively. peakpeak strengths of
strengths
of each
each concentration
concentrationspecimens
specimensalso alsoincreased
increasedwith withthetheincreasing
increasingsand sanddensity—especially
density—especially thethe
specimens with higher polymer concentration. As seen in Table 1, the residual strengths of
specimens with higher polymer concentration. As seen in Table 1, the residual strengths of reinforced
reinforced specimens in each density increased with the polymer concentration. The increment of
specimens in each density increased with the polymer concentration. The increment of residual
residual strength became weakened with the increasing polymer concentration. The residual
strength became weakened with the increasing polymer concentration. The residual strengths of the
strengths of the lower concentration specimens increased with sand density, but the ones of higher
lower concentration specimens increased with sand density, but the ones of higher concentration
concentration were almost the same at all three densities. The residual strengths of 50% polymer
were almost the same at all three densities. The residual strengths of 50% polymer concentration
concentration specimens with densities 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm3 were about 40%, 28%, and 29% of
3 were about 40%, 28%, and 29% of their peak
specimens with densities 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm
their peak strength, respectively. From Table 1, the axial strain of failure (εf) changed with polymer
strength, respectively.
concentration From Table
and density. 1, the
The axial axialofstrain
strain of of
failure failure (εf ) changed
reinforced specimenswithfor
polymer
the same concentration
dry sand
and density. The axial strain of failure of reinforced specimens for the
density decreased with increasing polymer concentration. It also decreased with increasing same dry sand density decreased
dry
with increasing
sand density. polymer concentration. It also decreased with increasing dry sand density.

Figure
Figure 6. 6.
TheThe axialstress–strain
axial stress–straincurves
curves of
of reinforced
reinforced specimens:
specimens:(a)
(a)Density
Density1.40
1.40g/cm
3; (b)
g/cm Density
3 ; (b) Density
1.50 g/cm 3 3 ; (c) Density 1.60
1.50 g/cm ; (c) Density 1.60 g/cm . g/cm 3 .
3

Table 1 illustrates the elasticity modulus (E) and failure modulus (Ef) of reinforced specimens in
theTable 1 illustrates
unconfined the elasticity
compression modulus
test. As (E) and
seen, both the failure modulus
elasticity modulus (Efand
) of reinforced
failure modulusspecimens
of
in specimens
the unconfined
in eachcompression
density increasedtest. with
As seen, both polymer
increasing the elasticity modulusespecially
concentration, and failure themodulus
elasticity of
specimens
modulus.in each
The density
elasticity increased
modulus withpolymer
of 50% increasing polymer concentration,
concentration specimens withespecially the elasticity
three densities 1.40,
modulus.
1.50, andThe
1.60elasticity
g/cm were
3 modulus
11.49, of 50%and
11.65, polymer concentration
14.94 MPa, specimens
respectively. They werewith9.24,
three densities
7.45, and 8.27 1.40,
1.50, andthe
times 1.60 g/cm
ones at 310%
were 11.49, 11.65,
polymer and 14.94Additionally,
concentration. MPa, respectively. They increment
the relative were 9.24, of 7.45, andstrength,
peak 8.27 times
theresidual
ones at strength,
10% polymer concentration.
elasticity modulus, Additionally, the relative
and failure modulus are increment
shown in of peak 7.
Figure strength,
As seen, residual
the
increaseelasticity
strength, in these modulus,
four parameters of reinforced
and failure modulusspecimens
are shownwith three 7.
in Figure densities
As seen,mainly occurred
the increase in
in these
theparameters
four 20% polymer concentration.
of reinforced It should
specimens with bethree
noteddensities
that themainly
four parameters
occurred inofthe 10%20%polymer
polymer
concentrationItspecimens
concentration. should bewith noted three
thatdensities
the four are having peak
parameters strengths
of 10% polymer of concentration
62.34, 78.15, and 81.11
specimens
kPa, residual strengths of 10.46, 20.11, and 27.75 kPa, elasticity modulus of 1.24,
with three densities are having peak strengths of 62.34, 78.15, and 81.11 kPa, residual strengths of 1.56, and 1.81 MPa,
and 20.11,
10.46, failure and
modulus
27.75ofkPa,
0.57,elasticity
0.81, andmodulus
1.01 MPa,of respectively.
1.24, 1.56, After the UCS
and 1.81 MPa,tests,
andthe failure
failure models of
modulus
of reinforced
0.57, specimens
0.81, and 1.01 are presentedAfter
MPa, respectively. in Figure 8. As
the UCS seenthe
tests, in failure
Figuresmodels
4 and 8,ofthe failed reinforced
reinforced specimens
specimens had intact form compared with the unreinforced specimens (Figure 5). The specimens
are presented in Figure 8. As seen in Figures 4 and 8, the failed reinforced specimens had intact
reinforced with different polymer concentrations all broke at a weak cross-section that is called the
form compared with the unreinforced specimens (Figure 5). The specimens reinforced with different
“petal-model”.
polymer concentrations all broke at a weak cross-section that is called the “petal-model”.
Polymers 2018, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers
 Polymers 2018, 10, 287 8 of 15
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Figure
Figure 7. 7.
FigureTheThe
7. variation
variation
The ofofof
variation relative
relative increment
increment
relative of
incrementof peak
of peak strength, residual
strength,
peak strength, residual strength,
residualstrength,
strength,elasticity modulus,
elasticity
elasticity modulus,
modulus,
and failure
and failuremodulus.
modulus.
and failure modulus.

Figure
Figure The
8. 8.The shapeofofreinforced
shape reinforcedspecimens
specimens after
after UCS
UCS test: (a) Polymer
Polymer 10%;
10%;(b)
(b)Polymer
Polymer20%;
20%;
Figure
(c)(c) 8. The30%;
Polymer
Polymer shape
30%;(d)of
(d) reinforced
Polymer
Polymer 40%;specimens
40%; Polymerafter
(e) Polymer
(e) 50%. UCS test: (a) Polymer 10%; (b) Polymer 20%;
50%.
(c) Polymer 30%; (d) Polymer 40%; (e) Polymer 50%.
3.2.3.2. Direct
Direct Shear
Shear Test
Test
3.2. Direct Shear Test
Direct
Direct sheartests
shear testswere
wereperformed
performed to to obtain
obtain the the shear
shear strength
strengthparameters
parametersofofspecimensspecimens with
with
different
Direct densities
shear tests and
were polymer
performed concentrations.
to obtain The
the obtained
shear shear
different densities and polymer concentrations. The obtained shear strength parameters in termswith
strength strength
parameters parameters
of in
specimens terms of
of cohesion
different
cohesion and and
densities internal
and
internal polymerfriction
friction anglesareare
concentrations.
angles given
given Theininobtained
Table 2.
Table 2. It
It is
is observed
shear strengththat
observed the
theunreinforced
parameters
that in terms of
unreinforced
specimens with densities 1.40, 1.50, andare
1.60 given
g/cm 3 had cohesion of 0.03, 0.17, and 3.39 kPa, respectively.
cohesion
specimens andwith internal friction
densities 1.40,angles
1.50, and 1.60 g/cm in Table
3 had 2. It is observed
cohesion of 0.03, that 0.17,the andunreinforced
3.39 kPa,
The
specimens polymer
respectively. with Thehad a significant
densities
polymer 1.40, influence
had a1.50, on
and 1.60
significant the development
g/cmon
influence 3 had of cohesion.ofThe
cohesion
the development variation
of0.03, 0.17, The
cohesion. of
andcohesion
3.39 kPa,
variation
with polymer concentrations is shown in Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, cohesions of specimens
of cohesionThe
respectively. withpolymer
polymerhad concentrations
a significantisinfluence
shown inon Figure 9. As shown in
the development of Figure
cohesion. 9, cohesions
The variation of
with three densities increase with the increase in polymer concentrations. The specimens with density
specimens
of cohesion with with three densities increase with the increase in polymer
polymer concentrations is shown in Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, cohesions of concentrations. The specimens
1.60 g/cm3 and polymer concentrations of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% had the cohesion values
with
specimens density 1.60 g/cm 3 and polymer concentrations of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% had the
of 29.81, 45.19, 82.30, 152.78,increase
with three densities and 204.22 withkPa,the which
increase areinapproximately
polymer concentrations.
8.79, 13.33, 24.28, The specimens
45.07,
cohesion
with density values
1.60 of 29.81,
g/cm 3 and45.19, 82.30, 152.78,
polymer and 204.22
concentrations of kPa,
10%, which
20%, are approximately
30%, 40%, and 8.79, had
50% 13.33,
and 60.24 times those of the unreinforced ones, respectively. Furthermore, the cohesions of each the
24.28,
cohesion 45.07,
values and 60.24 times
of 29.81, 45.19, those of
82.30, the unreinforced
152.78, withand the ones,
204.22 respectively.
kPa, which Furthermore,
are approximately the cohesions
8.79, 13.33,
polymer concentration specimens increased increasing sand density. The specimens with
of each
24.28,polymer polymer
45.07, and concentration
60.24 times
concentration of those specimens
10% and of the increased
withunreinforced with
densities of 1.40, the
ones, increasing
respectively.
1.50, and 1.60 g/cm sand density.
3
Furthermore, The
had cohesion specimens
thevalues
cohesions
of with polymer
17.40,concentration
and 29.81 kPa,of 10% and increased
with densities of
the1.40, 1.50,concentration
and 1.60 g/cm 3 had cohesion
each polymer
of 2.31, concentration specimens
respectively, and the withwith
ones increasing
polymer sand density.of 50%Thereached
specimens
values
120.19,of 140.28,
2.31, 17.40, and 29.81
and 204.22 kPa, kPa, respectively, and the ones with polymer concentration
respectively. of 50%
with polymer concentration of 10% and with densities of 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm3 had cohesion
reachedIt120.19,
is also 140.28,
observed and 204.22
from Table kPa, respectively.
2 that the internal
values of 2.31, 17.40, and 29.81 kPa, respectively, and friction
the ones angles
withofpolymer
specimens with these three
concentration of 50%
It is also
densities had observed
little changefrom Table
with 2 that the
increasing internal
polymer friction angles
concentration. All of ofthespecimens
internal with these
friction anglesthree
of
reached 120.19, 140.28, and 204.22 kPa, respectively. ◦ ◦
densities had little change with increasing polymer concentration. All
unreinforced and reinforced specimens were within the range of 22 to 33 . The unreinforced specimens of the internal friction angles
It is also observed from Table 2 that 3the internal friction angles of specimens ◦with these three
of with
unreinforced and reinforced
densities 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 specimens
g/cm had were withinfriction
internal the rangeangles of of
22° to ◦33°.
25.66 The
, 26.16 and 29.27◦ ,
, unreinforced
densities had little change with increasing polymer concentration. All of the internal friction angles
specimens
respectively.withThe densities
internal 1.40, 1.50, and
friction angles1.60of g/cm 3 had internal
specimens frictionpolymer
with different angles of 25.66°, 26.16°,are
concentrations and
of 29.27°,
unreinforced
illustrated and reinforced
in FigureThe
respectively. 10. internal
As shown specimens
in Figure
friction
were
angles10, the within the range
internal friction
of specimens
of
with angles
22°
different
to
of each 33°. The
density
polymer
unreinforced
specimen
concentrations
specimens with densities 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm 3 had internal friction angles of 25.66°, 26.16°, and
are illustrated in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 10, the internal friction angles of each density
29.27°, respectively.
specimen increasedThe to internal
a peak value friction upangles of specimens
to a polymer with different
concentration of 20%, polymer
and then concentrations
decreased
aregradually
illustrated with the increasing polymer concentrations. As the polymer concentration changeddensity
in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 10, the internal friction angles of each from
specimen increased
10% to 20%, the internal to a peak valueangles
friction up toofa specimens
polymer concentration
with densitiesof1.40, 20%, andand
1.50, then decreased
1.60 g/cm3
gradually
changedwith fromthe increasing
25.87° to 28.44°, polymer
28.19° to concentrations.
32.17°, and 29.63° As the polymer
to 32.56°, concentration
respectively. changed from
Subsequently, as
 Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 9 of 15

the polymer concentration reached 50%, the internal friction angles of specimens with densities 1.40,
1.50, and 1.60
increased tog/cm
a peak 3 decreased
value up to toa24.09°,
polymer 22.17°, and 24.21°,
concentration respectively.
of 20%, and thenAfter the direct
decreased shearwith
gradually tests,
the increasing polymer concentrations. As the polymer concentration changed
the failure models of specimens were observed (Figure 11). It is known from Figures 4 and 11 that from 10% to 20%,
thethe internal friction
unreinforced angles ofwere
specimens specimens
loose with
and densities
could not1.40,
get1.50, and 1.60 g/cm
a complete
3
direct changed from
shear test 25.87◦
specimen.
◦
to 28.44 the
, 28.19 ◦ ◦
to 32.17 specimens ◦
, and 29.63 were
to 32.56 ◦ , respectively. Subsequently, as the polymer concentration in
However, reinforced intact after the tests. There was very little deformation
reached 50%, the internal friction angles of specimens with densities
the failure surface of the reinforced specimens, without any apparent deformation. 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm3
decreased to 24.09◦ , 22.17◦ , and 24.21◦ , respectively. After the direct shear tests, the failure models
of specimens were observed (Figure Table11). It is known
2. Results from
of direct shearFigures
tests. 4 and 11 that the unreinforced
specimens were loose and could not get a complete direct shear test specimen. However, the reinforced
specimensPolymer
Serial were intact afterDry Void
the tests. Relative
There was very littleCohesion (kPa)/
deformation in theAngle
failureofsurface
InternalofFriction
the
Concentration Density Ratio Density Dr Standard (degree)/Standard
reinforced
Number specimens, without any apparent deformation.
(%) (g/cm3) es (%) Deviations (kPa) Deviations (kPa)
S19 water 1.40 0.89
Table 2. Results21.05 0.03/0.00
of direct shear tests. 25.66/0.35
S20 10 1.40 0.89 21.05 2.31/0.13 25.87/0.98
S21 20 Polymer 1.40 0.89 21.05Relative 12.12/0.35
Cohesion 28.44/0.31
Angle of Internal Friction
Serial Dry Density Void Ratio
S22 Number 30Concentration 1.40(g/cm3 ) 0.89 es 21.05Density Dr 25.67/0.94(kPa)/Standard (degree)/Standard
28.11/0.62
(%) (%) Deviations (kPa) Deviations (kPa)
S23 40 1.40 0.89 21.05 80.09/0.50 28.04/0.41
S19 water 1.40 0.89 21.05 0.03/0.00 25.66/0.35
S24 S20 50 10 1.40 1.40 0.89 0.89 21.05 21.05 120.19/2.12
2.31/0.13 24.09/0.73
25.87/0.98
S25 S21 water 20 1.50 1.40 0.76 0.89 55.26 21.05 12.12/0.35
0.17/0.00 28.44/0.31
26.16/0.30
S22 30 1.40 0.89 21.05 25.67/0.94 28.11/0.62
S26 S23 10 40 1.50 1.40 0.76 0.89 55.26 21.05 17.40/0.46
80.09/0.50 28.19/0.03
28.04/0.41
S27 S24 20 50 1.50 1.40 0.76 0.89 55.26 21.05 34.16/0.78
120.19/2.12 32.17/0.89
24.09/0.73
S25 water 1.50 0.76 55.26 0.17/0.00 26.16/0.30
S28 S26 30 10 1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76 55.26 55.26 50.58/1.21
17.40/0.46 31.48/0.42
28.19/0.03
S29 S27 40 20 1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76 55.26 55.26 82.59/2.66
34.16/0.78 23.91/0.02
32.17/0.89
S28 30 1.50 0.76 55.26 50.58/1.21 31.48/0.42
S30 S29
50 40
1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76 55.26 55.26 140.28/2.79
82.59/2.66
22.17/0.62
23.91/0.02
S31 S30 water 50 1.60 1.50 0.65 0.76 84.21 55.26 3.39/0.04
140.28/2.79 29.27/0.26
22.17/0.62
S32 S31 10 water 1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65 84.21 84.21 3.39/0.04
29.81/1.23 29.27/0.26
29.63/0.60
S32 10 1.60 0.65 84.21 29.81/1.23 29.63/0.60
S33 S33 20 20 1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65 84.21 84.21 45.19/1.11
45.19/1.11 32.56/0.67
32.56/0.67
S34 S34 30 30 1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65 84.21 84.21 82.30/1.79
82.30/1.79 32.31/0.57
32.31/0.57
S35 40 1.60 0.65 84.21 152.78/2.34 25.89/0.99
S35 S36 40 50 1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65 84.21 84.21 152.78/2.34
204.22/3.15 25.89/0.99
24.21/0.29
S36 50 1.60 0.65 84.21 204.22/3.15 24.21/0.29

Figure
Figure 9. 9.
TheThe variationsofofthe
variations thecohesion
cohesionof
ofreinforced
reinforced specimens
specimenswith
withpolymer
polymerconcentration.
concentration.
 Polymers
Polymers 2018,
2018, 10, 287 10 of 15
15
Polymers 2018, 10,10, x FOR
x FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 9 of
9 of 15

Figure 10. The variations of internal friction angle of reinforced specimens with polymer
Figure10.
Figure The variations
10. The
concentration. variationsof internal frictionfriction
of internal angle of angle
reinforced
of specimens
reinforcedwith polymer concentration.
specimens with polymer
concentration.

Figure 11. The shape of specimens after direct shear test.

Figure 11. The shape of specimens after direct shear test.

3.3. Tensile
3.3. Test
Tensile Test
The
3.3. Tensile tensilestrength
The Test
tensile strengthmainly mainlyoriginates
originates from
from thethe connection
connection andand interlocking
interlocking between/among
between/among soil
soil particles.
particles. The The pull-out
pull-out test could
test could not be not be carried
carried out for outtheforunreinforced
the unreinforced specimens
specimens due todue theto the
loose
Thestructure
loose tensile strength mainly originates from the connection and interlocking between/among
structure of sandofand sand
smalland small
cohesive cohesive
force. In force. In this
this study, thestudy,
approach the approach
zero value ofzero value
tensile of tensile
strength for
soilstrength
particles. for The
all pull-out
the test could
unreinforced not bewith
specimens carried out for
densities the1.50,
1.40, unreinforced
and
3 1.60 specimens
g/cm due to the
3 was considered
all the unreinforced specimens with densities 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60 g/cm was considered as a reference.
loose
as astructure
reference. of sand and small cohesive force. In this study, the approach zero value of tensile
The pull-out test results of reinforced samples with different polymer concentrations are shown
strength
in Table for all
The 3.pull-outthe
As seen, unreinforced
test
it isresults
palpable specimens
of that the with
reinforced densities
samples
presence of with 1.40,
polymer 1.50,
had and
different 1.60 effects
polymer
obvious g/cm 3 was considered
concentrations
on the tensile are
as strength
a reference.
shown inofTable 3. As seen, it is palpable that the presence of polymer
reinforced sand. The variations of tensile strength with polymer concentration are shown had obvious effects on the
in The
tensile
Figure pull-out
strength
12. As of test
shown results
reinforced
in Figure of 12,
sand.reinforced
The samples
variations
the tensile with
of tensile
strengths different polymer
strength samples
of reinforced with polymer concentrations
with densitiesare
concentration
three
shown
are in
shown Tablein 3. As
Figure seen,
12. As it is palpable
shown in that
Figure the
12, presence
the tensile of polymer
strengths
increased with the increasing of polymer concentration. The tensile strength of samples with density had
of obvious
reinforced effects
samples on the
with
threeg/cm
tensile
1.40 densities
strength3 andofincreased
reinforced
with polymer with sand.the Theincreasing
concentrations variations of polymer
10%, of tensile
20%, 30%, concentration.
strength
40%, 50%The
and with were tensile
polymer strength
6.08, concentration
15.08, 25.74,of
samples
are42.95,
shown andwith
in67.11 density
FigurekPa,12. 1.40
As g/cmshown
respectively. 3 and with polymer concentrations 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%
in Figurethe
Moreover, 12,samples
the tensile strengthsofof1.40,
with densities reinforced
1.50, andsamples1.60 g/cm 3
with
were
three 6.08,
densities
reinforced 15.08,
by 10% 25.74,
increased 42.95,
polymerwith and 67.11
the increasing
concentration kPa, respectively.
had similarof polymer Moreover,
concentration.
tensile strength the samples
values of The with
tensile
6.08, 6.16, densities
andstrength of
6.42 kPa,of
1.40, 1.50,
samples withand
respectively. When1.60 the
density g/cm
1.40 3 reinforced
g/cm3 amount
additive and withbyof10% polymerpolymer
polymer concentration
concentrations
concentration was10%,had similar
20%,
higher 30%,
than tensile
10%, 40%,thestrength
and
tensile50%
values
strengths
were of 6.08,
6.08, 15.08, 6.16,
of reinforced and 6.42
samples
25.74, 42.95, kPa, respectively.
andvaried
67.11 withkPa, sampleWhen the additive
density.
respectively. amount
The reinforced
Moreover, of polymer
specimen
the samples withconcentration
with density of
densities
was1.50,
1.50
1.40, higher
g/cm and than
3 had
1.60 10%,
the the
highest
g/cm tensile
value of
3 reinforced strengths
tensile
by 10% of reinforced
strength,
polymer the one samples variedhad
with density
concentration with
1.60 sample
g/cm
similar 3 had density. The
the lowest
tensile strength
reinforced
value,
values of and
6.08, specimen
the
6.16, andwith
other one density
6.42with kPa,density1.50 g/cm 3
1.40 g/cm
respectively. had
When thehad
3 highest
the valueamount
aadditive
middle of tensile
value. ofstrength,
The specimens
polymer the one with
with 50%
concentration
density
polymer 1.60 g/cm 3 had the lowest value, and the other one with density 3 1.40 g/cm 3 had a middle
was higherconcentration
than 10%, the and with densities
tensile strengthsofof1.40, 1.50, andsamples
reinforced 1.60 g/cm had with
varied tensilesample
strengths of 67.11,
density. The
value. and
72.19, The47.56
specimens
kPa, with 50% polymer concentration
respectively. and with densities of 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60
reinforced specimen with density 1.50 g/cm had the highest value of tensile strength, the one with
3
g/cmFigure
3 had tensile strengths of 67.11, 72.19, and 47.56 kPa, respectively.
13 illustrates the failurevalue,
mode of samples reinforced withdensity
50% polymer concentration and
density 1.60 g/cm 3 had the lowest and the other one with 1.40 g/cm 3 had a middle
with TheFigure
different 13 illustrates
densities. the
As shown failure mode
in Figures of samples reinforced
4 and 13, afterand the failurewith 50% polymer
of specimens, concentration
the samples with
value. specimens with 50% polymer concentration with densities of 1.40, 1.50, and 1.60
and and
1.40 with1.50 different
g/cm 3densities.
densities As
were shown
still in Figures
tightly linked 4 around
and 13,the after the failure
fracture by of specimens,
polymer membranes, the
g/cm had tensile strengths of 67.11,
3 72.19, and 47.56 kPa, respectively. 3
samples
to provide with 1.40 and
residual 1.50strength.
tensile g/cm3 densities
However, were
the still
samplestightly linked
with arounddensity
1.60 g/cm the fracture
displayed by polymer
a direct
Figure
membranes,
13 illustrates
to provide
the failure
residual
modestrength.
tensile
of samples reinforced
However, the
with 50%
samples with
polymer
1.60
concentration
g/cm 3 density
fracture similar to brittle failure, and had less polymer membrane.
and with different
displayed densities.
a direct fracture As shown
similar to brittle infailure,
Figures and 4 had
andless13, polymer
after themembrane.
failure of specimens, the
samples with 1.40 and 1.50 g/cm3 densities were still tightly linked around the fracture by polymer
membranes, to provide residual tensile strength. However, the samples with 1.60 g/cm3 density
displayed a direct fracture similar to brittle failure, and had less polymer membrane.
Polymers 2018,
Polymers
Polymers 2018, 10,
2018, 10, x287
10, x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 10 of
10
11 of 15
of 15
15

Table 3.
Table 3. Results
Results of
of tensile
tensile tests.
tests.
Table 3. Results of tensile tests.
Polymer
Polymer Relative
Relative
Serial
Serial Dry Density
Dry Density Void Ratio
Void Ratio Tensile Strength
Tensile Strength (kPa)/
(kPa)/
Concentration
Concentration Density
Density
Relative Tensile Strength
Number Serial
Number (g/cm33)) Dry Density eess Void Ratio
Polymer(g/cm Standard
Standard Deviations (kPa)
Deviations (kPa)
(%)
(%) D (%)
DrDensity
r (%) (kPa)/Standard
Number Concentration (%) (g/cm3 ) es
S37
S37 water
water 1.40
1.40 0.89
0.89 Dr (%)
21.05
21.05 Deviations (kPa)
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.00
S38
S38 S37 10 10 1.40
water 1.40 1.40 0.89 0.89
0.89 21.05
21.0521.05 6.08/0.13
6.08/0.13
0.00/0.00
S39
S39 S38 20 20 10 1.40
1.40 1.40 0.89 0.89
0.89 21.05
21.05
21.05 6.08/0.13
15.08/0.24
15.08/0.24
S40
S40 S39 30 30 20 1.40
1.40 1.40 0.89 0.89
0.89 21.05
21.05
21.05 15.08/0.24
25.74/0.58
25.74/0.58
S40 30 1.40 0.89 21.05 25.74/0.58
S41
S41 S41 40 40 40 1.40
1.40 1.40 0.89 0.89
0.89 21.05
21.0521.05 42.95/1.27
42.95/1.27
42.95/1.27
S42
S42 S42 50 50 50 1.40
1.40 1.40 0.89 0.89
0.89 21.05
21.0521.05 67.11/1.89
67.11/1.89
67.11/1.89
S43
S43 water
S43 water 1.50
water 1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76
0.76 55.26
55.2655.26 0.00/0.00
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.00
S44
S44 S44 10 10 10 1.50
1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76
0.76 55.26
55.26
55.26 6.16/0.14
6.16/0.14
6.16/0.14
S45 20 1.50 0.76 55.26 16.11/0.56
S45
S45 20
20 1.50
1.50 0.76
0.76 55.26
55.26 16.11/0.56
16.11/0.56
S46 30 1.50 0.76 55.26 33.33/0.66
S46
S46 S47 30 30 40 1.50
1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76
0.76 55.26
55.2655.26 33.33/0.66
33.33/0.66
49.19/0.57
S47
S47 S48 40 40 50 1.50
1.50 1.50 0.76 0.76
0.76 55.26
55.2655.26 49.19/0.57
49.19/0.57
72.19/1.45
S48
S48 S49 50 50 water 1.50
1.50 1.60 0.76 0.65
0.76 84.21
55.26
55.26 0.00/0.00
72.19/1.45
72.19/1.45
S50 10 1.60
S49
S49 water
water 1.60
1.60 0.65 0.65
0.65 84.2184.21
84.21 6.42/0.12
0.00/0.00
0.00/0.00
S51 20 1.60 0.65 84.21 13.57/0.25
S50
S50 S52 10 10 30 1.60
1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65
0.65 84.21
84.2184.21 6.42/0.12
6.42/0.12
22.92/0.45
S51
S51 S53 20 20 40 1.60
1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65
0.65 84.21
84.2184.21 13.57/0.25
13.57/0.25
32.93/0.57
S52
S52 S54 30 30 50 1.60
1.60 1.60 0.65 0.65
0.65 84.21
84.21
84.21 47.56/1.29
22.92/0.45
22.92/0.45
S53
S53 40
40 1.60
1.60 0.65
0.65 84.21
84.21 32.93/0.57
32.93/0.57
S54
S54 50
50 1.60
1.60 0.65
0.65 84.21
84.21 47.56/1.29
47.56/1.29

Figure 12.
Figure 12. The
The variation
variation of
of tensile
tensile strength with polymer
strength with polymer concentration.
concentration.

Figure 13.
Figure 13. The
The failure
Thefailure module of
failuremodule of 50%
50% polymer-reinforced
polymer-reinforced samples
samples with different densities.
with different
different densities.

4. Discussion
4.
4. Discussion
Discussion
The organic
The
The organic polymer
organic polymer used
polymer used as
used as soil
as soil stabilizer
soil stabilizer in
stabilizer in this
in this study
this study reinforces
study reinforces sand
reinforces sand by
sand by forming
by forming active
forming active
active
polymer
polymer membranes between sand particles. The polymer contains a significant proportion
polymer membranes between sand particles. The polymer contains a significant proportion of the
membranes between sand particles. The polymer contains a significant proportion of
of the
the
long-chain macromolecule
long-chain macromolecule of
of polyurethane
polyurethane resin
resin and
and anan enormous
enormous amount
amount of of isocyanate
isocyanate group
group (–
(–
 Polymers 2018, 10, 287 12 of 15

long-chain macromolecule of polyurethane resin and an enormous amount of isocyanate group

(–NCO). The structural formula of the polymer is given as formula (1), and its reinforcement reaction
processes are
O = C = N [R1 − NH − CO − R2 − O − CO − NH]n R1 − N = C = O (1)

O = C = N − R − N = C = O + 2H2 O → HO − CO − NH − R − NH − CO − OH → H2 N − R − NH2 + 2CO2 . (2)

(n + 1)H2 N − R − NH2 + nO = C = N − R − N = C = O → H2 N [ R − NH − CO − NH ]2n R − NH2 (3)

given as formulas (2) and (3). When the diluted polymer solution is mixed with sand, a part of them
fills up the sand voids and others are adsorbed on the surface of sand particles. This is different from
cement/lime sand stabilizer, which is a new crystalline product in the form of lumps to fill most of
the sand void. The active groups –NCO in formula (1) react with water in voids and on the surface of
sand by chemical formulas (2) and (3) to form physicochemical bonds of polymer membrane between
molecules and sand particles. With these physicochemical bonds, the polymer membranes enwrap
the sand particle and interlink them to form an elastic and viscous membrane structure in the sand.
The SEM images of specimen reinforced with 50% polymer are presented in Figure 14. As seen in
(Figure 14a–d), the sand particles are enwrapped and connected by the polymer to form a stable
structure. This structure may increase the bonding and interlocking forces between sand particles and
decrease the void ratio of sand. The sand is mixed with polymer dilution to form a stable structure.
The dilution concentration and specimen dry density are two important factors in the formation of a
stable structure. The higher the polymer concentration, the greater the content of polymer membranes
to fill sand voids and enwrap the sand particles with a resultant increase of the steadiness of stable
structure in sand. So, the strength characteristics of reinforced specimens with the same dry density
Polymersincrease
2018, 10,with
x FOR PEER
the REVIEW
increasing polymer concentration (Tables 1–3, and Figures 9, 10 and 12). 12 of 15

FigureFigure
14. SEM SEM images
14. images of specimen
of specimen reinforced
reinforced withwith
50%50% polymer:
polymer: (a) times
(a) 50 50 times magnification;(b) 100
magnification;
(b) 100 times magnification; (c) 150 times magnification; (d) 200 times magnification.
times magnification; (c) 150 times magnification; (d) 200 times magnification.

The dry density of specimen influences sand void ratio (e), which is a vital factor affecting
the efficiency of polymer membrane in filling the sand voids and enwrapping the sand particles.
Figure 15 explains the mechanism of polymer dilution reinforced specimens with different dry densities.
As shown in Figure 15, the specimens with small dry density have loose structure (which helps in filling
the sand voids and enwrapping the sand particles with polymer membranes), but have weak bonding
and interlocking forces due to long distance between/among sand particles. The sand particles of

Figure 15. The mechanism of polymer-reinforced specimens with different dry density:
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 13 of 15

specimens with large dry density are closely arranged, which does not help in filling the sand voids
and enwrapping the sand particles. So, there are specimens with optimal density where is easy to
fill the sand voids and enwrap the sand particles, and have strong bonding and interlocking forces
among sand particles. It is the bonding and interlocking forces and forces between sand particles
which create the pull forces when the reinforced specimens endure pull forces. However, due to small
forces between sand particles, pull forces are mainly borne by bonding and interlocking forces. So,
the reinforced specimens with relatively loose structure have higher tensile strength than the ones with
tight structure (Figure 12). In UCS tests and direct shear tests, the specimens became denser when they
were subjected to the upper pressure. So, the unconfined compression strength and shear strength
Figure 14.specimens
of reinforced SEM imageswithof specimen
the samereinforced
polymerwith 50% polymer:
concentration (a) 50 times
increased magnification;
with (b) 100
the increasing density
times magnification; (c)
(Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 9). 150 times magnification; (d) 200 times magnification.

Figure 15.
Figure 15. TheThe mechanism
mechanism ofof polymer-reinforced
polymer-reinforced specimens
specimens with
with different
different dry
dry density:
density:
(a)
(a) Polymer-reinforced
Polymer-reinforced sand
sand with
with loose
loose structure;
structure; (b)
(b) Polymer-reinforced
Polymer-reinforcedwith
withhigh
highdensity.
density.

5. Conclusions
In order to evaluate the efficacy of polyurethane soil stabilizer on the strength characteristics of
reinforced sand, laboratory trials of unconfined compression test, direct shear test, and tensile test
were performed.
performed. The
The test
testresults
resultsand
andreinforcement
reinforcementmechanism
mechanismwere
wereanalysed.
analysed.Based onon
Based thethe
results of
results
the tests presented herein, the main conclusions can be summarized as follows:
of the tests presented herein, the main conclusions can be summarized as follows:

1. The
The addition
addition of of polymer
polymer had had significant
significant effects
effects on the strength characteristics of reinforced
specimens.
specimens. TheTheunconfined
unconfined compressive
compressive strength,
strength, cohesion,
cohesion, andand tensile
tensile strength of specimens
with the same
with the same dry density increased with the increasing polymer concentration. Moreover,
increasing polymer concentration. Moreover,
specimen
specimen drydrydensity
densityisisan animportant
importantfactor
factorfor
forthe
thereinforced
reinforcedspecimen
specimenstrength
strength characteristics.
characteristics.
The
The unconfined
unconfined compressive
compressive strength
strength andand shear
shear strength of specimens reinforced with same
polymer concentration increased with increasing
polymer concentration increased with increasing sand sand density,
density, andand the reinforced
the reinforced specimen
specimen with
with density
density 1.50 1.50
g/cm 3
g/cmhadhad
3
thethe highest
highest value
value of of tensile
tensile strength,
strength, thethe onewith
one withdensity
density1.60 g/cm33
1.60g/cm
had
had the
the lowest
lowest value,
value, and
and the
the other
other one
one with
with density
density 1.40 g/cm3 3had
1.40 g/cm hadaamoderate
moderatevalue.
value.
2.
2. When
When the organic polymer solution was applied to sand, the polymer membranes formed
the organic polymer solution was applied to sand, the polymer membranes formed by by
the
themixture
mixtureof ofpolymer
polymerand andwater
waterenwrapped
enwrappedthe thesand
sandparticles
particlesandandinterlinked
interlinkedthem
themtotoform
forma
stable structure. The higher the polymer concentration, the greater
a stable structure. The higher the polymer concentration, the greater the content of polymerthe content of polymer
membranes
membranes to to fill
fillthe
thesand
sandvoids
voidsand and enwrap
enwrap thethe
sandsand particles
particles to keep
to keep the structure
the sand sand structure
stable.
stable. The efficiency of this phenomenon is influenced by dry density,
The efficiency of this phenomenon is influenced by dry density, and at an optimal density of sand,and at an optimal
density of sand,
the process the process
of filling the sandofvoids
filling theenwrapping
and sand voids the andsand
enwrapping
particles the
getssand particles
easier, gets
and strong
easier,
bonding and strong
and bondingforces
interlocking and interlocking
among sandforces among
particles are sand particles
observed. areresults
These observed. Thesea
provide
results provide a reasonable and effective theoretical basis for the
reasonable and effective theoretical basis for the reinforcement of the sand soil area. reinforcement of the sand
soil area.
Acknowledgments: This research was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 41472241), Public Science and Technology Research Fund of Ministry of Land and Resources (Grant No.
201511055), Water Conservancy Science and Technology Project of Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. 2017010)
and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. BK20151011).
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 14 of 15

Author Contributions: In this study, Jin Liu and Yi Lu conceived and designed the experiments; Yuxia Bai and
Zezhuo Song performed the experiments; Jin Liu and Wei Qian analysed the data; Jin Liu and Yuxia Bai wrote the
paper; Debi Prasanna Kanungo gave some valuable advices about the structure of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of
this paper.

References
1. Abbawi, Z.W.S. Studying strength and stiffness characteristics of sand stabilized with cement and lime
additives. Eng. Technol. J. 2015, 33, 1857–1875.
2. Cepuritis, R.; Mørtsell, E. Possibilities of improving crushed sand performance in fresh concrete by washing:
A case study. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 1–16. [CrossRef]
3. Kim, C.; Lee, J.; Lee, S. TiO2 nanoparticle sorption to sand in the presence of natural organic matter.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 5585–5591. [CrossRef]
4. Latifi, N.; Rashid, A.S.A.; Siddiqua, S.; Horpibulsuk, S. Micro-structural analysis of strength development
in low- and high swelling clays stabilized with magnesium chloride solution—A green soil stabilizer.
Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 118, 195–206. [CrossRef]
5. Chang, I.; Cho, G.C. Strengthening of korean residual soil with β-1,3/1,6-glucan biopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater.
2012, 30, 30–35. [CrossRef]
6. Joel, M.; Agbede, I.O. Mechanical-cement stabilization of laterite for use as flexible pavement material.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011, 23, 146–152. [CrossRef]
7. Latifi, N.; Marto, A.; Eisazadeh, A. Analysis of strength development in non-traditional liquid
additive-stabilized laterite soil from macro- and micro-structural considerations. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73,
1133–1141. [CrossRef]
8. Mousavi, F.; Abdi, E.; Rahimi, H. Effect of polymer stabilizer on swelling potential and cbr of forest road
material. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 18, 2064–2071. [CrossRef]
9. Shrivastava, A.K.; Jain, D.; Vishwakarma, S. Frictional resistance of drilling fluids as a borehole stabilizers.
Int. J. Geo-Eng. 2016, 7, 12. [CrossRef]
10. Latifi, N.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Meehan, C.L.; Majid, M.Z.A.; Rashid, A.S.A. Xanthan gum biopolymer:
An eco-friendly additive for stabilization of tropical organic peat. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 1–10. [CrossRef]
11. Ma, G.; Ran, F.; Feng, E.; Dong, Z.; Lei, Z. Effectiveness of an eco-friendly polymer composite sand-fixing
agent on sand fixation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2015, 226, 221. [CrossRef]
12. Mohsin, M.A.; Attia, N.F. Inverse emulsion polymerization for the synthesis of high molecular weight
polyacrylamide and its application as sand stabilizer. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2015, 2015, 436583. [CrossRef]
13. Naeini, S.A.; Naderinia, B.; Izadi, E. Unconfined compressive strength of clayey soils stabilized with
waterborne polymer. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 16, 943–949. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, M.; Guo, H.; El-Korchi, T.; Zhang, G.; Tao, M. Experimental feasibility study of geopolymer as the
next-generation soil stabilizer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1468–1478. [CrossRef]
15. Onyejekwe, S.; Ghataora, G.S. Soil stabilization using proprietary liquid chemical stabilizers: Sulphonated
oil and a polymer. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2015, 74, 651–665. [CrossRef]
16. Naeini, S.A.; Ghorbanalizadeh, M. Effect of wet and dry conditions on strength of silty sand soils stabilized
with epoxy resin polymer. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 10, 2839–2846. [CrossRef]
17. Marto, A.; Latifi, N.; Eisazadeh, A. Effect of non-traditional additives on engineering and microstructural
characteristics of laterite soil. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 39, 6949–6958. [CrossRef]
18. Sun, H.H.; Lee, E.Y. Restoration of eroded coastal sand dunes using plant and soil-conditioner mixture.
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 113, 161–168.
19. Yang, J.; Wang, F.; Fang, L.; Tan, T. The effects of aging tests on a novel chemical sand-fixing
agent—Polyaspartic acid. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2007, 67, 2160–2164. [CrossRef]
20. Ate, A. The effect of polymer-cement stabilization on the unconfined compressive strength of liquefiable
soils. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2013, 2013, 155–171. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, J.; Qi, X.; Zhang, D.; Feng, Q.; Wang, Y.; Kanungo, D.P. Study on the permeability characteristics of
polyurethane soil stabilizer reinforced sand. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017, 5240186. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2018, 10, 287 15 of 15

22. Liu, J.; Shi, B.; Lu, Y.; Jiang, H.; Huang, H.; Wang, G.; Kamai, T. Effectiveness of a new organic polymer
sand-fixing agent on sand fixation. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 65, 589–595. [CrossRef]
23. ASTM D2166-00: Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil; ASTM: Philadelphia,
PA, USA, 2000.
24. ASTM D3080-98: Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of under Drained Conditions; ASTM: Philadelphia,
PA, USA, 2000.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).