Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Stabilising the cohesive soil with palm fibre sheath

strip

Jili Qu & Dongxue Zhao

To cite this article: Jili Qu & Dongxue Zhao (2016) Stabilising the cohesive soil with
palm fibre sheath strip, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 17:1, 87-103, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2015.1064010

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1064010

Published online: 21 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 186

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2016
Vol. 17, No. 1, 87–103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1064010

Stabilising the cohesive soil with palm fibre sheath strip

Jili Qu ∗ and Dongxue Zhao

Department of Civil engineering, Environmental and Architectural College, University of Shanghai

for Science and Technology (USST), 516 Jungong Rd., Shanghai 200093, People’s Republic of China

(Received 16 December 2014; accepted 14 June 2015 )

A multiple regression model was used based on experimental data using regression analysis
method to predict the strength of Shanghai cohesive soil reinforced with strips of natural palm
sheath strips. Four different variables were studied to investigate the behaviour and strength of
reinforced cohesive soil with palm sheath strips. These are the content, size and aspect ratio
of palm sheath strips as well as the normal stress applied in the shear tests. For this purpose, a
series of direct shear tests were conducted on unreinforced and reinforced soil specimens. Test
results showed that using strips of natural palm sheath improved the strength of the tested soil.
Increasing content of palm sheath has a more significant effect on the enhancement of residual
strength compared to the enhancement of peak shear strength. Content, size, aspect ratio of
palm sheath strips and the normal stress applied have significant effects on the improvement
of both peak and residual strength. Utilisation of such natural palm sheath in this way will
help in preparation of green composites as well as reducing the cost of ground improvement.
Results showed that multiple linear regression models can accurately predict the strength of
Shanghai cohesive soil reinforced with local palm sheath strips within the range of the studied
variables and type of soil tested in this paper. Consequently, using such regression models will
save time as well as reduce laboratory costs.
Keywords: reinforced soil; palm sheath; peak strength; residual strength; regression model

1. Introduction
Since the last decade of the twentieth century, the usage of natural products (wood, fibres and agro
waste) as reinforcements in composites has increased dramatically. Environmental concern is one
driving force that led to the consideration of biodegradable ligno cellulose fibres for this purpose
(Mohanty, Misra, & Hinrichsen, 2000). Natural fibres have some advantages over the man-made
fibres, including low cost, lightweight, renewable character, high specific strength and modu-
lus, and availability in a variety of forms throughout the world (Maheswari, Guduri, & Rajulu,
2008; Mohanty et al., 2000; Rajuru et al., 2002; ). Therefore, the natural fibre reinforcement tech-
nique has been used in construction of almost all engineering structures, namely retaining walls,
abutments, embankments, railroad tracks, foundation slabs, earthen dams, pavement sub-grade,
and landfill liners. Reinforcement elements are either placed in the preferred direction (strips,
sheets, etc.) or randomly mixed with soil (discrete fibres). One of the distinct advantages of ran-
domly distributed fibre-reinforced soil is the mesh-like configuration, which maintains strength
isotropy and eliminates potential planes of weakness normally developing parallel to the rein-
forcement (Gray & Maher, 1989). Although synthetic fibres have greater resistance to attack by

*Correspondence author. Email: qujiliqwq@163.com

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

88 J. Qu and D. Zhao

acids, alkalies, or other chemicals, they are liable to cause environmental pollution. Given the
current concern over the environment, use of natural materials for soil strengthening is gaining
recognition.
Past studies have shown that natural fibre reinforcement can significantly improve engineer-
ing properties of clay (Andersland & Khattak, 1979; Al Wahab & El-Kedrah, 1995; Casagrande,
Coop, & Cesar, 2006; Feuerharmel, 2000; Kumar & Tabor, 2003; Maher & Ho, 1994; Nataraj &
McManis, 1997; Zeigler, Leshchinsky, & Perry, 1998). A number of factors such as fibre char-
acteristics (fibre type, fibre content, fibre length, thickness, aspect ratio, orientation, etc.) and
soil characteristics influence the behaviour of the clay–fibre composite (Casagrande et al., 2006;
Maher & Ho, 1994). The peak compressive strength, ductility, splitting tensile strength, and flex-
ural toughness of kaolinite clay were found to increase by the inclusion of randomly distributed
paper pulp fibres (Maher & Ho, 1994). The fibre reinforcement has been found to decrease ten-
sion cracking and the swelling potential of low plasticity clay (Al Wahab & El-Kedrah, 1995).
Casagrande et al. (2006) reported that the inclusion of randomly distributed fibres increased
the peak shear strength of bentonite, but the residual strengths of both the non-reinforced and
fibre-reinforced bentonite were similar. Ozkul and Baykal (2007) found that the addition of tire
buffings increased the peak strength of clay under confining stresses between 200 and 300 kPa
and above this confining stress, the inclusions degraded the strength.
The use of coir fibres (coconut fibre) as soil reinforcement is a cost-effective method of soil
improvement in countries such as India, Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and so on, where it is
cheap and locally available. Amongst the natural materials for soil reinforcement, the coir fibres
were found to have good strength characteristics and resistance to bio-degradation over a long
period of time (Ayyar, Nair, & Nair, 2002; Girish & Ayyar, 2000; Mwasha, 2009). Rao and Balan
(2000) reported significant gain in strength parameters and stiffness of sand by the inclusion of
coir fibres. Rao, Dutta, and Ujwala (2005) found that the behaviour of sand reinforced with coir
fibres and geotextiles are similar to that observed with synthetic fibres and meshes. Babu and
Vasudevan (2007) examined the adequacy of different methods for the strength prediction of
coir-fibre-reinforced sand and also suggested an analytical approach for estimating the stiffness
modulus. Vinod, Bhaskar, and Lekshmi (2007) studied the undrained shear response of clay
reinforced with sand-coir fibre core and noticed that addition of coir fibres in the sand core
considerably enhanced the strength characteristics of clay. Babu, Vasudevan, and Sayida (2008)
investigated the improvement of strength, swelling, and compressibility characteristics of black
cotton soil due to the inclusion of coir fibres and described the mechanism of improvement.
Based on experimental study, Babu and Vasudevan (2008) reported that the strength and stiffness
of tropical soil were improved with the inclusion of discrete coir fibres of about 1–2% by weight.
Ahmed (2012) studied the strength of reinforced sand with waste polystyrene plastic type and set
up a multiple regression model to predict the strength behaviour.
It is evident from previous studies that the coir in different forms (e.g., discrete fibres, mesh,
etc.) is highly effective as soil-reinforcing element and hence needs to be fully utilised. While
the palm fibre is a member of coconut family, only limited studies have been reported on the
use of randomly distributed discrete palm fibres in fine-grained soils, especially the use of palm
sheath fibre. The palm leaf sheath is made up of an inner mat which is sandwiched between two
layers of coarse fibres. The use of natural fibres such as palm sheath fibre for soil improvement
is highly attractive in countries where such materials are locally and economically obtainable,
in view of the preservation of natural environment and cost effectiveness. Palm tree is native
to south of China (Hainan islands), coastal areas of southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, and
Philippines), tropical Pacific islands (Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia) and westward to
coastal India, Sri Lanka, east Africa, and tropical islands (e.g. Seychelles, Andaman, Mauritius)
in India Ocean (Satyanarayana et al., 1982). Recently, the palm trees have been widely planted
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 89

in middle and north of China for business and sightseeing purpose. Therefore, the palm sheath
fibres are available in many areas of China. This provides the vast opportunity for the use of
palm sheath fibre as reinforcement in ground improvement.
This paper is based on investigations into the shear strength behaviour of Shanghai cohesive
soil reinforced with palm leaf sheath fibres distributed in a random manner by performing a series
of direct shear tests. The main focus is to study the effects of four elements of fibre content,
size, aspect ratio, and normal stress applied in the tests on peak and residual shear strengths of
reinforced soil. In addition, the second objective is to investigate the development of a regression
model to predict the strength of reinforced cohesive soil with the strips of palm sheath based on
experimental data.

2. Experimental investigation
The use of strips of palm fibre sheath to enhance the strength of the tested soil is evaluated in
terms of peak and residual strength of direct shear tests. A series of direct shear tests on unre-
inforced and reinforced samples with strips of palm fibre sheath were conducted. Four different
parameters including content, size, aspect ratio of palm fibre sheath strips as well as the applied
normal stress in shear tests were investigated to evaluate their effects on the performance of the
tested soil. Four different contents (C) of palm fibre sheath strips were used by dry soil mass,
0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00%, and 2.00%. Three different sizes (S) of 2, 4, and 8 mm, and four aspect
ratios (A) of 1, 2, 3, and 4 were used. Three normal stresses of 100, 200, and 300 kPa in shear
tests were applied. Aspect ratio is defined as the ratio between length and width of palm strip.
Palm strips’ content, size of palm strips, aspect ratio, and normal stress were used as input param-
eters (independent variables) in the development of a proposed regression model while peak and
residual strength were proposed as output parameters (dependent variables).

2.1. Materials
Two types of materials were used in this research, which are cohesive soil from local construction
site in Shanghai, and palm fibre sheath strips from local market. The soil used in this research is
classified as cohesive soil according to the China Soil Test Regulation for Highway (JTG E40-
2007). The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were found to be 1.72 Mg/m3
and 20%, respectively. The soil had a liquid limit of 33%, a plastic limit of 22%, plasticity index
of 11, cohesion of 37.9 kPa, and internal friction angle of 22°.
The palm fibre sheath strip was purchased from local farm market. The basic properties of
it are presented in Table 1. It is noted that as the palm fibre sheath strip is obtained from pure
nature, its strengths are uneven, which leads to the measurements varying within some range.
The palm fibre sheath strips were used as reinforcement in this test.

2.2. Test methods

The palm fibre sheath were firstly cleaned and aired in normal temperature (21 ± 1°), then cut
by shredder machine in three different width strip sizes (S) of 2, 4, and 8 mm approximately,
because it is difficult to control the required size of strips from palm sheath. Each size (S) was
cut to four lengths, which are corresponding to aspect ratios (A = length/width) of 1, 2, 3, and 4.
A series of direct shear tests were conducted in the present test in an attempt to study the effects
of inclusion of palm fibre sheath strips on peak and residual strengths of locally available c − φ
soil compacted to standard Proctor’s maximum density. Both unreinforced and reinforced soil
were tested at three different normal stresses (σ n ), that is, 100, 200, 300 kPa in order to quantify
90 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Table 1. Properties of palm fibre sheath.

Properties values

Average thickness (mm) 0.192–1.240

Tensile strength (MPa) 87–166
Natural elongation ultimate (%) 5–21
Elastic modulus (MPa) 800–1900
Specific gravity 1.24
Water absorption (%) 24/48 hrs 0.6
Provided by YiYing Testing Co. Shanghai, China.

the variation in both peak and residual strength due to inclusion of fibre strips. For reinforced
soil, the strip content was varied from 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2%. Thus, a total of 147 direct
shear tests were conducted (number of test = 3 width sizes * 4 types of aspect ratio * 4 fibre
contents * 3 normal stresses + 3 unreinforced samples at three normal stresses = 144).

2.2.1. Sample preparation

The oven-dried soil was ground and sieved through 2 mm sieve. The palm sheath strips were
added to this soil at different percentages varying from 0% to 2%. The palm strips to be added
to the soil were considered as a part of the solids fraction in the void-solid matrix of the soil.
The content of palm strip reinforcement (C) is defined herein as C = (weight of the air-dried
palm strips)/(weight of the oven-dried soil). The mixing of soil was felt very difficult beyond
ρ > 2%, as the same sticked together to form lumps. This also caused pockets of low density. In
addition, coupled with the study of the effect of random inclusion of wheat straw fibre on strength
characteristics of lime soil (Wei et al., 2010), it was decided to stop with 2% strip content. Soil
samples were prepared by initial dry mixing of oven-dried soil and corresponding quantity of
palm strips (according to percentage by weight of oven-dried soil). The dry and wet mixing of
soil-strip-water was carried out in a non-porous metal tray in order to avoid loss of water. The
soil, palm strip, and water were mixed manually, spending sufficient time with proper care to
get homogeneous mix. The soil mixed with strips and water was kept in closed polyethelene
bags for 24 h in the laboratory at room temperature (21 ± 2°C) for uniform mixing of soil with
water. The mix thus obtained was used for preparation of direct shear test specimens. The above
tests were conducted on both unreinforced and reinforced soil specimens to make comparison
between the strength of unreinforced soil with that of reinforced soil by varying the palm strip
content, size, aspect ratio, and normal stress.

2.2.2. Direct shear test

The experimental study involved performing a series of direct shear tests. The direct shear appa-
ratus (type DJY-4L quadruple iso-strain direct shear apparatus) was made by National Nanjing
Automatic Co. Ltd (Figure 1). Soil-strip mix was compacted in the shear box of 60 × 60 mm in
plane and 25 mm in depth by tamping to standard Proctor’s maximum density to obtain the spec-
imens (with the same water content and dry density) for direct shear tests. The specimens were
prepared at C = 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% for all the three palm strip width sizes of 2, 4, and 8
mm (Figure 1), each of which was cut to four lengths that are corresponding to aspect ratios of 1,
2, 3, and 4. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The specimens were tested at normal
stresses of 100, 200, and 300 kPa in unconsolidated undrained conditions as per China Standard
Specifications GB-50007 – 2011. The loading rate was 0.002 mm/s in the tests. The shear stresses
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 91

Figure 1. (a) Type DJY-4L quadruple iso-strain direct shear apparatus. (b) 2*4 mm palm sheath strip.

were recorded as a function of horizontal displacement up to a total displacement of 10 mm to

observe the post-failure behaviour as well. The dial gauge readings on the proving ring were
noted at a fixed interval of horizontal dial readings to study the stress-displacement behaviour
of both unreinforced and palm-strip-reinforced soil. The shear stress was obtained from the dial
gauge readings multiplied by coefficient of the corresponding proving ring. It is to be noted that
the choice of a small direct shear apparatus as the testing platform brings some inherent prob-
lems into the experimental study (Yetimoglu & Salbas, 2003). This limits the amount of fibre
strip inclusion. Other problems such as the imposed plane of shear failure, ambiguous stress
state, and end effect in such a small sample size make it more difficult to model strip-reinforced
soil behaviour realistically. Despite these limitations, direct shear device has been widely used
for different theoretical and practical research projects in most laboratories all over the world
due to its simplicity and other advantages (Athanasopoulos, 1996; Izgin & Wasti, 1998; Kumar,
Kanaujia, & Chandra, 1999; Naeini & Sadjadi, 2008; Wasti & Ozduzgun, 2001; Yetimoglu &
Salbas, 2003). The device was also employed in some research similar to this study to highlight
the complexity of strip-reinforced soil behaviour (Pradhan, Kar, & Naik, 2012).

3. Results and analysis

3.1. Experimental results
In order to concisely and clearly demonstrate the variations of peak and residual strength of tested
soil with the content, aspect ratio, and size of the palm sheath fibre strip, as well as the applied
normal stress in the shear tests, only part of testing results was selected to show their variation
trends, while the total tested results will be used in formulating the regression model. Figure 2
shows the percentage improvement in peak and residual strength for different palm strip contents
used. The percentage improvement in strength is defined as the difference between the ultimate
strength of reinforced and unreinforced samples divided by the ultimate strength of unreinforced
sample. Both peak and residual strengths increased with the presence of strips of palm sheath
compared to identical unreinforced sample. This result agrees with previous study results while
they used different types of waste plastic or plastic fibres (Benson & Khire, 1994; Dutta & Sarda,
2007; Dutta & Venkatappa Rao, 2004; Montardo, Prietto, & Pasa, 2002).
92 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Figure 2. Effect of palm sheath strip content on the improvement in strength for the treated soil (S = 4
mm, A = 2, N = 200 kPa).

The increase of natural palm strips content has a more significant effect on the improvement of
residual strength compared to the peak strength. The improvement of residual strength is proba-
bly attributed to increasing the number of palm strips that can increase the friction between soil
and strips, while the residual strength is more closely related to friction between soil and soil,
soil and strips or strip and strip, instead of cohesion. The behaviour of randomly reinforced soil
system, in case of reinforcing inclusions such as fibres or palm strips, depends on the number
of reinforcing ingredients and orientation in the favourable directions of shear strain directions.
Thus, an increase in the number of palm strips up to specified limit will increase the possibility
of numerous numbers of palm strips to orient in the principal shear strain. It will be associated
with the improvement of shear strength for the tested specimens. On the contrary, increasing
the number of palm strips beyond specified limit will decrease the friction because the friction
between strips may be smaller than that between soil particle and strips. It is associated with the
reduction in the improvement of shear strength beyond this limit. This case occurred in this study
after reinforcing with 0.50% of palm sheath strip content; the improvement in shear strength is
declined as observed in Figure 3, which shows the stress–strain relationship for samples rein-
forced and unreinforced with palm sheath strips. Also, this Figure indicates that the addition of
strips of palm sheath has a significant effect on the enhancement of stiffness for reinforced sam-
ples compared to unreinforced samples. The secant modulus for unreinforced sample was less
than that of sample reinforced with palm strip. This proves that the addition of strips of palm
sheath improved the secant modulus.
Figures 4 and 5 show the effect of size and aspect ratio of palm sheath fibre strips on the
improvement strength of the tested soil reinforced with strips of palm strips. These figures show
that the aspect ratio of palm sheath strips has greater influence on the improvement in residual
strength compared to that in peak strength. This may indicate that the effect of aspect ratio on the
improvement of peak strength is smaller than that of residual strength. While the improvement
in both peak and residual strength all increased with the increase of aspect ratio until A = 3,
then declined. It is attributed to the fact that increasing the length of palm strips increased with
increasing the value of aspect ratio. Increasing the length of palm strips offers a better chance
to resist the shear plane failure and that is followed by increasing the improvement in shear
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 93

Figure 3. Stress–strain relationships for samples reinforced with different contents of palm sheath strips
and unreinforced (S = 4 mm, A = 2, N = 200 kPa).

Figure 4. Effect of aspect ratio of palm sheath strips on the improvement in shear strength for the tested
soil (S = 4 mm, C = 0.5%, N = 200 kPa).

strength, including peak and residual. Figure 5 indicates that the highest improvement in residual
strength was obtained with a strip size of 4-mm compared to the other different strips sizes used.
This phenomenon may indicate that certain size of palm strips increase the chance of friction
occurring between soil particles due to increasing the number of strips in soil matrix. The effect
of palm strip size on the improvement of residual strength is almost of the same significance
as the peak strength. The length of palm strip has much significant effect on the improvement
of residual strength compared to the width of palm strip. Thus, the effect of width (size) of
palm strip is smaller than length. Figure 6 shows the effect of normal stress in shear tests on
94 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Figure 5. Effect of palm sheath size on the improvement in shear strength for the tested soil (A = 2, C
= 0.5%, N = 200 kPa).

Figure 6. Effect of normal stress in shear tests on the improvement in shear strength for the tested soil
(S = 4 mm, A = 2, C = 0.5%).

the improvement in shear strength for the tested soil. It indicates that the lowest improvement
in both residual and peak strengths was seen with a normal stress of 200 kPa compared to the
other different normal stresses applied. This phenomena may indicate that certain normal stress
increases the chance of friction occurring between soil particles due to increasing the number of
strips in soil matrix. It is significant in practical engineering as the applied normal stresses can
be controlled to maximise the reinforcing effect.
The friction and bond property between palm fibre and particles is a very complex issue. When
the palm fibres were evenly mixed with soil, the fibre surface was attached by a large number of
soil particles. When shear deformation or damage begins to develop in soil-strip sample under
the action of load, the fibres in soil matrix will be in tension (Tang, Shi, & Gu, 2011). The
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 95

magnitude that the fibre is able to bear the tensile stress by this time will be dependent on cohe-
sion and friction property on interface between fibre surface and soil particle. The relative sliding
tendency between fibre surface and soil particle is constrained to some degree with a large num-
ber of randomly distributed fibres in soil matrix to form a spatial network structure, which makes
the soil particles interlock, thus constraining the deformation and displacement of soil particles,
increasing the integrity, strength and stability of soil-strip sample. However, the bond among
soil particles is relatively smaller with soil particles on the fibre–soil interface being vulnerable
to relocation and dislocation. In addition, due to the relative looseness in soil structure, higher
void ratio, and smaller effective contacting area on interface between fibre and soil particle, the
interfacial interaction is constrained to a certain degree. Just because of this, the lacing role of
the palm fibre in soil is not able to be fully played. For example, 0.25% fibre content can only
increase the compressive strength of soil by approximately 21% (Tang et al., 2011).
Besides, some other studies showed that appropriate sand content can be helpful to increasing
the reinforcement effect, as the sand presence may increase the friction on interface (Tang et al.,
2011).

3.2. Development of proposed regression model

The behaviour of tested soil reinforced with strips of palm sheath was examined by focusing on
the parameters of palm strip content (0–2%), strip size (2–8 mm), strip aspect ratio (1–4), and
applied normal stress (100–300 kPa). The experimental data for both unreinforced and reinforced
Shanghai cohesive soil with strips of palm sheath was used to develop the regression models by
using multiple regression analysis technique. Four main input variables (independent variables)
were used in the multiple regression analysis. These are the size (S), content (C), aspect ratio (A)
of palm strips, and the applied normal stresses (N ) in shear tests, while the response or output
variables (dependent variables) are the peak strengths (PKS) and residual strengths (RSS). The
multiple regression models can be represented in the form of polynomial equation. The output of
linear regression analysis can be presented as illustrated in Equation (1):
Y = K0 + K1 X1 + K2 X2 + . . . + Kp Xp , (1)
where Y is the output variable (PKS or RSS), K0 is the model intercept, K1 − Kp are the coef-
ficients of regression analysis and X 1 − Xp are the p input variables. In this study, the input
variables included content (C), size (S), aspect ratio (A) of palm strips, and the applied normal
stress (N ) in shear tests. The validity of regression models (equations) reported in this study is
only within the limits of the investigated parameters. These parameters include type of tested
soil, type of palm sheath strip material, size, content, and aspect ratio of palm strips and the
applied normal stresses. Coefficient of determination R2 , adjusted R2 , F, and t statistics were
used to verify the competence of the developed regression models.
The coefficient of determination (R2 ) is equal to the ratio of the model sum of squares to the
total sum of squares. It explains the fraction of variability in the data explained by the regression
model. The adjusted R2 is a modification of R2 that adjusts for the number of explanatory terms
in a model. The adjusted R2 increases only if the new term improves the model more than would
be expected by chance. The F test statistic tests the null hypothesis that K 1 = K 2 = . . . = Kp
= 0, and the alternative hypothesis simply states that at least one of the parameters kj = 0,
j = 1, 2, . . . , p. The t test statistic is applied to each of the model parameters to test the null
hypothesis that the parameter is equal to zero and the alternative hypothesis that the parameter is
not equal to zero. In addition, two metrics are used to evaluate the model performance. These are
the relative bias (BIASr), and the relative root mean square error (RMSEr), which are defined
as follows:
96 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Table 2. Linear regression analysis outputs in the case of residual peak strength.

Regression statistic

Multiple R 0.974
R square 0.949
Adjusted R square 0.948
SE 11.128
Observation size 147

df SS MS F Significance F

ANOVA
Regression 4 328853.62 82213.405 663.857 8.46E–91
Residual 142 17585.558 123.842
Total 146 346439.178

Coefficients SE t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 1.322 3.6068 0.3665 0.7145 –5.8079 8.452

C 0.4824 1.3607 0.3545 0.7235 –2.2074 3.1722
S 0.0709 0.3607 0.1967 0.8443 –0.642 0.7839
A 3.8252 0.7938 4.8187 3.67E-06 2.256 5.3944
N 0.5767 0.0112 51.2978 1.56E-93 0.5544 0.5989

1  ŷi − yi
n
BIASr = , (2)
n i=1 yi

 n  
 1  ŷi − yi 2
RMSEr =  , (3)
n i=1 yi

where ŷi and y i are, respectively, the estimated and the observed values of the dependent variable
for i = 1, . . . , n, where n is the number of experiments conducted. Both linear and nonlinear
regression models were established to obtain acceptable results and to reduce the errors on the
estimation of the predicted variables.
The multiple linear regression (MLR) models for the estimation of the RSS were examined.
Table 2 shows summary results for the linear regression model. The coefficient of determination
and the adjusted R2 are 0.949 and 0.948, respectively, which indicates that about 95% of the
variability in the RSS data is explained by C, S, A, and N. The analysis of variance (ANOVA)
indicates that the P value (probability of accepting the null hypothesis) for the F test statistic is
< 0.001, which provide strong evidence against the null hypothesis. The t test statistic shows that
the P value for the coefficients associated with the A and N are < 0.001, which provide strong
evidence against the null hypothesis for this case. While the P value for the model intercept and
the coefficients associated with C and S variables are more than 0.05. These results indicate that
nonlinear component may improve the regression model.
Multiple regression analysis was carried out to estimate the RSS, while using eight input vari-
ables. The input variables are, C, S, A, N, C2 , S 2 , A2 , and N 2 (results are not presented). Although
an improvement was obtained, but the test statistic indicates that N 2 is not really significant and
its coefficient is not significantly different from zero. Thus finally, a new model with seven input
variables is considered. The input variables are C, S, A, N, C2 , S 2 , and A2 . Table 3 shows summary
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 97

Table 3. HMLR analysis outputs in case of residual peak strength.

Regression statistic

Multiple R 0.987
R square 0.975
Adjusted R square 0.973
SE 7.935
Observation size 147

df SS MS F Significance F

ANOVA
Regression 7 337686.298 48240.899 766.089 1.14E-107
Residual 139 8752.879 62.97
Total 146 346439.177

Coefficients SE t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept –32.6789 3.9041 –8.3706 5.51E–14 –40.3978 –24.9599

C 21.2091 4.8838 4.3427 0.00003 11.5528 30.8654
S 11.1977 1.5963 7.015 9.21E–11 8.0417 14.3538
A 13.7769 2.9411 4.6843 6.61E–06 7.9619 19.5919
N 0.5767 0.0081 71.9391 7.19E–112 0.5608 0.5925
C2 –9.5909 2.0806 –4.6096 9.05E–06 –13.7047 –5.4771
S2 –1.1334 0.1556 –7.2848 2.19E–11 –1.4411 –0.8258
A2 –2.2737 0.5891 –3.8597 0.00009 –3.4384 –1.1089

results for this higher order regression (HMLR) model. The coefficient of determination and the
adjusted R2 are 0.975 and 0.973, respectively, which indicates that about 97% of the variability
in the RSS data is explained by C, S, A, N, C2 , S 2 , and N 2 . The t test statistic shows that the P
value for the model intercept and coefficients are < 0.001, which provide strong evidence against
the null hypothesis. These results indicate that higher order components significantly improve the
regression model. For estimating the shear peak strength (PKS), Tables 4 and 5 summarise the
results obtained for the MLR and HMLR models. Results showed a significant improvement in
the model when C2 , S 2 , and A2 were added. The adjusted R2 is 0.947 and 0.971 for the MLR and
HMLR models, respectively, which indicates an improvement in explaining the variability in the
PKS data. About 95% of the variability in the PKS data is explained by the C, S, A, and N, while
97% is explained when C2 , S 2 , and A2 are used as independent variables.
As for the performance of the regression models, Table 6 show the BIASr and RMSEr values
for the estimation of RRS and PKS using the MLR models as well as the (HMLR) higher order
MLR models. Results show a significant improvement in the metrics when HMLR is used. As
the BIASr values when using the MLR to estimate the RSS is 0.614%, while it is only 0.112%
when HMLR is used. Similar results are shown for the estimation of PKS. Thus, the effect of
content (C), size (S), aspect ratio (A) of palm strips, and normal stress (N ) in the shear tests on
the RSS and PKS are presented by the following two regression models for Shanghai cohesive
soil reinforced with strips of palm sheath:

RSS = −32.6789 + 21.2091C + 11.1977S + 13.7769A + 0.5767N

− 9.5909C2 − 1.1334S 2 − 2.2737A2 , (4)
PKS = −19.6757 + 19.7158C + 10.2044S + 13.3169A + 0.5544N
− 9.1824C2 − 1.0107S 2 − 2.2401A2 , (5)
98 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Table 4. Linear regression analysis outputs in case of peak shear strength.

Regression statistic

Multiple R 0.974
R square 0.949
Adjusted R square 0.947
SE 10.712
Observation size 147

df SS MS F Significance F

ANOVA
Regression 4 303676.892 75919.223 661.644 1.05993E-90
Residual 142 16293.551 114.743
Total 146 319970.443

Coefficients SE t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 11.9306 3.4718 3.4364 0.0008 5.0675 18.7936

C − 0.1693 1.3097 − 0.1292 0.8974 − 2.7584 2.4198
S 0.3025 0.3472 0.8713 0.3851 − 0.3838 0.9887
A 3.4331 0.7641 4.493 0.00001 1.9226 4.9436
N 0.5544 0.0108 51.2335 1.85E-93 0.5329 0.5757

Table 5. HMLR analysis outputs in case of peak shear strength.

Regression statistic

Multiple R 0.986
R square 0.973
Adjusted R square 0.971
SE 7.907
Observation size 147

df SS MS F Significance F

ANOVA
Regression 7 311279.674 44468.525 711.229 1.74E-105
Residual 139 8690.769 62.524
Total 146 319970.443

Coefficients SE t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept –19.6757 3.8901 –5.0578 1.32E-06 –27.3672 –11.9842

C 19.7158 19.7158 4.0513 8.43E-05 10.0939 29.3378
S 10.2044 1.5906 6.4155 2.05E-09 7.0596 13.3493
A 13.3169 2.9306 4.544 1.19E-05 7.5225 19.1113
N 0.5544 0.0079 69.4059 9.17E-110 0.5386 0.5702
C2 –9.1824 2.0732 –4.429 1.90E–05 –13.2816 –5.0833
S2 –1.0107 0.155 –6.5192 1.21E–09 –1.3172 –0.7042
A2 –2.2401 0.587 –3.8162 0.0002 –3.4007 –1.0796

where RSS is the shear residual strength in kPa, PKS is the shear peak strength in kPa, C is the
content of palm strips as a percentage, S is the size of palm strips in mm, A is the aspect ratio of
palm strip, and N is the normal stress applied in shear tests in kPa.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 99

Table 6. BIASr and RMSEr values.

RSS PKS
Metrics MLR HMLR MLR HMLR
BIASr 0.614 0.112 0.415 0.055
RMSEr 8.672 6.918 7.755 6.229

Figure 7. Effect of palm sheath strip content on the predicted (regression) and observed (experiment)
strengths (S = 8 mm, A = 3, N = 300 kPa).

Figure 8. Effect of aspect ratio of palm sheath strip on the predicted (regression) and observed
(experiment) strengths (C = 0.5%, S = 2 mm, N = 100 kPa).

Figures 7–10 shows the predicted strength obtained from regression models by using Equa-
tions (4) and (5) and the strength obtained from experimental for different investigated param-
eters. It is obvious from these figures that the peak strengths are affected by the content, size,
100 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Figure 9. Effect of palm sheath strip size on the predicted (regression) and observed (experiment)
strengths (C = 1%, A = 4, N = 200 kPa).

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Effect of normal stress applied on the predicted (regression) and observed (experiment)
strengths (C = 0.5%, S = 4 mm, A = 2).

aspect ratio of palm sheath strips, and normal stress applied in the shear tests. The values and
behaviour of predicted strength obtained from regression models are in agreement with the
observed strength obtained from experimental. The results are approximately the same as in
the case of residual strengths. The correlation between predicted and observed strengths is good
in both peak and residual strength. Results indicated that the developed regression models are
powerful to predict the strength of Shanghai cohesive soil reinforced with palm sheath strip in
this study case. The merits of using these models will cut off the cost of experimental tests as
well as save the time.

4. Conclusions
The use of strips of palm sheath in this way will help in reducing the quantity of palm sheath as
well as reduce the cost of ground improvement. The outputs of this study meet the challenges
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 101

of our society to use natural materials as reinforcement to eliminate the environmental pollution
with minimum cost as well as reduces the cost of soil improvement. The following conclusions
can be drawn based on the results of experimental and regression models:

(1) Both shear peak and residual strengths were enhanced with the presence of strips of palm
sheath in soil matrix. Strips of palm sheath as a natural reinforced material had a more
significant effect on the residual strength compared to the peak strength of the tested soil.
(2) The addition of strips of palm sheath has a significant effect on the enhancement of
stiffness for reinforced samples compared to unreinforced sample. The secant modulus
for unreinforced sample was less than that of sample reinforced with palm strip.
(3) The highest improvement in both peak and residual strengths was obtained in the
case of palm strip size of 4 mm, aspect ratio of 3 and 0.50% palm strip content. The
improvements in both peak and residual strengths declined beyond above limit values.
(4) Results obtained from the developed regression models were reasonable and accept-
able based on experimental results. Highest correlation between predicted and observed
strengths was obtained in the case of residual strength compared to the case of peak
strength.
(5) The merits of the proposed regression models were saving the time as well as reducing
the cost of experimental tests. Furthermore, the regression model can be used as a guide
for site engineers to estimate the amount of palm sheath which is needed to obtain the
desired strength.

Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge the following people from University of Shanghai for Science and Technol-
ogy: Chencai Li for the valuable contribution on data elaboration and analyses. Thank you also to beibei Li
for technical support in testing procedure.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The Project was funded by Shanghai Kcone Consulting and Management Co. Ltd. grant no. 3A-11-307-
110. Data used in the analyses on Properties of palm fibre sheath (Table 1) is provided by YiYing Testing
Co. Shanghai, China.

References
Ahmed, A. (2012). Simplified regression model to predict the strength of reinforced sand with waste
polystyrene plastic type. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30(4), 963–973.
Al Wahab, R. M., & El-Kedrah, M. M. (1995). Using fibers to reduce tension cracks and shrink/swell in
compacted clays. In Y. B. Acar & D. E. Daniel (Eds.), Geoenvironment 2000, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 46 (Vol. 1, pp. 791–805). Reston: ASCE.
Andersland, O. B., & Khattak, A. S. (1979, March 20–22). Shear strength of kaolinite/fiber soil mixtures.
Proceeding of the international conference on soil reinforcement, (Vol. 1, pp. 11–16). Paris, France.
Athanasopoulos, G. A. (1996). Results of direct shear tests on geotextile reinforced cohesive soil.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 14(11), 619–644.
Ayyar, T. S. R., Nair, C. G. R., & Nair, N. B. (2002). Comprehensive reference book on coir Geotextiles.
Trivandrum: Center for development of coir technology (C-DOCT).
Babu, G. L. S., & Vasudevan, A. K. (2007). Evaluation of strength and stiffness response of coir fiber-
reinforced soil. Ground Improvement, 11(3), 111–116.
102 J. Qu and D. Zhao

Babu, G. L. S., & Vasudevan, A. K. (2008). Strength and stiffness response of coir fiber-reinforced tropical
soil. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20(9), 571–577.
Babu, G. L. S., Vasudevan, A. K., & Sayida, M. K. (2008). Use of coir fibers for improving the engineering
properties of expansive soils. Journal of Natural Fibers, 5(1), 6–75.
Benson, C. H., & Khire, M. U. (1994). Reinforcing sand with strips of reclaimed high-density polyethylene.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 120(5), 838–855.
Casagrande, M. D. T., Coop, M. R., & Cesar, C. N. (2006). Behavior of a fiber reinforced bentonite
at large shear displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(11),
1505–1508.
Dutta, R. K., & Sarda, V. K. (2007). CBR behaviour of waste plastic strip-reinforced stone dust/fly
ash overlying saturated clay. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 31,
171–182.
Dutta, R. K., & Venkatappa Rao, G. (2004, October 3–6). Engineering properties of sand reinforced with
strips from waste plastic. In Proceedings of the international conference on geotechnical engineering,
Sharjah, UAE, 186–193.
Feuerharmel, M. R. (2000). Analysis of the behavior of polypropylene fiber-reinforced soils (MSc
dissertation). Federal Univ. of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Girish, M. S., & Ayyar, T. S. R. (2000, December 13–15). Improvement of durability of coir geotextiles.
Proceedings Geotext Determination conference, (Vol. 1, pp. 309–310). Bombay, India.
Gray, D. H., & Maher, M. H. (1989, August 13–18). Admixture stabilization of sand with discrete, randomly
distributed fibers. Proc XIIth international conference on SMFE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1363–1366.
Izgin, M., & Wasti, Y. (1998). Geomembrane–sand interface frictional properties as determined by inclined
board and shear box test. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 16(4), 207–219.
Kumar, R., Kanaujia, V. K., & Chandra, D. (1999). Engineering behaviour of fibre-reinforced pond ash and
silty sand. Geosynthetics International, 6(6), 509–518.
Kumar, S., & Tabor, E. (2003). Strength characteristics of silty clay reinforced with randomly ori-
ented nylon fibers. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 8(Bundle B). Retrieved from
http://www.ejge.com/2003/Ppr0310/Abs0310.htm
Maher, M. H., & Ho, Y. C. (1994). Mechanical properties of kaolinite/fiber soil composite. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 120(8), 1381–1393.
Maheswari, C. U., Guduri, B. R., & Rajulu, A. V. (2008). Properties of lignocelluloses Tamarind fruit fibres.
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 110, 1986–1989.
Mohanty, A. K., Misra, M., & Hinrichsen, G. (2000). Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and biocomposites:
An overview. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 276/277, 1–24. 58.
Montardo, J. P., Prietto, P. D. M., & Pasa, G. S. (2002). Engineering behavior of a sand reinforced with
plastic waste. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE, 128(6), 462–472.
Mwasha, P. A. (2009). Coir fiber: A sustainable engineering material for the Caribbean environment.
College of the Bahamas Research Journal, 15, 36–44.
Naeini, S. A., & Sadjadi, S. M. (2008). Effect of waste polymer materials on shear strength of unsaturated
clays. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 13 (Bund. K), 1–12.
Nataraj, M. S., & McManis, K. L. (1997). Strength and deformation properties of soils reinforced with
fibrillated fibers. Geosynthetics International, 4(1), 65–79.
Ozkul, Z. H., & Baykal, G. (2007). Shear behavior of compacted rubber fiber-clay composite in drained
and undrained loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(7), 767–781.
Pradhan, P. K., Kar, R. K., & Naik, A. (2012). Effect of random inclusion of polypropylene fibers on strength
characteristics of cohesive soil. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30, 15–25.
Rajuru, A. V., Rao, G. B., Rao, R. P., Reddy, A. M. S., He, J., & Zhang, J. (2002). Properties of ligno-
cellulose fiber hildegardia. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 84(12), 2216–2221.
Rao, G. V., & Balan, K. (2000). Coir geotextiles-emerging trends. Alappuzha: Kerala State Coir Corpora-
tion Limited.
Rao, G. V., Dutta, R. K., & Ujwala, D. (2005). Strength characteristics of sand reinforced with coir fibers
and coir Geotextiles. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 10(Bundle G). Retrieved from
http://ejge.com/2005/Ppr0602/Ppr0602.htm
Satyanarayana, K. G., Pillai, C. K. S., Sukumaran, K., Pillai, S. G. K., Rohatgi, P. K., & Vijayan, K. (1982).
Structure property studies of fibres from various parts of the coconut tree. Journal of Materials Science,
17, 2453–2462.
Tang, C. S., Shi, B., & Gu, K. (2011). Microstructural study on interfacial interactions between fiber
reinforcement and soil. Journal of Engineering Geology, 19(4), 610–614.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 103

Vinod, P., Bhaskar, A., & Lekshmi, C. S. (2007). Triaxial compression of clay reinforced with sand-coir
fiber core. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 30(4), 333–336.
Wasti, Y., & Ozduzgun, Z. B. (2001). Geomembrane–geotextile interface shear properties as determined by
inclined board and direct shear box test. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(1), 45–57.
Wei, L., Chai, S. X., Cai, H. Z., Wang, X. Y., Li, M., & Yang, J. W. (2010). Physical and mechanical
properties of wheat straw and unconfined compressive strength of inshore saline soil reinforced with
wheat straw. CHN Civil Engineering Journal, 43(3), 93–98.
Yetimoglu, T., & Salbas, O. (2003). A study on shear strength of sands reinforced with randomly distributed
discrete fibers. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21(2), 103–110.
Zeigler, S., Leshchinsky, H. I. L., & Perry, E. D. (1998). Effect of short polymeric fibers on crack
development in clays. Soils Found, 38(1), 247–253.